# Future of CableCARD by EDITOR



## Pacomartin

You may be wondering about the future of CableCARDs given that Congress recently passed legislation that will repeal, as of December 4, 2015, the federal mandate for cable operators to use CableCARDs in their own boxes.

The Future of CableCARD

The TiVo editor tries to answer this question in the above blog.

I don't think that there is anything new to people following this issue, but to others who want to read about it for the first time, the TiVo corporate statement is valuable.

*Longer term, we want to transition with the cable industry to a more modern, IP-based cardless security solution. *

It is possible Roamio will be TiVo's last cableCARD based DVR (except for more storage).


----------



## JosephB

Pacomartin said:


> You may be wondering about the future of CableCARDs given that Congress recently passed legislation that will repeal, as of December 4, 2015, the federal mandate for cable operators to use CableCARDs in their own boxes.
> 
> The Future of CableCARD
> 
> The TiVo editor tries to answer this question in the above blog.
> 
> I don't think that there is anything new to people following this issue, but to others who want to read about it for the first time, the TiVo corporate statement is valuable.
> 
> *Longer term, we want to transition with the cable industry to a more modern, IP-based cardless security solution. *
> 
> It is possible Roamio will be TiVo's last cableCARD based DVR (except for more storage).


I would be shocked if TiVo released a new platform based on CableCard, and I have been of that opinion since before the law was even passed. It's been clear for several years that CableCard is on its way out and that cable companies are moving towards IP distribution. It would be silly for TiVo to try to hang its future on QAM-based CableCard CA protected video distribution.


----------



## wmhjr

To me, what this means is obvious.

1) Cablecards were a poor solution from the day they were released. I'm glad they exist, they allow Tivo to continue to function, but frankly they're not a great design, and they are (currently, and now forever) uni-directional - which flies in the face of the direction that content distribution is moving.

2) This will mean that even though the Editor believes that there will be no modifications to existing legislation concerning Cablecard support/distribution, the reality is that the poor support that we receive from the likes of VZ, Comcast, etc, will get even worse. Think about it. If they move to an IP based distribution model with respect to both authentication and decryption, Cablecard becomes obsolete, and only hangs around for legacy use. It will be further de-emphasized (if that's even possible) and probably more expensive. Since the Cablecard provisioning and management systems will over time become useless for anything beyond retail users, more and more of the cost of those systems will need to be added into the cost, and less of that cost subsidized by the cablecos own "system distribution". Meaning, since they won't use it for their own boxes, they may will move all the cost of it over to the pricing model for us retail users.

3) One thing it may finally do is open up the "DVR" market to more competition - though it will not likely be just like Tivo. I firmly believe that CableCard has been a pretty big obstacle to entry for other devices to get "conventional" TV. While many may still not accept it, more and more are in fact "cutting the cord". Go over to the Amazon Prime forums. Look how many Prime members have eliminated cable because they are now getting free Prime streaming Video. Personally, I think it's apples and oranges, but they are doing it - of that there is zero doubt. 

I do see this is a major major threat to Tivo. I've been convinced that if the Roamio were not the last "conventional" Tivo that used technology such as Cablecard, it would be one of the last. Tivo revenue is totally dependent on MSO subs, and they clearly cannot survive based solely on the retail market. I believe the ratio of MSO (cable owned) subs vs Tivo retail subs is around 4 to 1. And it's mostly NOT in the US. As a 2013 Wired article stated "Here in the States, TiVo remains that box you bought five years ago then stuck in a closet when you replaced it with a far cheaper DVR from your cable company". Given the loss of Cablecard, combined with new competition such as Verizon Fios Quantum (a single DVR with 12 tuners, handling 10 TVs, 200hrs of HD content storage, streaming, mobile apps for all common devices) it seems like tough going for Tivo IMHO. Also note in that release the lack of any comment about deals to "continue" with any MSO other than Comcast. Which is exactly what I'd expect. 

Tivo needs to really make some inroads FAST to be on board with VZ, ATT, Comcast, TWC, etc like yesterday or I fear this forum will end up being like a Commodore 64 fan forum. I really do think they had a chance to get ahead of this, but frankly their weakest points have always been around IP based content, network related issues, etc. Which unfortunately, are probably the most important areas moving forward. I know the MSOs (including VZ, etc) have not made things easy for VZ here in the US, but honestly, if you were in their shoes you wouldn't have either. Why would you willingly make cannibalization of your own service line easy and painless? That's the market Tivo is in, and it's a survival of the fittest market.


----------



## JosephB

wmhjr said:


> To me, what this means is obvious.
> 
> 1) Cablecards were a poor solution from the day they were released. I'm glad they exist, they allow Tivo to continue to function, but frankly they're not a great design, and they are (currently, and now forever) uni-directional - which flies in the face of the direction that content distribution is moving.
> 
> 2) This will mean that even though the Editor believes that there will be no modifications to existing legislation concerning Cablecard support/distribution, the reality is that the poor support that we receive from the likes of VZ, Comcast, etc, will get even worse. Think about it. If they move to an IP based distribution model with respect to both authentication and decryption, Cablecard becomes obsolete, and only hangs around for legacy use. It will be further de-emphasized (if that's even possible) and probably more expensive. Since the Cablecard provisioning and management systems will over time become useless for anything beyond retail users, more and more of the cost of those systems will need to be added into the cost, and less of that cost subsidized by the cablecos own "system distribution". Meaning, since they won't use it for their own boxes, they may will move all the cost of it over to the pricing model for us retail users.
> 
> 3) One thing it may finally do is open up the "DVR" market to more competition - though it will not likely be just like Tivo. I firmly believe that CableCard has been a pretty big obstacle to entry for other devices to get "conventional" TV. While many may still not accept it, more and more are in fact "cutting the cord". Go over to the Amazon Prime forums. Look how many Prime members have eliminated cable because they are now getting free Prime streaming Video. Personally, I think it's apples and oranges, but they are doing it - of that there is zero doubt.
> 
> I do see this is a major major threat to Tivo. I've been convinced that if the Roamio were not the last "conventional" Tivo that used technology such as Cablecard, it would be one of the last. Tivo revenue is totally dependent on MSO subs, and they clearly cannot survive based solely on the retail market. I believe the ratio of MSO (cable owned) subs vs Tivo retail subs is around 4 to 1. And it's mostly NOT in the US. As a 2013 Wired article stated "Here in the States, TiVo remains that box you bought five years ago then stuck in a closet when you replaced it with a far cheaper DVR from your cable company". Given the loss of Cablecard, combined with new competition such as Verizon Fios Quantum (a single DVR with 12 tuners, handling 10 TVs, 200hrs of HD content storage, streaming, mobile apps for all common devices) it seems like tough going for Tivo IMHO. Also note in that release the lack of any comment about deals to "continue" with any MSO other than Comcast. Which is exactly what I'd expect.
> 
> Tivo needs to really make some inroads FAST to be on board with VZ, ATT, Comcast, TWC, etc like yesterday or I fear this forum will end up being like a Commodore 64 fan forum. I really do think they had a chance to get ahead of this, but frankly their weakest points have always been around IP based content, network related issues, etc. Which unfortunately, are probably the most important areas moving forward. I know the MSOs (including VZ, etc) have not made things easy for VZ here in the US, but honestly, if you were in their shoes you wouldn't have either. Why would you willingly make cannibalization of your own service line easy and painless? That's the market Tivo is in, and it's a survival of the fittest market.


Unfortunately I think the retail TiVo market is dead when cable companies transition to IP. It's been clear from the beginning, and it continues to become even stronger, that MVPDs (cable, satellite, telco, and now internet based) want 100% control over the "customer experience". We as TiVo customers buy TiVos based on the user interface and features, but the FCC and Congress just want "third party hardware" on the market. The new "app" based ecosystem will satisfy regulators, I'm afraid, which means the "third party" hardware market will be nothing more than Rokus and game consoles. As everything moves to IP, that means it will be encapsulated in the app of the provider. Expecting raw IP video streams based on an open encryption and conditional access standard is likely a pipe dream. TiVo's only hope going forward will be to partner with MSOs and internet-based OTT providers to start building IP interfaces for network delivery of live and recorded content. DVRs will be dead when we're getting everything over IP because we'll never record anything ourselves.


----------



## wmhjr

JosephB said:


> Unfortunately I think the retail TiVo market is dead when cable companies transition to IP. It's been clear from the beginning, and it continues to become even stronger, that MVPDs (cable, satellite, telco, and now internet based) want 100% control over the "customer experience". We as TiVo customers buy TiVos based on the user interface and features, but the FCC and Congress just want "third party hardware" on the market. The new "app" based ecosystem will satisfy regulators, I'm afraid, which means the "third party" hardware market will be nothing more than Rokus and game consoles. As everything moves to IP, that means it will be encapsulated in the app of the provider. Expecting raw IP video streams based on an open encryption and conditional access standard is likely a pipe dream. TiVo's only hope going forward will be to partner with MSOs and internet-based OTT providers to start building IP interfaces for network delivery of live and recorded content. DVRs will be dead when we're getting everything over IP because we'll never record anything ourselves.


I agree with you mostly. I don't think Congress even cares, to be honest. I've been saying for a few years that I think Tivos retail days are numbered. It's why I'm terribly disappointed with their quality issues, as if they really want to make a fight for their life, they need to be virtually flawless. And they have not even been close IMHO. Only folks like on this site really care about Tivo. The general population truly thinks any time shifting device is a "Tivo".

The bigger issue is that because of the quality issues, and because Tivo has tried to strong-arm MSOs in the past, there is very little reason for an MSO to want to partner with Tivo in the IP-enabled content delivery market. At least in the US. Look at Tivo quarterly releases. Where is their sub growth really at? Not in the US - even with MSOs. I think Tivo burned those bridges, and they will never be rebuilt. When content distribution continues to shift away from a focus on predominantly live broadcast to menu selections that don't have time slots, Tivo really has no significant advantage over Roku, AppleTV or anybody else in terms of UI. Think about this. Roku sold 3.1 million devices - in a quarter. The same quarter when Tivo added 328 thousand.

I'm positioning my home right now to reduce TV cost with Tivos as much as possible. As of the end of this week, I will be paying Tivo zero (nothing left on anything but lifetime). I'll be paying VZ for content, and 2 cable cards. My intent is to then just let everything sit for at least 2 yrs. When this system starts to break down, I would likely temporarily move to a Verizon powered system (such as Fios Quantum TV) for a while to buy more time without investing. Because I think like you, I think that what we'll be using in 10 yrs for example, won't even remotely resemble what we have today. I have zero faith in CableCard beyond another 2 yrs. And think about the cost for me to replace what I have with "new" Tivo type stuff. Two Roamio Pros with lifetime, a bunch of Minis with lifetime... At current costs, to buy what I have right now would be an investment of $1933 including tax, plus lifetime service on the two Roamio Pros, which would be a minimum of another $800, for a total of $2733. That is IMHO simply absurd given the changing market and environment.


----------



## trip1eX

Meh as the article says cablecard operators have deployed 50 million cablecard devices into the wild. They can't replace those overnight. 

And if tuners go then Tivo goes. That's the only area where Tivo has any advantage left. Tuner-based recording.

And considering that on-demand streaming means no skipping commericals then content providers have every incentive to help the industry move to that model of content delivery.


----------



## Pacomartin

JosephB said:


> Unfortunately I think the retail TiVo market is dead when cable companies transition to IP.


I think TiVo knows that it's future long term is working with MVPDs.



JosephB said:


> DVRs will be dead when we're getting everything over IP because we'll never record anything ourselves.


Everything in electronics has a lifespan. At 16 years old DVR's are reasonably healthy, and will probably last for as long VCR's.

Technologies don't really die. Look at AM radio which has been an obsolete technology for decades. People are still making money with AM radio. Live TV is not going to vanish in twenty years. It may contain more and more rubbish, as all the valuable programs shift to VOD where there is more control.


----------



## tarheelblue32

wmhjr said:


> Given the loss of Cablecard, combined with new competition such as Verizon Fios Quantum (*a single DVR with 12 tuners*, handling 10 TVs, 200hrs of HD content storage, streaming, mobile apps for all common devices) it seems like tough going for Tivo IMHO.


Just a point of clarification. Verizon does not have a single DVR with 12 tuners. They give you 2 6-tuner DVRs.


----------



## wmhjr

Pacomartin said:


> I think TiVo knows that it's future long term is working with MVPDs.


In the US, you sure can't see this by their actions. I see no evidence that Tivo realizes this in the US - or perhaps more accurately, maybe it's just that Tivo is willing to write off the US market.



Pacomartin said:


> Everything in electronics has a lifespan. At 16 years old DVR's are reasonably healthy, and will probably last for as long VCR's.
> 
> Technologies don't really die. Look at AM radio which has been an obsolete technology for decades. People are still making money with AM radio. Live TV is not going to vanish in twenty years. It may contain more and more rubbish, as all the valuable programs shift to VOD where there is more control.


I can't begin to say how strongly I disagree with the above comments. DVRs are only "healthy" or of value if they can get content. This entire issue is about the absolute fact that the means of delivering that content is going to change. If you have the opinion that Cablecard (which is factually a core requirement for these units to get content) will be around in 16 yrs, I think you're going to be in an incredibly small percentage of believers. And if you take out the CableCard from either of my Tivo Roamios, then my home turns into a home with nothing other than a bunch of very very expensive (and frankly not as good) Rokus or FireTVs.

Second, AM radio requires no special means to receive that signal. It is not even remotely an apples to apples comparison. Technologies die every single solitary day.

How long were you able to get Betamax tapes? 8-track tapes? What was the lifespan of that technology? Laser Disc? Quadraphonic vinyl?

And nobody said Live TV would "vanish". Read the comment. I said that the "focus" would shift away from "predominantly live broadcast". Meaning the "emphasis" or the "focus". Not the totality.


----------



## wmhjr

tarheelblue32 said:


> Just a point of clarification. Verizon does not have a single DVR with 12 tuners. They give you 2 6-tuner DVRs.


Is that true? To be honest, I don't have one but just looked at the marketing material. Not really of any real consequence to be honest, as from a functional perspective it's the same thing, right?

Do you have any more real details about the product? I have not spent that much time other than on their product description page where it lays out the capabilities. I don't even know the pricing.


----------



## tarheelblue32

wmhjr said:


> Is that true? To be honest, I don't have one but just looked at the marketing material. Not really of any real consequence to be honest, as from a functional perspective it's the same thing, right?
> 
> Do you have any more real details about the product? I have not spent that much time other than on their product description page where it lays out the capabilities. I don't even know the pricing.


This is the box:

http://www.verizon.com/support/resi...rs/equipment+issues/questionsone/vms1100.htm#

There is a user manual for it on that page that you can read through if you want. It very clearly shows that it only has 6 tuners.


----------



## wmhjr

tarheelblue32 said:


> This is the box:
> 
> http://www.verizon.com/support/resi...rs/equipment+issues/questionsone/vms1100.htm#
> 
> There is a user manual for it on that page that you can read through if you want. It very clearly shows that it only has 6 tuners.


Thank you! I have briefly scanned through it, and it's interesting. For example, audio sync capability built in to be either off, manual where you can dictate on the box itself, or auto where it takes a command from a connected device (such as an AVR or TV). Pretty interesting.


----------



## zalusky

There will be a market for an integrated view/launch of service provider content which may include linear video. Tivo is doing that somewhat today. The question is what kind API infrastructure will these providers allow.


----------



## slowbiscuit

wmhjr said:


> I have zero faith in CableCard beyond another 2 yrs.


Agreed with most of what you've posted here until you got to this statement - as mentioned in the blog, Comcast has committed to support cards for many more years (IIRC it was 2020 in the agreement). And as mentioned there are a zillion of them already deployed. I fully expect to be able to use my Roamio on Comcast for 4-5 years minimum and by then it's way more than paid for itself.

I would be much more concerned that as mentioned here, apps will be the way going forward and not open IP stream access. That is the battle that must be fought to keep the user experience in third party hands and not the MSOs, and as also mentioned above I don't think Congress or the FCC cares.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> Agreed with most of what you've posted here until you got to this statement - as mentioned in the blog, Comcast has committed to support cards for many more years (IIRC it was 2020 in the agreement). And as mentioned there are a zillion of them already deployed. I fully expect to be able to use my Roamio on Comcast for 4-5 years minimum and by then it's way more than paid for itself.
> 
> I would be much more concerned that as mentioned here, apps will be the way going forward and not open IP stream access. That is the battle that must be fought to keep the user experience in third party hands and not the MSOs, and as also mentioned above I don't think Congress or the FCC cares.


slowbiscuit, I think we're "sort of" saying the same thing. I don't think our Roamios will be non-usable in the next 4-5 years (assuming Tivo is still doing OK, that is). However, what I mean is this. Yes, Comcast (and ONLY Comcast) has made that commitment. But stating that they will "support CableCard" means nothing other than in theory, CableCard will technically be viable for legacy systems. It does not mean that it will be supported even "as well" as it is today. It also doesn't make a commitment on how much they'll charge per CableCard. They could easily increase per card fees to $15 or $20. What could anybody do about it? If at the same time they released an IP based replacement of some sort, it would do nothing for Tivo.

And what if Comcast is the only one that does this. Nobody else has thus far jumped on that wagon. As for as replacing CC boxes they have, it all depends. In this case, it just might make more business sense to accelerate the replacement of CC supported equipment when that time comes, as they just might for a change see an offset in equipment rental subs.

My point is that beyond about 2 yrs, I think CC support itself will be somewhat more of an "orphan" than it is today. Not only will it not be better, but I believe in fact it will be much worse. Will it work? Yes - for a while. Will costs stay the same? Probably not - they'll likely go up. The MSOs are in fact allowed to pass along cost increases to their customers, and as a ratio, rented CableCards would see a higher per unit operating cost. But would it be worth, right now, spending the amount I mentioned to replace all my equipment? I don't think so. Over 3 yrs it would work out to $86/month assuming CC rental prices stayed the same. I just don't think I'd make that bet right this minute. For sure, in let's say a year, there is no friggin way I'd bet on it. With the ban being repealed, every day from now is increased risk that your investment will end up orphaned. Given the alternatives, the fact that from what I understand retail subs in the US have only outpaced churn in one quarter - the other quarters have seen sub decline, and the fact that the younger generation in particular is more apt to "cut the cord", it just is difficult to not see risk. If there were a contractual agreement between Tivo and ALL the major MSOs to not only continue support of CC until at least 2020, at the same "general" rates, then maybe. Like you, my existing stuff (including a couple minis I ordered with free lifetime, to retire a Premier and something else) will have ended up paying for itself. But that's because I started getting the use from them with the most recent addition other than those new minis was in March 2013. So I've already gotten almost 2 yrs of lifetime, etc from the 2 Roamios, the minis, the HD (at another location), etc.


----------



## atmuscarella

I guess maybe I am missing something. Do people believe the FCC isn't going to mandate a software replacement for cable cards? I assumed that was the next step, if that is so no reason a cable card DVR/device couldn't also support the new software system. My assumption was that TiVo's next DVRs would be able to do this (if the Roamio's cann't already do it). 

Also I don't see the masses wanting to replace "live" TV with a completely on demand Netflix type system anytime soon. Delivering live TV via IP (like AT&T Uverse does) doesn't change anything versus traditional cable, AT&T's DVRs work just the same as cable and satellite DVRs do.

Frankly the 2 satellite companies would eat any cable company alive that moved to system where DVRs didn't work and the users couldn't record anything. They already use their superior DVRs as one of the main competitive edges and Dish even has commercial auto skip available for many channels.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> I guess maybe I am missing something. Do people believe the FCC isn't going to mandate a software replacement for cable cards? I assumed that was the next step, if that is so no reason a cable card DVR/device couldn't also support the new software system. My assumption was that TiVo's next DVRs would be able to do this (if the Roamio's cann't already do it).


I don't think there is the slightest possibility that Roamios could adopt a new "non-CableCard" system. From a technical aspect, I just can't fathom any possible way that you could reverse engineer back to a CC based unit being able to somehow integrate into a non-CC system. That is, other than the obvious of keeping all the CableCard provisioning and management infrastructure around just for CableCards. As for the "Next Tivo DVRs" being able to do this, I think the point is that retail subscriptions are simply insufficient. Look at Tivos financials. Look where the only growth is. It's overseas, and from MSO contracts. In the US retail market, take out Minis, and it's simply a pretty meager market share. So the question is, in the fact of ever increasing competition, will Tivo even bother to design, manufacture and release a new non-CableCard product? I think no. Clearly, that's just my guess, but it sure looks like a bad financial decision on their part.



atmuscarella said:


> Also I don't see the masses wanting to replace "live" TV with a completely on demand Netflix type system anytime soon. Delivering live TV via IP (like AT&T Uverse does) doesn't change anything versus traditional cable, AT&T's DVRs work just the same as cable and satellite DVRs do.


I simply don't understand why people keep saying this. Nobody is saying that "Live TV" will be totally eliminated. The point is that the fact is - and it is fact - viewing habits have changed dramatically, and where 20 yrs ago, it was ALL pretty much live TV in general, it has continued to change over time. The point is that there is monumentally less emphasis on live broadcast today than there was even 5 years ago. And that pendulum is continuing to swing in one direction. Furthermore, it's not that ATT's DVRs work differently than cable, Sat or VZ. It's that they ALL work differently than they used to, and more and more of their use is non-live. Keep in mind this. There have been more Rokus sold in a single quarter in 2013 than there were retail Tivos in 2013 and 2014 combined. That should get your attention. It has Tivos. Look at the feature sets added to our Tivos. What is it? Apps. On-Demand. No storage. Look at the on-demand libraries for VZ. Not PPV. On demand. Free. Look at Amazon Prime. Look at the current generation of kids turning into adults. No home phones. Only mobile. No cable. They stream EVERYTHING. Times are changing.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> Frankly the 2 satellite companies would eat any cable company alive that moved to system where DVRs didn't work and the users couldn't record anything. They already use their superior DVRs as one of the main competitive edges and Dish even has commercial auto skip available for many channels.


This, is patently untrue. The Sat providers are under key constraints when it comes to bandwidth. They don't have the benefit of fiber. They also require line of sight, and they provide no real capability for broadband delivery.

This is old fashioned thinking. What was important 10 yrs ago, 5 yrs ago, or even 2 yrs ago is not the same is what is important today. Frankly, the biggest market play for the DBS folks is still in rural areas, where fiber is simply not feasible from a cost/benefit perspective. The more urban the environment, the least advantageous DBS will be - PARTICULARLY given the increased dependency on bigger and bigger pipes. DBS Broadband latency is a joke. It is fine for uni-directional or half duplex needs as it's "capacity" can be OK. But it's latency is utterly horrid.


----------



## Dan203

The current law still requires there to be a something that 3rd party hardware can use to access encrypted content. However it's a bit vague in the details so it doesn't specifically require CableCARDs. 

I think the big issue is who gets to control the user experience. When they were working on the CableCARD 2.0 spec, which would allow 2 way communication, there was a major disagreement between the CE manufacturers and the MSOs. The MSOs wanted to use a technology called OCAP that allowed them to download a complete UI to the CE box. So basically all retail boxes would look and act exactly the same as the leased boxes. Eliminating any competitive edge a company like TiVo might have from it's unique UI. The CE manufacturers eventually rejected the spec and the whole thing fell apart.

These days we appear to be moving toward using DLNA CVP-2, which includes a similar feature called RUI (Remote UI) which allows the host to present the UI to the client as an HTML5 app. What's not clear, at least to me from the public documents, is whether or not the RUI is required or optional. If it's required then we're basically back in the same boat as OCAP. We'll be able to buy 3rd party hardware but the user experience will be completely controlled by the MSO. 

In the intermediate there will be sort of hybrid devices. Hosts will use CableCARDs or integrated security to record linear TV channels, then feed those to CVP-2 clients using a RUI built into the host box. This RUI could be TiVo's, your MSO's, or whoever makes the host device. However eventually they want to move the host up the chain so that you're CVP-2 clients are communicating directly with the MSO head end. At that point the RUI will be completely controlled by your MSO unless there is some optional API that devices like TiVo can use to act as an intermediate to record content locally and serve up a RUI of their own to other CVP-2 clients around the house. I'm currently trying to get my hands on the actual CVP-2 spec to see if that's possible, but their website is currently broken and not letting me in.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan, My understanding is that it is in fact the blow-up and failure to get back on track for CC2.0 that resulted in the law change. Specifically, because the need for bidirectional communications and the failure to get agreement on a 2.0 spec that would allow CC to do this resulted in the effective abolishment of specifying CableCard as a solution.

The net result is that I think you and I are saying the same thing. They still have to execute on "some" technical means to split out authentication and enable 3rd party devices. However, there sure doesn't seem to be any requirements for what that must look like, or where the UI lives. OCAP isn't new, neither is DCAS. IIRC, the CVP-2 guidelines or references were just made public a year ago, so it's still early days yet. I know I'm not anywhere near as up to speed as you are abut this, but I'd tend to agree with your comments.

Times have changed, and even CE manufacturers have recognized this. I think in the long run what we'll see is a more homogenous suite of products with less differentiation in the interface (unfortunately) but more capability. Less dependency on local record/storage, and far more "on demand" feature/function. Video quality will likely decrease, as operators will sacrifice BitRate in favor of increased capacity, and because most customers just don't know any better. We all know people who have HD sets attached to HD boxes and watch channels in SD that are also available in HD. They just don't care. 

I would also tend to bet that even if there is an optional API to allow for "Tivo-Like" local recording of content, the only real interested party will be a handful of exclusive and off the beaten track solution designers (such as for massive high end media centers perhaps) and somebody like Tivo - if they are still interested. The problem is not just whether or not it's technically feasible. The problem is whether or not the investment, manufacturing and support costs can possibly compete with a "cloud" solution that is portable, fast and easy to deploy, and has very little in the way of "last mile" or "local" operating expense. I don't think so. 

Think of the average consumer, if they had what they would think is a "DVR in the cloud" (as opposed to what we have today - a DVR that doesn't do much without the cloud). If your local device fails, your content is protected. No binding of MAC ID etc that results in the destruction of recorded content if your local device fails. Portability of content. Deployment as fast as software deployment. Honestly, there are some very real advantages that MSOs will be able to use to their advantage. Sure there are disadvantages too, but remember your customer.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

As it stands, STELAR specifically calls on a downloadable security replacement to the cablecard regime. A special panel must be selected this month and report their findings to the FCC by September (this year) with some kind of framework.

All told, from approved standard to full deployment across all MSO's it's going to take years. It wouldn't be surprising at all if the next Tivo (2 years?) still has a cablecard slot in addition to whatever the replacement needs on the hardware front (if anything), unless Tivo deliberately chooses to hold back on new hardware for a little longer.


----------



## Pacomartin

wmhjr said:


> I can't begin to say how strongly I disagree with the above comments. DVRs are only "healthy" or of value if they can get content.


Strong opinions are good. Let me defend myself.



wmhjr said:


> This entire issue is about the absolute fact that the means of delivering that content is going to change. If you have the opinion that Cablecard (which is factually a core requirement for these units to get content) will be around in 16 yrs, I think you're going to be in an incredibly small percentage of believers.
> 
> And if you take out the CableCard from either of my Tivo Roamios, then my home turns into a home with nothing other than a bunch of very very expensive (and frankly not as good) Rokus or FireTVs.


I imagine a different scenario. More and more content will shift over to cable supplied Video on Demand. The cable companies don't have to supply VOD to retail TiVo's. Eventually there will be a tipping point, and the cable companies will find a way to deliver just Video on Demand.

I think that cable companies will keep CableCARD around for a long time. But the content will be getting of lower and lower quality.

I am big believer in companies giving away scraps, so they appease the regulators, while keeping the steak for themselves. By maintaining CableCARD for a long time, they can probably keep the better technologies in house, while pointing out to regulators that VOD was always a proprietary delivery technology.

It's like broadcast. If you kill it you will send government into speechmaking mode. But we are at the point where the top 10 television station owners (who own over 500 stations) have less revenue than ESPN.


----------



## wmhjr

I didn't think that there were dependencies in STELAR that maintained the ban until a replacement is found. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the ban expires in a year, at which time we're back to the "hybrid" solution Dan mentioned, and the theoretical ability for MSOs to handle this however they want in the interim - knowing that a panel is being set up and something new will have to be agreed upon.


----------



## wmhjr

Pacomartin said:


> Strong opinions are good. Let me defend myself.
> 
> I imagine a different scenario. More and more content will shift over to cable supplied Video on Demand. The cable companies don't have to supply VOD to retail TiVo's. Eventually there will be a tipping point, and the cable companies will find a way to deliver just Video on Demand.
> 
> I think that cable companies will keep CableCARD around for a long time. But the content will be getting of lower and lower quality.
> 
> I am big believer in companies giving away scraps, so they appease the regulators, while keeping the steak for themselves. By maintaining CableCARD for a long time, they can probably keep the better technologies in house, while pointing out to regulators that VOD was always a proprietary delivery technology.
> 
> It's like broadcast. If you kill it you will send government into speechmaking mode. But we are at the point where the top 10 television station owners (who own over 500 stations) have less revenue than ESPN.


We will just have to agree to disagree. I think companies will keep CableCard only right up until the day when they can get rid of it. I don't think they're worried about goodwill, because other than this forum, I don't think anybody gives a rats behind about it. Certainly not congress, and honestly probably not more than maybe 1% of viewers.

It's all about cost here. But that said, even by your own argument, let's say your'e right. Let's say most content is moved out of channel broadcast to VoD type stuff. Like Discovery, NatGeo, all kinds of stuff. If that were not available on my Tivos right now, they would be gone tomorrow. And frankly, you'd never sell another unit, because the investment price would be totally off-kilter from the value.

But beyond that, MSOs do NOT want different authentication/decryption systems. They don't want more systems to support. I think we're all certainly somewhat mistaken and nobody can really foresee the future. But I'll say this. Two years ago I predicted what is happening today, as did many others. At the end of the day, I sure don't see any good news for Tivo here. Even in their own release, the most positive thing they had to say was an agreement with Comcast for a while.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> This, is patently untrue. The Sat providers are under key constraints when it comes to bandwidth. They don't have the benefit of fiber. They also require line of sight, and they provide no real capability for broadband delivery.
> 
> This is old fashioned thinking. What was important 10 yrs ago, 5 yrs ago, or even 2 yrs ago is not the same is what is important today. Frankly, the biggest market play for the DBS folks is still in rural areas, where fiber is simply not feasible from a cost/benefit perspective. The more urban the environment, the least advantageous DBS will be - PARTICULARLY given the increased dependency on bigger and bigger pipes. DBS Broadband latency is a joke. It is fine for uni-directional or half duplex needs as it's "capacity" can be OK. But it's latency is utterly horrid.


?? We were talking about pay TV not Internet access. The last time I looked the 2 sat companies had something north of 32 million subs (out of about 110 million households in all of America) and where stable or growing. So if you think Satellite TV is old fashioned I guess 32 million plus households are old fashioned.


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> I didn't think that there were dependencies in STELAR that maintained the ban until a replacement is found. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the ban expires in a year, at which time we're back to the "hybrid" solution Dan mentioned, and the theoretical ability for MSOs to handle this however they want in the interim - knowing that a panel is being set up and something new will have to be agreed upon.


AFAIK the only thing STELAR did to the law that brought about CableCARDs was remove one line which said that MSOs were not allowed to use integrated security in their leased boxes. AKA "the integration ban". The law is actually quite vague. Most of the details are left in the hands of the FCC. I'm not sure what the FCC has mandated, but it's possible that BigJim is referring to some FCC mandate that came about from STELAR and not something written into STELAR itself.

I do know that there is a mandate in place that is going to require all MSO leased equipment to support an open IP based sharing system by September of this year. Actually it's June for the big guys and September for the smaller players. The industry has pretty much settled on DLNA CVP-2 as that standard. Initially DVRs or special gateway devices will act as the CVP-2 host and serve up their recordings/tuners to CVP-2 clients around the house. However their long term goal is to eliminate the local host and have a direct connection between the clients and the head end.

One thing that scares me about cloud based DVRs is the potential for imposed limitations. For example they could make it so you can't FF past commercials or so that shows can only be saved for X days. With a local device like a TiVo the user is still in control. They may lose some of the convenience of cloud based DVRs but some of us will be willing to trade those conveniences for the ability to retain control.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> ?? We were talking about pay TV not Internet access. The last time I looked the 2 sat companies had something north of 32 million subs (out of about 110 million households in all of America) and where stable or growing. So if you think Satellite TV is old fashioned I guess 32 million plus households are old fashioned.


Yes, we're talking about TV - not just Pay TV. But with PayTV, guess what is normally bundled with TV? Broadband. And guess what is required for bidirectional functionality? Broadband.

You would also be wrong about "growing". Last quarter, DirecTV lost 28K US subscribers. And fully 20% of all DirecTV subscribers are in Latin America.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...ers-in-the-u-s-but-benefits-from-higher-arpu/

Here's an article that as I said, directly links the risks to Satellite TV with their inability to deliver broadband. BTW, these are hardly "hack" publications or "fringe" editorials.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...viders-plan-for-survival-as-growth-fades.html

Analysts predict 2015 is the year when total subscriptions (not just US) start going into constant decline....

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-numbers-show-satellite-tv-has-peaked-and-is-now-dying-2012-2

You can't continue to look at the environment as if it were 1990. Everything has changed, and the pace of change increases every day.

Here is the question for you. This is even disregarding that every single report, financial report, analyst report, and projection sees tremendous challenges ahead for Satellite providers - let's disregard everyone else for a moment.

Fact #1: The modern customer (not Tivo fans like us) gets their content from a variety of sources. Only ONE of them is from traditional TV such as FiOS, ATT, Comcast, TWC, Dish or Direct.

Fact #2: IP content delivery devices such as Roku, Amazon FireTV, AppleTV are outselling Tivo and Dish/Direct combined probably by a factor of more than 10 to 1. Every one of those devices need broadband. Lots of it.

Fact #3: Entertainment/Infotainment is not the only driver for broadband. So are things like home automation (huge demand curve there), remote access of "all kinds of stuff", home banking, home everything, education, you name it. Broadband is not a "discretionary" item for most people any longer.

Fact #4: Every other provider beyond Dish/Direct has the means to deliver broadband at only a marginal additional cost over core Pay TV to the subscriber. And additionally, electing to NOT get the PayTV (or phone) simply results in a higher unit price for broadband. So, it is an influencer to give an economical advantage to those providers. It is not unfair. Satellite is - Satellite. It's the nature of the technology.

Fact #5: Dish and/or Direct, without explicit support from one of the MSOs or some other technology, can NOT provide similar broadband. It's simple math. Latency is a part of Sat data delivery. Distance is distance. That means, without broadband they also can't do PPV, digital content delivery, etc. IOW, they DEPEND on Broadband for their OWN service. Yes, there are some Sat broadband services. No, they do not compare in any possible world to something like FiOS, ATT, Comcast, etc.

Now, add to this the mix of rural/urban subscribers, and the picture starts to become clear.

This is NOT an indictment of Dish/Direct. I have nothing against them. It's just the reality. At this time, they just don't have a tool to compete for what is being asked, and their biggest opportunity is in under-developed countries and areas that don't have the benefit of infrastructure build-out.

The bottom line is that the market has changed. The "Pay TV" product that you thought of 10 years ago is not the same "Infotainment Product" that the industry is moving toward. If you try and look at things from a pure tunnel focused point to point comparison, you will be reactive and behind the times every time. The entire point is that traditional TV is merging with non-traditional IP delivered products. So if you try to solely look at the industry from just the perspective of what "used" to be the main products, you'll be left on the dock as the boat pulls away from shore.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan, I'm right in line with you - including my fears. I do think that cloud based services "might" include "premium plans' with increased storage quotas, but beyond that, they all seek to turn what we enjoy into a commodity that will as much as possible fit broad needs. I think that will leave our current enjoyment in a highly uncomfortable positions.


----------



## Dan203

I really want to get my hands on the CVP-2 spec. I want to know if the RUI is required or if there is an alternate API client devices can use to access tuners/recordings on the host device. If there is a way to access the tuners of a host then CVP-2 is essentially everything AllVid purposed to be. If there isn't then retaining CableCARDs, or some sort of downloadable security system, will be necessary for 3rd party companies like TiVo to have any sort of competitive edge.

Stupid DLNA website! I contacted their admin and he says they're working on fixing it, but offered no date as to when they might be done.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> This is NOT an indictment of Dish/Direct. I have nothing against them. It's just the reality. At this time, they just don't have a tool to compete for what is being asked, and their biggest opportunity is in under-developed countries and areas that don't have the benefit of infrastructure build-out.
> 
> The bottom line is that the market has changed. The "Pay TV" product that you thought of 10 years ago is not the same "Infotainment Product" that the industry is moving toward. If you try and look at things from a pure tunnel focused point to point comparison, you will be reactive and behind the times every time. The entire point is that traditional TV is merging with non-traditional IP delivered products. So if you try to solely look at the industry from just the perspective of what "used" to be the main products, you'll be left on the dock as the boat pulls away from shore.


Well you are talking to someone who doesn't pay for any TV and is more than happy with just OTA access, so yes I guess I am behind the times. But I still don't know what your hang up with Internet access is maybe it is different in the rest of the country but plenty of my friends have Dish or Direct and use TWC for Internet access no issues at all. They either want the sports from Direct or want a good DVR or both. If TWC went to 100% IP delivery tomorrow what changes? They are still going to offer package of live TV for X dollars. And I don't know why you think Dish/Direct doesn't have PPV, they had plenty of PPV back when I subbed to Dish and that was without any Internet access now I don't think they can do VOD without Internet but like I said that is not an issue at least around here and if the FCC did their job and made rules that got multiple ISPs in most areas with open access it wouldn't matter anyway. Heck Dish must not be to concerned as they are just started up a limited package streaming option and they aren't providing any of the Internet access.

All that aside it doesn't mean I don't think OTT services are where the growth is. Just that I don't see them replacing traditional pay TV any time soon - just being another option. Even if traditional pay TV shrinks some I am betting it will still be around basically as it is today as an option 10+ years form now.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> All that aside it doesn't mean I don't think OTT services are where the growth is. Just that I don't see them replacing traditional pay TV any time soon - just being another option. Even if traditional pay TV shrinks some I am betting it will still be around basically as it is today as an option 10+ years form now.


Exactly. Too much chicken little in this thread.


----------



## wmhjr

Let me try to address this point by point so you can understand more easily.



atmuscarella said:


> Well you are talking to someone who doesn't pay for any TV and is more than happy with just OTA access, so yes I guess I am behind the times. But I still don't know what your hang up with Internet access is maybe it is different in the rest of the country but plenty of my friends have Dish or Direct and use TWC for Internet access no issues at all.


First of all, if you don't pay for any TV and are more than happy with just OTA, you are not only in the minority, but you are in a small fraction of a small fraction of the minority. I'm not picking on you at all - everybody has their own solutions. However, you're not even close to being representative of even todays customer base - much less what everything is changing to.

Second, you're missing the point. Your friends must really like Dish or Direct or really hate TWC. They are paying more. Period. If they have broadband from TWC and are getting PayTV from Direct/Dish, then they are paying more.

Period.

Bundling of services lowers costs to the providers. In my case, I'm paying for phone, broadband and TV from Verizon. My home phone "maybe" gets used once every 3 or 4 days. Maybe. Why don't I cancel it? Because it would actually end up costing me the same, so I hang on to it. If I canceled everything except Broadband, my broadband cost alone would be the majority of my current bill with everything. That is simply how it is. And the more services are delivered via IP, the more this situation will occur IMHO - and in the opinion of virtually every industry analyst out there.



atmuscarella said:


> They either want the sports from Direct or want a good DVR or both. If TWC went to 100% IP delivery tomorrow what changes? They are still going to offer package of live TV for X dollars. And I don't know why you think Dish/Direct doesn't have PPV, they had plenty of PPV back when I subbed to Dish and that was without any Internet access now I don't think they can do VOD without Internet but like I said what's that is not an issue at least around here and if the FCC did their job and made rules that got multiple ISPs in most areas with open access it wouldn't matter anyway.


Now I'm calling BS again. I had Dish. If you wanted PPV, you had two choices. Your phone line had to be connected to your PVR501/PVR510, PVR522 (yup, I was there too) and the unit called Dish (call it early Broadband for Dish). Or, you had to personally make a call. You could NOT just hit a button, on a Dish receiver that was connected to nothing but your TV and your Sat dish, and get a PPV. Period. No possible way.

Now let's talk about "the FCC doing their job". How do you think people get Broadband? All the way to the last mile? Who paid for it. Be careful - don't say tax dollars. Some would argue that years ago, the US should have invested tax dollars rather than having the providers build and pay for their own infrastructure. They did not. On top of that, there is not a single, solitary friggin thing preventing 100 ISPs from delivering services in every single home in this country.

Except money. Somebody has to pay for the infrastructure. The cabling. Switches. Fiber. Network terminals. There is no such thing - and has never been such a thing since Broadband existed - as a "exclusive agreement". The only barrier to entry is the fact that in order to deliver service, you need to have a way to do it. So what would you have the FCC do? Federalize Verizon? Take all fiber by eminent domain? Welcome to Venezuela. You want open access and another ISP? Go build one. Nothing stopping you. No law. No regulation. Just your ability to deliver service and make enough after investment to recoup it and make money. Ahhhh - there's the catch.



atmuscarella said:


> All that aside it doesn't mean I don't think OTT services are where the growth is. Just that I don't see them replacing traditional pay TV any time soon - just being another option. Even if traditional pay TV shrinks some I am betting it will still be around basically as it is today as an option 10+ years form now.


I'll give you credit for part of this. I do believe traditional pay TV will still be around 10+ years from now. But it is ALREADY not "basically as it is today". Don't want to believe me? OK.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick...bits-changing-no-wait-theyve-already-changed/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/ways-watching-technology-television

Here's a good one. You're in the minority. 63% of viewers get content from other than "traditional" sources. Why trust this article? Because it's written from the advertising industry - who's lives depend on reach their audience the best way possible. And that 63%? That was over a year ago. Now it's higher.

http://www.audiencescan.com/changing-tv-viewing-habits-prompt-new-media-purchase-guidelines/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/nielsen-study-tv-viewing_n_1874370.html

We can go on and on with these. And these are just general articles - not about Dish, Direct, Tivo, etc. Just about general viewing habits.

What will it look like 10 plus years from now? Well, take a look back 10 years ago. Look at how it's changed, and look at the rate of change year by year. It is NOT linear. Will "Traditional TV" still be around. Absolutely - in some form. Will it be just like today?

Doesn't look to me like anybody would be willing to bet on that one. I would bet really hard against it.


----------



## wmhjr

trip1eX said:


> Exactly. Too much chicken little in this thread.


I would say this. There's a chicken in the description. Anybody not observing what's going on has the chicken head in the sand IMHO.

Just how much IP based content did you get 10 yrs ago?

8 yrs ago?

5 yrs ago?

Today?


----------



## tarheelblue32

wmhjr said:


> How do you think people get Broadband? All the way to the last mile? Who paid for it. Be careful - don't say tax dollars. Some would argue that years ago, the US should have invested tax dollars rather than having the providers build and pay for their own infrastructure. They did not.


What about the billions of dollars in surcharges customers have already paid to ISPs to build broadband networks that will never be built?

http://stopthecap.com/2014/03/17/ne...om-fiber-upgrades-customers-already-paid-for/

I'd say the ISPs owe us all that money back plus interest. Of course they won't ever be required to repay the money or build the networks they promised, because they have paid off dirty politicians to let them out of it.



wmhjr said:


> The only barrier to entry is the fact that in order to deliver service, you need to have a way to do it....You want open access and another ISP? Go build one. Nothing stopping you. No law. No regulation.


Nope, no laws stopping it....except all of these:

http://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/

Brought to you by the same corrupt politicians the ISPs have bribed at every turn. I wonder why ISPs are the most hated companies in the country?


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> What will it look like 10 plus years from now? Well, take a look back 10 years ago. Look at how it's changed, and look at the rate of change year by year. It is NOT linear. Will "Traditional TV" still be around. Absolutely - in some form. Will it be just like today?
> 
> Doesn't look to me like anybody would be willing to bet on that one. I would bet really hard against it.


From my view what has changed over the last 10 years is a person options. Other than the change from Analog to Digital you can have exactly the same stuff you had 10 years ago or you can use many services that didn't exist back then. I know people with just OTA nothing else not even a DVR, I know people with old dish receivers without DVRs still 100% SD and I know people still using lifeline/basic cable with out any equipment from the cable company and I know people still getting Netflix DVDs. I also know people using all the new stuff (along with most of the old) who have full HD cable/sat packages, HD DVRs, sub to Netflix, Amazon Prime, do digital rentals, and view "TV" on computers, tablets, & phones. That is what I expect 10 years from now except there will be even more options.

Regarding Internet access the government just needs to treat it like they did electricity & telephone and yes because it is not considered a utility there are plenty of thinks stopping companies from getting into markets - just ask Google.

Regarding going all TWC being cheaper or not maybe maybe not but TWC Internet only price isn't bad and the sat teaser packages are pretty good but people I know do seem to have to switch ever few years between dish/direct to keep the costs down. Really depends on what you want.

The difference between TWC DVRs and Dish or Direct DVRs is like the difference between a Chevy and a Cadillac sure the Chevy will get the job done but most people would take the Cadillac and plenty are willing to pay for it and with Dish/Direct that is one place where they beat TWC their STB/DVR costs are less and to be blunt unless your go with TiVo TWC whole home DVR system is inferior and costs allot more.

But anyways change is certain and accessing TV/video via the Internet is certainly going to increase. I would likely using streaming more myself and might even sub to something if my ISP actually worked well enough in the evening to stream anything (I only have access to Frontier DSL and in my area it can only maintain 1+/- Mbps in the evenings).


----------



## wmhjr

tarheelblue32 said:


> What about the billions of dollars in surcharges customers have already paid to ISPs to build broadband networks that will never be built?
> 
> http://stopthecap.com/2014/03/17/ne...om-fiber-upgrades-customers-already-paid-for/
> 
> I'd say the ISPs owe us all that money back plus interest. Of course they won't ever be required to repay the money or build the networks they promised, because they have paid off dirty politicians to let them out of it.


First of all, read it yourself and read what I wrote. I said TAXPAYER. Not Customer. And do not misunderstand. If you really think I'm a cheerleader for the ISPs you are very much mistaken. I am NOT. I am a very vocal critic of them.

However, as much as I dislike many things about them, I also do NOT believe that gives anyone else the right to simply "take" their business. I tend to believe that my personal opinion, and my likes or dislikes, should not give our government or other companies the ability to just "take" what they want.



tarheelblue32 said:


> Nope, no laws stopping it....except all of these:
> 
> http://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/
> 
> Brought to you by the same corrupt politicians the ISPs have bribed at every turn. I wonder why ISPs are the most hated companies in the country?


Wrong answer there too. Let's take PA for example. It's one of the states shown to be restricted. Really? The article is BS. How do I know.....

Hmmm... Well, maybe because there are multiple (new) broadband providers popping up in even just this region of PA. Did you bother to read through any of the supporting documentation? I'm doubting that. Just so you know, I did. At least for PA, since that's what I'm familiar with. Go to the article you posted, then go to the map, click on a state, read what it says, and then click on the reference statute. It's BS. They are using every excuse they possibly can to argue that there isn't competition. Such as suggesting it's wrong for a referendum or vote if a community has to invest in it? Really? You think it's better if some administrator in a local municipality can just decide to invest in one provider over another? Really? Do you REALLY want to take that position?

I will maintain the position that if you have the money, you can start a service. Period. It's done all the time. Not generally for consumer, because market penetration is already there, so you have to build out infrastructure in order to take subscriptions from somebody else. Very little white space. I'll also keep the position that if you want to just take a company, go live in a socialist country. I don't care what the company is. It sets a precedent that is just plain dangerous, and I personally want no part of it. Anybody who does, IMHO, either doesn't understand what's behind it, or really would prefer a socialist system. That's fine - I simply don't agree.


----------



## tarheelblue32

wmhjr said:


> However, as much as I dislike many things about them, I also do NOT believe that gives anyone else the right to simply "take" their business. I tend to believe that my personal opinion, and my likes or dislikes, should not give our government or other companies the ability to just "take" what they want.


I agree that your personal opinion should not give the government the ability to do that, but the U.S. Constitution certainly does, as long as they pay just compensation for what they take.



wmhjr said:


> Wrong answer there too. I will maintain the position that if you have the money, you can start a service. Period.


No, actually it was the right answer. You claimed there was no law or regulation that prevented anyone from building a broadband network if they had the money to do so. Clearly, your statement was incorrect.



wmhjr said:


> I'll also keep the position that if you want to just take a company, go live in a socialist country. I don't care what the company is. It sets a precedent that is just plain dangerous, and I personally want no part of it. Anybody who does, IMHO, either doesn't understand what's behind it, or really would prefer a socialist system. That's fine - I simply don't agree.


First of all, I never said anything about nationalizing the ISP networks. However, if the government wanted to, it would certainly be legal for them to do so under eminent domain.

Second of all, if I did want the government to nationalize the ISPs, I also have every right as a citizen of this country to advocate for that position and to petition my elected representatives to make it happen.


----------



## wmhjr

tarheelblue32 said:


> I agree that your personal opinion should not give the government the ability to do that, but the U.S. Constitution certainly does, as long as they pay just compensation for what they take.


I'm sorry, but if you want to make that argument it applies to everything. Including the place you're sitting in as you wrote that post, the car you drive, etc. And to be more clear, you're generalizing about seizure. The Government needs to show just cause under the Fifth Amendment in order to justify seizure under eminent domain. Now, my opinion is that such seizures have become WAY to easy for the government to justify, but that's my opinion. And I stated it that way.



tarheelblue32 said:


> No, actually it was the right answer. You claimed there was no law or regulation that prevented anyone from building a broadband network if they had the money to do so. Clearly, your statement was incorrect.


No, there you are factually wrong. There are steps you need to take to do anything. You can't just start a restaurant without getting permits and passing health inspections. Do you think Restaurants are a monopoly? Controlled by the government? You can't even open a Hair salon without doing that. Why should starting an ISP be any different? There is no law or regulation that prevents it. There are regulations that you must follow - no differently than in any other line of work. Try again. That article that you linked to is utter BS, as evidence by fact. Yeah, you have to work to start a business. Boo hoo. Guess what? That's why private enterprise, that puts their money where their mouth is, deserves huge credit. They do the work, they take the risk, they make the investment, then they get the reward.



tarheelblue32 said:


> First of all, I never said anything about nationalizing the ISP networks. However, if the government wanted to, it would certainly be legal for them to do so under eminent domain.


No, it would not necessarily be legal for them to do so. I'm pretty sure that were they to try, this would end up at the Supreme Court, given the financial devastation and market disruption it would likely result in. Just look at it from the 401k perspective. Wonder how many different 401ks have stock in VZ? Let me answer that for you to make it easy. 64% of all Verizon stock is held by institutional investors. Nah, that wouldn't have any impact. The government would have to make an argument as to why nationalizing the ISPs would be of public benefit. Good luck with that one!



tarheelblue32 said:


> Second of all, if I did want the government to nationalize the ISPs, I also have every right as a citizen of this country to advocate for that position and to petition my elected representatives to make it happen.


Yes you do, and go for it. I never said you didn't. If you read carefully, what I said is that my "position" or "opinion" is that if you want to live in a country that just takes over private assets, go live in a socialist country. I also said - and this is a quote...



wmhjr said:


> Anybody who does, IMHO, either doesn't understand what's behind it, or really would prefer a socialist system. That's fine - I simply don't agree.


And I stand behind that. It doesn't make me mad at you. I simply abhor the idea of it.

As I said, I'm nobody's cheerleader - except for the citizens of the US, our country, and consumers in general. To me, whether it be ISPs, banks, Tivo, Amazon, Starbucks, or whoever - I'm a customer, they provide a service, we're not friends, we're not enemies. I don't get emotionally attached or make emotional decisions about their products or services. Just because I really and truly do detest a lot about Verizon does not mean that I'm just going to throw away my ethics and want them treated differently than I would any other company. And I simply detest the "simple" answer when the truth is way more complicated. If the US government was interested in "fixing" this, then the FCC should not have written a policy statement amending the contents of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, removing Broadband from it's domain. They should have invested in infrastructure build-outs. There's a lot they should do. I'm not interested in some last minute Charlies coming along now after billions and billions of private money was invested to create fiber distribution systems, and only THEN saying "OK, we can take over now".

We're way off topic, and I appreciate your comments, but we're going to have to agree that we don't agree.


----------



## dlfl

tarheelblue32 said:


> What about the billions of dollars in surcharges customers have already paid to ISPs to build broadband networks that will never be built?
> 
> http://stopthecap.com/2014/03/17/ne...om-fiber-upgrades-customers-already-paid-for/
> ..........


Hey, it's New Jersey after all.  From the linked article it appears that Governor (not-so) fat boy is right in there wallowing with the rest of them.


----------



## wmhjr

I would be no happier than anyone else were I unfortunate enough to live in New Jersey (hmmm.... that sentence can be taken a bunch of ways!).

That being said, I'm not going to disparage the NJ Governor about it. That's a bad road to go down in this thread. I could just as easily take shots at the FCC under this administration, and many others. 

I actually don't have TOO big of a heartburn about VZ wanting to say that now, 23 years after the program was put in place, there are other broadband technologies that might substitute for the original fiber plan. However, when they get to stating that DSL is one of them, really? 

If I were to guess, I'd say that a conflict between this project and FiOS became more and more apparent, and FiOS took center stage, to the detriment of NJ customers - which is not right. I think in both of those instances, VZ underestimated costs by a large measure. Not the customers fault, but I do think that is one part of the mess.


----------



## slowbiscuit

wmhjr said:


> Now let's talk about "the FCC doing their job". How do you think people get Broadband? All the way to the last mile? Who paid for it. Be careful - don't say tax dollars. Some would argue that years ago, the US should have invested tax dollars rather than having the providers build and pay for their own infrastructure. They did not. On top of that, there is not a single, solitary friggin thing preventing 100 ISPs from delivering services in every single home in this country.
> 
> Except money. Somebody has to pay for the infrastructure. The cabling. Switches. Fiber. Network terminals. There is no such thing - and has never been such a thing since Broadband existed - as a "exclusive agreement". The only barrier to entry is the fact that in order to deliver service, you need to have a way to do it. So what would you have the FCC do? Federalize Verizon? Take all fiber by eminent domain? Welcome to Venezuela. You want open access and another ISP? Go build one. Nothing stopping you. No law. No regulation. Just your ability to deliver service and make enough after investment to recoup it and make money. Ahhhh - there's the catch.


The problem is way more than just saying 'anyone can come in and build'. Well, sure, until you realize that if you go down that path (not that it will ever happen) you have streets and yards torn up over and over for no good reason along with all the redundant cabling and equipment that goes with it.

There's a reason why electricity and water are public utilities, and the same argument now applies for internet access - these are basic needs and should be regulated as such. You can choose to believe in a so-called wired HSI 'free' market and ignore the long history of it being anything but that (for all the obvious reasons) or you can do the right thing and make it just another utility for all.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> The problem is way more than just saying 'anyone can come in and build'. Well, sure, until you realize that if you go down that path (not that it will ever happen) you have streets and yards torn up over and over for no good reason along with all the redundant cabling and equipment that goes with it.
> 
> There's a reason why electricity and water are public utilities, and the same argument now applies for internet access - these are basic needs and should be regulated as such. You can choose to believe in a so-called wired HSI 'free' market and ignore the long history of it being anything but that (for all the obvious reasons) or you can do the right thing and make it just another utility for all.


Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you again. Please don't misunderstand. I understand your opinion and respect it. I simply disagree with it very strongly. I suspect, to be honest, that this is not the only area where you and I may have very different opinions, which is one of the great things about this country.

1) You don't need to tear up streets or yards any more. They now have the equipment to even underlay fiber without the surface areas being touched whatsoever. Quite frankly, I've watched it being used, including right next door when VZ ran 350 feet of fiber underground next to my neighbors driveway. Not a single iota of visible change 1 minute after the cable was laid.

2) Fiber is not a public need. Broadband is. LTE qualifies for Broadband. The only way to get water to you is physically. You can't "beam it". Furthermore, water QUALITY is a health issue. Broadband quality is not.

3) You didn't pay for the existing "non-redundant" fiber. Neither did the government. I could care less what description you could put on it, that doesn't change. Ethically, if somebody wanted to really push that change, it should have been done before the billions of dollars were spent by private enterprise to invest in it.

4) You fail to acknowledge the absolute fact that 63% of the ownership of verizon is institutional. Meaning, 401ks, mutual funds, etc. So in additional to playing fast and loose with private enterprise, such an action plays fast and loose with peoples retirements.

5) Any business you decide to start has investment costs. What I said was that the only thing stopping you was - money.



wmhjr said:


> On top of that, there is not a single, solitary friggin thing preventing 100 ISPs from delivering services in every single home in this country. Except money. Somebody has to pay for the infrastructure. The cabling. Switches. Fiber. Network terminals. There is no such thing - and has never been such a thing since Broadband existed - as a "exclusive agreement".


----------



## wmhjr

BTW, we've gotten WAY off topic in this thread. It's supposed to be about the "Future of CableCard". The entire discussion about nationalizing ISPs is honestly irrelevant at least at this time. What is relevant is the elimination of the integration ban, and what may happen next. I'm hoping Dan203 has some luck in getting more details about some of the specifics rather than just what we know right now.


----------



## trip1eX

wmhjr said:


> I would say this. There's a chicken in the description. Anybody not observing what's going on has the chicken head in the sand IMHO.
> 
> Just how much IP based content did you get 10 yrs ago?
> 
> 8 yrs ago?
> 
> 5 yrs ago?
> 
> Today?


All of us have heard of Netflix.

You're just playing the doom and gloom and sky is falling card way too heavy.

Really I'm not sure what your point is.

I had a Series 2 Tivo and eventually it didn't work with my cable system. I got a new one. I switched to WMC after that. And returned back to Tivo with the Roamio.

Are you saying I might need another device in a few years and it might not be a Tivo? The song remains the same.


----------



## slowbiscuit

wmhjr said:


> BTW, we've gotten WAY off topic in this thread. It's supposed to be about the "Future of CableCard". The entire discussion about nationalizing ISPs is honestly irrelevant at least at this time. What is relevant is the elimination of the integration ban, and what may happen next. I'm hoping Dan203 has some luck in getting more details about some of the specifics rather than just what we know right now.


Forcing the ISPs to comply with the common carrier regs under Title II is not nationalization, it simply was a mistake that is long overdue to be fixed. Fortunately our current administration now agrees, not that anything's going to be done about it with all the bought-off Congresscritters blocking anything that makes sense to most people.


----------



## wmhjr

trip1eX said:


> All of us have heard of Netflix.


Netflix.
Amazon Prime
Hulu
Vudu
PPV
VOD
HBO Go
Network apps
Roku
FireTV
AppleTV



trip1eX said:


> You're just playing the doom and gloom and sky is falling card way too heavy.


Your opinion. Not mine, and frankly, not the opinion of industry analysts. Nothing wrong with that. All opinions are valid, until one of them becomes fact. We don't "know" yet what will happen.



trip1eX said:


> Really I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> I had a Series 2 Tivo and eventually it didn't work with my cable system. I got a new one. I switched to WMC after that. And returned back to Tivo with the Roamio.
> 
> Are you saying I might need another device in a few years and it might not be a Tivo? The song remains the same.


Actually, no. What I'm saying is that it's even possible that there won't be a device. And if there is a device, it may well (probably IMHO) not be a Tivo. To put it more clearly, I'd guess that from a retail perspective, the combination of more and more IP based content delivery with the elimination of the integration ban, and the waning actual "Tivo Sales" (not including the mini makes it more obvious) that it's very likely that from a hardware perspective, either the Roamio is the final product, or close to it. And that subsequently, it's very possible that DVR functions move to the cloud, eliminating a "local recording" device altogether.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> Forcing the ISPs to comply with the common carrier regs under Title II is not nationalization, it simply was a mistake that is long overdue to be fixed. Fortunately our current administration now agrees, not that anything's going to be done about it with all the bought-off Congresscritters blocking anything that makes sense to most people.


And I disagree. Nothing wrong with that. As said, we have a difference of opinion. I tend to agree with the decisions made under the 1966 telecommunications act with regard to ISPs, Title II. Furthermore, even were the FCC or the government to force the ISPs to be regulated as per Common Carrier status, that would only positively effect price controls, as written. There is IMHO very little reason anyone could suggest that it would improve access or performance. To the contrary, an argument could easily be made that were that to happen, while price controls may be enacted, further investment would be stifled, resulting in a decline in broadband growth and/or performance.


----------



## Pacomartin

wmhjr said:


> It's all about cost here. But that said, even by your own argument, let's say your'e right. Let's say most content is moved out of channel broadcast to VoD type stuff. Like Discovery, NatGeo, all kinds of stuff. If that were not available on my Tivos right now, they would be gone tomorrow. And frankly, you'd never sell another unit, because the investment price would be totally off-kilter from the value.


What I see is that it will move to VOD for first viewing. Linear TV will still come but it may be a day later or it might be a week later. You might still want to record it with TiVo for time shifting.

Right now, it seems like the networks have it backwards. They broadcast their show, and then wait anywhere from a day to a week to put it on VOD.


----------



## aaronwt

Pacomartin said:


> What I see is that it will move to VOD for first viewing. Linear TV will still come but it may be a day later or it might be a week later. You might still want to record it with TiVo for time shifting.
> 
> Right now, it seems like the networks have it backwards. They broadcast their show, and then wait anywhere from a day to a week to put it on VOD.


I thought it's typically available 24 hours later? At least that's what it seems like for Broadcast shows. I have access to it from Amazon or Vudu the night after it first airs.


----------



## wmhjr

aaronwt said:


> I thought it's typically available 24 hours later? At least that's what it seems like for Broadcast shows. I have access to it from Amazon or Vudu the night after it first airs.


It all depends on the network. Some are better than others. CBS has been in my experience the most problematic.


----------



## slowbiscuit

wmhjr said:


> And I disagree. Nothing wrong with that. As said, we have a difference of opinion. I tend to agree with the decisions made under the 1966 telecommunications act with regard to ISPs, Title II. Furthermore, even were the FCC or the government to force the ISPs to be regulated as per Common Carrier status, that would only positively effect price controls, as written. There is IMHO very little reason anyone could suggest that it would improve access or performance. To the contrary, an argument could easily be made that were that to happen, while price controls may be enacted, further investment would be stifled, resulting in a decline in broadband growth and/or performance.


OK fine and I really don't care that this is OT, so what's the answer then? The so-called free market that has abysmally failed, and will do so even more as the Comcasts of the world buy up the TWCs?

It's all good to preach about how this open market is great in theory, but then reality bites and at some point the government has to step in when de-facto monopolies never go away (for whatever reason).

And no, extremely limited, cherry-picking Google Fiber et al is not the answer and neither is apples-to-oranges wireless LTE (or whatever comes next in the wireless world). I'm talking the solution for real wired HSI today, not some mythical competition that might never come tomorrow.


----------



## wmhjr

Pacomartin said:


> What I see is that it will move to VOD for first viewing. Linear TV will still come but it may be a day later or it might be a week later. You might still want to record it with TiVo for time shifting.
> 
> Right now, it seems like the networks have it backwards. They broadcast their show, and then wait anywhere from a day to a week to put it on VOD.


I think marketing will still have linear showing up first but who really knows. I just think that more and more of that content will continue to move to VoD, and more and more users will shift to using VoD as their first choice to get that content. I'm using the term VoD loosely here, as it could be via a variety of delivery means. However I think most will be IP based.

I think that fears of not being able to skip commercials are probably valid, given the marketing clout that the decline in linear (realtime) programming continues to experience. They're going to want to make up that revenue somehow.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> OK fine and I really don't care that this is OT, so what's the answer then? The so-called free market that has abysmally failed, and will do so even more as the Comcasts of the world buy up the TWCs?
> 
> It's all good to preach about how this open market is great in theory, but then reality bites and at some point the government has to step in when de-facto monopolies never go away (for whatever reason).
> 
> And no, extremely limited, cherry-picking Google Fiber et al is not the answer and neither is apples-to-oranges wireless LTE (or whatever comes next in the wireless world). I'm talking the solution for real wired HSI today, not some mythical competition that might never come tomorrow.


You are demonstrating that you and I have a lot more than this that we likely disagree about. I don't think the free market has failed. I really don't care to have an open ended debate of the merits of a free market or private enterprise in this thread. And I really don't buy your argument whatsoever about stuff like LTE not being one of the solutions. Your thinking is IMHO 20th century thinking. Given the rural aspect alone, for example, there is no solution that I could comprehend that could satisfy you - INCLUDING even nationalizing ISPs.

Let's also be clear about something else while we're at it. Don't put words in my mouth. That is unethical. I'm not "preaching about how this open market is great". That's your statement. Not mine. I simply said that IF you were going to try and either nationalize, or apply common carrier status to the major ISPs, then the time to do that was BEFORE they made billions of dollars in infrastructure investments.

Now, can we get back on topic? Cablecard and the impact of the integration ban expiration? I'd suggest that if we want to continue a philosophical debate about free markets, private investment, social justice and whatever else, it ought to be a different thread. I did not bring this into the discussion - I simply responded to it.


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> I'm hoping Dan203 has some luck in getting more details about some of the specifics rather than just what we know right now.


I was able to get a copy of the CVP-2 spec. It's complicated, and big, but I skimmed through it and it appears that there are multiple ways the host can be setup. The RUI can be used as a way to simply select AV content, which is then pushed to the client as a standard DLNA stream OR the AV content can be played back directly inside the RUI. I'm afraid that if the MSOs chose to use the later, and do not expose the alternate protocols to access content, then we could be in a situation where we're stuck with basically the same thing as OCAP. Where the only way to access content is via the RUI.

It appears to me that it uses a discovery protocol that makes everything pretty much optional. So the host will have complete control over what it allows and how it allows it. The client is expected to poll the host for it's capabilities and present the user with an experience accordingly.

On the other hand the spec seems to be very robust. It has ways of doing pretty much everything a Mini can do. It has ways to share EPG across a network, schedule recordings on a host, borrow a live tuner and change the channel on that tuner, request A/V data in time ranged chunks to create whatever trick play effects you want, etc... TiVo has gone to great lengths to do all this themselves via their Mind interface, so I can understand why they're reluctant to make the switch. But it appears from my quick glance that most/all of what their Mind interface can do has an equivalent in CVP-2.


----------



## slowbiscuit

wmhjr said:


> You are demonstrating that you and I have a lot more than this that we likely disagree about. I don't think the free market has failed. I really don't care to have an open ended debate of the merits of a free market or private enterprise in this thread. And I really don't buy your argument whatsoever about stuff like LTE not being one of the solutions. Your thinking is IMHO 20th century thinking. Given the rural aspect alone, for example, there is no solution that I could comprehend that could satisfy you - INCLUDING even nationalizing ISPs.
> 
> Let's also be clear about something else while we're at it. Don't put words in my mouth. That is unethical. I'm not "preaching about how this open market is great". That's your statement. Not mine. I simply said that IF you were going to try and either nationalize, or apply common carrier status to the major ISPs, then the time to do that was BEFORE they made billions of dollars in infrastructure investments.
> 
> Now, can we get back on topic? Cablecard and the impact of the integration ban expiration? I'd suggest that if we want to continue a philosophical debate about free markets, private investment, social justice and whatever else, it ought to be a different thread. I did not bring this into the discussion - I simply responded to it.


Sure we can, now that I understand that you don't have an answer for the problem any more than anyone else saying vague stuff about how the market will take care of it (same tired line used by most corporations).

It's a difficult nut to crack given the status quo and the enormous political influence that has paid for it.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> I was able to get a copy of the CVP-2 spec. It's complicated, and big, but I skimmed through it and it appears that there are multiple ways the host can be setup. The RUI can be used as a way to simply select AV content, which is then pushed to the client as a standard DLNA stream OR the AV content can be played back directly inside the RUI. I'm afraid that if the MSOs chose to use the later, and do not expose the alternate protocols to access content, then we could be in a situation where we're stuck with basically the same thing as OCAP. Where the only way to access content is via the RUI.
> 
> It appears to me that it uses a discovery protocol that makes everything pretty much optional. So the host will have complete control over what it allows and how it allows it. The client is expected to poll the host for it's capabilities and present the user with an experience accordingly.
> 
> On the other hand the spec seems to be very robust. It has ways of doing pretty much everything a Mini can do. It has ways to share EPG across a network, schedule recordings on a host, borrow a live tuner and change the channel on that tuner, request A/V data in time ranged chunks to create whatever trick play effects you want, etc... TiVo has gone to great lengths to do all this themselves via their Mind interface, so I can understand why they're reluctant to make the switch. But it appears from my quick glance that most/all of what their Mind interface can do has an equivalent in CVP-2.


Thanks, Dan. That's actually illuminating - and unfortunately, not completely in a good way.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> Sure we can, now that I understand that you don't have an answer for the problem any more than anyone else saying vague stuff about how the market will take care of it (same tired line used by most corporations).
> 
> It's a difficult nut to crack given the status quo and the enormous political influence that has paid for it.


No, Slowbiscuit, I'm not taking your bait. You apparently don't understand anything, if you're interpreting that you have an answer for all the issues but I don't. Frankly, your comment is insulting and I'm not going to stoop to that level.

There's such as thing is rational educated discussion about things that people may not agree with each other about. That's how we all (are supposed to) learn and get a better perspective. I could say all kinds of things in response - none of which I'm sure you would either like - or appreciate.


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> Thanks, Dan. That's actually illuminating - and unfortunately, not completely in a good way.


One good thing is that for now the host will be local, so devices like TiVo, HDHomeRun, Ceton, etc... can be used with a CableCARD to access content and then present that to DLNA clients however they choose.

It also makes it possible for TiVo to write a CVP-2 client app that would allow us to use a MSO supplied box as a sort of proxy for accessing VOD. Even if they force us to use the RUI TiVo could still make it so the user can access that RUI from their TiVo.

The real scary parts don't kick in until the MSOs move the DLNA host upstream and convince the FCC to allow them to drop support for CableCARDs, which I'd assume is at least a few years out.

Also, like I said, the spec is big and complicated so I could be missing a part where they are required to expose AV streams via alternate methods other then the RUI. Although given the stink they put up about controlling the user experience during the CableCARD 2.0 negotiations I can't imagine that's the case. I don't think they'd be signing on to this spec unless it allowed them some way to maintain that control that wasn't optional.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan, BTW, now that you've been able to skim through the CVP-2 spec, do you think we could kind of guess as to the likely pros and cons from the MSOs perspective? That would help to predict what they will actually do. 

It seems to me that if they go with option #2, and not exposing alternate protocols, it would simplify their environment and potentially lower both operating cost as well as the associated support cost - not to mention reducing development complexity and cost by reducing feature sets/protocols/APIs that wouldn't need integration and regression testing moving forward. 

The flip side of that is that it doesn't seem as though exposing those protocols necessarily gives them any real positive benefit that I can figure out - except perhaps in the mobility arena perhaps?


----------



## Dan203

Yeah simplification is their biggest pro. Although they're going to lose out on some box rentals and outlet fees, so I'm betting they wouldn't be heading this way if it weren't for the FCC mandate. This system does open up the market for 3rd party equipment, which is nice. However it appears to leave enough control in the hands of the MSO that there may not be much room for any sort of competitive advantage to distinguish boxes from one another. If the RUI is the only way to access content then really the only difference between one box and another will be it's form factor and remote. There will be no way for these boxes to distinguish themselves based on UI or feature sets. 

One thing I haven't found yet is if there is a DVR protocol. A way for the client device to record a stream presented by the host. Although if the content is only available via the RUI then that may not even matter.


----------



## wmhjr

That's what I figured too. I don't think form factor itself has any appeal in todays world. In fact, I'd say the best form factor in the general consumer population would be a zero form factor. It has the advantage of no mechanical/electronic failure component, and doesn't take up space. Imagine a flat screen hanging on a wall (kind of like some of the commercials) that has full "DVR like" functionality, VoD, Stream, etc - with nothing other than an HDMI cable. We could be back to a final realization of when panel manufacturers (like toshiba, 12 yrs ago) put CableCard slots in their units and had modules to have "some" DVR capability - but the complexity at the host level was just too expensive and too difficult to execute at a price point and volume that consumers wanted.

Unless there is some regulation to compel it, were I the MSO I would restrict access to the RUI, and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out a "public interest" reason why Congress would put a requirement in that they expose more.


----------



## Dan203

The only thing I can think of that would be in the public interest for accessing content outside the RUI is DVRs. It's still in the public interest to allow people to record the content they pay for on a local device rather then forcing them to use some sort of cloud based DVR.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> It's still in the public interest to allow people to record the content they pay for on a local device rather then forcing them to use some sort of cloud based DVR.


Do you think so, Dan? How would we describe the public interest if the service itself was still available. IOW, how could you make a legal argument that assuming you had a "DVR in the cloud" that allowed you to record and play content kind of like we to today but in the cloud, it would rise to the level of "public need" to drive regulation forcing exposing more than just the RUI? I'm not arguing, but trying to figure out how that would look. I'm not seeing it at the moment.


----------



## Dan203

I do. The FCC currently prevents the MSOs from flagging all their content "copy never" specifically to facilitate the use of customer owned DVRs. I can't imagine they would just step back and allow a RUI into a cloud DVR be the only way that the consumer can record content. The MSOs already have a functional monopoly, they have to give at least some semblance of choice.


----------



## wmhjr

Eh, I'd probably take the opposite position. It all depends on the services being delivered. I don't know if the FCC would go so far so force them to expose more than the RUI if the MSO also provided the ability to "record" content in the cloud. Today the MSOs do not provide that, and today all of the "host" functionality (or more accurately UI functionality) is presented by the actual physical host. If that physical host goes away in favor of a SW solution, I could see the FCC taking a different approach.
'
Not that I want that - let's be clear. I'd prefer the option.

But even then, I wonder whether if that option were even available, could a "DVR" such as Tivo be commercially viable? Would the expected yet even lower volume or market penetration enable a price point and margins that would make sense?

I do like the think client host capability that might enable a bunch of things, and like the idea of increased portability which might well come with it. But I'm just having a tough time coming up with a compelling argument that keeps a "Tivo-Like" product that is relatively reasonably priced sufficient to maintain itself and be commercially viable. I don't like where that leaves us but it is what it is. Right now, fortunately it's all a guess.


----------



## tarheelblue32

wmhjr said:


> Eh, I'd probably take the opposite position.


Of course you would.


----------



## Dan203

It looks like the client device is allowed to record a stream from a host provided they adhere to the content protection flags which are defined in the "link protection interface" used by the stream. Two are defined in the spec but it looks like the cable industry will use DTCP-IP, which has the same flags and rules as the CCI byte used for CableCARDs. So I believe that it would be possible to create a DVR that acts as a CVP-2 client and simply records the stream it's being fed from the host.

As I said the spec seems to be quite robust, and from my perspective appears to offer all the features that people wanted from AllVid. However it's got a lot of optional stuff, so there would need to be some rules and requirements coming from the FCC to actually make it function like we envisioned AllVid to function.


----------



## aaronwt

So how many years until this would realistically be implemented? It seems like it would take awhile.

The cable companies are still forced to use Cable card in their STBs until December this year aren't they?


----------



## wmhjr

Dan, makes sense, so you're saying that it's at least technically feasible given what you've read about the standard. Now what do you think (considering the direction in general) that will mean for a standalone DVR in terms of market viability? Seems like it'll be even tougher sledding. 

aaron, I would think it would take a while and I believe you're right in my reading of the change - MSOs would be required to continue the use of CC's in their own equipment as well as for third party through Dec 2015.


----------



## Dan203

aaronwt said:


> So how many years until this would realistically be implemented? It seems like it would take awhile.
> 
> The cable companies are still forced to use Cable card in their STBs until December this year aren't they?


There is a June 1st deadline for them implementing CVP-2 on their leased boxes. (September 1st for smaller cable companies)

But it's going to take many years before they're able to move the host up to the head end. In the intermediate the host will be any box you rent from them.

The cool thing about this from a TiVo user perspective is that because they are a MSO supplier they're going to have to implement this. Which means by the end of this year we may be able to use any CVP-2 enabled TV/settop in place of a Mini. (assuming they enable it for retail devices too)


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> Dan, makes sense, so you're saying that it's at least technically feasible given what you've read about the standard. Now what do you think (considering the direction in general) that will mean for a standalone DVR in terms of market viability? Seems like it'll be even tougher sledding.


Depends on what direction the cloud DVRs take. If they start disabling FF and limiting the duration you can retain content then there may be an increased demand for standalone DVRs. Even if they don't there will always be people who want more tuners/space then they MSO option provides, or features that aren't available with a cloud DVR. (like downloading to a PC for archiving or sharing with a friend)

That being said TiVo has had a touch time selling standalone DVRs since their inception, so I can't imagine this will make that any better. Unless maybe the FCC forces other providers to use the standard as well, then perhaps it would increase the potential customer pool by opening them up to DSS and UVerse users.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> Depends on what direction the cloud DVRs take. If they start disabling FF and limiting the duration you can retain content then there may be an increased demand for standalone DVRs. Even if they don't there will always be people who want more tuners/space then they MSO option provides, or features that aren't available with a cloud DVR. (like downloading to a PC for archiving or sharing with a friend)


I can maybe see this, but you have to think that if it moves to becoming a cloud service, two other things happen. Effectively instant provisioning (instant gratification) and lower cost for that service because a cloud delivered service as opposed to a host hardware solution scales much better. That is exactly what has happened in general technology - it's been the commoditization of formerly "hard technology" services.



Dan203 said:


> That being said TiVo has had a touch time selling standalone DVRs since their inception, so I can't imagine this will make that any better. Unless maybe the FCC forces other providers to use the standard as well, then perhaps it would increase the potential customer pool by opening them up to DSS and UVerse users.


I wouldn't doubt the FCC mandating this for UVerse. Can't see them stepping into DSS personally. But I'm having trouble making the numbers work in Tivos favor. Looking at retail subs in the US, which include Minis as subs, it's been tough going when in theory at least the value proposition and TCO is a much better story at the moment.


----------



## Dan203

Why would you think they'd mandate Uverse but not DSS? This technology basically makes the whole system tuner agnostic. The actual tuners, if required, would be inside the host/gateway and it would simply feed them out to the home network in a standard format.

DirecTV is already doing this now using a slightly different standard.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> Why would you think they'd mandate Uverse but not DSS? This technology basically makes the whole system tuner agnostic. The actual tuners, if required, would be inside the host/gateway and it would simply feed them out to the home network in a standard format.
> 
> DirecTV is already doing this now using a slightly different standard.


Only because their track record tends to point in that direction. Dish/Direct have been pretty successful at convincing the FCC that they're "different" and should not fall prey to the same specific guidelines. Certainly I could be wrong.


----------



## DrewTivo

wmhjr said:


> That's what I figured too. I don't think form factor itself has any appeal in todays world. In fact, I'd say the best form factor in the general consumer population would be a zero form factor. It has the advantage of no mechanical/electronic failure component, and doesn't take up space. Imagine a flat screen hanging on a wall (kind of like some of the commercials) that has full "DVR like" functionality, VoD, Stream, etc - with nothing other than an HDMI cable.


So what we need is for TiVo to shrink the Mini to the size of a Chromecast . . .

Clearly the model is shifting from "broadcast" (in which I include cable-only channels) to VOD (in which I include any/all streaming-type services, whether Netflix, Hulu, or, soon, ESPN, or otherwise). Tivo was on the cutting edge of VOD because it took content and saved it for later viewing. Now that's done in the "cloud".

The question is when VOD becomes viable as the exclusive means of obtaining content. That's going to require some might fat pipes - there's a significant efficiency to broadcasting the Super Bowl rather than streaming it to 100m+ devices. At some point, the bandwidth available to stream may be sufficient, but I think we're a fair way off from that.

So, until the point when VOD everywhere becomes technically and financially viable, broadcast will continue to have a role. And as long as broadcast has a role, TiVO will have one for folks like us.


----------



## aaronwt

DrewTivo said:


> So what we need is for TiVo to shrink the Mini to the size of a Chromecast . . .
> 
> ........


If they can shrink a lite PC close to that size

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/compute-stick/intel-compute-stick.html

like the Intel Compute Stick, then maybe there is hope.


----------



## trip1eX

wmhjr said:


> Netflix.
> Amazon Prime
> Hulu
> Vudu
> PPV
> VOD
> HBO Go
> Network apps
> Roku
> FireTV
> AppleTV
> 
> Your opinion. Not mine, and frankly, not the opinion of industry analysts. Nothing wrong with that. All opinions are valid, until one of them becomes fact. We don't "know" yet what will happen.
> 
> Actually, no. What I'm saying is that it's even possible that there won't be a device. And if there is a device, it may well (probably IMHO) not be a Tivo. To put it more clearly, I'd guess that from a retail perspective, the combination of more and more IP based content delivery with the elimination of the integration ban, and the waning actual "Tivo Sales" (not including the mini makes it more obvious) that it's very likely that from a hardware perspective, either the Roamio is the final product, or close to it. And that subsequently, it's very possible that DVR functions move to the cloud, eliminating a "local recording" device altogether.


Ok everything becomes on-demand. And it will because there is no reason for it not too.

You just had lots of fear mongering and sky is falling stuff in there mixed in with weird comparisons of streaming boxes purchased compared to Tivo and DTV/Dish subscribers whose numbers didn't quite add up among other things.

And then you seem to think cablecard disappears tomorrow and satellite/cable go away the next day.


----------



## Pacomartin

DrewTivo said:


> The question is when VOD becomes viable as the exclusive means of obtaining content. That's going to require some might fat pipes - there's a significant efficiency to broadcasting the Super Bowl rather than streaming it to 100m+ devices.


See, I just can't see that happening, for the very reason you mentioned. You would have a major revamp of infrastructure.

I think that companies love to see create tiers. Eventually the content will come on VOD first, but then be available on broadcast. Even if there is a day or a week between them, people will pay something to be first.

If the content is valuable enough there may be a month between them.

But to eliminate broadcast would probably be foolish.

----------------------
Let me think of an analogy. You may know that VHF channels 2-6 are simply too noisy for digital broadcast. In many countries they were eliminated, but as they have little or no commercial value the Fcc elected to keep them in the digital transition. There are fewer than 40 full power TV stations in the country using these channels, mostly in South Dakota, hills of Georgia, and other remote places, or given to educational networks. There are only 3 full power channel 4's left today (CBS in Iowa, NBC in Nebraska, and infomercial in Atlantic City).

Disney had been transmitting ABC digital on UHF 64 in Philadelphia in 1997, but the Fcc was selling that channel as well. Disney elected to put ABC as digital back on VHF channel 6 which they had been using for analog since 1948. They knew full well that the engineers said there would be problems. But it was a financial decision.

So a major station in a major city began broadcasting digital on a channel that was too noisy, and of course thousands of people lost their signal. The callboard was flooded.

If it had been important enough, Disney would have spent whatever it took to secure a channel to broadcast in the UHF spectrum.

It will be the same way with cable broadcast. They will move the high quality stuff to VOD for first look, and then feed it to broadcast after it has lost it's gleam. But wholesale dismantling won't happen.


----------



## wmhjr

DrewTivo said:


> So, until the point when VOD everywhere becomes technically and financially viable, broadcast will continue to have a role. And as long as broadcast has a role, TiVO will have one for folks like us.


I'm partially with you.

I don't think Tivo ever really had a role in VoD whatsoever. I think Tivo pretty much created the "Time shifting" market - and the DVR market in general. But as for VoD, I think Tivo has pretty much been a non-player completely until such time that they released (working) apps for Amazon, Netflix, etc. Time shifting to me is far from VoD. Time shifting requires deliberate action in advance to get the content. VoD allows you to decide to view that content immediately, even if you have never thought of it before.

Actually, perhaps also to the point about needing "fat pipes". What with MPEG4, being able to play with nitrates, etc, I'm not so convinced that even stuff like the SB could not be supported with current infrastructure (that is, for those that have decent broadband).

But the bigger issue is this. Let's first talk about the current retail Tivo market in the US. On Tivos Dec 30th review, they talked a ton about growth in the MSO market to the tune of 40% - which is excellent. What they didn't mention at all was "Tivo owned" or "retail" subscribers. In the recent financials from Tivo, you see a few interesting things. One of them is the statement is germaine to this topic in general...

"However, without continued use by operator leased devices, the prices charged by operators to consumers for CableCARDs could increase and support for retail CableCARD devices could deteriorate." (Item 1A, risk factors, Dec '04 Tivo 10-Q filing)

Add to this the continued relative difficulty in Tivo increasing real subscribers. One of the things that clouds this difficulty is the addition of minis which frankly don't necessarily provide long term revenue nor significant additional customers to Tivo. Or perhaps more accurately, the return on those subscribers has a diluted effect. For example, tomorrow a mini will be delivered here (2 actually) with the discounted lifetime service. It will replace a Premiere on monthly that will be retired.

This is not "the sky is falling" scenario, as some Tivo fanatics would like to believe. I can recall - and perhaps go back and quote some posts from just a few years ago from people still active on this forum (1 at least active in this thread) that utterly dismissed the idea that VoD and streaming would have any impact. I'm looking very pragmatically. To me, Tivo is a tool, a consumer device. Not a way of life. I had dvrs before Tivo, and have tried a bunch of stuff. I'm just trying to keep a keen eye on the likely market so as to not invest at the wrong time. I don't want to get caught on the down side of the change curve. That's a bad place to be.

But anyway, the point. The point is the question as to whether Tivo can long term (not that much longer actually) continue to fund a retail business with their MSO revenues, because that's pretty much what's going on now. It is not yet whether or not it's technically feasible, it's whether or not the financials and sales make sense. If anybody believes that just the members of this site could support such a financial equation, they would be very much mistaken. I seriously hope something changes that allows even longer term time shifting to co-exist with "Premium features" at the host (or in the cloud) and with the massively growing IP delivered content market.


----------



## wmhjr

BTW, I think there's a mistaken impression still here. Nobody - repeat NOBODY - is saying that broadcast would be eliminated anytime in the foreseeable future. The question is, whether IP delivered non-linear CONSUMPTION continues to grow at the pace we're really seeing, overtaking broadcast, and as a result let's just call it significantly reducing the market cap for a broadcast DVR device.


----------



## wmhjr

trip1eX said:


> Ok everything becomes on-demand. And it will because there is no reason for it not too.
> 
> You just had lots of fear mongering and sky is falling stuff in there mixed in with weird comparisons of streaming boxes purchased compared to Tivo and DTV/Dish subscribers whose numbers didn't quite add up among other things.
> 
> And then you seem to think cablecard disappears tomorrow and satellite/cable go away the next day.


Could you elaborate on "weird comparisons of streaming boxes purchased compared to Tivo and DTV/Dish and number that didn't quite add up? I'm curious what you're talking about.

BTW, no sky falling. I don't think Tivo will go away anytime in the immediate future. Clearly Tivo themselves see even the near term risk - as they explicitly state it in their December 10-Q directly (as it relates to CableCard). I never ever said or insinuated that CableCard disappears tomorrow. In fact, I think I explicitly stated that they are REQUIRED to support it for another year, and I agree that it would not disappear for at least a couple years (at minimum) beyond that. I've also never said that sat/cable go away - period. I have no idea where you got that.

What I do think is that it is very possible (coincidentally, without realizing it Tivo seems to have stated the exact same risk, in the exact same way, in their financials) that Cablecards will in the next 18 months see a decline in support, and that they may very well see significant monthly rental fee increases. Again - exactly as Tivo recognized in their financials. And that the net effect of this would certainly not be a positive thing for the Tivo retail market in the US, which isn't exactly booming as it is.

My back and forth discussion with Dan is more about what comes next - not this year or next year. What it might look like post Cablecard - and make no mistake - it will be post CableCard. Cablecard is not even on life support now, it's in hospice care.


----------



## Dan203

DrewTivo said:


> The question is when VOD becomes viable as the exclusive means of obtaining content. That's going to require some might fat pipes - there's a significant efficiency to broadcasting the Super Bowl rather than streaming it to 100m+ devices. At some point, the bandwidth available to stream may be sufficient, but I think we're a fair way off from that.


Not really. An 800Mhz cable system has about 5Gbps of bandwidth available. The average HD stream encoded as H.264 only requires about 8Mbps. So a single node has enough bandwidth to feed over 600 VOD streams simultaneously. And most nodes service less then 200 households.

There is also such thing as IP multi-cast where multiple users can watch the same stream without having to dedicate bandwidth to each user.


----------



## DrewTivo

wmhjr said:


> I'm partially with you.
> 
> I don't think Tivo ever really had a role in VoD whatsoever. I think Tivo pretty much created the "Time shifting" market - and the DVR market in general. But as for VoD, I think Tivo has pretty much been a non-player completely until such time that they released (working) apps for Amazon, Netflix, etc. Time shifting to me is far from VoD. Time shifting requires deliberate action in advance to get the content. VoD allows you to decide to view that content immediately, even if you have never thought of it before.


This is a fair point, and I wasn't trying to claim that TiVo was VOD as we know it now. Rather, prior to TiVo (well, perhaps VCRs), you could watch only what was "on" at the time. TiVo allowed timeshifting, which was rudimentary VOD. Early VOD also involved waits for downloads or for the time to come up (pay per view), so wasn't quite the same "on demand" that exists now. So, while the two are pretty far apart now I think they were closer upon introduction.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> There is also such thing as IP multi-cast where multiple users can watch the same stream without having to dedicate bandwidth to each user.


And to be clear about this, IP multi-cast is anything but new and unproven. Even corporate technology uses IP multi-cast for internal content delivery such as recorded corporate release telecast, etc. There are actually a bunch of ways to solve the theoretical concern about capacity around massively consumed content such as the Superbowl. And they are all solutions that have been in production, tried and tested, for years now.


----------



## DrewTivo

aaronwt said:


> If they can shrink a lite PC close to that size
> 
> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/compute-stick/intel-compute-stick.html
> 
> like the Intel Compute Stick, then maybe there is hope.


I don't see why they can't now, and smaller than that. Apple TV is smaller than the Mini, yet with the right software (not to mention the much-needed hardware upgrade) could presumably do what the Mini does. You could probably even shrink it to not much larger than a Cromecast/Firestick if you could get past the need for a wired (MoCA or ethernet) network (or make it a bit larger to accommodate the jack).


----------



## wmhjr

DrewTivo said:


> This is a fair point, and I wasn't trying to claim that TiVo was VOD as we know it now. Rather, prior to TiVo (well, perhaps VCRs), you could watch only what was "on" at the time. TiVo allowed timeshifting, which was rudimentary VOD. Early VOD also involved waits for downloads or for the time to come up (pay per view), so wasn't quite the same "on demand" that exists now. So, while the two are pretty far apart now I think they were closer upon introduction.


Let's agree that Tivo allowed *Timeshifting* and not go so far as calling it rudimentary VoD. Tivo - and even VCRs - were IMHO not even remotely similar to VoD, and in addition PPV was around before Tivo (or at least at the same time) IIRC. It doesn't matter, but just to maintain accuracy. Tivo is IMHO the father of Timeshifting, and really changed viewing culture.

Yes, early VoD wasn't as "quick". And early Broadcast TV didn't have as much content, didn't have as high resolution, didn't broadcast after midnight, etc.

I just think the two concepts are fundamentally different, and we need to recognize that.

VCR/Tivo/DRV: Time shifting. You needed to know in advance of the broadcast showing, what content you might want to watch. You needed to deliberately decide you were going to watch it "sometime". You needed to schedule the recording, and finally, you could watch it at a LATER time of your choice. You have a limit on the number of content you could do this with, because initially it was only one at a time without watching anything else live, now it's a max of 6 at a time, and there is a limit to how much you can store for later viewing. You are not required to have any external connection to watch content once it has been recorded.

Vod: You don't need to even think about what you might want to watch until the time you want to watch it. You don't need to deliberately do anything until it's time to watch the content. You schedule nothing. In early days, you called to "order it" and watched it a few minutes later. There is no limit to when anything was recorded - if there were 100 titles that were aired on different channels but on the same time and date, you could watch all of them. The only constraint is really having to have an external connection (IP, Cable, whatever) anytime you want to watch content.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Dan203 said:


> Why would you think they'd mandate Uverse but not DSS? This technology basically makes the whole system tuner agnostic. The actual tuners, if required, would be inside the host/gateway and it would simply feed them out to the home network in a standard format.
> 
> DirecTV is already doing this now using a slightly different standard.


Does the FCC have any jurisdiction over imposing access standards for sat and U-Verse? I've always wondered if they could enforce something like AllVid over all MSOs.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> Does the FCC have any jurisdiction over imposing access standards for sat and U-Verse? I've always wondered if they could enforce something like AllVid over all MSOs.


Sure they have jurisdiction. I've just never seen them express a real serious intent to do it. STELAR clearly impacts DBS, etc. Even aspects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 address DBS, and other services.

And frankly, more and more entities such as the FCC, EPA, and whatever other alphabet soup we have at the federal level, seem enabled to just make a statement that they have jurisdiction to do whatever. In the case you're talking about, I think there is no doubt that they already have it. I just don't think they'll enforce or mandate it. One of the reasons is money - I think everyone realizes that DBS for example, is already seeing more and more challenges ahead so they're going to be very reluctant to pile on. But that's JMHO. No doubt I could be completely wrong.


----------



## trip1eX

wmhjr said:


> * BTW, no sky falling. I never ever said or insinuated that CableCard disappears tomorrow.*





wmhjr said:


> * Cablecard is not even on life support now, it's in hospice care.*


Both quotes are from your last post (to me.)


----------



## wmhjr

trip1eX said:


> [/U]
> 
> This was from your past post.


And your point is?

Those two statements are not in conflict.

Today: Cablecard has zero development or investment being made. I'd call that "Hospice". No effort to do anything, and all the development and effort being made on a replacement.

Future - time to be determined: No cable card. It's dead. Who knows how long in the future that will be.

Please don't look for something that isn't there.


----------



## Diana Collins

wmhjr said:


> And to be clear about this, IP multi-cast is anything but new and unproven. Even corporate technology uses IP multi-cast for internal content delivery such as recorded corporate release telecast, etc. There are actually a bunch of ways to solve the theoretical concern about capacity around massively consumed content such as the Superbowl. And they are all solutions that have been in production, tried and tested, for years now.


However, IP Multicast is NOT suitable for VOD and takes us back to linear programming. From 8PM Eastern time until 11PM Pacific time, over half of all traffic on the US segments of the internet is video streaming - and about 90% of US households still have cable or satellite subscriptions. If that 90% all switched to VOD, you would need to increase internet capacity by at least a factor of 5. Who is going to pay for that?

This is exactly what has driven the recent disputes between Netflix and Verizon and Comcast. Netflix was overloading the the portals between Verizon/Comcast and Netflix's tier 2 carrier. They effectively extorted Netflix into paying for a direct peering arrangement. You can bet that Netflix's costs will get passed to subscribers. Based upon the streaming performance of Amazon lately, I think Verizon is about to pull the same thing on Amazon.

This is the logical inconsistency about cord-cutting. If everything is moving to VOD, IP Multicast will not help. So unless the cable and phone companies start building a data center per node it is going to require a massive expansion of capacity with no clear benefit to the companies that need to do the expansion.


----------



## wmhjr

Diana Collins said:


> However, IP Multicast is NOT suitable for VOD and takes us back to linear programming. From 8PM Eastern time until 11PM Pacific time, over half of all traffic on the US segments of the internet is video streaming - and about 90% of US households still have cable or satellite subscriptions. If that 90% all switched to VOD, you would need to increase internet capacity by at least a factor of 5. Who is going to pay for that?
> 
> This is exactly what has driven the recent disputes between Netflix and Verizon and Comcast. Netflix was overloading the the portals between Verizon/Comcast and Netflix's tier 2 carrier. They effectively extorted Netflix into paying for a direct peering arrangement. You can bet that Netflix's costs will get passed to subscribers. Based upon the streaming performance of Amazon lately, I think Verizon is about to pull the same thing on Amazon.
> 
> This is the logical inconsistency about cord-cutting. If everything is moving to VOD, IP Multicast will not help. So unless the cable and phone companies start building a data center per node it is going to require a massive expansion of capacity with no clear benefit to the companies that need to do the expansion.


Actually, I think you're making some assumptions here that are not valid.

First of all, I don't know how to say this more clearly. Please STOP starting with the assumption that it's all or nothing. As I've said too many times to have to say it again, I don't believe there is anyone here saying that linear content consumption goes away People are still going to want some amount of "live" content viewing. The point is that that ratio of live vs on demand is moving toward on demand at an ever increasing rate. Let me put it in bold so people don't continue either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the opinion.

*I do not believe linear, live viewing will ever go away.*

Second point - IMHO the math you reference is utterly flawed at it's core. Some (probably reasonably large) percentage of those "90%" you talk about today are ALREADY part of the people streaming. It's not an "either" conversation. I stream. Frankly, everybody using a Tivo Stream, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc, streams. And the overwhelming majority of ALL of them also have cable subscriptions today. The math saying you'd need to increase internet capacity by a factor of five is utterly wrong and not based on any fact.

Third point: The entire peering issue concerning Netflix and the providers (comcast/Verizon) have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with business. There is, and has always been (meaning since this service became mainstream), technical capacity to deliver the services. And guess what? The services are being delivered. There are two main issues related to this - and frankly, don't even think one of them has to do with Net Neutrality. It does not. It has to do with connectivity between the providers and the MSO/Network/fiber provider. If the business model for them requires that kind of content delivery, then they need to pay for it. Which they are. And guess what? It's still profitable. But an even BIGGER issue is the fact that more than likely, you may be able to get a great percentage of that IP enabled VoD content from your provider, who needs no such peering connection. They ARE the peer.

I'm sorry, but as somebody who makes their living in the technology field, has done extensive IP multicasting, and deals with global providers every day, I can't begin to say how much I would disagree with you.

Here's what I will say. In rural areas where it is not cost-effective to be able to deliver fiber based broadband, the newer VoD wave is problematic. In those areas, it's very possible that DBS takes an even stronger position (only in those areas mind you) due to the ability to effectively disregard latency in favor of massive throughput. The uplink (broadband) is not as challenged as it becomes mainly signaling as opposed to delivery.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> Second point - IMHO the math you reference is utterly flawed at it's core. Some (probably reasonably large) percentage of those "90%" you talk about today are ALREADY part of the people streaming. It's not an "either" conversation. I stream. Frankly, everybody using a Tivo Stream, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc, streams. And the overwhelming majority of ALL of them also have cable subscriptions today. The math saying you'd need to increase internet capacity by a factor of five is utterly wrong and not based on any fact.


If capacity isn't a problem where you live lucky you.

Capacity is a major problem NOW where I live. My ISP can not maintain speeds in the evening NOW my speed drops on a daily bases from 6 Mbps at 6:00 am to 1+/- Mbps around 7:00 pm. The issue isn't my line or my local switching station (DSL) but according to the last tech who came out the problem is up stream from there, where several switching station come together and they have limited through capacity.

The same is true for my friends on TWC their 15 Mbps service drops most evenings to 5Mbps or less - at least they can still use a streaming service if they want with my DSL it just doesn't work.

So from my point of view capacity already needs to be increased by a factor of something close to 5 NOW just to meet current capacity demands.


----------



## Diana Collins

wmhjr said:


> Actually, I think you're making some assumptions here that are not valid...


And I think you are making some equally invalid assumptions.

If, as you propose, most (more than 50%) of the people using OTT services today still have cable subscriptions, then what will make in-home DVRs obsolete? If cable companies move the DVR service to the cloud, how do they deal with delivering the content to the customer when they have hundreds of households per node streaming video, AND they are still delivering linear service? If DVRs don't become obsolete, what will make Tivos in particular become obsolete?

The reality is that broadband service in the USA is a mess. The U.S. is ranked 30th in the world in broadband speeds, behind the likes of Iceland, Romania, Bulgaria and Russia. The vast majority of households have no more than 1 Mbit/second service available to them (and it deteriorates to less than that at peak times). A significant part of the country has NO terrestrial broadband service at all. An even larger portion of the country has service with monthly usage caps. Granted, a cable company MIGHT not count Cloud DVR use against the cap, but it will still consume bandwidth. UHD will make this worse, since even the most optimistic estimates of HEVC leave UHD content twice as large as HD content. The CURRENT amount of video streaming going on is straining the internet...even a 50% increase will bring it to its knees.

You also dismiss the Verizon/Netflix dispute as "a business issue." Well, all of the people involved in getting content from a stage or set to your TV or mobile device are part of a business. Businesses exist to make money and they don't take on expenditures without a very high probability of a return on the investment. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, there are a whole lot of businesses that will have to spend money to support any significant increase in broadband traffic, and only a few of them have a reasonable expectation that the ROI will be acceptable. If it were not so, we would ALL have 100 Mbit/sec symmetric service already.


----------



## JosephB

Diana Collins said:


> And I think you are making some equally invalid assumptions.
> 
> If, as you propose, most (more than 50%) of the people using OTT services today still have cable subscriptions, then what will make in-home DVRs obsolete? If cable companies move the DVR service to the cloud, how do they deal with delivering the content to the customer when they have hundreds of households per node streaming video, AND they are still delivering linear service? If DVRs don't become obsolete, what will make Tivos in particular become obsolete?
> 
> The reality is that broadband service in the USA is a mess. The U.S. is ranked 30th in the world in broadband speeds, behind the likes of Iceland, Romania, Bulgaria and Russia. The vast majority of households have no more than 1 Mbit/second service available to them (and it deteriorates to less than that at peak times). A significant part of the country has NO terrestrial broadband service at all. An even larger portion of the country has service with monthly usage caps. Granted, a cable company MIGHT not count Cloud DVR use against the cap, but it will still consume bandwidth. UHD will make this worse, since even the most optimistic estimates of HEVC leave UHD content twice as large as HD content. The CURRENT amount of video streaming going on is straining the internet...even a 50% increase will bring it to its knees.
> 
> You also dismiss the Verizon/Netflix dispute as "a business issue." Well, all of the people involved in getting content from a stage or set to your TV or mobile device are part of a business. Businesses exist to make money and they don't take on expenditures without a very high probability of a return on the investment. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, there are a whole lot of businesses that will have to spend money to support any significant increase in broadband traffic, and only a few of them have a reasonable expectation that the ROI will be acceptable. If it were not so, we would ALL have 100 Mbit/sec symmetric service already.


I mostly agree with the points you are making, but it's important to point out that if the cable companies are the ones providing the "cloud" network DVR where the recordings happen in a datacenter, then the congestion issue is moot.

I'm of the opinion that all of these are true: television distribution is moving to IP, live viewing won't go away completely but it's going to be greatly diminished, and DVRs will become obsolete.

Think about it: Cable companies and content providers want to get the DVR out of your house for many reasons. It's cheaper, easier to upgrade, and they have infinite control. Consumers want "cloud" because they want everything to work like Netflix. Why wouldn't I, as a cable company, give them that experience, kill the home-based DVR, and then sell the content companies the right to block fast forwarding through commercials or recording certain content? Plus, by being the ISP and the legacy of "facilities based" TV provisioning, they can offer this over their network via IP, but on a private network and claim that it's not part of their internet service nor is it subject to internet service rules.


----------



## Dan203

atmuscarella said:


> If capacity isn't a problem where you live lucky you.
> 
> Capacity is a major problem NOW where I live. My ISP can not maintain speeds in the evening NOW my speed drops on a daily bases from 6 Mbps at 6:00 am to 1+/- Mbps around 7:00 pm. The issue isn't my line or my local switching station (DSL) but according to the last tech who came out the problem is up stream from there, where several switching station come together and they have limited through capacity.
> 
> The same is true for my friends on TWC their 15 Mbps service drops most evenings to 5Mbps or less - at least they can still use a streaming service if they want with my DSL it just doesn't work.
> 
> So from my point of view capacity already needs to be increased by a factor of something close to 5 NOW just to meet current capacity demands.


The technology exists, it just seems you live in a poorly designed area. The fiber running to the node has 10Gbps capacity and a 800Mhz cable system has nearly 5Gbps of capacity if there were no linear TV stations on it. So the capacity is there, its just poorly allocated.


----------



## JosephB

Dan203 said:


> The technology exists, it just seems you live in a poorly designed area. The fiber running to the node has 10Gbps capacity and a 800Mhz cable system has nearly 5Gbps of capacity if there were no linear TV stations on it. So the capacity is there, its just poorly allocated.


And that 5Gbps I'm assuming is based on current encoding schemes. When DOCSIS 3.1 drops the encoding will greatly increase that bandwidth, and then also consider how many cable systems are still completely or mostly MPEG-2. I agree with you on the last mile end, the capacity is there.


----------



## atmuscarella

Dan203 said:


> The technology exists, it just seems you live in a poorly designed area. The fiber running to the node has 10Gbps capacity and a 800Mhz cable system has nearly 5Gbps of capacity if there were no linear TV stations on it. So the capacity is there, its just poorly allocated.


That is likely true for TWC - in this area they still have analog basic cable, I have friends who's second & third TVs are still old CRTs and they get a good number of channels with just a cable hook up. However it is a capacity problem for Frontier DSL.


----------



## wmhjr

Diana Collins said:


> And I think you are making some equally invalid assumptions.


Actually, that's not true. I'm actually not making assumptions - you were in your math formula. I'm stating facts, and coming to an "opinion" which I'm very careful to say is my opinion.



Diana Collins said:


> If, as you propose, most (more than 50%) of the people using OTT services today still have cable subscriptions, then what will make in-home DVRs obsolete? If cable companies move the DVR service to the cloud, how do they deal with delivering the content to the customer when they have hundreds of households per node streaming video, AND they are still delivering linear service? If DVRs don't become obsolete, what will make Tivos in particular become obsolete?


Um, I've also addressed that. Think about what you're trying to say. You're actually making a statement that contradicts itself right from the start. Here is what we know.

The vast majority of US (let's stick there for now) homes have PayTV. So, Cable, DBS, Fiber, something. You already agreed with that. As of April 2014, an Experion market report stated that 94% of US homes had some sort of Pay TV. But wait - that's actually a DECLINE in market penetration. The same report showed a 44% increase over 4 yrs (the report is now dated, so the number will be higher) to 7.6 million US households that have "cut the cord" and no longer get cable or satellite TV. The numbers do not support your position to start with.

Second, I really don't think you understand the technology behind this. You seem to think there is some massive draw per node to deliver the content, and that "typical" providers don't already have the capacity to deliver. You could not be more wrong. To start with, you tried to make an argument that it was IP Multicasting that created the conflict between Netflix and Comcast/Verizon. It had nothing to do with IP Multicasting. It had everything to do with a business relationship. That does not mean it was not an issue. It DOES mean it was NOT a TECHNOLOGY issue.

Third, if a cloud based DVR became available as part of such a service, the demand for a physical local host based DVR would at a very minimum likely vanish - with the only exceptions being those who really want a "custom" solution with a specific UI, and/or if they restricted things like commercial FF. But there's even a problem with that. Had you read the posts that Dan203 and I were exchanging, you'd also realize that it's very possible (hopefully it won't happen) that the design for the CableCard replacement would force the UI to be "unified". But let's assume neither of those things happen. Currently Tivo is really the only retail DVR provider other than the MSO. So, if the MSO provides a cloud based solution, only Tivo provides a hardware solution. The cost differential would be even much higher than it is today, and the deployment far more time consuming (software vs hardware - not making any assumption - just fact). That means that the competitive market just got tougher for Tivo - who is already struggling in the US retail market. Again - no opinion, no assumptions, just fact. Look at Tivos own financials. Or even, just look at the risk statement in their own Dec 10-Q statement. You're only accusing me of making the same assumptions that Tivo made.



Diana Collins said:


> The reality is that broadband service in the USA is a mess. The U.S. is ranked 30th in the world in broadband speeds, behind the likes of Iceland, Romania, Bulgaria and Russia. The vast majority of households have no more than 1 Mbit/second service available to them (and it deteriorates to less than that at peak times). A significant part of the country has NO terrestrial broadband service at all. An even larger portion of the country has service with monthly usage caps. Granted, a cable company MIGHT not count Cloud DVR use against the cap, but it will still consume bandwidth. UHD will make this worse, since even the most optimistic estimates of HEVC leave UHD content twice as large as HD content. The CURRENT amount of video streaming going on is straining the internet...even a 50% increase will bring it to its knees.


Oh, for goodness sake, just stop. You're now correlating things with no basis in fact. Let's look at the real facts, shall we?

Let's start with the fact that part of why much of the country is underserved is because of the extreme distances and rural locations. I could care less how you would have "fixed" this "mess" you describe. But you know what? You still wouldn't have high speed broadband in Spotted Horse, Wyoming. Because no reasonable person or company would ever spend to invest there - and if you really think we ought to be having the federal government do it, I'm not surprised that we are disagreeing in general.

Now let's talk about copper - the fact that much of the country gets broadband from copper. Do you know why? Do you REALLY think it's because the US underinvested? Or perhaps, you might want to think about the fact that in many countries, reliable POTS did not exist, so they leapfrogged technology. They didn't build it twice - they built it once. But they did it decades later than we did.

Beyond that, you're also using the BS Susan Crawford ranking of the US. You might want to do a little more reading and understanding before simply eating the dog food thrown out there. For example, there are hugely significant errors and mistakes in that report - WHICH BTW is from a book that she makes money on. It's sure FAR from an unbiased scientific analysis. Don't believe me? OK, how about you take a look at what Forbes had to say about that ranking.... They utterly dismissed it.....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halsing...-turns-out-we-look-a-lot-like-danica-patrick/



Diana Collins said:


> You also dismiss the Verizon/Netflix dispute as "a business issue." Well, all of the people involved in getting content from a stage or set to your TV or mobile device are part of a business. Businesses exist to make money and they don't take on expenditures without a very high probability of a return on the investment. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, there are a whole lot of businesses that will have to spend money to support any significant increase in broadband traffic, and only a few of them have a reasonable expectation that the ROI will be acceptable. If it were not so, we would ALL have 100 Mbit/sec symmetric service already.


Yes, that's right. Businesses exist to make money. They make money by delivering products and services the consumers value at a price point. Frankly, this last paragraph of yours to me completely contradicts what you've said in the paragraphs before it. You have no idea if we would or would not have 100Mbit service- it's simply another assumption you're trying to make that I can find no facts to support.

Let's be clear. I am NOT taking a position that the broadband policy in the US is great. I was frankly unhappy when the FCC Chairman took the position that Broadband was excluded from governance by many parts of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I am NOT a fan of Verizon, Comcast, or any of the MSOs. The "Opinions" I'm taking are not a reflection of what I'd "Like" to see happen. In terms of Internet capacity to support VoD and cloud based services, I would again recommend you take a harder look at the facts. In fact, for a number of reasons while both traffic growth and capacity investment continue to occur, the RATE of growth has slowed since 2011.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> That is likely true for TWC - in this area they still have analog basic cable, I have friends who's second & third TVs are still old CRTs and they get a good number of channels with just a cable hook up. However it is a capacity problem for Frontier DSL.


One thing we ought to put on the table is the fact that no matter what happens, due to geography and just plain dollars and cents (which really boils down to subscriber density per linear mile) there will always be areas that are underserved. No matter what happens, that's always going to be an issue. Unfortunately, it's a much bigger issue because the market always moves in the direction that the majority of markets dictate. What this means is that the viewing habits, etc of the majority will almost certainly create real problems for those in underserved areas. This is not something I like. However it's the nature of the beast. Let's take an extreme example. If somebody decides (or has no choice) but to live in a beautiful mountain homestead, they get the benefit of waking up every day to wonderful vistas out their door, and no unwanted traffic at the end of their driveway. On the other hand, they're not going to get FiOS or likely any other fiber solution that is FttH or even FttC. The fact that this hypothetical person can't get fast broadband like everyone else will not stop the market from embracing VoD at an ever increasing rate. They don't even know that person exists. If you have DSL today, you're already at a competitive disadvantage. It's last century technology. If it's all you can get, that's very unfortunate. It will not stop the market from moving.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> One thing we ought to put on the table is the fact that no matter what happens, due to geography and just plain dollars and cents (which really boils down to subscriber density per linear mile) there will always be areas that are underserved. No matter what happens, that's always going to be an issue. Unfortunately, it's a much bigger issue because the market always moves in the direction that the majority of markets dictate. What this means is that the viewing habits, etc of the majority will almost certainly create real problems for those in underserved areas. This is not something I like. However it's the nature of the beast. Let's take an extreme example. If somebody decides (or has no choice) but to live in a beautiful mountain homestead, they get the benefit of waking up every day to wonderful vistas out their door, and no unwanted traffic at the end of their driveway. On the other hand, they're not going to get FiOS or likely any other fiber solution that is FttH or even FttC. The fact that this hypothetical person can't get fast broadband like everyone else will not stop the market from embracing VoD at an ever increasing rate. They don't even know that person exists. If you have DSL today, you're already at a competitive disadvantage. It's last century technology. If it's all you can get, that's very unfortunate. It will not stop the market from moving.


Yes basically I am SOL and will never have a higher speed wired option. I am about 0.75 miles from the end of the TWC line, it's not like I am the only one if I draw 0.75 mile a cycle around my house there are about 35 houses all stuck with having to use Frontier DSL and there are lots of places around here where the TWC lines end before the houses it is rural but we are still in the Rochester MSA so it is not deep rural. However I could live with 6Mbps if Frontier could actually maintain that speed actually I know my line is capable of higher speeds than that as during one of Frontiers test of the line it was running at 8-9 Mbps until they throttled it back. My friends with TWC live in a high end suburb attached to the City of Rochester NY, TWC just doesn't have any real competition so they are not forced to improve.


----------



## Diana Collins

We can debate the technological and capacity issues forever but let's not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about cable companies...many of which still broadcast ANALOG SD along with digital SD and HD. Perhaps the world that wmhjr describes will come to be. But personally, at 59 years of age, I doubt I'll ever have to worry about it.

The one point I have not seen recognized is demographics. We are now at the point that the boomer echo effect is in play. My children don't have cable TV subscriptions...because they are single, are rarely home, and they use our subscription via Slingboxes. When this generation settles down and has children of their own (which they tend to do at later ages than we did) I think a lot of these trends will shift again.


----------



## wmhjr

Diana Collins said:


> We can debate the technological and capacity issues forever but let's not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about cable companies...many of which still broadcast ANALOG SD along with digital SD and HD. Perhaps the world that wmhjr describes will come to be. But personally, at 59 years of age, I doubt I'll ever have to worry about it.
> 
> The one point I have not seen recognized is demographics. We are now at the point that the boomer echo effect is in play. My children don't have cable TV subscriptions...because they are single, are rarely home, and they use our subscription via Slingboxes. When this generation settles down and has children of their own (which they tend to do at later ages than we did) I think a lot of these trends will shift again.


And Diana, we continue to disagree. I appreciate your viewpoint here, but let's talk about it. I fully recognize that this post at least is really more opinion or guess than fact, but we'll see.

One of the reasons that many cable providers (MSOs) still provide analog is - because they AGREED to. Of more accurately, because they were forced to by the FCC through 2012. Not because they necessarily wanted to. To the contrary, it is completely to the MSO's benefit to convert to total digital. Particularly with non-IP based systems, by doing so they recover bandwidth. Being of the same general age that Diana is, I'm under no confusion about the world we live in. I am extremely confident that should both Diana and I live through normal life expectancies, we will in fact experience exactly what I'm talking about.

Second, I think Diana grossly misconstrues demographics. She makes a claim that we've "ignored demographics". In fact, to the contrary. I've explicitly stated demographics. The difference is that we have a grossly different perception of them.

Diana believes that the "next" generation do not have cable subscriptions because they're still living with parents, don't have kids, and are using sling boxes to view from their parents subscription. She insinuates that somehow, the VoD, Streaming and IP delivery trend will reverse itself - or at least stop - when those "consumers" become older and have kids.

I could not possible disagree more. Fortunately for me, analysts and the entire telecommunications and advertising/marketing industries happen to take the same position that I do. I do NOT believe that the next generation is largely made up of kids living with their parents or using their parents cable subscriptions, and that they will all of the sudden decide to get cable when they have kids. I do NOT believe that there is any possible math formula that could possibly substantiate this given the fact that the number of cable-cutters - as measured by "unique homes" eliminating cable subscriptions has grown at a rate of 40%. Or, given the fact that at the same time, even with population growth, cable subscriptions either have - or are already forecast (even by providers) to decline. Or, given the fact that our "youth" or the "next generation" has already demonstrated their preferences across all forms of media consumption. I have never ever read any publication, research paper, marketing or industry analysis, that even remotely suggests that we're going to see a swing back. To the contrary - the entire world continues to move in one direction - and in an every increasing velocity.

That being said, everyone has an opinion. Diana, yours seems to be not only in conflict with mine, but also in conflict with Tivos own official and public statements in their own financial releases, as well as industry metrics. But it's an opinion, and we'll never know. There could certainly be some other disruptive force that might change the direction of anything, that we cannot see at this point. Anything is possible. But possible is far different from Probable.

At this time, I honestly believe that there is zero doubt that we will never, ever, revert back to a heavier concentration on "traditional" tv or "traditional PayTV/Cable/etc" I believe Cablecard is dead, simply not having been buried. It will not disappear overnight. It will however, see degraded support and likely higher rental fees at some point until it finally does disappear (just like Tivo says in their risk statement, BTW). I believe it's very possible that increasing VoD services will reduce the dependency, and therefore, the marketability of a DVR to begin with, and that it's very possible that a Cloud based DVR service would further degrade a feasible market for a host based traditional unit such as the Tivo. I don't see this happening all at once, or this year, or next year. I don't know the timeline. Can't even really guess. I do not believe "linear" or really "live" TV will ever completely go away. I do believe that it will continue to be de-emphasized, and that other means to deliver live content will become more common. I think all of these "guesses" are pretty rational, based on current facts and data, not a "sky is falling" scenario, but just a common sense view disregarding my own personal opinion about how much I like Tivo.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> ...
> At this time, I honestly believe that there is zero doubt that we will never, ever, revert back to a heavier concentration on "traditional" tv or "traditional PayTV/Cable/etc" I believe Cablecard is dead, simply not having been buried. It will not disappear overnight. It will however, see degraded support and likely higher rental fees at some point until it finally does disappear (just like Tivo says in their risk statement, BTW). I believe it's very possible that increasing VoD services will reduce the dependency, and therefore, the marketability of a DVR to begin with, and that it's very possible that a Cloud based DVR service would further degrade a feasible market for a host based traditional unit such as the Tivo. I don't see this happening all at once, or this year, or next year. I don't know the timeline. Can't even really guess. I do not believe "linear" or really "live" TV will ever completely go away. I do believe that it will continue to be de-emphasized, and that other means to deliver live content will become more common. I think all of these "guesses" are pretty rational, based on current facts and data, not a "sky is falling" scenario, but just a common sense view disregarding my own personal opinion about how much I like Tivo.


I think I will give my 2cent opinion on some of these opinions. 
CableCard support is a function of government regulation. They are and only will be support as well as the cable companies are forced too support them.
VOD does reduce the need for a DVR for many people.
I agree "linear" or "live" TV will likely out last us (I am also that upper 50s zone).
The percentage of households with traditional pay TV (cable/sat style) may have peaked. I think it is north of 90% and will likely trend down as more options become available. 
I also happen to see direct OTA usage as trending up. I do agree with Diana as young people start forming families and become more financial independent they are going to want to watch more transitional style TV (in a living room on a big flat screen TV). What is unknown is where they are going to want to get that TV from. My guess is they will continue with streaming sources but also find OTA appealing once they have nice homes in the suburbs. If they end up subbing to traditional cable/sat is a toss up for me. 
Given TiVo's small DVR footprint it is questionable if any of the above will affect them. I see a potential positive if they can provide the streaming people want with OTA, a positive with smaller cable companies who need something to be competitive, and a neutral to negative with direct Cable users. Where I see the bigger DVR change happening is with the people who rent ones from their cable company - that percentage will likely drop.


----------



## wmhjr

Bottom line: Digital OTA is too "niche" due to signal propagation to ever become mainstream in the future. I would be willing to be big time that this will simply not happen - period. It will likely never disappear, but OTA will continue to decline and will remain a niche population until the end of time.

I simply can't understand the logic of item #6 above. But everyone has a right to an opinion.


----------



## Dan203

Cord cutting is trending up, slightly. But most of those people aren't switching completely to OTA they are supplementing their viewing with VOD services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc... 

I expect that cable companies will be jumping on this bandwagon soon. They will offer a service, akin to the new one from Dish, which is a streaming/VOD service that anyone, even those outside their networks, can subscribe to. If they can offer the right combination of content then having a full boat linear cable package will be unnecessary for a lot of people. 

My predication is that the coax coming into your home will eventually just become a dumb pipe to the internet. The able companies will break apart into ISPs and content aggregators. The content side will have OTT services that anyone can access anywhere in the country. Although this is probably decades away.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> Bottom line: Digital OTA is too "niche" due to signal propagation to ever become mainstream in the future. I would be willing to be big time that this will simply not happen - period. It will likely never disappear, but OTA will continue to decline and will remain a niche population until the end of time.
> 
> I simply can't understand the logic of item #6 above. But everyone has a right to an opinion.


OTA may likely remain a niche market. But that niche market already has a large user base than TiVo and usage isn't declining, it is increasing.

Not sure what you mean by "signal propagation", if you mean some people will have reception issue - well sure. But once you do a correct antenna setup it is at least as reliable as cable or satellite. For people with line of site up to 20ish or so miles from towers (the cities, suburbs & the majority of households) they will likely only need a low cost indoor antenna. I am 35 miles from the towers and with a Roamio I have no issues with a roof top antenna (not so much with my Premiere) and my sister who is 20 miles from the same towers gets all the same channels with a simple indoor antenna. And Yes I know there will be a certain % of people who live in areas that OTA just doesn't work- just like I live in a cable free area. However the vast majority of people will be living in areas where OTA does work.

Right now the main OTA networks (ABC, CBS, CW, FOX, NBC & PBS) make up the majority of prime time viewership and are where the majority of people watch there local and national news. Yes most people watch these networks via cable or satellite, however when a person doesn't have cable/satellite they can either pick up some (not all) of this programing via mostly paid streaming services or they can just setup an antenna. Do you really think when younger people start setting up households and are deciding where to get this content from that if they don't decide to sub to cable/sat that they are not smart enough to setup an antenna? There are several companies betting on people using OTA and wanting OTA DVRs (channel master, simple TV, Tablo, TiVo, plus HTPCs and others) which means OTA users have more DVR choices than cable or Satellite - just saying they must think there is a market.

Regarding my Statement #6 - my thoughts are, cable user who own their own TiVo are a very small niche market, they are different than most people and will likely to want to retain the control and functionality they have now, so I expect while normal users will be willing to give up their cable DVRs for VOD or maybe a cloud DVR, TiVo owners will be the ones wanting to retain what they have now with a TiVo DVR (and of course if they are TiVo OTA users they really don't have a choice if they want to retain the functions of a DVR without paying for several streaming services). For TiVo's cable partners, in the US, for the most part they are small cable companies that need TiVo to compete with Satellite or another local cable company the only reason I would see a major reduction in TiVo subs via these cable companies is if the cable company was losing subs or if they went to a TiVo cloud DVR solution.


----------



## atmuscarella

Dan203 said:


> Cord cutting is trending up, slightly. But most of those people aren't switching completely to OTA they are supplementing their viewing with VOD services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc...
> 
> I expect that cable companies will be jumping on this bandwagon soon. They will offer a service, akin to the new one from Dish, which is a streaming/VOD service that anyone, even those outside their networks, can subscribe to. If they can offer the right combination of content then having a full boat linear cable package will be unnecessary for a lot of people.
> 
> My predication is that the coax coming into your home will eventually just become a dumb pipe to the internet. The able companies will break apart into ISPs and content aggregators. The content side will have OTT services that anyone can access anywhere in the country. Although this is probably decades away.


I agree with all of this. In fact I wish the government would get involved regulate the whole system and provide incentives to make it happen faster - I am betting we would all be better off.


----------



## Dan203

It would actually make them compete. If we could choose cable providers based on what they offered, rather then where we lived, then they'd actually have to compete and prices might actually come down. Although by the time is happens consolidation may make it so there is only 3-4 companies left to compete.


----------



## atmuscarella

Dan203 said:


> It would actually make them compete. If we could choose cable providers based on what they offered, rather then where we lived, then they'd actually have to compete and prices might actually come down. Although by the time is happens consolidation may make it so there is only 3-4 companies left to compete.


I would be good with competition and/or a highly regulated monopoly. The reality is we only need 2 wires running to our homes, a copper one bring electricity and a fiber optic cable bring everything else. While I believe competition providers better/more innovation over regulations if you break the delivery of service apart from providing the infrastructure to delivery those services, I am not certain how much innovation is need in maintaining & improving the infrastructure over time. I am beginning to believe we would be better off with just one infrastructure company and let competition be between companies providing the service & electricity being delivered by the infrastructure company.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> OTA may likely remain a niche market. But that niche market already has a large user base than TiVo and usage isn't declining, it is increasing.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "signal propagation", if you mean some people will have reception issue - well sure. But once you do a correct antenna setup it is at least as reliable as cable or satellite........ However the vast majority of people will be living in areas where OTA does work.


Before I have time to respond to the remainder of your post let me say that I totally, completely and fundamentally disagree 100% with what I've quoted from you above. That is utter BS. Sorry to be so blunt but the part I bolded in particular - BS. And the point that "the vast majority" - again.

Before we go further, I would ask you to provide some semblance of actual data to support your statements. I have provided links, metrics, and data supporting my perspective. If we're going to have a fact based discussion where it's OK to disagree, we need to start with facts rather than fantasy.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> Cord cutting is trending up, slightly. But most of those people aren't switching completely to OTA they are supplementing their viewing with VOD services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc...
> 
> .


Actually Dan, cord cutting is trending up significantly. I'd call a 40% increase (not my numbers, but actual market research data) more than slightly. And frankly, there is almost no discussion of OTA being part of their solution.

I'll continue to look but I'm having difficulty finding any research showing a trend of cord-cutting either stagnating, or of cord cutting moving to depend on OTA.

Until somebody can provide some data showing a growth in OTA or some data showing cord cutters are doing so in large part by adopting OTA, I'm going to continue believing that a due to the difficulty in delivering digital signals vs analog (all or nothing, for lack of a better way to describe it) will forever eliminate OTA as a major primary means of consumption. That doesn't even remotely get into the disparity between what the world feels people are consuming, and what some folks here think....

It is a good discussion. Frankly, I'm amazed at some of the directions people are coming from and that is good education for me at least.


----------



## Dan203

OTA is not growing. It's been stagnant at around 20% penetration for many in all the data I've seen. And that's people who use OTA in some form with overlap with cable/DSS users .

I think the quality of OTA is going to decline so much in the coming years that that number is going to start dropping fast. I think the big networks are going to start to transition their popular programming to pay TV services and eventually OTA will be used to broadcast nothing but syndicated programs and news. The networks are going to follow the money, and if their ratings continue to decline advertising revenue is also going to decline and they're going to find another source of income. Right now they're balancing it via retransmission fees, but that can only go so high.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> Before I have time to respond to the remainder of your post let me say that I totally, completely and fundamentally disagree 100% with what I've quoted from you above. That is utter BS. Sorry to be so blunt but the part I bolded in particular - BS. And the point that "the vast majority" - again.
> 
> Before we go further, I would ask you to provide some semblance of actual data to support your statements. I have provided links, metrics, and data supporting my perspective. If we're going to have a fact based discussion where it's OK to disagree, we need to start with facts rather than fantasy.


What major metro area do you know of that doesn't have local stations with local broadcast towers? Last time I look that was where most people lived. What data do you have that shows that the vast majority of people don't live in an area with OTA broadcasts?


----------



## wmhjr

Dan,

Completely agree. In fact, here's a pretty good paper from CEA published just a handful of months ago.

http://www.ce.org/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2014/OTA-Study_060514.aspx

Some key points:

1) By the time we're reading this, more people are getting content from the internet/IP than from OTA. IP was about to surprass OTA when the data was collected for this analysis. In 1986 more than half of the homes in US relied on strictly OTA for content. Today that number is a total of 6% and dropping continuously.

2) There has been significant increases in IP delivered (i.e., non cable/pay tv) which again - continues to increase. "Additionally, the study shows the percentage of U.S. TV households consuming at least some TV programming via the Internet has nearly doubled. Almost half of U.S. TV households (45 percent) received at least some television programming from the Internet in the last year, a 17 point increase from the previous year (28 percent)."

3) ""In the next year, we expect the number of U.S. households relying exclusively on the Internet for TV programming to equal or surpass the total of those relying only on antennas," said Shapiro. "As consumers continue to turn to other devices and services for TV programming - devices that need wireless spectrum to deliver the content we want anytime, anywhere - it's clear that the free, public spectrum given to broadcasters could be put to much better use."" This is a clear indication of the direction viewers are demanding, and where the market will be forced to go.

Here are some other key numbers that force the acceptance that viewing habits and consumptions patterns will not remain even remotely the same.

· 46 percent of U.S. TV user households watched video on either a laptop, notebook or netbook (up from 38 percent in 2013)

· 43 percent watched video on a smartphone (up from 33 percent in 2013) - Diana, this is your next generation. The demographics we are talking about.

· 35 percent watched video on a tablet (up from 26 percent in 2013) And here is more evidence of that demographic.

· 34 percent watched video on a desktop computer (up from 30 percent in 2013)

In terms of overall consumption, Dan is correct. By all measures, "Total" OTA viewership (meaning those who may use OTA in addition to other sources accounts for another 4% of the population. IOW, TVB for example states that a total of 10% of viewers get their content from OTA, broken down to 4% getting cable, IP delivered, etc PLUS OTA and 6% using OTA for their primary content delivery (with that 6% number in a constant decline since the issue has been measured).


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> What major metro area do you know of that doesn't have local stations with local broadcast towers? Last time I look that was where most people lived. What data do you have that shows that the vast majority of people don't live in an area with OTA broadcasts?


I have all kinds of data. I've even provided tons of links. However, I didn't make the claim - you did.

You've got some major major major holes in your logic. To start with, it takes far more than "local broadcast towers" to get OTA digital (since now that's all there is) reception.

So first, let's start with those metro areas that are in hilly terrain. Not everybody lives in Indiana or the flat sections of Ohio. MANY people live where there are constant elevation changes. In the area where I'm typing right now, OTA is horrific. And it's a well populated area. I have a Channelmaster antenna on my roof for example. If it were still light out, I'd take a pic just for kicks. It borders on useless. There are these funny things called HILLS here. I'd have to have a boom about 65 feet tall (which, btw would be impossible to permit) to even try and get reception on more than MAYBE 2 channels. I am not a unique snowflake That issue faces probably 50% of this general area. You just knocked out major sections of the country. I live less than 12 miles from downtown Pgh. Now the city limits of Pgh have not expanded like many other cities. Were it to be measured in the same exact way, it would be the 9th largest city in the US. It's not a huge city. But I think that's big enough to qualify for a "metro area", don't you?

How about in any mountain area if you're on the back side of the mountain - not even in the valley? Nope. Won't work.

The reason I pushed back so hard on your statement is because, as mentioned, you never seen to provide any basis for statements. You made a statement about how OTA *is at least as reliable * if you do a correct antenna setup. Please provide some data to support that statement.

You also stated that OTA was growing. It is not. I have in fact provided direct data that contradicts this. I'm trying to figure out if you're just posting opinions as fact - or if there is some set of data out there that we have not seen. Maybe there is. Maybe we're missing something. But if I am for example, so are industry analysts, white papers, data collections.....

Our conclusions should be based on real data and facts. And our conclusions shouldn't be weighted by what "we do" today. Today I'm a Tivo customer in a big way. Multiple Roamio Pros, now 4 minis, Premier, still an HD. I'm also a FiOS customer. I used to be Comcast, and before that used to be Dishnet. I have always played with OTA - until about 5 yrs ago when I just plain gave up. My opinion of where we'll end up results in me doing very little of what I do today.


----------



## Arcady

Where the hell is Pgh?


----------



## wmhjr

Arcady said:


> Where the hell is Pgh?


That's easy. As you navigate up the levels from the denizens of H3ll (Philly) through the levels of Dante's Inferno (the PA Turnpike) you end up in Heaven (Pgh)


----------



## Arcady

Oh, well apparently I live in hell (Philly) and I get like 20 OTA channels on a set-top antenna without even aiming it.

I still don't know what Pgh stands for.


----------



## wmhjr

I seriously thought you were being sarcastic. Pgh is the contraction for Pittsburgh. How long have you lived in Philly? Pgh is a pretty common way to describe pittsburgh, just like NYC is for New York City, and plenty of other places.

I'm sure you do get a bunch of OTA in Philly. Look at the elevation around Philly.

http://www.floodmap.net/Elevation/ElevationMap/?gi=4560349

Philly as flat as a pancake compared to the other end of the state. Or NOVA. Or plenty of other places.

Nobody said there aren't many places that great OTA reception. Do you consider where you live to be hilly terrain?


----------



## Arcady

There are lots of hills and obstacles, but I'm only 6 miles from the towers, which are all in one direction. In any case, even though the channels all work, I only have an antenna connected to one TV in case of emergency. We no longer own a TiVo that can even use OTA. It's Comcast, Netflix, Amazon, VUDU and BitTorrent in this house, plus a healthy selection of Blu-Ray and DVD.

Oh and I never heard anyone refer to Pittburg as Pgh. When I book a plane ticket, the airport code is PIT. Seems appropriate.


----------



## trip1eX

This thread feels like 5 pages of hot air.

Anyone not think cablecard is being replaced and that internet tv options are increasing?


----------



## Pacomartin

trip1eX said:


> Anyone not think cablecard is being replaced and that internet tv options are increasing?


I think that everyone believes that in 25 years there will be no cableCARD and much of TV will be Internet Protocol.

But beyond that I would say nothing is certain. There is a huge installed base of MVPD equipment that use cableCARD. These cards could function for decades. Even if the MVPD want to develop in a different direction, they could keep thing proprietary, and still have enough cableCARD to feed outside contractors. Naturally the outsiders will push to get in on the new standards, but the MVPD may be able to use the cableCARD to satisfy regulators.

If that sounds like hot air, then observe how much regulation has changed to protect the MVPD's . Only 5 years ago it would have been unthinkable that the MVPD could encrypt the broadcast stations. It defeats the entire purpose of requiring a standardized QAM system (a requirement which the Fcc established only about 8-9 years ago).


----------



## Pacomartin

wmhjr said:


> I'm sure you do get a bunch of OTA in Philly. Look at the elevation around Philly.


Philadelphia has 6.3% of households that use OTA as their primary source, while Pittsburgh has 5.6% .Philadelphia DMA is bigger than Houston DMA , but Houston has twice as many homes that use OTA as their primary source.

Disney used Low band VHF (Channels #2-#6) for their OTA transmission for ABC Philadelphia. Less than 2% of the stations in the entire USA use Low Band VHF and they are mostly in wide open spaces like Montana where 30' outside antennas are common. Britain abolished VHF entirely after going digital. Thousands of homes in Philly lost reception when the digital transition occurred. Disney essentially didn't care, as the cost of using another UHF channel would have been prohibitive given the small percentages.


----------



## Arcady

When I drive around west Philly, I see hundreds of DirecTV and Dish installations. Sometimes I see 30 or more satellite dishes on one building. They look like mushrooms. The place I moved into had one screwed into the balcony. It was an old SD dish, like 90% of the ones I see in the neighborhood. I removed it and put it out with the trash. It was taken before the trash was picked up.

And we have both FIOS and Comcast as options. I'm not sure why so many have satellite in the area. I see almost no external OTA antennas.


----------



## Dan203

Here I can get ABC, NBC, CBS and The WB with an indoor antenna. If I move it I can pick up Fox and if I move it to another position I can get PBS. There are a few other low power or sub channels, mostly spanish language or weather, that come in at various positions as well. If you want to pick up all the stations at once you need a roof/attic antenna

I'm sure bigger cities get more stations, but quantity isn't everything. Other then the 6 I mentioned I can't imagine there is much else worth watching.


----------



## wmhjr

Pacomartin said:


> Philadelphia has 6.3% of households that use OTA as their primary source, while Pittsburgh has 5.6% .Philadelphia DMA is bigger than Houston DMA , but Houston has twice as many homes that use OTA as their primary source.
> 
> Disney used Low band VHF (Channels #2-#6) for their OTA transmission for ABC Philadelphia. Less than 2% of the stations in the entire USA use Low Band VHF and they are mostly in wide open spaces like Montana where 30' outside antennas are common. Britain abolished VHF entirely after going digital. Thousands of homes in Philly lost reception when the digital transition occurred. Disney essentially didn't care, as the cost of using another UHF channel would have been prohibitive given the small percentages.


Can you please provide your data source for this? I'm curious as to the percentages and how they are defining those markets.

That being said, I'd say that the above (assuming it's correct) substantiates that geography plays an enormous role in the viability of OTA. And that the numbers are VERY small - and growing smaller.


----------



## slowbiscuit

atmuscarella said:


> I would be good with competition and/or a highly regulated monopoly. The reality is we only need 2 wires running to our homes, a copper one bring electricity and a fiber optic cable bring everything else. While I believe competition providers better/more innovation over regulations if you break the delivery of service apart from providing the infrastructure to delivery those services, I am not certain how much innovation is need in maintaining & improving the infrastructure over time. I am beginning to believe we would be better off with just one infrastructure company and let competition be between companies providing the service & electricity being delivered by the infrastructure company.


Pretty well sums up what I said previously in this thread, and I think it will happen eventually. Congress and the FCC will be dragged by the public (kicking and screaming) into treating wired HSI like the utility that it should be, and TV/video will evolve to all-IP in parallel.


----------



## wmhjr

Pacomartin said:


> But beyond that I would say nothing is certain. There is a huge installed base of MVPD equipment that use cableCARD. These cards could function for decades. Even if the MVPD want to develop in a different direction, they could keep thing proprietary, and still have enough cableCARD to feed outside contractors. Naturally the outsiders will push to get in on the new standards, but the MVPD may be able to use the cableCARD to satisfy regulators.
> 
> If that sounds like hot air, then observe how much regulation has changed to protect the MVPD's . Only 5 years ago it would have been unthinkable that the MVPD could encrypt the broadcast stations. It defeats the entire purpose of requiring a standardized QAM system (a requirement which the Fcc established only about 8-9 years ago).


This is what I would disagree with. There is significant cost to maintaining the head end infrastructure that supports Cablecard, not even including the entire firmware/software integration process. And the more an MSO (or if you prefer to use the term MVPD) moves to an alternate means, the more expensive per unit that maintenance and support gets. Furthermore, since the regulators have already cleared the way to eliminate CableCard, I don't see any advantage for the MSOs to continue supporting them long term (meaning let's say 2 yrs beyond releasing the next solution). And if you think about it, read the July 2014 agreement between Tivo and Comcast. It pretty much spells out exactly what I'm saying. That document is referenced in the link on the OPs first post.

There was a huge installed base of non-CC equipment prior to the release of CC, and the MSOs moved pretty quickly - certainly in part due to regulation. However in that case, the shoe was on the other foot, and moving made it more likely that they would lose some number of device rentals. In this case, the faster they move, the more likely they'll regain some of those rentals. But the bigger issue is environmental simplicity. As a technology leader, I can offer first hand that NOBODY - repeat NOBODY - wants to operate in a "hybrid" or "mixed" environment. It exponentially increases costs across the board.

Further, I didn't think it was unthinkable 5 yrs ago that broadcast stations would be encrypted. I frankly thought it was very likely, and if you look you might even find a post about it on this very site.... Not sure if it's here but that idea was not alien. It was expected by many.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> Pretty well sums up what I said previously in this thread, and I think it will happen eventually. Congress and the FCC will be dragged by the public (kicking and screaming) into treating wired HSI like the utility that it should be, and TV/video will evolve to all-IP in parallel.


Anybody care to start a thread with a friendly bet? And observe it over time? It would be interesting to just track this and see. I frankly want no part of a "singular cable" into my home and no choice as to who provides it. But regardless of what I want, I simply do not believe it will happen.

Frankly, over time (and this time I'm speaking of beyond 10 yrs) I think it's likely that the fiber cable itself becomes obsolete and you may have no wire coming to your house. I find that more likely than what you're suggesting.


----------



## wmhjr

Arcady said:


> Oh and I never heard anyone refer to Pittburg as Pgh. When I book a plane ticket, the airport code is PIT. Seems appropriate.


Nice. However airport designators aren't what you usually call cities.

Do people refer to Orlando as saying, "Hey, I'm heading down to MCO to visit Mickey Mouse". Or, "Hey, did you see the CVG Bengals play in the Wild Card game?"

As a pilot I don't even use them other than when flying.

You never answered the question about how long you have lived in Philly? Or I should say, "how long have you lived in PHL?"


----------



## Arcady

I have lived here for 1.5 years. When I land on Fridays I always text my wife and say "landed in PHL." Since I fly every week, I pretty much use the airport codes. If I land at an airport, I'll send a message to my colleagues that says "anyone else in ATL?" or "who else is connecting thru ORD?" They seem to know what I'm talking about.

As far as CableCARD goes, I don't understand why people think they will just go away. There has to be some time given between an announcement and when they finally cut them off, and it will vary widely between markets, even with the same cable company. It will take years for the deployed CC-equipped MSO boxes to all get turned in. This will probably take longer than it took to go all-digital (which isn't even done nationally yet.) And the FCC is still going to want a retail solution of some kind, so there should still be TiVo boxes, probably using some kind of IP-based authorization with a built-in cable modem. Hopefully the Minis will continue to work with whatever newer TiVo boxes come out in the future, so all I have to replace is the main unit. (Or TiVo could make an external box that handles the new replacement for CC too.)


----------



## atmuscarella

slowbiscuit said:


> Pretty well sums up what I said previously in this thread, and I think it will happen eventually. Congress and the FCC will be dragged by the public (kicking and screaming) into treating wired HSI like the utility that it should be, and TV/video will evolve to all-IP in parallel.





wmhjr said:


> Anybody care to start a thread with a friendly bet? And observe it over time? It would be interesting to just track this and see. I frankly want no part of a "singular cable" into my home and no choice as to who provides it. But regardless of what I want, I simply do not believe it will happen.
> 
> Frankly, over time (and this time I'm speaking of beyond 10 yrs) I think it's likely that the fiber cable itself becomes obsolete and you may have no wire coming to your house. I find that more likely than what you're suggesting.


First you do realize that the way you have re-framed slowbiscuit's statement indicates he meant something he didn't. Second you do understand that we are talking about a solution that gives consumers much more choice not less. Correct? And third how many cables do you have providing Internet/cable service into your house now? I understand some people have of a choice of 2, but most only have 1, and some have none.

There is one thing we do agree on the chances of it happening are somewhere between none and none. Even if 95% of the population wanted Internet access treated as a utility and regulated to require the ISPs to provide open and guaranteed access to all, congress would still vote the way the money wanted them too.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> First you do realize that the way you have re-framed slowbiscuit's statement indicates he meant something he didn't. Second you do understand that we are talking about a solution that gives consumers much more choice not less. Correct? And third how many cables do you have providing Internet/cable service into your house now? I understand some people have of a choice of 2, but most only have 1, and some have none.
> 
> There is one thing we do agree on the chances of it happening are somewhere between none and none. Even if 95% of the population wanted Internet access treated as a utility and regulated to require the ISPs to provide open and guaranteed access to all, congress would still vote the way the money wanted them too.


Please stop. I in no way re-framed any statement anyone made.

Second, I could care less about whether a solution would or would not give customers much more choice. That even assumes your description that it would is accurate, which I do not agree with. This is about what is likely to happen. Not whether it's good or bad.

Third, many people have a choice of more than 2. Many have a choice of 2. And yes, some have none. So?

The big difference between your statements and mine are that yours seem to be clearly focused on what you "want" to happen. Mine are what things "would likely" happen. Yes, I've stated my opinion as to whether I would like it or not. However - very explicitly I've stated I think things will happen that I DON'T want to happen.


----------



## wmhjr

Arcady said:


> I have lived here for 1.5 years. When I land on Fridays I always text my wife and say "landed in PHL." Since I fly every week, I pretty much use the airport codes. If I land at an airport, I'll send a message to my colleagues that says "anyone else in ATL?" or "who else is connecting thru ORD?" They seem to know what I'm talking about.


That's what I thought. You haven't lived there that long. Suffice it to say, just type "Pgh" into a google search and see what happens. You'll get some responses about a stock ticker of "PGH" and you'll get a ton of responses about - Pittsburgh. No problem, it explains it. Pgh really is probably the most common acronym used for Pittsburgh. Given that you fly every week, I can understand that you use 3 digit airport codes. But you would be the exception to default to those codes IMHO.



Arcady said:


> As far as CableCARD goes, I don't understand why people think they will just go away. There has to be some time given between an announcement and when they finally cut them off, and it will vary widely between markets, even with the same cable company. It will take years for the deployed CC-equipped MSO boxes to all get turned in. This will probably take longer than it took to go all-digital (which isn't even done nationally yet.) And the FCC is still going to want a retail solution of some kind, so there should still be TiVo boxes, probably using some kind of IP-based authorization with a built-in cable modem. Hopefully the Minis will continue to work with whatever newer TiVo boxes come out in the future, so all I have to replace is the main unit. (Or TiVo could make an external box that handles the new replacement for CC too.)


It's simple to believe CableCard will just go away. Make no mistake. CableCard WILL go away. Of that I have not the slightest doubt whatsoever. The only question is when it will go away.

I don't know what you're basing the statement that you think it would actually take longer than the "digital" move. That makes no sense to me. I also don't understand what you're talking about when you talk about the FCC wanting a "retail solution" or a "built-in cable modem". Have you read the earlier posts which specifically talk about the legislation? I'm wondering if maybe you're just reading the later posts and not understanding that the FCC has already ruled that effectively, Cablecards are not required.


----------



## Arcady

I know CableCARDs are not required in MSO boxes, but they still have to support retail boxes somehow. They can't just decide to stop supplying CC for people who want to use a retail device like a TiVo.

What I mean by "built-in cable modem" is that TiVo could build a cable modem into the TiVo, have it talk to the headend, and authorize the box. As long as the cable companies go along with it or the FCC mandates it. There has to be a way for the customer to use his own equipment, whether with CC or some other method. At this point in time, there is no reason they can't do it without hardware from the provider. This solution would also do away with tuning adapters and all that mess, because the TiVo itself could talk to the headend and handle all of that.


----------



## Pacomartin

wmhjr said:


> Can you please provide your data source for this? I'm curious as to the percentages and how they are defining those markets.
> 
> That being said, I'd say that the above (assuming it's correct) substantiates that geography plays an enormous role in the viability of OTA. And that the numbers are VERY small - and growing smaller.



Source of numbers for 2014

I think I gave you the 2013 percentages. They change slightly from year to year
#4	Philadelphia	7.1%
#22	Pittsburgh	5.1%

The ranking and number of households in each DMA

The precise geography of each Direct Marketing Area is defined by Nielson Inc. The Fcc uses Nielsen's data. A DMA is very large and includes far more than the city and the nearby counties. They can easily cross state lines (NJ has no DMA but is divided between NYC and Philadelphia).

This map shows all PA counties and what DMA they belong to. Their are 6 DMA's largely in PA, and 5 nearby DMA's that poke into mostly rural PA counties. But the DMA's also go out of state so that Philadelphia includes southern NJ, and most of Delaware and parts of MD.









A Designated Marketing Area is not the same thing as a Metropolitan Statistical Area defined by Census Bureau. The ranking of the top 11 MSA defined by census is below, the second number is the rank of the DMA. The first three are the same, but then the order differs. Miami is #8 as census, but #16 ranked media market.

1 1	New York
2 2	Los Angeles
3 3	Chicago
4 5	Dallas-Fort Worth
5 10	Houston
6 4	Philadelphia
7 8	Washington -Baltimore
8 --	Miami-Fort Lauderdale
9 9	Atlanta
10 7	Boston
11 6	San Francisco


Lehigh Valley PA is larger than the Erie DMA and almost as large as Johnston DMA, but it is included in the Philadelphia DMA as having it's own ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX stations would interfere with Philadelphia stations. However, in many of the homes you cannot receive antenna signal even with a 30' antenna.

Lehigh Valley is about 10% of Philadelphia DMA, but it is a small part of the reason that Philadelphia is the 5th highest DMA by wired cable behind Providence, NYC, Honolulu, and Boston .

Philadelphia is the 4th largest DMA in the country and includes 2.95 million TV homes in PA, MD, NJ, and DE. Pittsburgh DMA is ranked #22 and includes 1.17 milllion homes. In comparison the census lists roughly 5 million households in Pennsylvania.

Houston at 18% is the largest OTA percentage of the top 10 DMAs. Of the 210 DMA *Pittsburgh is 8th lowest* by percent OTA. Fairbanks Alaska at 27.1% is the highest percent OTA.

Alternative Delivery Systems (which is almost all satellite) are the biggest in the Southern DMAs.

===============
In the UK all TV watchers pay a $220 a year TV watching tax (even college students). But in exchange no digital channels use VHF frequencies so that indoor antennas work much better and there are over 1100 broadcast masks in the relatively tiny country. The end result is that *85%* of the households subscribe to antenna tv service whereas in the USA more than *85%* of TV households do *NOT* use antennas. However in the UK only 45% of households use antennas as their *only* source (percentages that dwarf even Fairbanks Alaska).

British English usually refers to OTA stations as "terrestrial" stations. The standard for digital broadcast is called FreeView and is more comprehensive than the standard put out by the *A*dvanced *T*elevision *S*ystems *C*ommittee, Inc. in the United States.


----------



## wmhjr

Arcady said:


> I know CableCARDs are not required in MSO boxes, but they still have to support retail boxes somehow. They can't just decide to stop supplying CC for people who want to use a retail device like a TiVo.
> 
> What I mean by "built-in cable modem" is that TiVo could build a cable modem into the TiVo, have it talk to the headend, and authorize the box. As long as the cable companies go along with it or the FCC mandates it. There has to be a way for the customer to use his own equipment, whether with CC or some other method. At this point in time, there is no reason they can't do it without hardware from the provider. This solution would also do away with tuning adapters and all that mess, because the TiVo itself could talk to the headend and handle all of that.


Arcady, actually that's not true. They do not have to support retail boxes specifically, and they don't have to support cablecards. They can absolutely stop supplying CableCards according to the law at some yet to be determined point, and they will. What they will likely have to do is to provide some form of authentication and decryption strategy that would allow third parties some access. It does not in any way need to be similar to what exists today, and there is even some speculation based on proposed technical specifications that very little capabilities would be exposed to third parties.

Based on your second comment, I think you should go back and read from the beginning - a lot was covered with some very technical and legal background that might give you a better understanding of the issue. That's not a condescending comment or anything either. Dan203 did a nice job in researching part of some of the details behind one potential area, and there are links to the actual legislation, etc. Furthermore, you might want to take a look at even Tivos own financial disclosures, most specifically the December form 10-Q.


----------



## Arcady

You're saying the same exact thing as me, but trying to argue for some reason.


----------



## wmhjr

Arcady said:


> You're saying the same exact thing as me, but trying to argue for some reason.


Really, I'm not. I mean that - seriously. We are not saying the same thing at all.


----------



## Arcady

Actually you're right. Half of what you are saying is the same as me. The other half contradicts what you are saying.



wmhjr said:


> They do not have to support retail boxes





wmhjr said:


> What they will likely have to do is to provide some form of authentication and decryption strategy that would allow third parties some access.


----------



## aaronwt

I thought the cable card rules don't change until later this year? Until then the cable companies are still required to use cable cards in the new STBs that are deployed aren't they?


----------



## slowbiscuit

wmhjr said:


> I frankly want no part of a "singular cable" into my home and no choice as to who provides it.


LOL - most folks already have a single cable coming into their home, with no choice as to who provides it.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> LOL - most folks already have a single cable coming into their home, with no choice as to who provides it.


LOL, that's not what I meant, and that's not true either.

Most people have a CHOICE as to who's cable is coming into their home. That choice today could be: Dishnet, DirecTV, Verizon, Comcast, TWC, Charter, Frontier, and tons of other providers out there. Very few people have a choice of 1.


----------



## wmhjr

Arcady said:


> Actually you're right. Half of what you are saying is the same as me. The other half contradicts what you are saying.


No, Arcady. It's becoming more and more clear that you don't have a technical understanding, or you have not read any of the reference documentation, or you simply don't want to acknowledge it.

I am in no way contradicting myself. When I say they'll have to provide "some sort" of access, it doesn't mean access in the way you think of it today. I would suggest that you read the earlier discussion in this thread about the CVP-2 spec. Right now, you're making some pretty poor accusatory statements.

Specifically, it is possible that while some access will be provided through the CVP-2 spec, it could be restricted to exposing only specific UI attributes that would effectively prevent a Tivo or any other third party device from behaving in any way differently than their own device. It could easily restrict functionality.

I am not saying that is what WILL happen or that it is even what will PROBABLY happen. I simply recognized that it is in fact not required in any possible definition that they provide "access" that would allow "retail boxes" to do the things they do today. Not at this time. The repeal of the CableCard requirement does not put in place specifics as to what the replacement might be.

You can "guess" the FCC will do something. I can guess. Both of us can have our reasons. But until they do - you certainly can't depend on it. And frankly, my position is that this kind of service is to niche for customers to really care, that the overwhelming majority of the country has no idea what a cablecard is today, and there will not be as much pressure to force some "hardware" rule in the future.


----------



## Arcady

wmhjr said:


> you don't have a technical understanding


LOL. If you only knew.

Let's just agree to disagree. I see no point in arguing with you.


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> Arcady, actually that's not true. They do not have to support retail boxes specifically, and they don't have to support cablecards. They can absolutely stop supplying CableCards according to the law at some yet to be determined point, and they will.


Sorry, but you're wrong here. STELAR only removed one line from the original law. The one reffered to as the "integration ban" that required them to use the same technology mandated by the rest of the law in their own leased boxes. They are still required to support 3rd party devices. The law itself does not sprcifically reference CableCARDs, so the FCC is given some leaway in deciding what satisfies the law and could approve a sucessor to CableCARDs. However unless the entire law is repealed the cable companies are going to have to support some technology that allows 3rd party devices to access encrypted channels .

Check out this post.... I quote the exact verbage from STELAR and the orignal law.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10340571#post10340571


----------



## sbiller

aaronwt said:


> I thought the cable card rules don't change until later this year? Until then the cable companies are still required to use cable cards in the new STBs that are deployed aren't they?


Correct. The integration ban remains in effect until later this year with some exceptions. Charter, for example, has a waiver in place and they are already beginning to deploy their integrated security "world box".


----------



## Diana Collins

Arcady said:


> LOL. If you only knew.
> 
> Let's just agree to disagree. I see no point in arguing with you.


Welcome to the club.


----------



## slowbiscuit

wmhjr said:


> LOL, that's not what I meant, and that's not true either.
> 
> Most people have a CHOICE as to who's cable is coming into their home. That choice today could be: Dishnet, DirecTV, Verizon, Comcast, TWC, Charter, Frontier, and tons of other providers out there. Very few people have a choice of 1.


Oh good lord, now you've changed the definition of cable to suit whatever it is that you're arguing for. I'm out.


----------



## wmhjr

Arcady said:


> LOL. If you only knew.
> 
> Let's just agree to disagree. I see no point in arguing with you.


Good. We just agreed.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> Sorry, but you're wrong here. STELAR only removed one line from the original law. The one reffered to as the "integration ban" that required them to use the same technology mandated by the rest of the law in their own leased boxes. They are still required to support 3rd party devices. The law itself does not sprcifically reference CableCARDs, so the FCC is given some leaway in deciding what satisfies the law and could approve a sucessor to CableCARDs. However unless the entire law is repealed the cable companies are going to have to support some technology that allows 3rd party devices to access encrypted channels .
> 
> Check out this post.... I quote the exact verbage from STELAR and the orignal law.
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10340571#post10340571


Dan, I think we're agreeing here. They are still required to support 3rd party devices. However, the FCC has not specified what functions are required to be supported, unless I've missed something.

What I was referring to was the possibility that they open up integration allowing a UI to be deployed to a 3rd party box, or perhaps CVP-2 opens up function sets via the protocol, but that those function sets do not match for example what a current "Roamio" does today. So they could meet the FCC requirements by allowing 3rd party boxes to use the same feature/function that they ( the MSO) provides, but no more. In that case, somebody like Tivo could very easily manufacture a device, but why? The market for such a device would be infinitely small.

Also, and a lot more potential with this one - pricing on a per cablecard cost could increase. There is no true regulatory restraint in any of the legislation concerning cost. Again - Tivo themselves reference the STELAR change and the potential impact on per unit pricing - and support - in their own filings.

Again - not that it would happen - but that it could.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> Oh good lord, now you've changed the definition of cable to suit whatever it is that you're arguing for. I'm out.


I"m glad, but at least be honest. I did NOT say that these were all cable choices.

You seem to like to pick and choose depending on whether it suits your opinion, slowbiscuit. I don't see you arguing against other posts here bringing DBS into the picture - even with the explicit question about whether the FCC would include DBS in the "new technology" (whatever that ends up being) that supplants CableCard.

It's funny - I seem to be one of the odd guys out - that have referenced and acknowledged Tivos own statements (risk) in their own financial reports.

Pages 37 and 38 of Tivos Form 10-Q filed Dec 4, 2014 illustrate this risk very explicitly. Don't take my word for it. Take Tivos.


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> Dan, I think we're agreeing here. They are still required to support 3rd party devices. However, the FCC has not specified what functions are required to be supported, unless I've missed something.
> 
> What I was referring to was the possibility that they open up integration allowing a UI to be deployed to a 3rd party box, or perhaps CVP-2 opens up function sets via the protocol, but that those function sets do not match for example what a current "Roamio" does today. So they could meet the FCC requirements by allowing 3rd party boxes to use the same feature/function that they ( the MSO) provides, but no more. In that case, somebody like Tivo could very easily manufacture a device, but why? The market for such a device would be infinitely small.
> 
> Also, and a lot more potential with this one - pricing on a per cablecard cost could increase. There is no true regulatory restraint in any of the legislation concerning cost. Again - Tivo themselves reference the STELAR change and the potential impact on per unit pricing - and support - in their own filings.
> 
> Again - not that it would happen - but that it could.


The FCC is charged with maintaining all this. I don't see them allowing a standard that would be less functional for 3rd party devices then CableCARDs.

The closest they've come to allowing something other then CableCARDs is the waiver they granted to Charter that said that if they developed an "open" system and it was used in at least one device available at retail then they could stop issuing CableCARDs. However the main purpose of that waiver was to side step the integration ban. Now that the integration ban has been abolished they really have no incentive to develop something beyond CableCARD. Unless the FCC comes along and forces them to create a successor to CableCARDs. I'm guessing we'll be using CableCARDs in 3rd party devices for a long time to come.

I think the next big innovation will be CVP-2 bridges. Headless devices that have CableCARDs, or integrated security if leased from the MSO, that loan out their tuners to 3rd party devices. This is essentially what AllVid was purposed to be. If that really takes off then I could see the FCC allowing the MSOs to drop CableCARDs in favor of these types of devices. Although they would have to mandate some sort of minimum functionality that would allow devices like TiVo to continue to function as they do now. If the FCC leaves that part open then the MSOs could move most/all functionality into the RUI, then your 3rd party device would be nothing more then a dumb box used to display the MSOs RUI. If that were to happen I think TiVo would get out of the retail market, because they'd have no real business plan or competitive edge.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> The FCC is charged with maintaining all this. I don't see them allowing a standard that would be less functional for 3rd party devices then CableCARDs.
> 
> The closest they've come to allowing something other then CableCARDs is the waiver they granted to Charter that said that if they developed an "open" system and it was used in at least one device available at retail then they could stop issuing CableCARDs. However the main purpose of that waiver was to side step the integration ban. Now that the integration ban has been abolished they really have no incentive to develop something beyond CableCARD. Unless the FCC comes along and forces them to create a successor to CableCARDs. I'm guessing we'll be using CableCARDs in 3rd party devices for a long time to come.
> 
> I think the next big innovation will be CVP-2 bridges. Headless devices that have CableCARDs, or integrated security if leased from the MSO, that loan out their tuners to 3rd party devices. This is essentially what AllVid was purposed to be. If that really takes off then I could see the FCC allowing the MSOs to drop CableCARDs in favor of these types of devices. Although they would have to mandate some sort of minimum functionality that would allow devices like TiVo to continue to function as they do now. If the FCC leaves that part open then the MSOs could move most/all functionality into the RUI, then your 3rd party device would be nothing more then a dumb box used to display the MSOs RUI. If that were to happen I think TiVo would get out of the retail market, because they'd have no real business plan or competitive edge.


And Dan, your last para in particular is exactly what I was speaking of. Please note that I've never said it was definite or even most likely - but simply that it was possible that this could happen given the current trends.

Further, I see no possibility that the FCC will not drop the Cablecard requirement. IMHO, that's certain - and the only question is when. I can't fathom a world where the FCC mandates that the MSOs (actually, only the non-IP, non DBS MSOs to use a general description) would have to maintain management systems, service, support, and even a manufacturing pipeline for Cablecards particularly when the MSOs themselves will have been given approval to move away from them. I don't think there is really a precedent for something like that, and realistically as we move forward I see less and less support for something like that.

Which, again - is why I believe that Tivo included those risks in their filings. Keep in mind, all of this is a bit like reading crystal balls.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Comcast, TWC, Cox, CableLabs Among Backers Of VidiPath (CVP-2):

http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/dlna-also-wants-cablecard-successor-talks/386834

My question about CVP-2 is, where does a DVR play into the mix? Is it part of the spec that a 3rd party device can be a VidiPath gateway, or would 3rd party DVRs have to rely on MSO equipment for channel tuning?

As shown, the "clients" are all passive viewing devices.


----------



## Dan203

The host can be any device with video to serve up. In the beginning the host will be a DVR or cable box inside your home, so it will be akin to a TiVo and Mini setup. 3rd party DVRs, or even simple tuner boxes like the HDHomeRun, can also be hosts if they want by accessing your programming via a CableCARD. However the ultimate goal of the MSOs is to move the host functionality up to their head end and serving it up via the RUI functionality. 

That's where it gets tricky. If the host is moved up to the head end then how do DVRs play into the scheme? The spec has facilities for allowing a client to record a stream, even has a scheduling mechanism which I believe could be used to reserve a tuner for a specific block of time, but only if the host implements it. If the only access the host allows is via the RUI then there doesn't seem to be any way for the client device to record the streams. So if the MSOs don't offer an alternative method for accessing the streams outside of the RUI then it will basically become impossible to have a DVR box inside your home. And with them pushing toward cloud based DVRs/VOD they may not feel the need to expose such functionality unless compelled to do so by the FCC.


----------



## wmhjr

Dans last para is exactly what I was speaking about. And there is some reason to think this is at least possible.

Many many other consumer services are moving to "cloud delivered" service. Put away our Tivo centric view for a moment - remembering that I wouldn't like to lose the specific services that a Tivo currently provides any more than anyone else here. But let's look at this from the perspective of the general consumer, who honestly Tivo has not made huge inroads into with respect to Retail Tivo sales/subs.

What has happened to music? It's not just a move from vinyl to non-vinyl. It's a move more and more to cloud services. Pandora. Rhapsody. Amazon Prime. Even iTunes cloud services. 

How about data backup? Ten years ago, almost nobody would have considered it. Today it has become a standard. 

Photo storage? Same thing. 

Consumers want things fast, reliable, cheap, and easy. That can pretty much define a cloud service - with the caveat that you need a good connection. Now, let's say that connection is the same connection that you get your content from? Then if you lose the total connection - you also lost your ability to record anyway. You only lose your ability to "view" or "consume" those services during the outage. Certainly not a little thing - it's significant - but....

Delivering cloud based services removes the hardware failure component from the retail experience. It removes the relatively high power consumption of devices that are always buffering content such as traditional Tivo units. It removes the forced obselescence as a software solution as a service entitles users to the "current" version all the time. It is incredibly convenient and has a very very low up front cost. There are most certainly trade-offs. Every choice is effectively some sort of a compromise - unless you're one of the lucky people with unlimited resources. I'm sure not. 

I hope it does not trend that much in this direction, but IMHO given the continuing shift to non-linear viewing, the changing demographics and demands of the next generations, etc, I can see this as certainly being possible. Who knows how likely.


----------



## atmuscarella

Dan203 said:


> The host can be any device with video to serve up. In the beginning the host will be a DVR or cable box inside your home, so it will be akin to a TiVo and Mini setup. 3rd party DVRs, or even simple tuner boxes like the HDHomeRun, can also be hosts if they want by accessing your programming via a CableCARD. However the ultimate goal of the MSOs is to move the host functionality up to their head end and serving it up via the RUI functionality.
> 
> That's where it gets tricky. If the host is moved up to the head end then how do DVRs play into the scheme? The spec has facilities for allowing a client to record a stream, even has a scheduling mechanism which I believe could be used to reserve a tuner for a specific block of time, but only if the host implements it. If the only access the host allows is via the RUI then there doesn't seem to be any way for the client device to record the streams. So if the MSOs don't offer an alternative method for accessing the streams outside of the RUI then it will basically become impossible to have a DVR box inside your home. And with them pushing toward cloud based DVRs/VOD they may not feel the need to expose such functionality unless compelled to do so by the FCC.





wmhjr said:


> Dans last para is exactly what I was speaking about. And there is some reason to think this is at least possible.
> 
> Many many other consumer services are moving to "cloud delivered" service. Put away our Tivo centric view for a moment - remembering that I wouldn't like to lose the specific services that a Tivo currently provides any more than anyone else here. But let's look at this from the perspective of the general consumer, who honestly Tivo has not made huge inroads into with respect to Retail Tivo sales/subs.
> 
> What has happened to music? It's not just a move from vinyl to non-vinyl. It's a move more and more to cloud services. Pandora. Rhapsody. Amazon Prime. Even iTunes cloud services.
> 
> How about data backup? Ten years ago, almost nobody would have considered it. Today it has become a standard.
> 
> Photo storage? Same thing.
> 
> Consumers want things fast, reliable, cheap, and easy. That can pretty much define a cloud service - with the caveat that you need a good connection. Now, let's say that connection is the same connection that you get your content from? Then if you lose the total connection - you also lost your ability to record anyway. You only lose your ability to "view" or "consume" those services during the outage. Certainly not a little thing - it's significant - but....
> 
> Delivering cloud based services removes the hardware failure component from the retail experience. It removes the relatively high power consumption of devices that are always buffering content such as traditional Tivo units. It removes the forced obselescence as a software solution as a service entitles users to the "current" version all the time. It is incredibly convenient and has a very very low up front cost. There are most certainly trade-offs. Every choice is effectively some sort of a compromise - unless you're one of the lucky people with unlimited resources. I'm sure not.
> 
> I hope it does not trend that much in this direction, but IMHO given the continuing shift to non-linear viewing, the changing demographics and demands of the next generations, etc, I can see this as certainly being possible. Who knows how likely.


In all of the above the line that really matters is this one:

*... unless compelled to do so by the FCC. ...*​
The tech doesn't matter, what consumers want doesn't matter, the trends don't matter,* all that matters is what the FCC mandates*. If the FCC mandates cable continue to provide a solution that allows for third party independently functioning DVRs then they will. If the FCC drops that mandate then cable will do just like Satellite did and close off their systems.

So when we are predicating where things are going all we are doing is guessing what the FCC is going to do.

Here is a line I would like to comment on: 
"...Consumers want things fast, reliable, cheap, and easy. That *can* pretty much define a cloud service - with the caveat that you need a good connection. ..."​I highlighted "can". First without Replay & TiVo cable wouldn't even have DVRs. Given the crap that cable still puts out there it is pretty clear they still don't care much about them. To assume they are going to mystically do a cloud DVR service well if not forced to either by the FCC or third party competition is crazy. Without FCC mandates I find it unlikely that cable will find it advantageous to maintain or enhance the consumers control over their viewing experience.

I do agree this part: "Consumers want things fast, reliable, cheap, and easy"

However I think that is true for every service we want, with video what I think people want beyond the above is pretty simple and generally falls into the following: 

A way to find and learn about new video.
The ability to control their viewing experience which generally includes some/all of the following: 
The ability to watch any video whenever they want to.
The ability to watch any video wherever they want.
The ability to watch video on whatever device they want.
The ability to deal with commercials.

The ability to have all of the above at a price point they find acceptable. 
I really don't think many/most people care how the above happens.


----------



## wmhjr

I really don't disagree too much with your post, atmuscarella. Here is where I would disagree - I don't think it's that much off from where you are to be honest.

First of all, there are TONS of devices and/or services out there that would not exist today were it not for some other company. And yet, in many cases the company that developed the original technology is dead. And the service itself has morphed into something different. So the fact that Tivo itself created the entire time shifting market is meaningless to me - and I don't think the FCC will care in the slightest.

I also don't think there will/would be that much concern over the exact nature of the service - IF there were at least core components that could be made available via specific protocols. Specifically, by that I mean that I don't think the FCC will EVER step into a regulatory step that forces the maintenance of a service that allows the skipping of commercials as an example. And - for the record - I do believe that there is zero possibility of CableCard technology to stick around long term. That is admittedly my opinion but I'm pretty sold on that one. 

And remember - my comment was not that I predict what will absolutely happen or is even likely to happen. I was discussing a range of possibilities in response to statements that some feel could "never" happen. I'm saying the FCC could do anything, and the world has changed enough that for myself, I would not feel in any way comfortable basing a conclusion on something that the 1996 Telcom Act, STELA or STELAR has done, or any FCC administrative guidance beyond that. 

I was also recognizing the same exact risk that Tivo felt was real enough that they explicitly listed it in their December 4 10-Q filing. And was further recognizing the relative paltry retail Tivo market, and the fact that their real numbers are in MSO support. To me this is not about Tivo itself- it's about Tivo retail markets, and while we can't for sure say that the more recent news is totally bad, we certainly can't in any way find a description that is good.


----------



## mr.unnatural

Saw this article posted at The Missing Remote that should be of interest to cablecard users:

http://www.missingremote.com/news/2...xpanding-copy-freely-content-mythtv-users-rej

I'm not sure how or if this will impact Tivo users unless you have problems with the CCI flag not being identified properly. This may be of more interest to cablecard tuner users with HTPCs and non-WMC front ends.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> First of all, there are TONS of devices and/or services out there that would not exist today were it not for some other company. And yet, in many cases the company that developed the original technology is dead. And the service itself has morphed into something different. So the fact that Tivo itself created the entire time shifting market is meaningless to me - and I don't think the FCC will care in the slightest.
> 
> I also don't think there will/would be that much concern over the exact nature of the service - IF there were at least core components that could be made available via specific protocols. Specifically, by that I mean that I don't think the FCC will EVER step into a regulatory step that forces the maintenance of a service that allows the skipping of commercials as an example. And - for the record - I do believe that there is zero possibility of CableCard technology to stick around long term. That is admittedly my opinion but I'm pretty sold on that one.


There are a few things I would like to comment on that relate to the above. 
The basic ability to take an OTA or Cable signal and record it has been available to the general public for 35+ years (the ability to control ones owns viewing experience). When DVRs where first release they didn't actually provide all the functions a VCR did. There was no way to rent video and portability was reduced (it was easy to bring a VHS tape to another VCR). We are just now getting all the functions a VCR provided, with the addition of streaming services like Amazon & Vudu along with the ability to stream content from a DVR too other places. 
I agree completely that regardless of what happens to TiVo the company this basic ability to control ones own viewing experience started by the VCR will continue in some format. I also believe that the 35+ years of having the ability to control ones own viewing experience sets presidents, and any future tech replacing what we have now (DVRs) will need to provide similar functions and functionality. 
When looking at where this is going I believe the primary driver will be what the FCC does. My take here is that regulation of Pay TV, Internet Access (wired & wireless), & telephone (land line, cell, VOIP, & video communications) have become intertwined. The FCC seems interested in maintaining/increasing competition in all these areas (refusal to allow AT&T to buy T-mobile, refusal to allow Dish & Direct to combine, etc.). So far it appears FCC's view on equipment in general has been that choice of equipment fosters competition between other services, however their actions have not always followed that path (giving the sat companies exceptions). We are at an interesting point here, will the FCC be interested in the consumers ability to continue to control their own viewing experience? Specifically if cable goes to cloud based DVR services without a means for user hardware DVRs, will the FCC be interested in what that does to the consumers ability to control their own viewing experience? Will the FCC be interested in maintaining/increasing competition by assuring other pay TV providers can provide Cloud services over the Internet lines the cable companies primarily control? Will the FCC be interested in increasing competition by assuring content providers can provide their content directly to consumers (which again will require open access over cable companies Internet pipes)? 



wmhjr said:


> And remember - my comment was not that I predict what will absolutely happen or is even likely to happen. I was discussing a range of possibilities in response to statements that some feel could "never" happen. I'm saying the FCC could do anything, and the world has changed enough that for myself, I would not feel in any way comfortable basing a conclusion on something that the 1996 Telcom Act, STELA or STELAR has done, or any FCC administrative guidance beyond that.


We all have opinions, desired outcomes, and personal interpretations of actual facts. I am as guilty as the next guy of making statements that sound like a statement of fact that are nothing more than a statement of opinion - even if the intent was to make a statement of opinion. Add in the fact that we can not control how people take our posts and misunderstandings are certain to happen.



wmhjr said:


> I was also recognizing the same exact risk that Tivo felt was real enough that they explicitly listed it in their December 4 10-Q filing. And was further recognizing the relative paltry retail Tivo market, and the fact that their real numbers are in MSO support. To me this is not about Tivo itself- it's about Tivo retail markets, and while we can't for sure say that the more recent news is totally bad, we certainly can't in any way find a description that is good.


I think we all know that for TiVo to survive longer term they need to make wins in the MSO market. The OTA retail market is small and not likely to grow much, the cable retail market short term should be stable but is subject to what the FCC does longer term. But then there is also the very long shot that the FCC will require a software only solution that all pay TV providers have to use which would re-open the satellite market and bring in U-verse.


----------



## wmhjr

Without getting into a long discussion here, let me make this statement short.

I don't think it matters the tiniest bit about "35 yrs of precedent". The ONLY thing it means is that some of the most attractive and important feature/functions will be delivered somehow. 

That could be totally by SW delivered via cloud services. If you discount us Tivo people, I don't think the "public" in general or the FCC gives a hoot whatsoever about the "how". The public frankly may well prefer a solution that doesn't include hard drives that can fail or have finite storage limits. 

I'm not going to touch the "create competition" and "open internet pipes" comments because that's a very different topic, and you and I have very different views here. 

Again, we're agreeing (with respect to the subject of this thread) more than we disagree about. I continue to maintain several things.

1) CableCard is dead. The date it finally gets buried is TBD, and it's not tomorrow. But it's "somewhere in sight" IMHO. (meaning years, but not a LOT of years). 

2) In the interim, I predict a substantial increase in CableCard rental fees. Probably starting in 2 yrs I think. Just an opinion.

3) There will be replacement solutions.

4) The question is - will anybody beyond the MSOs decide to use them. Everybody thought Cablecard would take off - which is why back in '07, high end TVs had CC slots No more. No real CC devices other than Tivo, and other than MSOs. I think Tivo may well decide to just get out of retail altogether. I don't want them to. But I think from a business perspective, they probably should.


----------



## Dan203

The FCC rules currently require CableCARD rental fees to be "reasonable" with a recommended charge of <$5. They are not required to set the price under $5, but all of them do so as to not rock the boat. So I don't think we'll see a big spike in CC charges. However I do think we'll see a decline in support. They're already a PITA to install sometimes and with the end of the integration ban and the prospect of an alternative on the horizon I can't imagine they'll strive to make it any easier.


----------



## Joe3

There are viable entertainment alternatives that were not there just yesterday and growing. Therefore, if cable can't strive to make it any easier and they continue to make it harder, they will create more cord cutters than are measurable in time, hastening their much awaited demise by their own hand. There is a new generation that watched their parents get ripped off and wants nothing to do with cable. By the time cable greases the palm of Washington on their ever changing intercommunicates to protect their regimens, they will be the middle of this cord cutting generation and the backlash will put the finale nail in their coffin. No matter who they buy in Washington, they had better tread lightly. Their future is in the hands of the people who live on Main Street and have demonstrated they know how to cut the cord.


----------



## atmuscarella

Joe3 said:


> There are viable entertainment alternatives that were not there just yesterday and growing. Therefore, if cable can't strive to make it any easier and they continue to make it harder, they will create more cord cutters than are measurable in time, hastening their much awaited demise by their own hand. There is a new generation that watched their parents get ripped off and wants nothing to do with cable. By the time cable greases the palm of Washington on their ever changing intercommunicates to protect their regimens, they will be the middle of this cord cutting generation and the backlash will put the finale nail in their coffin. No matter who they buy in Washington, they had better tread lightly. Their future is in the hands of the people who live on Main Street and have demonstrated they know how to cut the cord.


I would say this is wishful thinking and at best premature. Where all of this goes is dependent on several FCC decisions. The first is net neutrality policy & rules which should be out in February, the second is the Comcast & TWC merger. If both go against consumers then Comcast will own the world - game over. If both go for consumers then all things are possible.


----------



## Dan203

Net neutrality is key. Eventually the coax going to your house is going to be a dumb pipe to the internet and your cable service is going to be an OTT app similar to Netflix or Hulu. Net neutrality is going to decide if that OTT cable app plays on an even playing field with the other options or if they can use their position as your only viable ISP to screw you into having to subscribe to their OTT app instead of the competition's.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Dan203 said:


> The FCC rules currently require CableCARD rental fees to be "reasonable" with a recommended charge of <$5. They are not required to set the price under $5, but all of them do so as to not rock the boat. So I don't think we'll see a big spike in CC charges. However I do think we'll see a decline in support. They're already a PITA to install sometimes and with the end of the integration ban and the prospect of an alternative on the horizon I can't imagine they'll strive to make it any easier.


Tell that to all of us Comcast customers that are already paying $7.45 a mo. for each extra card because of the ripoff outlet fee. Not as big a deal now with the Roamio, but still more than $5 a mo.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> Net neutrality is key. Eventually the coax going to your house is going to be a dumb pipe to the internet and your cable service is going to be an OTT app similar to Netflix or Hulu. Net neutrality is going to decide if that OTT cable app plays on an even playing field with the other options or if they can use their position as your only viable ISP to screw you into having to subscribe to their OTT app instead of the competition's.


I would not call it "Net Neutrality". I have very mixed feelings about this and absolutely hate the name "Net Neutrality". There is nothing "neutral" about any version of the suggestions proposed to date. I'll go so far as this....

I do think that over time, even the MSOs will deliver content though a "dumb pipe". Meaning, that no matter what else happens, if you have FiOS, there will be no "tuners" or "broadcast" in the way we think of it today. All services will be IP based, and the concept of "tuning" will become obsolete.

I think it's "Possible" that the FCC could do something that would or would not require companies such as Verizon to simply provide the "pipe" and then allow anyone to deliver your IP content in general. Frankly, I'm not sure that's what I want, as I see far far far too many issues resulting in this, and that people wanting it may not end up liking what they get. I believe costs will actually increase - not decrease, and service levels will be even more difficult to manage. More to the point, it will not do a single, solitary thing concerning improving the availability of high speed broadband to underserved communities whatsoever. It actually would likely make it less likely that underserved communities would get service, as there would be even less financial reason to invest.

I also know that the current FCC rules only "Recommend" but do not force pricing on cablecard, and I have absolutely no belief that once Cablecard is no longer the "primary" solution, that pricing will not increase. I am absolutely convinced that it will. I would guess - based on their own comments - that Tivo agrees.


----------



## lessd

slowbiscuit said:


> Tell that to all of us Comcast customers that are already paying $7.45 a mo. for each extra card because of the ripoff outlet fee. Not as big a deal now with the Roamio, but still more than $5 a mo.


For those unlucky (I say unlucky because I am charged only $1 per extra cable card and no extra AO fee) Comcast people the charge is $10/ outlet with a $2.50 cr for you own equipment. The first one is free with a $2.50 cr. But now in Hartford CT Comcast is charging Broadcast TV Fee of $3.25, a sneaky way to raise your cost even though I have a signed two year fix price contract. My fees taxes and other stuff (I own my own modem with phone setup) is a little over 10% of my bill.


----------



## Diana Collins

wmhjr said:


> ...More to the point, it will not do a single, solitary thing concerning improving the availability of high speed broadband to underserved communities whatsoever. It actually would likely make it less likely that underserved communities would get service, as there would be even less financial reason to invest...


I agree with you there...honestly, the only way to get service to under-served communities is for the government to either mandate it or subsidize it. Increased revenue opportunities may get some borderline areas service, but the cost-benefit ratio of wiring up truly rural areas with broadband is unlikely to become attractive for a long time. Wireless may be a more likely service type, but in truly rural areas you won't have many users per tower so the cost per customer is still much higher than for more densely populated areas, and wireless has its own issues.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> I would not call it "Net Neutrality". I have very mixed feelings about this and absolutely hate the name "Net Neutrality". There is nothing "neutral" about any version of the suggestions proposed to date. I'll go so far as this....
> 
> I do think that over time, even the MSOs will deliver content though a "dumb pipe". Meaning, that no matter what else happens, if you have FiOS, there will be no "tuners" or "broadcast" in the way we think of it today. All services will be IP based, and the concept of "tuning" will become obsolete.
> 
> I think it's "Possible" that the FCC could do something that would or would not require companies such as Verizon to simply provide the "pipe" and then allow anyone to deliver your IP content in general. Frankly, I'm not sure that's what I want, as I see far far far too many issues resulting in this, and that people wanting it may not end up liking what they get. I believe costs will actually increase - not decrease, and service levels will be even more difficult to manage. More to the point, it will not do a single, solitary thing concerning improving the availability of high speed broadband to underserved communities whatsoever. It actually would likely make it less likely that underserved communities would get service, as there would be even less financial reason to invest.
> 
> I also know that the current FCC rules only "Recommend" but do not force pricing on cablecard, and I have absolutely no belief that once Cablecard is no longer the "primary" solution, that pricing will not increase. I am absolutely convinced that it will. I would guess - based on their own comments - that Tivo agrees.


I think the powers to be should just dump the term "Net Neutrality". What it means exactly is unclear to most people, which allows for special interests to cause intentional confusion.

What I would like the FCC to do is: 

Create simple advertising/pricing/service rules. If a company advertises "X"Mbps Internet access it has to actually provide it and the advertised price has to include all "fees".
Forbid an ISP from slowing down access to any web sites/services.
After that let the market take care of it and/or have the Government provide incentives to create faster access for more people. Here in NY the Government is going to put $500 million (1 billion with matching funds) to try and get Internet speeds upgraded state wide (100 Mbps goal). The federal government should be doing the same as they did for electricity and telephone in the past.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> What I would like the FCC to do is:
> 
> Create simple advertising/pricing/service rules. If a company advertises "X"Mbps Internet access it has to actually provide it and the advertised price has to include all "fees".
> Forbid an ISP from slowing down access to any web sites/services.
> After that let the market take care of it and/or have the Government provide incentives to create faster access for more people. Here in NY the Government is going to put $500 million (1 billion with matching funds) to try and get Internet speeds upgraded state wide (100 Mbps goal). The federal government should be doing the same as they did for electricity and telephone in the past.


Actually, believe it or not, I pretty much agree with your two FCC things. I would say that I'm not in "complete" agreement with the second point. I do believe providers should be able to charge for different service levels. Meaning that they should be able to use a - let's call it QoS for lack of a better way to describe it - prioritization such that there are minimum service levels, but that traffic could be prioritized. That's a tough one, though. I can honestly see both sides of that discussion from a very practical perspective.

I'm frankly not in favor of the Feds spending a ton of money however. I think that's a state issue and not federal, and am of the opinion that we already have too much involvement as opposed to too little, but that's a personal perspective.


----------



## Dan203

I completely disagree about the ability to use QoS. That's the core argument of Net Neutrality. Those of us in favor of it believe that the ISP should not be allowed to give preferential treatment to services that pay them more money. If they want to strike special deals with services like Netflix to put a server on their local network to keep traffic from having to hop across the entire internet that's fine, but using some sort of QoS to actually throttle services that don't pay for the "fast lane" is going to stifle competition. 

And what happens when everyone decides to pay for the "fast lane"? We'll be in the same boat we are now except the ISPs will be able to raise prices at will, and those costs will be passed on to us the consumer. 

Internet access should be regulated as a utility. It's become way to important to our daily lives to be left entirely in the hands of the free market.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> Internet access should be regulated as a utility. It's become way to important to our daily lives to be left entirely in the hands of the free market.


I find cars important to our daily lives and that in the hands of the free market, as long a the car meets current Gov. standards, and pricing is not part of any car standard.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> I completely disagree about the ability to use QoS. That's the core argument of Net Neutrality. Those of us in favor of it believe that the ISP should not be allowed to give preferential treatment to services that pay them more money. If they want to strike special deals with services like Netflix to put a server on their local network to keep traffic from having to hop across the entire internet that's fine, but using some sort of QoS to actually throttle services that don't pay for the "fast lane" is going to stifle competition.
> 
> And what happens when everyone decides to pay for the "fast lane"? We'll be in the same boat we are now except the ISPs will be able to raise prices at will, and those costs will be passed on to us the consumer.
> 
> Internet access should be regulated as a utility. It's become way to important to our daily lives to be left entirely in the hands of the free market.


I can't disagree more. That's fine, but it's what it is. It costs more and frankly, there have been tiered long haul services in place for years. I do believe that the ISPs should be able to give preferential treatment. I simply think that there ought to be a "reasonable floor" in that case so that the non-preferential treatment meets at least a certain criteria - and it can't be the same for everyone because different providers have different capacities.

I also don't care for how you characterize QoS. QoS in fact does not really "throttle" services. QoS instead prioritizes classes of traffic. It's the poor mans packet shaping capability, with limited classes compared to true packet shaping. If for example, overall demand has not exceeded capacity, QoS "throttles" nothing in its basic form. The "Throttling" part comes in when capacity is outpaced by demand. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

Frankly, this is a lot like the old "CIR" discussion for Frame Relay, or even POTS. If you want a service level that's needed for your business, pay for it. If your business model requires that kind of "above consumer" performance? Pay for it. That's the cost of doing business. By removing that capability from providers, what it really does is eliminate real service levels for commercial systems IMHO. That, would be (again IMHO as somebody who depends on those services) catastrophic in terms of how bad a decision that would be.

Quite honestly, the idea that the "internet" can be regulated like a "utility" such as electricity or water is to me ridiculous. But more importantly, it is IMHO a disingenuous analogy. Electricity is "regulated". But guess what? You have no right nor expectation that you can get 3 phase gazillion megawatt power at your home. You aren't guaranteed that you can get 250amp service. You can get service. Period. Same thing for natural gas. You aren't even guaranteed you can get gas or electric period to be honest. Frankly, I'm not terribly impressed as how our government regulates power, and don't want them anywhere near internet, given the much much much much higher complexity.

And if everyone is in the fast lane and is paying for that service? Well, it creates more demand with financial compensation behind it to drive further expansion of service. Proof? Well, back in the early 2000s, and then the mid 2000s, there were many "editorials" talking about how we were about to run out of bandwidth. Did we? Nope. In fact, the overall rate of growth has slowed - but the important thing is that providers stayed more than a step ahead. Why? Because it made financial sense. Not because some government egghead with a zillion pages of ridiculous regulatory intervention forced it to happen.

I understand the perspective of the Net Neutrality proponents. However, as a technology leader (who, BTW has zero ties to ISPs or providers other than as a customer), I simply can not agree.


----------



## slowbiscuit

lessd said:


> I find cars important to our daily lives and that in the hands of the free market, as long a the car meets current Gov. standards, and pricing is not part of any car standard.


If you think the free market for cars compares in any way to the so-called free market for net access, you must have really enjoyed driving that POS Trabant in East Germany before the wall came down.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> If you think the free market for cars compares in any way to the so-called free market for net access, you must have really enjoyed driving that POS Trabant in East Germany before the wall came down.


I think you just made his point.

East Germany = No Free Market

US = Free Market


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> I find cars important to our daily lives and that in the hands of the free market, as long a the car meets current Gov. standards, and pricing is not part of any car standard.


Bad analogy. In this scenario your connection to the internet is more like the roads/highways, the computer/tablet you use is the car. Roads/highways are maintained by the government because they are vital to our economy. The internet is quickly becoming just as vital and as such should not be left entirely to the whims of for profit corporations.


----------



## JosephB

atmuscarella said:


> I think the powers to be should just dump the term "Net Neutrality". What it means exactly is unclear to most people, which allows for special interests to cause intentional confusion.
> 
> What I would like the FCC to do is:
> 
> Create simple advertising/pricing/service rules. If a company advertises "X"Mbps Internet access it has to actually provide it and the advertised price has to include all "fees".
> Forbid an ISP from slowing down access to any web sites/services.
> After that let the market take care of it and/or have the Government provide incentives to create faster access for more people. Here in NY the Government is going to put $500 million (1 billion with matching funds) to try and get Internet speeds upgraded state wide (100 Mbps goal). The federal government should be doing the same as they did for electricity and telephone in the past.


Unfortunately if we "let the market handle it" with regards to universal service (IE: mandating/subsidizing unprofitable markets) then we'll never have 100% coverage. If there had not been a government mandate for both electric utilities and Ma Bell to wire up every single person who wanted service, there would still be parts of this country without basic phone service.

In exchange for that mandate, AT&T was granted a national monopoly. I think there are mechanisms we can use to entice that behavior again (such as instead of granting a monopoly, offer subsidies for companies willing to serve rural areas)


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> I can't disagree more. That's fine, but it's what it is. It costs more and frankly, there have been tiered long haul services in place for years. I do believe that the ISPs should be able to give preferential treatment. I simply think that there ought to be a "reasonable floor" in that case so that the non-preferential treatment meets at least a certain criteria - and it can't be the same for everyone because different providers have different capacities.
> 
> I also don't care for how you characterize QoS. QoS in fact does not really "throttle" services. QoS instead prioritizes classes of traffic. It's the poor mans packet shaping capability, with limited classes compared to true packet shaping. If for example, overall demand has not exceeded capacity, QoS "throttles" nothing in its basic form. The "Throttling" part comes in when capacity is outpaced by demand. And I'm perfectly fine with that.
> 
> Frankly, this is a lot like the old "CIR" discussion for Frame Relay, or even POTS. If you want a service level that's needed for your business, pay for it. If your business model requires that kind of "above consumer" performance? Pay for it. That's the cost of doing business. By removing that capability from providers, what it really does is eliminate real service levels for commercial systems IMHO. That, would be (again IMHO as somebody who depends on those services) catastrophic in terms of how bad a decision that would be.
> 
> Quite honestly, the idea that the "internet" can be regulated like a "utility" such as electricity or water is to me ridiculous. But more importantly, it is IMHO a disingenuous analogy. Electricity is "regulated". But guess what? You have no right nor expectation that you can get 3 phase gazillion megawatt power at your home. You aren't guaranteed that you can get 250amp service. You can get service. Period. Same thing for natural gas. You aren't even guaranteed you can get gas or electric period to be honest. Frankly, I'm not terribly impressed as how our government regulates power, and don't want them anywhere near internet, given the much much much much higher complexity.
> 
> And if everyone is in the fast lane and is paying for that service? Well, it creates more demand with financial compensation behind it to drive further expansion of service. Proof? Well, back in the early 2000s, and then the mid 2000s, there were many "editorials" talking about how we were about to run out of bandwidth. Did we? Nope. In fact, the overall rate of growth has slowed - but the important thing is that providers stayed more than a step ahead. Why? Because it made financial sense. Not because some government egghead with a zillion pages of ridiculous regulatory intervention forced it to happen.
> 
> I understand the perspective of the Net Neutrality proponents. However, as a technology leader (who, BTW has zero ties to ISPs or providers other than as a customer), I simply can not agree.


Cable companies have effectively a government sanctioned functional monopoly in most places. You might have one alternative (DSL) but it's not really a good alternative as it does not provide enough bandwidth to really compete with cable. So in the majority of the country you only have one real option for your ISP. Cable companies want to exploit their position as the last leg between internet services and their customers as a way to extort internet companies for access to those customers. There current intentions may be modest but it's a slippery slope that's going to lead to higher costs for consumers.

The internet is too important to our daily lives, and our economy, to allow it to be left unregulated in the hands of for profit corporations.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Cable companies have effectively a government sanctioned functional monopoly in most places. You might have one alternative (DSL) but it's not really a good alternative as it does not provide enough bandwidth to really compete with cable. So in the majority of the country you only have one real option for your ISP. Cable companies want to exploit their position as the last leg between internet services and their customers as a way to extort internet companies for access to those customers. There current intentions may be modest but it's a slippery slope that's going to lead to higher costs for consumers.
> 
> The internet is too important to our daily lives, and our economy, to allow it to be left unregulated in the hands of for profit corporations.


except you can argue that the importance of the internet drops off rapidly after your connection speed meets or exceeds a relatively low mbps threshold.

And in that case most of us have plenty of competition between dsl, cable and, increasingly, cellular data.

I'd even say the necessity of home broadband going forward is no sure thing.


----------



## Dan203

The original premise of this argument was that the coax running to your home would eventually become a "dump pipe" and as such you'd be free to chose whatever service(s) you wanted to provide you TV. However with out some sort of net neutrality regulation that's not going to be possible. In fact there is already an example of this. Comcast offers a way to access some live channels and VOD via the internet on devices like the Xbox. When using that service they do not count any of the data it uses toward your monthly cap, but when using another service like Netflix, Amazon, etc... it does and if you exceed the cap they throttle your connection. 

This sort of unfair bias toward their own offering is going to prevent any real competition.


----------



## Arcady

Comcast suspended monthly caps, at least in this market.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> *Cable companies have effectively a government sanctioned functional monopoly in most places.* You might have one alternative (DSL) but it's not really a good alternative as it does not provide enough bandwidth to really compete with cable. So in the majority of the country you only have one real option for your ISP. Cable companies want to exploit their position as the last leg between internet services and their customers as a way to extort internet companies for access to those customers. There current intentions may be modest but it's a slippery slope that's going to lead to higher costs for consumers.
> 
> The internet is too important to our daily lives, and our economy, to allow it to be left unregulated in the hands of for profit corporations.


I'm sorry Dan, but that is frankly just not true. Respectfully, I could not possibly disagree more with the first sentence (that I bolded).

First of all, let's agree to not talk about the really rural areas where it just isn't cost effective. You can't blame anybody for not wanting to invest in a physical network that has a low density per linear mile associated with it. If you feel that's in scope, then we really need to have a separate discussion about that.

Next, let's discuss the nature of this so called "monopoly". I'm calling BS. As a former board member of a franchise authority, let me tell you - nobody wants more "competition" or "providers" than communities do. The idea that there is any possible sort of exclusivity is utterly preposterous. Are there possibly exceptions out there where idiots running municipalities do stupid things? Yes, sure. And there are idiots on planning commissions that put in place stupid building codes, "uber-restrictive" stupid requirements, all kinds of things. But in general, that's just not the norm. The norm is that the people on those franchise authorities are moms and dads just like everyone else, they get not a single penny in any possible way for what they do, they have no control over pricing or quality, and would VERY much like to have as much competition as possible. The only thing preventing more competition is - MONEY. Because it takes MONEY to build and maintain infrastructure. In this region for example, we have tons of hills and TONS of trees. Trees and cables don't get along. Trees with tons of snow and ice, near cables, really don't get along. Somebody has to fix them. When trees come down, when cars hit poles, when wind blows crap away. When lightning hits. All kinds of stuff. It's very expensive. So considering that there are a finite number of households on each street, the best a "new" provider can do is to "steal" customers from other providers. The more providers there are, the lower the revenue per provider per street.

Cable companies have built out that infrastructure. They've maintained it. Federal and state tax dollars did not pay for it and do not maintain it. And unlike water or sewage, increased performance requires constant management of every inch of every circuit, every hub, every gateway, etc. I agree it's a slippery slope. But I see a different slippery slope. I completely believe that separating that "pipe" and forcing ISPs/CableCos to allow you to select "Internet Access" from any provider would double our costs. And at the same time, make it virtually impossible to manage performance. Who's at fault when you don't get xx speeds? Is it the physical pipe? Or is it the ISP you selected? How would a layman that doesn't know IPv6 from 401K even remotely deal with issues? That's a mess of massive proportions.

And if you don't allow some level of "performance SLAs" to insure that higher need systems get the service they need, what happens to home healthcare systems that are becoming more and more IP centric? If everybody gets the same hamburger, how do you prevent it from all being dog meat? I don't think you can. Frankly, I don't think there is a technology solution that could even possible scale to deliver that. If there is, let me at least be clear that in my experience I've never heard of it, and I deal with massive global systems every day.

There are "reports" out there that "some" people like to mention that talk about how the US is 31st or some ridiculous rating in terms of broadband deployment. I'm very aware of the exact book and the author that those "statistics" are drawn from. However, every real analysis of the book has shown it to be rubbish. The US has seen massive development of broadband in the last 20 years. Given the much much much (repeat as necessary) larger geographic footprint of the US compared to many of the "comparison" countries, it's not even in the same ballpark. And, the other issue is that many technologies are discounted and not included. I agree that DSL isn't really a good Broadband option. But, I do believe that commerce drives innovation. Take LTE for example. Even 5 yrs ago, the idea that users could get the kind of performance they are now seeing via mobile was beyond most peoples expectations. We have an EXCESS in capacity (backbone) today, and our growth rate has actually slowed. Regulation didn't do that. Frankly, regulation simply does not stimulate growth. By it's very nature, regulation almost ALWAYS stifles growth.

I will admit, I'm incredibly opposed to any more government intervention than is absolutely mission essential. I know many could disagree. But that's my opinion. The BIG point I want to keep making is that if somebody wants to keep using that term monopoly, I have yet to see any data that supports that. Are there a lot of competitors? Probably not in many areas. Is it because of "government sanctioned monopolies"? Not on your life.


----------



## Arcady

Cable companies are a monopoly because they are the only ones allowed to run cable wires through the town.

I can't start "Arcady's Cable Company" and just start running coax down the street.


----------



## Dan203

Arcady said:


> Comcast suspended monthly caps, at least in this market.


There is still nothing preventing them from giving bandwidth priority to their own service or even intentionally throttling, or even blocking, a competing service. Right now it's completely unregulated, they can do pretty much whatever they want.


----------



## Dan203

Arcady said:


> Cable companies are a monopoly because they are the only ones allowed to run cable wires through the town.
> 
> I can't start "Arcady's Cable Company" and just start running coax down the street.


Exactly. The local "franchise authority" grants them exclusive rights to run coax to the homes, usually for long periods of time. (decades) There is no way for anyone to compete even if they wanted to.


----------



## wmhjr

Arcady said:


> Cable companies are a monopoly because they are the only ones allowed to run cable wires through the town.
> 
> I can't start "Arcady's Cable Company" and just start running coax down the street.


Actually, that is completely untrue. You only have to do the same thing that any other business using right of ways would do.

What you can NOT do is simply start running coax down the street without planning. Why? BECAUSE OF REGULATIONS. And your thought is that by adding more regulation, it will become easier?


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> Actually, that is completely untrue. You only have to do the same thing that any other business using right of ways would do.
> 
> What you can NOT do is simply start running coax down the street without planning. Why? BECAUSE OF REGULATIONS. And your thought is that by adding more regulation, it will become easier?


That's not true. As I mentioned above most cities have agreements with the existing cable company that grants them exclusive rights to service the homes in that city. Verizon managed to skirt those agreements by running fiber, rather then coax, to the homes which fell under their existing agreements to be the exclusive provider of telecom to those home. AT&T is sort of doing the same thing by using their existing POTS infrastructure to deliver Uverse programming via VDSL. (i.e. fiber to the curb)

But a competing company could not come into you town and get a license to start laying cable even if they had the money and desire to do so. No more so then a competing power company could come in and start stringing a competing power grid. That's why people's only choices are typically limited to the existing cable company, the existing telecom, or some sort of wireless solution. (there was talk at one time of using powerlines for internet, but that proved to be challenging technologically)


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> Exactly. The local "franchise authority" grants them exclusive rights to run coax to the homes, usually for long periods of time. (decades) There is no way for anyone to compete even if they wanted to.


Wrong again. The Franchise authority, is prevented BY LAW from enacting exclusive agreements.

People really need to learn about what a Franchise agreement is.

Let's start.

1) Franchise agreements are by law non-exclusive. In 1992, even before the Telecommunications Act of 1996, congress explicitly prohibited exclusivity. It is already against federal law.

2) There are typically two kinds of "payments" that municipalities can receive from providers. They are Franchise Fees, which I think should mostly go away, and municipal services, which I think should stay. But let's talk about what they are. Franchise Fees are a per customer fee that is typically negotiated as an average fee per service, that explicitly does not include Internet. IOW, the municipality receives not a penny for ANY internet service. They do for "tv" and PPV services. But wait - who pays those fees? We do. 100% of those fees are allowed to be passed to the consumer, and if you look on your cable or FiOS bill, you'll see them right on there. Cost to the provider? Zero. How about the second part? The services? Those are emergency services, municipal TV backhaul, on average 1 to 3 "local" channels for municipal TV broadcast, and sometimes service to municipal school districts. That's it. So what does that mean? It means that for the franchise Authority, it doesn't mean a hoot whether it's 1 or 10 providers. They get the same. And frankly, it's peanuts.

3) Starting in 2001, the FCC published guidance that made municipalities "control" over providers even weaker. It explicitly removed Broadband from ANY purview of local government and reserved it for the FCC. That trend has continued to date - though there has been some movement about this given the fact that many providers are shifting to more IP delivered services, which then makes them not subject to Franchise Fees.

The problem here is that many people still believe that Franchise Authorities and Franchise Agreements are the same as they were back in 1980. Back then, local municipalities had huge control - including controls over pricing, fee structures, quality, etc. Today, frankly a Franchise Agreement is a non-topic. I was a board member when Comcast needed to renew (what had been an Adelphia) their Agreement, and when Verizon was just moving in. I think there was maybe 30 minutes of discussion in total. And what was it about? Billing. How would the municipality spot check to insure that fee collection was accurate?

I would like to see Franchise Fees pretty much go away. They're a direct tax by the municipality on the consumer - not the provider. Since the provider actually doesn't pay it, those fees are not even remotely a barrier to entry. And since the Feds already prohibited exclusivity - even if somebody was stupid enough to want it for some unknown reason (meaning somebody on a city council) it's just impossible.

Again - the only barrier to entry is MONEY.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> That's not true. As I mentioned above most cities have agreements with the existing cable company that grants them exclusive rights to service the homes in that city. Verizon managed to skirt those agreements by running fiber, rather then coax, to the homes which fell under their existing agreements to be the exclusive provider of telecom to those home. AT&T is sort of doing the same thing by using their existing POTS infrastructure to deliver Uverse programming via VDSL. (i.e. fiber to the curb)
> 
> But a competing company could not come into you town and get a license to start laying cable even if they had the money and desire to do so. That's why people's only choices are typically limited to the existing cable company, the existing telecom, or some sort of wireless solution. (there was talk at one time of using powerlines for internet, but that proved to be challenging technologically)


Dan, see my later post. You are completely and totally wrong. Cities are prevented by federal law from issuing exclusive agreements. That law has been in place, passed and set in stone, since 1992.

In fact, Verizon got Franchise agreements as well. They sought to go after them at a state level rather than at the municipal level in some states, but that was simple an issue of scale.

I have personally read every single word of every single page of both our Comcast and our Verizon Franchise agreements.

There is a LOT of urban myth out there.


----------



## Arcady

wmhjr said:


> And your thought is that by adding more regulation, it will become easier?


I never mentioned more regulation.

BTW, I looked up "two cable companies in one city" on Google, and the first article I got was titled "Why Starting A Competitor To Comcast Is Basically Impossible."


----------



## wmhjr

I should also mention one more thing. Franchise fees (which again, I'd love to see go away mainly) actually HELP the provider. Why? Because those fees are collected monthly. BUT - Guess what? Most Franchise Agreements have them getting paid to the municipality on a quarterly basis. So, the fact of the matter is, providers actually MAKE MONEY on the fees, as they have 90 days of "cash flow" to use before making a payment to the municipality.


----------



## Dan203

I'll admit I'm not an expert on this subject. 

So you're telling me that Comcast could come to my area (currently serviced by Charter), get a license to lay all their own cable right along side the Charter cable, and directly compete with Charter for customers? If that's true then why has it never happened? Anywhere? There must be some sort of barrier to entry other then just money.


----------



## wmhjr

Arcady said:


> I never mentioned more regulation.
> 
> BTW, I looked up "two cable companies in one city" on Google, and the first article I got was titled "Why Starting A Competitor To Comcast Is Basically Impossible."


And your point is? I've never said it makes sense financially, though for example in many places you have a choice between Comcast and Fios or U-verse. But the point is that it takes money to build out, maintain and support. I've consistently said that it was money - or more accurately, poor ROI, that prevented it.

How is that an argument for the idea that it would be "cheaper" if you effectively "seized" that infrastructure, separated that from "ISP services" and had them managed separately and charges separately?

So, if it does not make sense financially, how else beyond regulation would it happen? But then, you're adding regulation to "force growth"? Where in US history has that worked? Or else, you're splitting it up - which as I said I feel very strongly would both significantly increase costs, while at the same time lower quality.


----------



## Arcady

When the only choice for internet was dialup or DSL, you could pick your ISP.

With dialup, you bought the phone line from the telco and dialed the phone number of whatever ISP you wanted.

With DSL, you could buy a bare line from the telco and internet service from a third party, or you could buy bundled "Pacific Bell Internet" or whatever.

Why can't I buy a bare coax or fiber connection and choose from Earthlink, or Compuserve, or AOL? (Yes I know these companies would not be the actual providers today.)


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> I'll admit I'm not an expert on this subject.
> 
> So you're telling me that Comcast could come to my area (currently serviced by Charter), get a license to lay all their own cable right along side the Charter cable, and directly compete with Charter for customers? If that's true then why has it never happened? Anywhere? There must be some sort of barrier to entry other then just money.


No, Dan, That is it. It is Money. Period. Why would Comcast do that ?

Comcast could walk in today, get a license, and roll out service. That is completely and totally true. And frankly, your municipality (Franchise Authority and City Council) would jump for joy.

But they won't. Why? Again - think of the math. There are a finite number of homes on each linear mile. It's all about density per mile, BTW. That's the starting point. Now, let's look at market penetration. Let's agree that 90% already have a provider. Let's say it's TWC. So, the best Comcast could do is to steal every one of TWC customers, making them equally "profitable" assuming reasonably similar margins - excluding up front costs and depreciation impact. But would they really do that? Nobody really believes that could happen. So now, they need to estimate what they could "really" expect to gain. How many subs per mile, and then think about what the ROI is given the investment. And knowing that they're dealing with an incumbent. So let's say they can take 50% market. That means whatever the density/mile is, they cut it in half - and then subtract DBS, cord-cutters, and then the behemoth Verizon (if they're there, or U-Verse).

Now consider the math. Why would they do that? They'd dilute their earnings in a BIG way. And I mean a REALLY SERIOUS WAY. Their best case would be a massive investment to pretty much achieve parity for where they already are, and then have a footprint that they need to support, knowing that they walked into an area where there will be churn in terms of subs. It would be one of the most stupid business decisions that they could possible make. So how did Verizon make the bet? Because it was FTTH. Fiber. And even with Verizon, it was a HUGE bet that they have yet to determine if it paid off. They've already curtailed their expansion from what the initial footprint was going to be.


----------



## wmhjr

Arcady said:


> When the only choice for internet was dialup or DSL, you could pick your ISP.
> 
> With dialup, you bought the phone line from the telco and dialed the phone number of whatever ISP you wanted.
> 
> With DSL, you could buy a bare line from the telco and internet service from a third party, or you could buy bundled "Pacific Bell Internet" or whatever.
> 
> Why can't I buy a bare coax or fiber connection and choose from Earthlink, or Compuserve, or AOL? (Yes I know these companies would not be the actual providers today.)


The answer? You can. It just costs. But if you want fiber today, you can get it. From other than Verizon. You just need to pay for it.

DSL is a different animal, however. Because it needed nothing other than POTS, really. Well, I guess that, and a central office equipped for DSL within 12000 feet from the destination. And even then? In many places you could NOT get a bare line from the Telco and get DSL.

You can't compare a copper wire to fiber. And you can't compare a massive multi=billion dollar investment to copper either.


----------



## zalusky

wmhjr said:


> No, Dan, That is it. It is Money. Period. Why would Comcast do that ?
> 
> Comcast could walk in today, get a license, and roll out service. That is completely and totally true. And frankly, your municipality (Franchise Authority and City Council) would jump for joy.
> 
> But they won't. Why? Again - think of the math. There are a finite number of homes on each linear mile. It's all about density per mile, BTW. That's the starting point. Now, let's look at market penetration. Let's agree that 90% already have a provider. Let's say it's TWC. So, the best Comcast could do is to steal every one of TWC customers, making them equally "profitable" assuming reasonably similar margins - excluding up front costs and depreciation impact. But would they really do that? Nobody really believes that could happen. So now, they need to estimate what they could "really" expect to gain. How many subs per mile, and then think about what the ROI is given the investment. And knowing that they're dealing with an incumbent. So let's say they can take 50% market. That means whatever the density/mile is, they cut it in half - and then subtract DBS, cord-cutters, and then the behemoth Verizon (if they're there, or U-Verse).
> 
> Now consider the math. Why would they do that? They'd dilute their earnings in a BIG way. And I mean a REALLY SERIOUS WAY. Their best case would be a massive investment to pretty much achieve parity for where they already are, and then have a footprint that they need to support, knowing that they walked into an area where there will be churn in terms of subs. It would be one of the most stupid business decisions that they could possible make. So how did Verizon make the bet? Because it was FTTH. Fiber. And even with Verizon, it was a HUGE bet that they have yet to determine if it paid off. They've already curtailed their expansion from what the initial footprint was going to be.


I would add that Comcast has actually agreed to reduce their footprint to try to take over TWC. So besides the ROI issue they are also trying to stay below that FCC perceived market monopoly threshold as well.


----------



## Dan203

Arcady said:


> I never mentioned more regulation.
> 
> BTW, I looked up "two cable companies in one city" on Google, and the first article I got was titled "Why Starting A Competitor To Comcast Is Basically Impossible."


I read it and it supports wmhjr's comments. Basically it's too expensive to wire a town for two sets of coax. Although there is one underhanded thing they mention. The cable lobby has managed to get 20 states to pass laws preventing individual municipalities from creating municipal networks. However it sounds like the FCC might step in and overturn those laws.

I have another question... what sort of barrier would there be to starting an internet based TV provider. Say you wanted to offer a service that allowed someone to access all the same channels as Comcast, but they were streamed live over the internet rather then directly from some sort of head end like cable or U-verse? Is it just a matter of securing the deals with the content providers? Or is there some regulation in place that would prevent something like that?


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> I read it and it supports wmhjr's comments. Basically it's too expensive to wire a town for two sets of coax. Although there is one underhanded thing they mention. The cable lobby has managed to get 20 states to pass laws preventing individual municipalities from creating municipal networks. However it sounds like the FCC might step in and overturn those laws.
> 
> I have another question... what sort of barrier would there be to starting an internet based TV provider. Say you wanted to offer a service that allowed someone to access all the same channels as Comcast, but they were streamed live over the internet rather then directly from some sort of head end like cable or U-verse? Is it just a matter of securing the deals with the content providers? Or is there some regulation in place that would prevent something like that?


Dan, the only things I'm aware of would be the right management and content provider deals. There would certainly be nothing at the municipal level, and probably not at the state level either. I don't know other than content why it would be any different than any other IP delivered service.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

It's true, money is what hinders local competition.

But that's not to say the existing provider doesn't kick and scream all along the way when a threat to their monopoly comes to town. They actively fight against incentives the Authority can give the new competitor, even incentives they got themselves.

I saw it first hand when Fios came. I was as giddy as a schoolgirl when they were approved for my town. And I've read about TWC's ***** festival when Google Fiber was coming to Kansas City.

There's nothing absolutely legally holding the competition back, but the existing infrastructure absolutely has influence that has stunted competition. You almost HAVE to be a Google, Verizon or AT&T to overcome.


----------



## wmhjr

BigJimOutlaw said:


> It's true, money is what hinders local competition.
> 
> But that's not to say the existing provider doesn't kick and scream all along the way when a threat to their monopoly comes to town. They actively fight against incentives the Authority can give the new competitor, even incentives they got themselves.
> 
> I saw it first hand when Fios came, and I've seen TWC ***** about Google Fiber when they first deployed in Kansas City.
> 
> There's nothing absolutely legally holding the competition back, but the existing infrastructure absolutely has influence that has stunted competition. You almost HAVE to be a Google, Verizon or AT&T to overcome.


I'm sorry, and mean no disrespect, but I'm calling BS.

First of all, what "incentives" are you talking about? I haven't seen a single solitary "incentive" of any type on any Franchise agreement in the past 10 years.

Second, when Verizon came here, do you know what Comcast said? Nothing. They really didn't even bring it up.

I have no idea what in the world you're talking about, but would like to hear specifics. Let me be more clear.

No provider, of any type, received any incentive, of any type (tax, credits, etc), at any time, as part of any Franchise Agreement, that I have seen in 10 years. I only use 10 years because I can't comment on before that as I didn't really have as much visibility into multiple agreements with different municipalities.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Heh, what skin do you think I have in this discussion to make it up?

Aside from what I saw first hand locally, TWC publically complaining to the local government about "fairness" regarding Google Fiber is google-able.


----------



## CharlesH

Dan203 said:


> Bad analogy. In this scenario your connection to the internet is more like the roads/highways, the computer/tablet you use is the car. Roads/highways are maintained by the government because they are vital to our economy. The internet is quickly becoming just as vital and as such should not be left entirely to the whims of for profit corporations.


And toll roads are built to literally provide a fast lane to those who chose to pay. Many of these toll roads are privately owned and maintained.


----------



## slowbiscuit

wmhjr said:


> And your point is? I've never said it makes sense financially, though for example in many places you have a choice between Comcast and Fios or U-verse. But the point is that it takes money to build out, maintain and support. I've consistently said that it was money - or more accurately, poor ROI, that prevented it.
> 
> How is that an argument for the idea that it would be "cheaper" if you effectively "seized" that infrastructure, separated that from "ISP services" and had them managed separately and charges separately?
> 
> So, if it does not make sense financially, how else beyond regulation would it happen? But then, you're adding regulation to "force growth"? Where in US history has that worked? Or else, you're splitting it up - which as I said I feel very strongly would both significantly increase costs, while at the same time lower quality.


Um, both Europe and Asia have already proven that opening up access results in greatly reduxed cost and higher speeds due to competition. And the entrenched incumbents all complained loudly when lines were opened then adapted and went on.

Your argument seems to consist of well yeah they have an effective monopoly due to high barriers to entry but that's ok, we can trust Comcast et al to take care of us since we all owe them a big debt of gratitude for running the plant. And if that's not working for you too bad, suck it up or move to some enlightened place like Chattanooga that got tired of this crap.

Most people are past that argument now, but money talks louder than what is right.


----------



## Arcady

Dan203 said:


> I have another question... what sort of barrier would there be to starting an internet based TV provider. Say you wanted to offer a service that allowed someone to access all the same channels as Comcast, but they were streamed live over the internet rather then directly from some sort of head end like cable or U-verse? Is it just a matter of securing the deals with the content providers? Or is there some regulation in place that would prevent something like that?


Isn't that basically a description of AT&T U-Verse? U-Verse has no "head end" really. It's IP-based TV service.

Or do you mean someone doing it over internet wiring that isn't theirs? It has been tried and failed.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> Um, both Europe and Asia have already proven that opening up access results in greatly reduxed cost and higher speeds due to competition. And the entrenched incumbents all complained loudly when lines were opened then adapted and went on.
> 
> Your argument seems to consist of well yeah they have an effective monopoly due to high barriers to entry but that's ok, we can trust Comcast et al to take care of us since we all owe them a big debt of gratitude for running the plant. And if that's not working for you too bad, suck it up or move to some enlightened place like Chattanooga that got tired of this crap.
> 
> Most people are past that argument now, but money talks louder than what is right.


Sorry, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

Do you know why some things are different in Europe and Asia?

What were their telecom systems compared to the US in 1960. In 1970. In 1980. Think about it.

Beyond that, I'm thinking you need to elaborate on exactly what you mean about how "opening up access" and when "lines were opened". I'm guessing if you want to chat about the details, I'm game. I routinely work with providers in Europe and Asia. Every week. I spend time there. I really don't think you want to use blanket comparisons.

In many locations (as has frankly already been specifically noted in this thread in earlier posts) the US got leapfrogged. Sorry that facts aren't necessarily behind you on that one. Much like the steel industry. Wonder why the US got leapfrogged in quality steel production? Think about what steel manufacturing existed outside of the US in 1946. So by 1970, who do you think had the more efficient production facilities?

And you are making a serious mistake if you think for even a moment that I'm a friend of cable or Verizon. Not even close.

The difference between you and I is that even if I don't like the answer, I can acknowledge the reality. No, I do not "trust" Comcast. I don't "trust" any business. Including Verizon, or whoever else. But as much as I don't "trust" them, I also don't want to trample all over the market, seize assets because "you don't like how it is" and destroy the market. I think there are things that could - and should - be done. I'm simply not in favor of your solution.

Why? I've already said it. Because IMHO you're more than willing to cut off your nose to spite your face. Because this isn't Asia. We're not starting at the same starting point. Nor at the same time. I have said before (again, if you care to read earlier in this thread) that if the US WERE going to do something markedly different, the time to do it would be BEFORE private business, funded by 401Ks, retirement funds, etc, invested billions of dollars into private enterprise. Those same companies that you are so friggin quick to dismantle? (again in previous posts in this thread) are overwhelmingly majority owned by Institutional Investors. Do you even know what that is? That means they are owned by you and I. By the majority of people with 401Ks. Gee, I wonder what happens when you walk in and effectively "seize" their business, after they've spent billions investing based on an expected ROI. An ROI that you're willing to destroy.

First of all, because while you insisted you understood, you clearly did NOT understand the nature of how Franchise Agreements work.

I'm sorry, but frankly, I'd rather not lose another chunk of my retirement and have millions of other people also lose it just because you don't like the reality.


----------



## wmhjr

Arcady said:


> Isn't that basically a description of AT&T U-Verse? U-Verse has no "head end" really. It's IP-based TV service.
> 
> Or do you mean someone doing it over internet wiring that isn't theirs? It has been tried and failed.


I'm not sure that doing it over IP via "Internet wiring" (to use your terms) has really been tried yet. Parts of it have, but I'm not aware of any serious attempt.

Can you elaborate? IMHO I think the provider agreements (meaning content providers) would prove REALLY hard to work out, given the advertising revenue implications.


----------



## wmhjr

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Heh, what skin do you think I have in this discussion to make it up?
> 
> Aside from what I saw first hand locally, TWC publically complaining to the local government about "fairness" regarding Google Fiber is google-able.


I can't answer why you'd make it up.

I can ask for the kinds of "incentives" you stated. Again.

What I really think is that people have a very set opinion of what they want, and they've taken the urban legends combined with coffee talk about how all providers are "evil" - along with 30 year old stories about how Cable and Franchise Agreements used to work, and developed their personal viewpoint. Look at this thread. You can pick out post after post filled with frankly inaccurate information. "Exclusive agreements". Municipalities getting paid by providers. Franchise fees from cablecos to restrict access by other providers.

And it's all BS. Again - Facts. Since 1992, the law of the land made exclusivity ILLEGAL. Period. Anywhere in the US. Franchise fees are paid by YOU and ME. Not the providers.

People get very set in their opinions. I'm quite sure I won't convince some folks here of the truth. Once you get to a certain point, facts just don't seem to matter. It's all about perception, and companies like Comcast and Verizon are easy targets to hate. Everybody wants it Free, Perfect, and they want it Yesterday. So some folks are perfectly fine with seizure of private assets.

Right up until it's theirs. Then they're usually the ones screaming the loudest.


----------



## Arcady

wmhjr said:


> I'm not sure that doing it over IP via "Internet wiring" (to use your terms) has really been tried yet. Parts of it have, but I'm not aware of any serious attempt.
> 
> Can you elaborate?  IMHO I think the provider agreements (meaning content providers) would prove REALLY hard to work out, given the advertising revenue implications.


The one that comes to mind is Aereo. They tried to send broadcast TV over the internet using the same justification as cloud DVRs, but they lost the court case.

There was another that I don't remember the name of in Dallas that wanted to send premium content over sub-channels OTA. Failed.

And yet another when Sprint tried to send TV content to microwave dishes from a transmitter mounted on a hill in Phoenix. I actually had internet through this method for about a year before they finally wired that area for cable. The TV portion never got out of the trial phase. I used DirecTV at the time, so I never tried it.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

wmhjr said:


> I can't answer why you'd make it up.
> 
> I can ask for the kinds of "incentives" you stated. Again.


Nobody could answer, since I didn't. I also didn't say anything about exclusivity agreements. They can/have/do work to achieve the same goal through other means. And again you can google Google Fiber, Time Warner, incentives, and whatever other keywords you find useful.

Oh here's one. 
Another interesting story with the relevant 2011/2012 NC House Bill 129 that throws muni-owned competition under the bus.

The issue is bigger than the ink of the franchise agreements, which are nothing interesting. Incentivizing new businesses is a thing that exists. That's nothing new or profound. Existing competitors can/will/do ***** to either railroad the discussion, stick their own hands out, hire lobbyists to write laws that suppress competition, or all the above. That's just reality. I don't possess 30 years of legacy notions; I only have to trust my own eyes and ears for the last 5.


----------



## slowbiscuit

wmhjr said:


> Sorry, but you're comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Do you know why some things are different in Europe and Asia?
> 
> What were their telecom systems compared to the US in 1960. In 1970. In 1980. Think about it.
> 
> Beyond that, I'm thinking you need to elaborate on exactly what you mean about how "opening up access" and when "lines were opened". I'm guessing if you want to chat about the details, I'm game. I routinely work with providers in Europe and Asia. Every week. I spend time there. I really don't think you want to use blanket comparisons.
> 
> In many locations (as has frankly already been specifically noted in this thread in earlier posts) the US got leapfrogged. Sorry that facts aren't necessarily behind you on that one. Much like the steel industry. Wonder why the US got leapfrogged in quality steel production? Think about what steel manufacturing existed outside of the US in 1946. So by 1970, who do you think had the more efficient production facilities?
> 
> And you are making a serious mistake if you think for even a moment that I'm a friend of cable or Verizon. Not even close.
> 
> The difference between you and I is that even if I don't like the answer, I can acknowledge the reality. No, I do not "trust" Comcast. I don't "trust" any business. Including Verizon, or whoever else. But as much as I don't "trust" them, I also don't want to trample all over the market, seize assets because "you don't like how it is" and destroy the market. I think there are things that could - and should - be done. I'm simply not in favor of your solution.
> 
> Why? I've already said it. Because IMHO you're more than willing to cut off your nose to spite your face. Because this isn't Asia. We're not starting at the same starting point. Nor at the same time. I have said before (again, if you care to read earlier in this thread) that if the US WERE going to do something markedly different, the time to do it would be BEFORE private business, funded by 401Ks, retirement funds, etc, invested billions of dollars into private enterprise. Those same companies that you are so friggin quick to dismantle? (again in previous posts in this thread) are overwhelmingly majority owned by Institutional Investors. Do you even know what that is? That means they are owned by you and I. By the majority of people with 401Ks. Gee, I wonder what happens when you walk in and effectively "seize" their business, after they've spent billions investing based on an expected ROI. An ROI that you're willing to destroy.
> 
> First of all, because while you insisted you understood, you clearly did NOT understand the nature of how Franchise Agreements work.
> 
> I'm sorry, but frankly, I'd rather not lose another chunk of my retirement and have millions of other people also lose it just because you don't like the reality.


The real issue, bloated posts notwthstanding, is that you don't have an answer to fix the problem. All I'm hearing is the same old party of no line that the market is all you need., even thiugh it clearly is not working.

Come back with a viable way to fix the problem instead of repeating endlessly how we can't touch the incumbents.


----------



## wmhjr

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Nobody could answer, since I didn't. I also didn't say anything about exclusivity agreements. They can/have/do work to achieve the same goal through other means. And again you can google Google Fiber, Time Warner, incentives, and whatever other keywords you find useful.
> 
> Oh here's one.
> Another interesting story with the relevant 2011/2012 NC House Bill 129 that throws muni-owned competition under the bus.
> 
> The issue is bigger than the ink of the franchise agreements, which are nothing interesting. Incentivizing new businesses is a thing that exists. That's nothing new or profound. Existing competitors can/will/do ***** to either railroad the discussion, stick their own hands out, hire lobbyists to write laws that suppress competition, or all the above. That's just reality. I don't possess 30 years of legacy notions; I only have to trust my own eyes and ears for the last 5.


Jim, I'm still calling BS. Here is your quote.



BigJimOutlaw said:


> But that's not to say the existing provider doesn't kick and scream all along the way when a threat to their monopoly comes to town. *They actively fight against incentives the Authority can give the new competitor, even incentives they got themselves.*
> 
> *I saw it first hand when Fios came*.


Back it up. You make claims now that it's not because of Franchise Agreements. Now it's "laws that suppress competition".

BS. It's simple money.

Nobody in their right mind would invest billions of dollars for a questionable return on investment. It does not mean that they "can't". It means it would be a stupid business decision. Seems to me that the problem is that you want to find some sort of utopian solution that flies in the face of financial logic.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> The real issue, bloated posts notwthstanding, is that you don't have an answer to fix the problem. All I'm hearing is the *same old party of no line* that the market is all you need., even thiugh it clearly is not working.
> 
> Come back with a viable way to fix the problem instead of repeating endlessly how we can't touch the incumbents.


Jim, I never said I had all the answers to make your life better. And at least my "bloated posts" are filled with actual, provable, facts. Laws. Dates. Congressional Action. FCC guidance issuance.

But now it's clearer than that, isn't it. The text I highlighted above really speaks to our differences, doesn't it?

Once again, Jim, you're making assumptions not based in fact whatsoever. You're assuming that because I don't want 401Ks across the country damaged by "your solution" that I must be part of one political party. You just don't get it, Jim. My opinions about why your solution would be terrible have nothing to do with my political preferences. They have nothing to do with how I "wish" things were. They are a simple reflection of fact, taking into consideration the likely outcome. I've punched huge gaping holes through your assertions (with fact) and you just then accuse me of being part of "the party of no" and say it doesn't matter because I don't have a "solution"?

Frankly, to have a solution, you need to be able to describe the problem, and unfortunately I think you can't even do that. What exact problem are you trying to solve, Jim? You can't get broadband? Or you don't like the price? Or the quality isn't good enough? Or you fear something in the future yet to happen? Or you just want "choice" for the sake of "choice"? If you want to turn this into a political party discussion, take it somewhere else. That's not the point of this thread, and I'm sure not going to debate politics with you. You want a suggested solution, Jim? Maybe you ought to be clear on exactly what part of this you think "needs to be solved". Because I for one have not the slightest clue as to what you're complaining about - other than you don't like my point of view, and don't like being pushed to back up your claims.


----------



## atmuscarella

This is a pretty good article about this subject: 
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-fccs-possible-reclassification-of-isps-signals-hope-for-net-neutrality/?tag=nl.e101&s_cid=e101&ttag=e101&ftag=TRE684d531​From my point of view Internet access needs to be elevated in importance to a utility. Even with that, to assure we all have reliable/useable/affordable Internet access my guess is there will still need to be local/state/federal government support (direct $s, tax incentives, etc.), strong regulation, and in some locations direct involvement by local Government to assure access to all. That is how other utilities were developed & still work.

I am sure some will disagree with how important reliable/useable/affordable Internet access is, others just don't like the idea of Government being heavily involved, and others will believe the market can do a better job than Government regulations in getting to a future where we all have acceptable Internet access.


----------



## wmhjr

Frankly I think the article is horrible. Rather than being an unbiased analysis of the impact, instead it focuses on one side - even with it's very language and the choice of adjectives. If you are in support of "Net Neutrality" you'll love the article. If not, you'll find not a single thing really discussed with any facts or details behind them. I appreciate you posting it, but personally find it nothing more than an editorial from a one sided view. Frankly, there have been more informative posts in this thread than the content of that article IMHO.

More to the point, I will ask again - what problem are you trying to solve? Do you think something like this would actually give high speed broadband to those areas that currently don't have "real" broadband (meaning not even Cableco, no fiber, nothing perhaps but DSL or not even that)? Because I can't find a solitary reason why such legislation would do anything other than actually retard such growth and no evidence has been provided by anyone that it would help grow the industry. Even in the link somebody posted about what NY state is doing, did anyone besides me read the entire thing? If so, did you notice the part where it specifically identified that services would "not be financially feasible" in some areas, and that part of the initiative is effectively to identify those areas that would not see investment? I'm paraphrasing as it's been a few days since I've read it.

I'd like to stop the politics part of the discussion for a minute, and let's focus on the technology aspect. I'd like somebody here to clearly identify exactly how (technically) they see "making the pipe a utility" and separating the physical distribution network from the internet service provider aspect would in theory work. Maybe if we actually look at that to start with, it will start to become more clear as to the reality of this. There are lots of people wanting to make general statements about it "being a utility". I disagree. But we've never talked specifically about what that architecture would look like. Let's stop making sweeping statements and generalities and start talking details.

BTW, atmuscarella, I'm not beating you up. Seriously, thanks for at least looking for related material and posting it. We can have a rational discussion about this. I'm extremely interested in the discussion, because IMHO the more "educated" people are, the less likely that even differing opinions having an effect, we'll walk blindly into a dumb position fueled by 30 second sound bites and politicians that don't even know what the legislation they're signing means.


----------



## Arcady

wmhjr said:


> I'd like somebody here to clearly identify exactly how (technically) they see "making the pipe a utility" and separating the physical distribution network from the internet service provider aspect would in theory work. Maybe if we actually look at that to start with, it will start to become more clear as to the reality of this. There are lots of people wanting to make general statements about it "being a utility". I disagree. But we've never talked specifically about what that architecture would look like. Let's stop making sweeping statements and generalities and start talking details.


I brought that up momentarily when I talked about how DSL used to be available. You bought a bare DSL line from the phone company and chose your own ISP to run data over it.

It's sort of like how deregulated power worked when I lived in Texas. You picked a power company based on rates, power source, contracts, and other factors. One company still owned and maintained the power grid, but other companies actually billed you. You could get a discount if you signed a contract, or you could go month to month for higher, or you could just buy power from the original power company if you wanted.

It's all about choice for the consumer, competition for the seller, and a fair marketplace instead of a monopoly. (Yes I know you keep saying the cable company is not a monopoly, but with the current state of startup costs for a competitor, it effectively is.)

Here's some of what I'd like to see:

The cable coming into your home would still be owned by Comcast or Verizon or TWC or AT&T or whoever.
You could pick a provider for services over that cable. 
Pick a company for internet and a company for TV.
You pay your bill to that company, and they pay an access fee to the owner of the infrastructure (just like deregulated power or the old DSL model.)
Use standard equipment for data and video services, so you can buy at retail or rent from the company. If you move, it works on whatever system you move to. Would we put up with different power jacks in different states? No. So why this mess of Motorola or Cisco and other proprietary junk?

Here's some questions related to the above:

Do you want Comcast for internet? Or how about another company? How would you choose? Maybe the same way they have a comparison website for power companies?
Who do you get TV service from? Same questions as above. But how is it delivered? QAM or IP? Or both available? Or a combination (IP delivery to household node, then conversion there to standard QAM?)
What about satellite? Why should they still be allowed to be proprietary? If we want true competition, maybe make them use the same standard equipment?

At some point we are going to go through the switch to 4K UHD. They could bring in all this stuff at the same time: You want 4K service, you switch to the new standard. Run legacy stuff on the existing cable (like analog has for years) until everyone, or mostly everyone, is switched over. Maybe this time we can get a proper TV system, with things like aspect ratio flags and modern compression, not the kludge that was ATSC.


----------



## Dan203

CharlesH said:


> And toll roads are built to literally provide a fast lane to those who chose to pay. Many of these toll roads are privately owned and maintained.


But the difference is roads are a finite resource. We only have so much land to build on. Network capacity is basically infinite and is becoming cheaper and faster to upgrade every year. These internet "fast lanes" are an artifical construct created by the cable companies as a way to extort money from services, like Netflix and YouTube, which are stealing customers away from their primary business. They know we're heading down a path where they eventually become a "dumb pipe" and they're trying to figure out ways to abuse their position as the last leg between the internet and their customers to pad their own pockets.


----------



## Dan203

Arcady said:


> Isn't that basically a description of AT&T U-Verse? U-Verse has no "head end" really. It's IP-based TV service.
> 
> Or do you mean someone doing it over internet wiring that isn't theirs? It has been tried and failed.


Yeah I was talking about a pure internet service that anyone could get regardless of their ISP.

Looks like Dish and Sony are both launching services just like this. Sony's will have more channels that appeal to younger viewers and will only be available via a PlayStation. Dish's only has a handful of channels, but it's cheap.

If they offered a gateway type device to these services that allowed you to record the stations on a traditional DVR I think they'd be popular. Some of the smaller providers, like RCN, should look into launching a service like this. It could be an inexpensive way to break in and compete with the bigger guys on their own pipes.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> Frankly I think the article is horrible


Well it list the reasons people in favor of "Net Neutrality" are in favor of it. It is not a balanced article. 


wmhjr said:


> what problem are you trying to solve?


There are several problems or potential problems I would like to be solved/prevented: 
I want the Internet to stay as accessible/open as possible. ISP's blackmailing web sites/services into paying backdoor fees or having their sites/services blocked/degraded isn't an open Internet and is bad for everyone but the blackmailers. 
I want ISPs to actually have to provide what ever service they are advertising, their marketing/advertising to be honest, & and their billing to be simple and straight forward. 
I would like everyone to have access to usable/reliable/reasonably affordable Internet access.
I would like Internet access speeds & reliability to continue to improve for everyone at a pace where all consumers will be able to access and use any current or future services that are developed.
If we had 4-6 viable options, competition could do most of the above. However that does not appear to be feasible or likely to happen anytime soon (wireless future tech could change that). So based on the level of competition we do have, in my opinion, it is going to take Government regulation & support to achieve most of the above.



wmhjr said:


> general statements about it "being a utility"


The whole issue about calling Internet access a "utility" is about how the Government is going to regulate it not necessarily how it is physically going to work.



wmhjr said:


> somebody posted about what NY state


Ya that was me, I really do not expect much to happen for me, it could, if Frontier was allowed to tap the money for general capcity issues (not last mile issues). It would go long way to helping everyone who has to use DSL if their current service could maintain usable speeds (something close to 6 Mbps is currently at least usable).

The wild card in all of this is tech advancement.


----------



## lessd

Arcady said:


> It's all about choice for the consumer, competition for the seller, and a fair marketplace instead of a monopoly. (Yes I know you keep saying the cable company is not a monopoly, but with the current state of startup costs for a competitor, it effectively is.)
> 
> Here's some of what I'd like to see:
> 
> The cable coming into your home would still be owned by Comcast or Verizon or TWC or AT&T or whoever.
> You could pick a provider for services over that cable.
> Pick a company for internet and a company for TV.
> You pay your bill to that company, and they pay an access fee to the owner of the infrastructure (just like deregulated power or the old DSL model.)
> Use standard equipment for data and video services, so you can buy at retail or rent from the company. If you move, it works on whatever system you move to. Would we put up with different power jacks in different states? No. So why this mess of Motorola or Cisco and other proprietary junk?


Somebody tried that in my town, never worked out as most people like the idea of one phone call to solve any cable problem, internet not working call Comcast (in my case) but if I had cable by Comcast and internet by XYZ then if my internet stopped working it could be one of two things (or more) problem with the Comcast cable or with the head end of XYZ co., how would I know, who would I call first. That why TiVo has a hard time competing with the cable co DVR, problem with your Comcast DVR call Comcast, problem with your TiVo DVR getting channels, Comcast cable card, TiVo motherboard/Hard drive, or other, can't make one phone call all the time.


----------



## wmhjr

I'm still seeing "general" statements here. Seriously - not being mean about it. Arcady, Dan, atmuscarella, I'm now looking for technical solutions. I have yet to see one that considers the existing topology of how the fiber interconnects are designed, hubs, etc. It's really easy to say "just give me the fiber to my home" but that's not how the cable plants are designed. Remember - that same cable plant delivering fiber from Verizon is delivering phone, TV content, everything. As I think about this even more, it becomes obvious to me that you simply cannot technically "separate" it (such as the IMHO poor analogy of electricity or gas) until ALL services delivered via that fiber are IP. Because until you do that, I simply don't think it's reasonable technically possible.

Dan, for example let's talk about the analogy with roads. I think it's very appropriate as it relates to roads. Roads are finite. But, frankly I have to contradict your statement about "network capacity" being "infinite". It is not. There are physical limitations even today (think latency to start with just to make a point). And there are capacity limitations unless you force the provider/carrier to upgrade. And even then, there are capacity limitations. TINSTAFL - There is no such thing as a free lunch. And there is no such thing as infinite capacity. Think about Moore's law. Moore's law - strictly defined - is already broken. I attended a CIO Summit with IBM a couple years ago where the big headed people were demonstrating exactly how many ATOMS were the minimum size for specific functions. Beyond that, things get quantum. Atoms. So the bottom line is that when you start at the physical layer and then split that from the virtual, having separate "providers" you do have a problem. Frankly, were I Verizon and that happened, I'd think about getting out of the carrier business period. At least the consumer carrier part for sure.

So, again. Please somebody describe for me exactly how a fiber connection - next year - that is already deployed - could be turned into "just a pipe" and segregated from "services" without forcing every single provider to instantly turn all of their content to IP. Which, BTW gets back to the start of this thread - because in doing so, it would immediately make obsolete every single device we own (meaning Tivos and Verizon boxes).


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

wmhjr said:


> Jim, I'm still calling BS. Here is your quote.
> 
> Back it up. You make claims now that it's not because of Franchise Agreements. Now it's "laws that suppress competition".
> 
> BS. It's simple money.
> 
> Nobody in their right mind would invest billions of dollars for a questionable return on investment. It does not mean that they "can't". It means it would be a stupid business decision. Seems to me that the problem is that you want to find some sort of utopian solution that flies in the face of financial logic.


You're apparently confusing multiple conversations with heck knows who. I haven't mentioned solutions. The only thing I've said is that incumbents fight new competition. Can't imagine what's so hard about that to accept. Links and even a state house bill was presented.

I recognize that you're fixated on the narrowness of the franchise agreement, and by golly, you get the amazing glory of being correct on an internet forum about that. You are the king. You are King Right of being right about that. But it won't change the fact that there is politicking that goes on beyond it. While you're trying to break this issue down to nothing but money and money alone (and by god don't talk about anything other than the franchise agreement!), if you don't think any politics are involved at any step of the way, it's your utopia I want to live in because that would make not only my job easier, but the entire universe easier.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> Well it list the reasons people in favor of "Net Neutrality" are in favor of it. It is not a balanced article.


It lists high level non-factual reasons without presenting any balance or background. To me, that makes it no more useful than anybody walking down the street.



atmuscarella said:


> I want the Internet to stay as accessible/open as possible. ISP's blackmailing web sites/services into paying backdoor fees or having their sites/services blocked/degraded isn't an open Internet and is bad for everyone but the blackmailers.


What you call blackmail I call the cost of doing business. Now, let's immediately disregard the whole "blocked" thing, because unless it's illegal or insecure, it should not be blocked. Let's also stop calling names like "backdoor fees" as that is not being reasonable. I have zero issues with paying more for higher performance. Frankly, I don't EVER want that to go away. As I've said before, to me that is ESSENTIAL. It's not that I don't care - it's that I want Pay for Performance with Service levels to ALWAYS exist. It must for many critical systems to function properly. What you say is "bad for everyone" is frankly untrue. It's bad for what you think you want. I'll give you that. But it is NOT "bad for everyone".



atmuscarella said:


> I want ISPs to actually have to provide what ever service they are advertising, their marketing/advertising to be honest, & and their billing to be simple and straight forward.


Agreed



atmuscarella said:


> I would like everyone to have access to usable/reliable/reasonably affordable Internet access.


I'd like to end world hunger and create peace through the world. No regulation is going to do this, and you can't force it. Somebody living in a very rural area with their nearest neighbor being a mile away is SOL. Sorry.



atmuscarella said:


> I would like Internet access speeds & reliability to continue to improve for everyone at a pace where all consumers will be able to access and use any current or future services that are developed.


More ending of world hunger. But let's talk about it. You even said "continue to improve". It's already doing that. Massive improvements. What the average person gets today is light years beyond a handful of years ago. With no regulatory pressure. Because the market demanded it - and because THERE IS A FINANCIAL BENEFIT. As far as "future services", I can't completely go there. It has to be reasonable. But in general, I'd agree that we need to continue the technology improvement - just as we have seen without regulatory intervention.



atmuscarella said:


> If we had 4-6 viable options, competition could do most of the above. However that does not appear to be feasible or likely to happen anytime soon (wireless future tech could change that). So based on the level of competition we do have, in my opinion, it is going to take Government regulation & support to achieve most of the above.


I simply have an opinion that you are completely wrong about this part. I believe regulation will stifle development, as it will let all the air out of the fiber balloon.



atmuscarella said:


> The whole issue about calling Internet access a "utility" is about how the Government is going to regulate it not necessarily how it is physically going to work.


Wrong. Sorry, but you could not be more wrong. That is in fact the exact problem I'm getting at. You're trying to force a government solution to a almost impossible to describe problem, devoid of even the most basic consideration of whether it's even feasible. What if I said that every single person the US should be able to drive a car that gets 500mpg next year. Great idea. And completely without merit. Not achievable. If you don't stop to think about the viability of doing it, you are just walking around in a room filled with land mines, wearing a blindfold, chanting "I want choice".



atmuscarella said:


> Ya that was me, I really do not expect much to happen for me, it could, if Frontier was allowed to tap the money for general capcity issues (not last mile issues). It would go long way to helping everyone who has to use DSL if their current service could maintain usable speeds (something close to 6 Mbps is currently at least usable).
> 
> The wild card in all of this is tech advancement.


No, quite frankly the entire premise of this thing is tech advancement of some yet to be determined technology to fit a questionable ROI.

The point is that for most people, you can complain about "not having choice" but to me it's a BS argument. I don't have choice about what water I get. I don't have a choice about what road connects to my driveway. No choice about who delivers my mail. "Choice" is not a "right". It's a "want". You don't even have a right to HAVE electricity. If it's there, you can get it. If it's not, you can't. To me, this is all very "entitlement" centric. And it's really hard for me to recognize the position I'm in here, because I seriously doubt that anyone on this thread detests Verizon and Comcast more than I do.


----------



## wmhjr

BigJimOutlaw said:


> You're apparently confusing multiple conversations with heck knows who. I haven't mentioned solutions. The only thing I've said is that incumbents fight new competition. Can't imagine what's so hard about that to accept. Links and even a state house bill was presented.
> 
> I recognize that you're fixated on the narrowness of the franchise agreement, and by golly, you get the amazing glory of being correct on an internet forum about that. You are the king. You are King Right of being right about that. But it won't change the fact that there is politicking that goes on beyond it. While you're trying to break this issue down to nothing but money and money alone, if you don't think any politics are involved at any step of the way, it's your utopia I want to live in because that would make not only my job easier, but the entire universe easier.


No, Jim, what I said is that you personally stated how you personally observed these "incentives" when Fios came to town. I even provided your quote. You stated that there were some sort of "incentives" that you were personally aware of. I'm asking again. What exactly were they? Please provide data. I have - why can't you?

Beyond that, you are being dishonest in your statement about my being fixated on Franchise agreements. I've been discussing financial statements, ROIs, how the market is estimated in terms of density per linear mile, service level agreements (SLAs), the potential impact on 401Ks and retirements due to the impact of such governmental polices for major corporations that are primarily owned by institutional investors (meaning anybody who has a retirement of any kind). I simply provided actual FACTS about the nature of Franchise agreements, because they were being inaccurately described.

And Jim, please show me where I've said politics are not involved... LOCAL politics are really not involved. We all know Federal politics are involved. And quite frankly, that means politics on BOTH sides of this discussion.

Again, Jim - your words - not mine. Your quote - again....



BigJimOutlaw said:


> But that's not to say the existing provider doesn't kick and scream all along the way when a threat to their monopoly comes to town. *They actively fight against incentives the Authority can give the new competitor, even incentives they got themselves.
> 
> I saw it first hand when Fios came.*.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> I'm still seeing "general" statements here. Seriously - not being mean about it. Arcady, Dan, atmuscarella, I'm now looking for technical solutions. I have yet to see one that considers the existing topology of how the fiber interconnects are designed, hubs, etc. It's really easy to say "just give me the fiber to my home" but that's not how the cable plants are designed. Remember - that same cable plant delivering fiber from Verizon is delivering phone, TV content, everything. As I think about this even more, it becomes obvious to me that you simply cannot technically "separate" it (such as the IMHO poor analogy of electricity or gas) until ALL services delivered via that fiber are IP. Because until you do that, I simply don't think it's reasonable technically possible.
> 
> Dan, for example let's talk about the analogy with roads. I think it's very appropriate as it relates to roads. Roads are finite. But, frankly I have to contradict your statement about "network capacity" being "infinite". It is not. There are physical limitations even today (think latency to start with just to make a point). And there are capacity limitations unless you force the provider/carrier to upgrade. And even then, there are capacity limitations. TINSTAFL - There is no such thing as a free lunch. And there is no such thing as infinite capacity. Think about Moore's law. Moore's law - strictly defined - is already broken. I attended a CIO Summit with IBM a couple years ago where the big headed people were demonstrating exactly how many ATOMS were the minimum size for specific functions. Beyond that, things get quantum. Atoms. So the bottom line is that when you start at the physical layer and then split that from the virtual, having separate "providers" you do have a problem. Frankly, were I Verizon and that happened, I'd think about getting out of the carrier business period. At least the consumer carrier part for sure.
> 
> So, again. Please somebody describe for me exactly how a fiber connection - next year - that is already deployed - could be turned into "just a pipe" and segregated from "services" without forcing every single provider to instantly turn all of their content to IP. Which, BTW gets back to the start of this thread - because in doing so, it would immediately make obsolete every single device we own (meaning Tivos and Verizon boxes).


If you are asking if someone has a mystical solution where everything gets better without ISPs upgrading - well I am sure we don't have one.

Increased capacity is going to require infrastructure upgrades -whats the big deal? Not like we haven't upgrade the phone system or electrical system over time as the needs increased. I remember when we all had to have party lines because there weren't enough phone lines - then they upgraded and we could have a private line. I also remember when the electrical system had to be upgrade because all the dairy farms wanted to expand (of which we were one) and needed to move to 3 phase 400 amp systems. The lines where added/upgraded. And yes the costs increased, but that was what was needed for progress.

The reason those upgrades happened where because the electric & telephone services were regulated utilities. All I have been trying to say here, is treat Internet access the same way.


----------



## lpwcomp

In terms of infrastructure upgrade priority, the internet is near the bottom of _*my*_ list.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

wmhjr said:


> No, Jim, what I said is that you personally stated how you personally observed these "incentives" when Fios came to town. I even provided your quote. You stated that there were some sort of "incentives" that you were personally aware of. I'm asking again. What exactly were they? Please provide data. I have - why can't you?


My point was pretty darn simple. Incumbents resist competition. I'm not going to go into the details of my job or the stink incumbents raised and their efforts to derail things, and I don't care if you have a problem with that. What I have provided were links of similar nonsense happening elsewhere. You didn't provide data to disprove it was happening, you're just dismissing it as part of some sort of legacy misconception.


----------



## Arcady

The sky is blue.

(I'm seeing if this will get thrown out as inaccurate or misguided or some other silly reply.)


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> Which, BTW gets back to the start of this thread - because in doing so, it would immediately make obsolete every single device we own (meaning Tivos and Verizon boxes).


Not necessarily. They could always use a bridge device to convert the IP back to existing standards. This is how VoIP works. You buy/rent a box from Vonage, Ooma, etc... and it converts the IP based signal back to an analog signal that's compatible with any standard telephone on the market.

The technology for doing that with video is a bit more complex, but it's not impossible. And once CVP-2 is deployed and in widespread use it will be even easier.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> *The reason those upgrades happened where because the electric & telephone services were regulated utilities*. All I have been trying to say here, is treat Internet access the same way.


Are you really serious about the statement in bold? Really? Honestly, that may be the most utterly preposterous statement on this thread. Maybe on this site.


----------



## atmuscarella

lpwcomp said:


> In terms of infrastructure upgrade priority, the internet is near the bottom of _*my*_ list.


Ya there are many infrastructure needs - what the highest needs are depends on where you live. But many people believe future business growth depends on having good Internet access. The number our Governor here in NY is using is 100Mbps. For home use we have just started to scratch the surface, with telework, tel-education, & telemedicine. How important access to the Internet is certainly debatable, what I think isn't debatable is that areas with better access are going to out perform areas without it.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> Are you really serious about the statement in bold? Really? Honestly, that may be the most utterly preposterous statement on this thread. Maybe on this site.


absolutely serious we would never had seen those upgrades without Government - what do you think the 10 of millions of dollars the Rural electrification service spent was doing? In fact many areas might still not have those service without the Government. Why do you think the telephone companies want the must provide service rules removed? There are plenty of places that upgrading/maintaining electric & telephone service is not profitable the reason they do it is because they have to do. If we had all been smart we would have demanded the same from cable companies when the systems where first built out. Someone on these boards posted that was how it was in their state - smart people.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> Not necessarily. They could always use a bridge device to convert the IP back to existing standards. This is how VoIP works. You buy/rent a box from Vonage, Ooma, etc... and it converts the IP based signal back to an analog signal that's compatible with any standard telephone on the market.
> 
> The technology for doing that with video is a bit more complex, but it's not impossible. And once CVP-2 is deployed and in widespread use it will be even easier.


Dan, I'm not sure that would really work in this scenario. We're not talking about something as simple as digital/analog conversion. The viewpoint I'm talking about is that in order for the pipe to be "just a pipe" then IMHO nothing but IP traffic could traverse that pipe from the home to the provider. Think about the architecture of the FiOS network to begin with. Let's start with the ONT. For TV alone, FiOS uses both the 1550nm wavelength for part of video, but other parts (guide data, control circuits, etc) go through the 1310nm and 1490nm wavelength (up and down data). It could get really interesting. I agree that once CVP-2 is fully deployed it might be easier. I frankly would be concerned (again) about service levels.

One other item - think about back when Verizon even released FiOS in 2005. Remember - the market clobbered them. IIRC, Verizon took about a 15-20% hit on share value immediately - because of concerns that the massive investment in fiber deployment might never be fully recouped.

So imagine then if you eliminate even their ROI, fundamentally reducing receipts from each sub. I see three things happening. First, their stock would tank. Immediately. I'm thinking along the lines of a 50-60% hit at the opening bell. Second, they would be forced to set the "infrastructure" or "pipe" unit price (per customer) pretty darned high. The Feds can't force them to take a loss (at least not for long). Which would then result in the last thing. Quality would take a dump.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> absolutely serious we would never had seen those upgrades without Government - what do you think the 10 of millions of dollars the Rural electrification service spent was doing? In fact many areas might still not have those service without the Government. Why do you think the telephone companies want the must provide service rules removed? There are plenty of places that upgrading/maintaining electric & telephone service is not profitable the reason they do it is because they have to do. If we had all been smart we would have demanded the same from cable companies when the systems where first built out. Someone on these boards posted that was how it was in their state - smart people.


I could not possibly disagree with you more.


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> Dan, I'm not sure that would really work in this scenario. We're not talking about something as simple as digital/analog conversion. The viewpoint I'm talking about is that in order for the pipe to be "just a pipe" then IMHO nothing but IP traffic could traverse that pipe from the home to the provider.


Well there are two things we're talking about here. The service and the connection.

For the connection... I'm not sure how exactly FiOS works or how hard it would be for them to convert to pure digital. But for cable the technology already exists. A cable modem works by simply bonding multiple 6Mhz frequency blocks and then using QAM modulation to send/receive data. If all linear channels were removed from the line then a DOCSIS 3.0 modem could theoretically use all available frequencies on an 800Mhz system to create a 5Gbps connection. All without any major changes to the core infrastructure.

For the service.... Uverse already works this way. They essentially install a 48Mbps VDSL line to your house. Then they use a special gateway device that fields channel requests from receivers and then starts streaming the requested "channel" via the VDSL network. I envision cable eventually working the same way. Rather then multi-cast 200 channels to everyone at all times, the pipe coming to your house will be a simple network connection and the channels will be streamed over that network on demand. A properly designed gateway type device could easily convert that service, or another competing service, to a format that is compatible with existing equipment.


----------



## lpwcomp

atmuscarella said:


> Ya there are many infrastructure needs - what the highest needs are depends on where you live. But many people believe future business growth depends on having good Internet access. The number our Governor here in NY is using is 100Mbps. For home use we have just started to scratch the surface, with telework, tel-education, & telemedicine. How important access to the Internet is certainly debatable, what I think isn't debatable is that areas with better access are going to out perform areas without it.


High speed Internet won't be much good if the power grid collapses. And unless you can figure out a way to deliver food and fuel via the Internet, you need a working transportation system.

Both of the above could be a matter of life and death. High speed Internet? Eh, not so much.


----------



## atmuscarella

lpwcomp said:


> High speed Internet won't be much good if the power grid collapses. And unless you can figure out a way to deliver food and fuel via the Internet, you need a working transportation system.
> 
> Both of the above could be a matter of life and death. High speed Internet? Eh, not so much.


I guess I don't look at it as an either or, all infrastructure should continuously be maintain and upgraded as needed. Anyplace the power grid has issues should be fixed and where Internet access is an issue it should be fixed. Same with our transportation systems. I understand you can over spend on any of these things but I honestly don't understand why we just went through 6+ years with 10s of thousands of people needing work and didn't fix more of this stuff. All of western NY is pretty much a no growth area so most of our infrastructure doesn't have capacity issues (Internet being the exception), but like most places I am sure there is more differed maintenance than there should be and some modernization needed to some systems.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Both of the above could be a matter of life and death. High speed Internet? Eh, not so much.


We're getting to the point where the internet is as vital to our economy as those other two. Perhaps not as vital to our actual lives, but if the economy collapses you wont be able to afford power or food anyway.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> We're getting to the point where the internet is as vital to our economy as those other two. Perhaps not as vital to our actual lives, but if the economy collapses you wont be able to afford power or food anyway.


That I totally agree with, to much of this country now depends on the internet to say it is just a luxury one can easily live without. If planes stopped flying you would not die if you could get food and water, but flying is part of the American experience along with the internet, (and a large number of other things) much of the country and business depends on these things.
Don't know what all this has to do with Cable Cards, but that my 2 cents.


----------



## Dan203

I was basically arguing that the coax running to your house right now will eventually become just a pipe to the internet, doing away with linear TV broadcasts. At that point the TV portion of your cable service will be served up as an OTT service, akin to Netflix. We were discussing how that might open up the TV service part to 3rd parties, how the lack of net neutrality might hinder that, and whether we would need to throw away our TiVos if it did happen or if a bridging device could be created to convert the pure IP service to a more traditional signal that a TiVo could use.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Dan203 said:


> I was basically arguing that the coax running to your house right now will eventually become just a pipe to the internet, doing away with linear TV broadcasts. At that point the TV portion of your cable service will be served up as an OTT service, akin to Netflix. We were discussing how that might open up the TV service part to 3rd parties, how the lack of net neutrality might hinder that, and whether we would need to throw away our TiVos if it did happen or if a bridging device could be created to convert the pure IP service to a more traditional signal that a TiVo could use.


Dan hits the nail on the head, and this is what will turn cable into a dumb pipe with hopefully open access someday.

The remaining issue of it being a utility with access on par with electricity (and the necessary govt mandates) will also come in time. The public will make it so.


----------



## aaronwt

The only way the cable companies will allow other providers to use their pipe is if they are forced to. If one company spent billions of their own money putting in infrastructure, then I don't see why they would want anyone else using it.


----------



## wmhjr

Sorry - but again I think folks are confusing "critical services" to "what you happen to want". 

I'll say it again. There is absolutely not the slightest reason in this universe that "Net Neutrality" is necessary to simply provide basic "standards" for what different service "tiers" are.

Look at this very conversation. It went from people not liking the "lack of choice" and "charging more for higher performance" to some impossible to define theory that by not regulating it, it won't be "reliable" or "available" and "critical services" will be a risk.

The problem is that it's exactly the opposite. And I have yet - again - seen anybody on this thread describe exactly how you could with current technology separate the pipe completely from what goes through it. Nobody. 

As I've said before, what you would more likely get is HIGHER pricing, and LOWER performance and reliability. And there are facts supporting my opinion.

Fact #1) Verizon was (and still is) already at risk due to their gamble in rolling out FiOS. They have stopped expansion. Why? Because they still have not achieved even breakeven more than ten years after starting. Remember, they spent more than TWENTY THREE BILLION DOLLARS just in direct costs, and just to start out. So, what kind of financial genius thinks that there is even the remotest possibility that they'll resume expansion of you remove part of the revenue stream? If you really believe they would, please provide some sort of logically sound explanation for exactly why? And if you don't believe me, just look at their March 2014 releases and TONS of industry publications following it.

Fact #2) So, let's look at where they even tried doing "something" third party. In 2010, Frontier paid $8.2B to acquire 4.8 million customers from Verizon, of which there were approximately 70 thousand FiOS subscribers. Guess what? They couldn't make money. They had to request a 47% rate increase for the FiOS customers. And, they hiked "new installations of FiOS from $79 to $500 (for a time). 

Fact #3) Currently, most analysts think that at as of 2012, Verizon was losing $800 for every FiOS customer in terms of NPV (Net Present Value). Verizon countered that, and made claims of "some" profitability starting in 2008, but analysts still believe that their accounting is overly optimistic with respect to how charges are being applied. Most seem to believe that real "profitability" is still years down the road - assuming no further expansion to dilute the situation.

Fact #4) Internet as a Utility. So, let's use a comparison. Natural Gas. Look at the Natural Gas market in the US to date. In it, you'll see examples of exactly what I'm talking about. And I mean, exactly. You want regulatory action? You may be sorry to get exactly what you asked for. As a combining result of the Gas act of 1938 and the Phillips Decision (as well as previous intervention via policy statements) the US experienced a massive shortage of Natural Gas in 1975-1977. Because the regulations set artificial markets that did not recognize the actual commodity (translate to technology for Internet) there was no financial reason for anyone to invest in extraction, distribution, etc. So nobody did. By 1975, half of US reserves were allocated to "intrastate consumers" (meaning, they were consumed). In 1978 the NGPA was passed, and rates rose in a huge way. And they never stopped rising until relatively recently, due new extraction methods resulting in much higher untapped reserves. But even now, look at it. There is a great deal of the extraction that has stopped because there is insufficient distribution capacity to deliver it. You want a "utility"? Here's an example. I've been paying gas bills for decades. I know the MY gas bills are not lower simply because my local utility provides separate delivery and I can choose a "supplier". 

But more to the point, the idea is absolutely ludicrous for yet another reason. Guess what? The gas flowing through those pipes? It doesn't matter who I purchase natural gas from. I get the same gas. The ONLY thing that separation of who I "buy gas from" does is an accounting operation. Nobody is changing "where the gas I consume" comes from. It never, ever came from anywhere different, even though I've changed "suppliers" several times. It's just accounting in the manner of who is buying/selling overall volume on the US and global markets. 

And this is absolutely not even remotely similar in any possible way to how you consume "Internet Services". 


So, can somebody please explain how regulations that would "separate the pipe from the content" would result in lower prices? In higher performance? Let's put aside the fact that in doing so, you'd destroy the retirements of many people. Let's just talk about exactly - in detail - what specifically will cause some sort of "improvement"? And do NOT just use some stupid excuse of "competition".

Edit: Edited the actual number of FiOS customers as part of the Frontier purchase.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> Dan hits the nail on the head, and this is what will turn cable into a dumb pipe with hopefully open access someday.
> 
> *The remaining issue of it being a utility with access on par with electricity* (and the necessary govt mandates) will also come in time. The public will make it so.


Again, let's stop making general statements and REALLY expose this myth for what it is.

You have electricity choice, right?

OK, let's talk about where the electricity you consume in your home comes from.

Let's say you choose some the same company that "delivers" your electricity. And you use that electricity for 2 years.

Then let's say you change your choice to "TreeHuggerPower", that advertises that they produce 75% of their power from the wind energy created by the beating wings of pigeons on NYC.

How do they "change" or "reroute" that "different electricity" to your home?

They don't.

Period.

You get the same power that you got the previous two years.

Nothing changes.

Except accounting.

Which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH INTERNET.

So, if people are going to keep talking "utility" you had better be prepared to discuss exactly how, and stop making what are IMHO utterly ridiculous comparisons to power distribution.

This holds true with Electricity, Natural Gas, and Water.


----------



## Diana Collins

IMHO, there is a more fundamental issue than "net neutrality" (however you define it). The issue I think we, as a nation, need to address first was touched on a couple of pages back:



atmuscarella said:


> ...I would like everyone to have access to usable/reliable/reasonably affordable Internet access...


Back in 1947 the government, in a singular example of foresight, realized how important television was going to become and in the telecommunications act of that year setup a series of regulations that were designed to provide TV service to everyone in the country for free. They also required that the content providers (the broadcast networks) could not own the vast majority of the outlets so as to insure a broad collection of voices. Over the next 10 years the system achieved its goal and free broadcast TV was available virtually everywhere.

What does this have to do with broadband? A lot. The reason universal TV coverage was considered desirable has many aspects, but most fundamentally they most resolved to "providing access to information." The information could be a newscast, a public affairs program or a political advertisement - the point was getting a consistent message to as many people as possible. It changed this country from being a locally focused society into a national one.

The Internet is poised to take over the role that TV used to play, plus a lot more. Entertainment is the least of it...the Internet is taking the place of encyclopedias, reference manuals, retail outlets, banks and more (speaking of the physical things themselves). In some cases, it has already happened (when was the last time you held an encyclopedia volume in your hands?).

Yet there are millions of people in this country that can not participate in this new medium because the cost of entry is too high. It doesn't really matter whether you can get 1Gbps broadband vs. 1Mbps DSL when you can't even afford a dial-up account. We run the risk of creating an environment where one large group is cut off from the medium of most societal discourse, fracturing the social contract and creating a less informed electorate.

This is where the government needs to apply its efforts, assuming universal access to a common source of information is still a goal. This still comes down to an issue of money, since the only way to make universal Internet access a reality is for the government to subsidize it, or mandate the telecom companies to do it (either way, the rest of us pay for it - in either higher rates or higher taxes). Trying to play traffic cop on the Internet is, frankly, way too difficult a task to ever expect that the government can pull it off.

We can debate how much control an ISP should have over who uses the network, but until everyone has access to the network we are ignoring a far more fundamental and difficult problem.


----------



## aaronwt

Frontier got 4.8 million landlines from Verizon. Not that many FiOS customers. I don't even think The FiOS customers weren't even 5% of that number.


----------



## wmhjr

Diana Collins said:


> IMHO, there is a more fundamental issue than "net neutrality" (however you define it). The issue I think we, as a nation, need to address first was touched on a couple of pages back:
> 
> Yet there are millions of people in this country that can not participate in this new medium because the cost of entry is too high. It doesn't really matter whether you can get 1Gbps broadband vs. 1Mbps DSL when you can't even afford a dial-up account. We run the risk of creating an environment where one large group is cut off from the medium of most societal discourse, fracturing the social contract and creating a less informed electorate.
> 
> This is where the government needs to apply its efforts, assuming universal access to a common source of information is still a goal. This still comes down to an issue of money, since the only way to make universal Internet access a reality is for the government to subsidize it, or mandate the telecom companies to do it (either way, the rest of us pay for it - in either higher rates or higher taxes). Trying to play traffic cop on the Internet is, frankly, way too difficult a task to ever expect that the government can pull it off.
> 
> We can debate how much control an ISP should have over who uses the network, but until everyone has access to the network we are ignoring a far more fundamental and difficult problem.


I'm not sure if we're saying the same thing, however, let's try to clarify.

1) There is NOTHING - absolutely not a single, solitary thing - in a single, solitary proposal of "Net Neutrality" - that would in any possible way stimulate "growth" in the form of getting broadband to people who do not have access to it currently.

2) You cannot "mandate" telecom companies to do it without paying them to do so. Think about it. If the providers today can't find a way to make it profitable for them to deliver service, how would "Net Neutrality" change that in a positive way? It simply could not possibly.

3) I disagree with the idea that 100% of people have to have access - at least in the way it's being described here. Guess what? 100% of locations and people don't have access to electricity, natural gas, or city water. There is no - repeat NO - regulatory requirement that every home must have telephone access, natural gas access, water access, sewage access or electricity access. That is a myth. I personally have the opinion that "services" need to change. Here is where I think "new technology" such as Wireless comes in. BTW, since somebody else here on the thread mentioned (inaccurately) how Asia and Europe had done things, you just might want to take a look at how Asia in particular accomplished a good bit of that. Wireless. Because POTS didn't even exist in many regions to any measurable standard. You might want to take a look at a KPMG study "Broadband Wireless Access in Asia Pacific" published several years ago - which has turned out to be remarkably accurate in its predictions. *You can't fix every problem with one solution! *

I actually don't disagree with the base topic Diana suggests. As OTA continues to decline in importance and internet connectivity continues to climb in importance, access is very important. *And I completely and firmly believe that Net Neutrality will actually make availability to access worse - not better. Furthermore, I've yet to see a single example of any possible way that "separating the pipe from the content" would in any possible universe improve that situation.*


----------



## wmhjr

aaronwt said:


> Frontier got 4.8 million landlines from Verizon. Not that many FiOS customers. I don't even think The FiOS customers weren't even 5% of that number.


You might be right about the percentage that were FiOS. I'll have to check. What I am totally sure of is that of those that were FiOS, they did in fact request a 47% rate hike and stated that they could not continue to support those customers at existing price schedules. Meaning specifically, that they were forced to price higher even than Verizon prices for the same services.

Edit: Actually, you're correct - my apologies. Age induced memory loss I guess. I went back and checked, and it was somewhere in the range of 70K FiOS customers. It doesn't change the point in any way, but for the sake of accuracy. I'll go back and try to change the original post.


----------



## aaronwt

wmhjr said:


> You might be right about the percentage that were FiOS. I'll have to check. What I am totally sure of is that of those that were FiOS, they did in fact request a 47% rate hike and stated that they could not continue to support those customers at existing price schedules. Meaning specifically, that they were forced to price higher even than Verizon prices for the same services.


It's kind of hard to keep the prices low when you don't have the numbers to comand a good discount. From what I just read Frontier is down to a little over 100K FiOS TV customers.

Edit: I guess that number was from 2011.


----------



## wmhjr

aaronwt said:


> It's kind of hard to keep the prices low when you don't have the numbers to comand a good discount. From what I just read Frontier is down to a little over 100K FiOS TV customers.
> 
> Edit: I guess that number was from 2011.


It doesn't really matter "how low" the numbers are. They were all significantly higher than the same service provided by Verizon. For the same service, at the time Verizon was charging $65/month while Frontier needed to charge $95/month.

I would be interesting in seeing not just how many FiOS TV customers there are, but also add in FiOS broadband - though that is probably not a huge number.

But again, it does not change the point IMHO at all.


----------



## Diana Collins

wmhjr said:


> I'm not sure if we're saying the same thing, however, let's try to clarify...


We are not in disagreement...no net neutrality proposal will do a thing to improve either the breadth or depth of broadband service.

I, personally, believe that near universal access to the Internet is an important goal that we should commit ourselves to pursuing, but that is just my opinion. IMO, trying to force ISPs to do business in a particular way is doomed to failure. Since every approach limits the revenue that an ISP is allowed to realize from their infrastructure one of two things are the likely result:

1) A new cottage industry will emerge that works to find ways around the regulations.
2) They will never spend another penny on that infrastructure and instead invest where they can make money (e.g. wireless).

Actually, the most likely outcome will be both. Whatever the government attempts to do, unless it provides a way for the likes of Comcast and Verizon to make a profit on the endeavor, the cure will be worse than the disease.


----------



## Diana Collins

wmhjr said:


> It doesn't really matter "how low" the numbers are. They were all significantly higher than the same service provided by Verizon. For the same service, at the time Verizon was charging $65/month while Frontier needed to charge $95/month.
> 
> I would be interesting in seeing not just how many FiOS TV customers there are, but also add in FiOS broadband - though that is probably not a huge number.
> 
> But again, it does not change the point IMHO at all.


I have seen the broadband number, but can't find it at the moment. I do recall that it was not an order of magnitude larger than the TV number...maybe double, but I don't think it was even that large.


----------



## joewom

Dan203 said:


> I read it and it supports wmhjr's comments. Basically it's too expensive to wire a town for two sets of coax. Although there is one underhanded thing they mention. The cable lobby has managed to get 20 states to pass laws preventing individual municipalities from creating municipal networks. However it sounds like the FCC might step in and overturn those laws.
> 
> I have another question... what sort of barrier would there be to starting an internet based TV provider. Say you wanted to offer a service that allowed someone to access all the same channels as Comcast, but they were streamed live over the internet rather then directly from some sort of head end like cable or U-verse? Is it just a matter of securing the deals with the content providers? Or is there some regulation in place that would prevent something like that?


I know of one place a company (wireless only at the time)started cable services in a charter cable area. Beaufort SC. Hargray did it and did it well. So well they sold the wireless portion to cricket and only do wired services. Cable/internet/phone.


----------



## wmhjr

joewom said:


> I know of one place a company (wireless only at the time)started cable services in a charter cable area. Beaufort SC. Hargray did it and did it well. So well they sold the wireless portion to cricket and only do wired services. Cable/internet/phone.


Joe, I'm not sure if you're talking about the same thing Dan is.

Dan is talking about a company that does NOT provide cable/internet services. One that instead is an Internet based service, that would allow you to use a Broadband connection of some type to access essentially linear viewed content, just as you would get via OTA or from a Cable/Telco such as FiOS - but strictly via the Internet. No tuners. No cablecards. No set top boxes.

I think you were talking about a local company starting their own "traditional cable/phone/wireless/internet" service, and then selling off the wireless aspect.


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> *And I completely and firmly believe that Net Neutrality will actually make availability to access worse - not better. Furthermore, I've yet to see a single example of any possible way that "separating the pipe from the content" would in any possible universe improve that situation.*


Net neutrality protects the future of the internet. It creates an even playing field for giant companies and small startups alike. It prevents the ISPs from using their position as the last leg between the user and the service as a means to extort those services. If you think that wont happen then just look at the recent fights between the broadcast networks and the MSOs. A huge portion of Illinois lost access to CBS because they could not reach and agreement with Comcast over retransmission fees. What happens when they start having similar fights with Google or Netflix? At least when people lose access to CBS they have the option to put up an antenna and still get it. If your ISP starts blocking a specific internet service, and they have a functional monopoly, what are your options?

You may trust these mega corporations not to screw you over, but I don't! They don't give two sh*ts about us. they'll do anything and everything they can to make an extra dollar. I don't trust them to do the right thing when it comes to the internet, and going forward the internet is going to become the single most important means that all of us will use to access all forms of media. By not having some sort of guaranteed net neutrality we're intrusting one of the most important pieces of technology to ever be to a handful of mega corps who's only goal is to make more money.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> Net neutrality protects the future of the internet. It creates an even playing field for giant companies and small startups alike. It prevents the ISPs from using their position as the last leg between the user and the service as a means to extort those services. If you think that wont happen then just look at the recent fights between the broadcast networks and the MSOs. A huge portion of Illinois lost access to CBS because they could not reach and agreement with Comcast over retransmission fees. What happens when they start having similar fights with Google or Netflix? At least when people lose access to CBS they have the option to put up an antenna and still get it. If your ISP starts blocking a specific internet service, and they have a functional monopoly, what are your options?
> 
> You may trust these mega corporations not to screw you over, but I don't! They don't give two sh*ts about us. they'll do anything and everything they can to make an extra dollar. I don't trust them to do the right thing when it comes to the internet, and going forward the internet is going to become the single most important means that all of us will use to access all forms of media. By not having some sort of guaranteed net neutrality we're intrusting one of the most important pieces of technology to ever be to a handful of mega corps who's only goal is to make more money.


Dan, we're not communicating effectively here.

Can you please point out a single, solitary way that Net Neutrality would in fact increase the broadband footprint in this country?

Can you please point out where "access to a specific site" has been "blocked" due to anything other than security reasons?

I'm sorry, but I honestly believe that in the massive mistrust you have for everyone, you're willing to destroy Internet access.

Please provide some sort of logical reason to believe that Net Neutrality would in fact not have a dampening effect on the future deployment of broadband? When you do so, please acknowledge the absolute, published, facts that I have provided.

Please provide some sort of explanation as to why, when further deployment has already been halted (effectively since 2010) because revenues aren't enough to justify expansion, that further reducing the revenues that were used TO JUSTIFY A MORE THAN $23 BILLION INVESTMENT would not result in higher unit charges and lower quality?

Honestly, you have an opinion. That is perfectly fine. I think it is horribly misplaced, and if allowed to effect policy, would be hugely destructive to you and I. To the average consumer. In the zeal to prevent something that has not happened, you'd be willing to overlook that it would be horribly damaging in other aspects. I do not trust the MSOs. Not at all. I don't like the MSOs. Not at all. But I understand their role. And I'm unwilling to induce what I believe would be massive destruction because of your mistrust or mine.

I'm pretty reasonable, and in ordinary circumstances am the first person to be critical of the providers. But I'm not willing to be spiteful to them in the face of massive facts to the contrary, and no apparent logic to explain how it could even remotely sustain itself. I'm fine with some amount of legislation to prevent major issues. Maybe something like regulatory guidance that prevents "blockage" of sites for anything other than security/privacy reasons.

But I WANT tiered service. I NEED service levels. So do you. So does every single person in this country. Meaning, different services require different service levels. And if you're going to try and say that's wrong, you are willing to destroy not just the internet - but frankly ANY critical business/service that requires ANY communication protocol.

When you remove differing service levels, there IS NO service level. If you treat everything the same, it IS the same. To me, that is the definition of utter idiocy.


----------



## joewom

wmhjr said:


> Joe, I'm not sure if you're talking about the same thing Dan is.
> 
> Dan is talking about a company that does NOT provide cable/internet services. One that instead is an Internet based service, that would allow you to use a Broadband connection of some type to access essentially linear viewed content, just as you would get via OTA or from a Cable/Telco such as FiOS - but strictly via the Internet. No tuners. No cablecards. No set top boxes.
> 
> I think you were talking about a local company starting their own "traditional cable/phone/wireless/internet" service, and then selling off the wireless aspect.


I was on the comment about wiring a town with two sets of coax. ANd other comments that there is no way someone can just start up a cable company when one is already in place. They offered better rates and service and had people signing up left and right away from charter. So I guess what I am saying is it can be done if done right. I think in reality true cable companies don't want competition from other cable companies and they agreed not to start service in someone else s back yard. That would force them to be more customer focus and cost them money.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> Dan, we're not communicating effectively here.
> 
> Can you please point out a single, solitary way that Net Neutrality would in fact increase the broadband footprint in this country?


Why do you keep trying to connect having/not having Internet access with having/not having access to specific websites/services blocked/degraded? They are 2 different topics/problems and as far as I can tell everyone understands that.



wmhjr said:


> Can you please point out where "access to a specific site" has been "blocked" due to anything other than security reasons?
> 
> I'm sorry, but I honestly believe that in the massive mistrust you have for everyone, you're willing to destroy Internet access.
> 
> Please provide some sort of logical reason to believe that Net Neutrality would in fact not have a dampening effect on the future deployment of broadband? When you do so, please acknowledge the absolute, published, facts that I have provided.
> 
> Please provide some sort of explanation as to why, when further deployment has already been halted (effectively since 2010) because revenues aren't enough to justify expansion, that further reducing the revenues that were used TO JUSTIFY A MORE THAN $23 BILLION INVESTMENT would not result in higher unit charges and lower quality?
> 
> Honestly, you have an opinion. That is perfectly fine. I think it is horribly misplaced, and if allowed to effect policy, would be hugely destructive to you and I. To the average consumer. In the zeal to prevent something that has not happened, you'd be willing to overlook that it would be horribly damaging in other aspects. I do not trust the MSOs. Not at all. I don't like the MSOs. Not at all. But I understand their role. And I'm unwilling to induce what I believe would be massive destruction because of your mistrust or mine.


 If you don't believe any ISP has/is blocking/degrading access to any web site/service and worrying about it is crazy then why are you so certain continuing with this policy (not blocking/degrading access to any web site/service) will "destroy Internet access"? Frankly I think you should stop using the words "Net Neutrality", all they do is cause confusion as there is no certainty in what they mean.

Also no one has said they don't believe companies building out the pipes to access the Internet shouldn't make a profit. The fact that Verizon isn't building out anymore fiber just tells me they don't think they can complete with the incumbent cable companies. And has nothing to do with how I or others think the system should be regulated. No one is talking about the Government mandating prices.



wmhjr said:


> I'm pretty reasonable, and in ordinary circumstances am the first person to be critical of the providers. But I'm not willing to be spiteful to them in the face of massive facts to the contrary, and no apparent logic to explain how it could even remotely sustain itself. I'm fine with some amount of legislation to prevent major issues. Maybe something like regulatory guidance that prevents "blockage" of sites for anything other than security/privacy reasons.
> 
> But I WANT tiered service. I NEED service levels. So do you. So does every single person in this country. Meaning, different services require different service levels. And if you're going to try and say that's wrong, you are willing to destroy not just the internet - but frankly ANY critical business/service that requires ANY communication protocol.
> 
> When you remove differing service levels, there IS NO service level. If you treat everything the same, it IS the same. To me, that is the definition of utter idiocy.


"Tiered Service" I am sure those 2 words have dozens of meaning depending on who is reading them. From my point of view we already have tiered service in most areas as you can buy different access speeds. Perhaps you should go into a little more detail about what you think the words "tiered service" mean.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> Why do you keep trying to connect having/not having Internet access with having/not having access to specific websites/services blocked/degraded? They are 2 different topics/problems and as far as I can tell everyone understands that.


Actually, no they are not two different topics. Why? Because there is this little thing called cause and effect. When you say you want to do things like "separate the pipe from the content", that cause, has ramifications. Effects. And those effects are in no way limited to just what you want.



atmuscarella said:


> If you don't believe any ISP has/is blocking/degrading access to any web site/service and worrying about it is crazy then why are you so certain continuing with this policy (not blocking/degrading access to any web site/service) will "destroy Internet access"? Frankly I think you should stop using the words "Net Neutrality", all they do is cause confusion as there is no certainty in what they mean.


Please be much more careful in what words you're putting in my mouth. You are massively misrepresenting what I've said. I will again restate, and then you can go back and validate that this is exactly what I've been saying all along.

I do not believe ISPs are "blocking" sites unrelated to security/privacy. If they are, they should be taken to task. However in terms of "degrading", that is an utterly irresponsible term to use. The proper term IMHO is "Prioritizing". And for that, I totally believe that they have done so, and that they SHOULD CONTINUE to do so.

Finally, as for the words Net Neutrality, please refer to my post #169 in this thread, where I also questioned the continued use of the name. However, others in this thread persisted so I've simply been maintaining consistency.



atmuscarella said:


> Also no one has said they don't believe companies building out the pipes to access the Internet shouldn't make a profit. The fact that Verizon isn't building out anymore fiber just tells me they don't think they can complete with the incumbent cable companies. And has nothing to do with how I or others think the system should be regulated. No one is talking about the Government mandating prices.


Well, that may be what it's telling you, unfortunately you apparently haven't been reading, because that's CERTAINLY not what it's telling everyone else. To be clear, by everyone else I mean Wall Street, Analysts in both finance and technology, their own financial filings and reports, and the news media. For everyone else besides you, it's telling them that the massive investment required is simply too high for continued expansion, until such time as they begin to get some real returns on their investment. Let's be perfectly clear. Verizon has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, shown any reluctance to "compete with incumbent cable operators. That is laughable.



atmuscarella said:


> "Tiered Service" I am sure those 2 words have dozens of meaning depending on who is reading them. From my point of view we already have tiered service in most areas as you can buy different access speeds. Perhaps you should go into a little more detail about what you think the words "tiered service" mean.


I already have. Please read my posts. I even used specific terms to provide relative context. Those terms included CIR, SLA, QoS, and Prioritization. This is incredibly and totally different from just the different "access speeds" that a consumer can choose. Not even remotely similar. It means that through the Providers "system" (network), SLAs that provide for better performance GUARANTEES for specific traffic MUST be made available. It isn't the upload/download advertised speed of the connection to the consumer. It's the prioritization of traffic through the ecosystem. EVERY ENTERPRISE NETWORK USES THESE PRINCIPLES ALREADY. QoS. Packet Shaping by class. Who in their right mind thinks that just because it's "the Internet", if you're delivering more and more services you could simply disregard one of the most basic tenets of Wide Area Networking? So Yes, I think customers SHOULD be able to pay for better performance. By Customers - I mean Companies that are providing services to end users via the Internet. I think it's essential.

Let me be even more clear. Let's use QoS as an example. I'll bring up a VERY relevant reason why traffic classification, SLAs and performance guarantees which may require additional cost are mandatory IMHO.

Live Voice and Video. As opposed to most other types of IP traffic, you can't "retry" a packet when you're dealing with live voice/video. Packet loss, or latency due to multicasting, etc, simply cannot be tolerated. So? That's why different service clouds MUST be able to carry QoS markers to properly prioritize such traffic for example when it moves between one MPLS carrier to another in different geographies. Such as, for example, when you're using one carriers MPLS cloud in the US, and a different MPLS Cloud provider in Asia. And you're making VoIP calls from one region to another. This isn't opinion. It's not "made up BS". It is very very real.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> atmuscarella said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep trying to connect having/not having Internet access with having/not having access to specific websites/services blocked/degraded? They are 2 different topics/problems and as far as I can tell everyone understands that.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no they are not two different topics. Why? Because there is this little thing called cause and effect. When you say you want to do things like "separate the pipe from the content", that cause, has ramifications. Effects. And those effects are in no way limited to just what you want.
Click to expand...

 You do understand that no ware did I mention "separate the pipe from the content" in my post correct? Neither did the post from Dan203 that you were responding too that generated my comment. So unless you think Dan means "separate the pipe from the content" when he said Net neutrality (which I do not). The number of topics has now grown to 3 when I believe Dan was only talking about 1.



wmhjr said:


> atmuscarella said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe any ISP has/is blocking/degrading access to any web site/service and worrying about it is crazy then why are you so certain continuing with this policy (not blocking/degrading access to any web site/service) will "destroy Internet access"? Frankly I think you should stop using the words "Net Neutrality", all they do is cause confusion as there is no certainty in what they mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Please be much more careful in what words you're putting in my mouth. You are massively misrepresenting what I've said. I will again restate, and then you can go back and validate that this is exactly what I've been saying all along.
> 
> I do not believe ISPs are "blocking" sites unrelated to security/privacy. If they are, they should be taken to task. However in terms of "degrading", that is an utterly irresponsible term to use. The proper term IMHO is "Prioritizing". And for that, I totally believe that they have done so, and that they SHOULD CONTINUE to do so.
Click to expand...

Your post was commenting on Dan's post #258 - which is about a person's ISP intentionally blocking/degrading that persons access to specific web services/sites. You said his views on not allow that would "destroy Internet access".



wmhjr said:


> Finally, as for the words Net Neutrality, please refer to my post #169 in this thread, where I also questioned the continued use of the name. However, others in this thread persisted so I've simply been maintaining consistency.


Yes and nobody really knows what anyone means exactly when they use those words.



wmhjr said:


> Well, that may be what it's telling you, unfortunately you apparently haven't been reading, because that's CERTAINLY not what it's telling everyone else. To be clear, by everyone else I mean Wall Street, Analysts in both finance and technology, their own financial filings and reports, and the news media. For everyone else besides you, it's telling them that the massive investment required is simply too high for continued expansion, until such time as they begin to get some real returns on their investment. Let's be perfectly clear. Verizon has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, shown any reluctance to "compete with incumbent cable operators. That is laughable.


You do realize you just said Version shows no reluctance to compete with incumbent cable operators, but because building out fiber costs them too much they aren't going to do - which is the actual definition of not being able to compete with a competitor.



wmhjr said:


> I already have. Please read my posts. I even used specific terms to provide relative context. Those terms included CIR, SLA, QoS, and Prioritization. This is incredibly and totally different from just the different "access speeds" that a consumer can choose. Not even remotely similar. It means that through the Providers "system" (network), SLAs that provide for better performance GUARANTEES for specific traffic MUST be made available. It isn't the upload/download advertised speed of the connection to the consumer. It's the prioritization of traffic through the ecosystem. EVERY ENTERPRISE NETWORK USES THESE PRINCIPLES ALREADY. QoS. Packet Shaping by class. Who in their right mind thinks that just because it's "the Internet", if you're delivering more and more services you could simply disregard one of the most basic tenets of Wide Area Networking? So Yes, I think customers SHOULD be able to pay for better performance. By Customers - I mean Companies that are providing services to end users via the Internet. I think it's essential.
> 
> Let me be even more clear. Let's use QoS as an example. I'll bring up a VERY relevant reason why traffic classification, SLAs and performance guarantees which may require additional cost are mandatory IMHO.
> 
> Live Voice and Video. As opposed to most other types of IP traffic, you can't "retry" a packet when you're dealing with live voice/video. Packet loss, or latency due to multicasting, etc, simply cannot be tolerated. So? That's why different service clouds MUST be able to carry QoS markers to properly prioritize such traffic for example when it moves between one MPLS carrier to another in different geographies. Such as, for example, when you're using one carriers MPLS cloud in the US, and a different MPLS Cloud provider in Asia. And you're making VoIP calls from one region to another. This isn't opinion. It's not "made up BS". It is very very real.


Now here is where I completely disagree with you. I have no issue with differing types of data getting differing priorities based on the type of date however treating the same type of data from different sources differently is completely unacceptable and frankly bull sh**. Any Company that does that should be fined out of existence and the CEO put in Jail. It is racketeering - nothing more than digital protection blood money - might just as well turn the Internet over to the Russian Mob.

There is very simple concept here I pay my ISP for enough band width to obtain so many Mbps of data from any server in the world I want. Someone providing data pays their ISP to provide enough band width to provide a certain amount of data to whoever they want to have the data. The person wanting the data is only the customer of their ISP and the person/company providing the data is only the customer of their ISP. The ISPs jobs are to handle moving this data they have both been paid to move.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> You do understand that no ware did I mention "separate the pipe from the content" in my post correct? Neither did the post from Dan203 that you were responding too that generated my comment. So unless you think Dan means "separate the pipe from the content" when he said Net neutrality (which I do not). The number of topics has now grown to 3 when I believe Dan was only talking about 1.


And you do realize that you've just made my point - again. You keep trying to want to enact "some" things, with some unrealistic perspective that those actions would not impact other areas. My point - if you'd read more carefully is that if you simply say that some companies cannot pay more for higher priority traffic, then you either force the provider to provide EVERYONE unrealistic performance (meaning massive excess of capacity) or you are not able to deliver satisfactory service levels for more performance sensitive systems. This is not my opinion. It is simply technology.



atmuscarella said:


> Your post was commenting on Dan's post #258 - which is about a person's ISP intentionally blocking/degrading that persons access to specific web services/sites. You said his views on not allow that would "destroy Internet access".


Actually, your quote is patently untrue. I brought up CIRs and SLAs WAY before post #258. You need to read more closely. In post 226 and other posts I discussed this. I have consistently specifically discussed SLAs (service levels) and explicitly brought up QoS.



atmuscarella said:


> You do realize you just said Version shows no reluctance to compete with incumbent cable operators, but because building out fiber costs them too much they aren't going to do - which is the actual definition of not being able to compete with a competitor.


No it is not, and your statement is fundamentally dishonest. I'm using that term deliberately. Dishonest. And you know it. Let me be more crystal clear. It doesn't matter if there is an incumbent or not - the fact is that building out FiOS is a HUGE investment, that Verizon already got hammered by the street about it, and that because of the INVESTMENT cost compared to ANY return, they stopped expansion. This is not the definition of "not being able to compete with a competitor in any possible way. In EVERY friggin market they've gone in, they've been VERY successful in competing with the incumbent. I have no idea what kind of definition you are thinking of, but frankly those who live in todays world would never ever agree with yours. Are you friggin kidding me? They stopped "because they couldn't compete"? Really? I have to be honest - you just killed any credibility that might otherwise have existed. Up until the last post or so, it seemed as though you were using reason and logic, but that last statement is a gross deliberate false statement.



atmuscarella said:


> Now here is where I completely disagree with you. I have no issue with differing types of data getting differing priorities based on the type of date however treating the same type of data from different sources differently is completely unacceptable and frankly bull sh**. Any Company that does that should be fined out of existence and the CEO put in Jail. It is racketeering - nothing more than digital protection blood money - might just as well turn the Internet over to the Russian Mob.
> 
> There is very simple concept here I pay my ISP for enough band width to obtain so many Mbps of data from any server in the world I want. Someone providing data pays their ISP to provide enough band width to provide a certain amount of data to whoever they want to have the data. The person wanting the data is only the customer of their ISP and the person/company providing the data is only the customer of their ISP. The ISPs jobs are to handle moving this data they have both been paid to move.


Frankly I could care less that you disagree. You have an opinion, and let's just thank whoever that you're not in a position to run an Enterprise, or facilitate services. The very fact that you've made such a statement tells me that you have extremely little technical acumen. Do you even have the slightest clue on how many different "service classes" there might be in a typical large Enterprise? Classes, BTW are NOT "html". Or SMTP. Those are protocols. Not classes.

You pay for service, that should be (as we both agree) measured consistently, and should meet those advertised measurements or else there should be penalty. Guess what? Companies that you get service from ALSO pay for services. And there is capacity is not infinite. And it's NOT just "bandwidth". Again (as has also been previously brought up) it's also LATENCY. Frankly, Latency is more important than however many gazillion Mbps you might get. Otherwise, we'd all have satellite. But guess what? You're not "entitled to whatever you want". Why do you think you can suspend the laws of physics, defy current Enterprise Wide Area Network Architecture principles - or simply force your provider to pay for a ridiculous excess in order to meet "peak" demand of everyone getting everything with no prioritization?

Sorry for the obvious unhappy response here, but I REALLY don't like it when somebody makes a statement directly mis-representing somebody else, which is patently untrue on top of that.


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> Can you please point out a single, solitary way that Net Neutrality would in fact increase the broadband footprint in this country?


I never said it would. Like someone else above I think the only thing that's going to compel ISPs to expand into rural areas is government incentives.



wmhjr said:


> Can you please point out where "access to a specific site" has been "blocked" due to anything other than security reasons?


Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it wont. And actually there are quite a few BitTorrent sites that have been blocked by ISPs for non-security reasons. They do it because they get pressure from the copyright holders, which in some cases (i.e. Comcast/NBC) is the same company.



wmhjr said:


> Please provide some sort of logical reason to believe that Net Neutrality would in fact not have a dampening effect on the future deployment of broadband?


I never said it wouldn't, but technology will march on. ISPs may not feel an urgent need to increase bandwidth/capacity, but it'll happen eventually just because the technology progresses and they upgrade out of necessity. Especially if they need to insure the network is good enough to support their own video services.



wmhjr said:


> Please provide some sort of explanation as to why, when further deployment has already been halted (effectively since 2010) because revenues aren't enough to justify expansion, that further reducing the revenues that were used TO JUSTIFY A MORE THAN $23 BILLION INVESTMENT would not result in higher unit charges and lower quality?


I've said before that I expect internet access to eventually be metered, just like power. Or at the very least like cellular data. The current scheme of all you can eat for a flat fee probably isn't going to last forever. But that's OK I'm willing to pay more for an unaltered, unbias, internet connection.

I have *zero* trust that a giant corporation, like Comcast, will do anything that is not in the interest of their bottom line unless compelled to do so by the government. Greed rules all in the corporate world. However they're smart about it. They know if they do too much all at once they'll scare people off and induce regulation. So they tip toe around it, implement minor changes along the way and hope that no one notices. Then by the time they get to the point where they're throttling 3rd party services, or charging them an arm and a leg to be on the "fast lane", it will be too late and no one will realize what's going on.

The ONLY things that gets these giant corporations to behave better is competition or government regulation. And since they pretty much have a functional monopoly in most places there really isn't any competition so regulation is the only option.

You see this "fast lane" thing as an opportunity for them to make more money which they will then use to expand and improve their service. I see it as a slippery slope that's going to lead to them using their position as a way to extort and/or squeeze out the competition. I don't disagree with any of the facts you've posted, but you and I do have very different opinions on what their ultimate intentions for this power are.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> And you do realize that you've just made my point - again. You keep trying to want to enact "some" things, with some unrealistic perspective that those actions would not impact other areas. My point - if you'd read more carefully is that if you simply say that some companies cannot pay more for higher priority traffic, then you either force the provider to provide EVERYONE unrealistic performance (meaning massive excess of capacity) or you are not able to deliver satisfactory service levels for more performance sensitive systems. This is not my opinion. It is simply technology.


Well if an ISP can not actually provide what they are selling then they should not sell it. Pretty much everything has to be sized on peak demand I see know reason why the Internet is any different than the electric grid, water systems, even our transportation systems. Not that some of those haven't messed up and not match capacity to peak demand but that is the basic concept. Build capacity based on expect demand, upgrade when demand exceeds capacity.



wmhjr said:


> Actually, your quote is patently untrue. I brought up CIRs and SLAs WAY before post #258. You need to read more closely. In post 226 and other posts I discussed this. I have consistently specifically discussed SLAs (service levels) and explicitly brought up QoS.


My quote is exactly how I interpret your statements/comments. When someone quotes a post and then comments I assume the comments are about the quoted post not something the commenter or someone else said in another post.



wmhjr said:


> atmuscarella said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize you just said Version shows no reluctance to compete with incumbent cable operators, but because building out fiber costs them too much they aren't going to do - which is the actual definition of not being able to compete with a competitor.
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not, and your statement is fundamentally dishonest. I'm using that term deliberately. Dishonest. And you know it. Let me be more crystal clear. It doesn't matter if there is an incumbent or not - the fact is that building out FiOS is a HUGE investment, that Verizon already got hammered by the street about it, and that because of the INVESTMENT cost compared to ANY return, they stopped expansion. This is not the definition of "not being able to compete with a competitor in any possible way. In EVERY friggin market they've gone in, they've been VERY successful in competing with the incumbent. I have no idea what kind of definition you are thinking of, but frankly those who live in todays world would never ever agree with yours. Are you friggin kidding me? They stopped "because they couldn't compete"? Really? I have to be honest - you just killed any credibility that might otherwise have existed. Up until the last post or so, it seemed as though you were using reason and logic, but that last statement is a gross deliberate false statement.
Click to expand...

Your telling me that Verizon can not build out FIOS because it can not be done profitable. I don't see where that is any different than saying they can not competitively offer FIOS in new areas. For a company to competitively offer a product means they can both offer it at a price that will compete with the competition and be profitable. While FIOS the service maybe competitive to the cable service at the correct price point, Verizon isn't competitive if that price point isn't profitable.



wmhjr said:


> Frankly I could care less that you disagree. You have an opinion, and let's just thank whoever that you're not in a position to run an Enterprise, or facilitate services. The very fact that you've made such a statement tells me that you have extremely little technical acumen. Do you even have the slightest clue on how many different "service classes" there might be in a typical large Enterprise? Classes, BTW are NOT "html". Or SMTP. Those are protocols. Not classes.
> 
> You pay for service, that should be (as we both agree) measured consistently, and should meet those advertised measurements or else there should be penalty. Guess what? Companies that you get service from ALSO pay for services. And there is capacity is not infinite. And it's NOT just "bandwidth". Again (as has also been previously brought up) it's also LATENCY. Frankly, Latency is more important than however many gazillion Mbps you might get. Otherwise, we'd all have satellite. But guess what? You're not "entitled to whatever you want". Why do you think you can suspend the laws of physics, defy current Enterprise Wide Area Network Architecture principles - or simply force your provider to pay for a ridiculous excess in order to meet "peak" demand of everyone getting everything with no prioritization?
> 
> Sorry for the obvious unhappy response here, but I REALLY don't like it when somebody makes a statement directly mis-representing somebody else, which is patently untrue on top of that.


I really don't care how the tech works. When I want the Government to regulate something say not having my car blow up if rear-ended I don't need to know how to design and build a car, the company building the car needs to know how to do that. If they can not build a car that doesn't blowup then they can get out of the car building business. Same hear, I don't need to know how to move data over the Internet to know how I want it regulated and I know i don't want what sites/service I use/access determined by who pays enough black mail money to my ISP. If you want to really shut down the Internet just make it so every site/service potentially has to pay separate fees to every ISP in the world or risk having their site/service blocked/degraded. If that means metered service or higher fees so be it.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> Well if an ISP can not actually provide what they are selling then they should not sell it. *Pretty much everything has to be sized on peak demand I see know reason why the Internet is any different than the electric grid, water systems, even our transportation systems*. Not that some of those haven't messed up and not match capacity to peak demand but that is the basic concept. Build capacity based on expect demand, upgrade when demand exceeds capacity..


You've already admitted you don't know how the tech works - which means you don't know what you're talking about. And you continue to make utterly BS statements. The statement highlighted in bold shows that you are in fact utterly without the slightest hesitation to make statements that are in fact false. I've seen a LOT of enterprise global networks. I'm not sure that I've ever seen one yet in the last 15 years that was sized for "peak demand" without traffic prioritization. Nor have I ever heard of one. Nor have I ever read about one. Nor has one ever been discussed at CIO summits or forums. Or at Gartner symposiums. Or.... Heck. That's enough.



atmuscarella said:


> My quote is exactly how I interpret your statements/comments. When someone quotes a post and then comments I assume the comments are about the quoted post not something the commenter or someone else said in another post. .


And it's clear that your interpretation is missing some facts.



atmuscarella said:


> Your telling me that Verizon can not build out FIOS because it can not be done profitable. I don't see where that is any different than saying they can not competitively offer FIOS in new areas. For a company to competitively offer a product means they can both offer it at a price that will compete with the competition and be profitable. While FIOS the service maybe competitive to the cable service at the correct price point, Verizon isn't competitive if that price point isn't profitable. .


I could care less what "you don't see". Frankly, if you really can't see it, you're simply incapable of a rational discussion. The statement in bold (again) highlights your lack of comprehension. Companies choose to not offer MANY services for MANY reasons every single day - even when those services would in fact "be profitable". I strongly suggest you do a little self education before making absurd statements. And more to the point, even if your statements were remotely accurate (which they are not) it would be proving yet ANOTHER point against your argument. That would be cost. But you just won't get it. Let me be perfectly clear. Everybody on this planet except for you apparently understands that the reason Verizon is not expanding further is to not take on more long term debt due to the high cost of expansion - and frankly, at this point due to questionable ROI because of possible regulation at least party due to pressure from people who "don't care how it works".



atmuscarella said:


> *I really don't care how the tech works. * When I want the Government to regulate something say not having my car blow up if rear-ended I don't need to know how to design and build a car, the company building the car needs to know how to do that. If they can not build a car that doesn't blowup then they can get out of the car building business. Same hear, I don't need to know how to move data over the Internet to know how I want it regulated and I know i don't want what sites/service I use/access determined by who pays enough black mail money to my ISP. If you want to really shut down the Internet just make it so every site/service potentially has to pay separate fees to every ISP in the world or risk having their site/service blocked/degraded. If that means metered service or higher fees so be it.


And there it is, the entitlement attitude in full view. "I don't know what I'm talking about, don't know how it works, but I want what I want - and if they can't do it they are evil people bent on making my life miserable". To then make an analogy about "regulating the internet" being compared to "your car not blowing up" is another example of that entitlement mentality. Sorry, I can't take your comments serious.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> I never said it would. Like someone else above I think the only thing that's going to compel ISPs to expand into rural areas is government incentives.


And I don't even think that happens with "current offerings" - meaning with Fiber. Frankly, it should not. No more than the government paying to get electricity or water into places like rural areas in the Bighorn mountains.



Dan203 said:


> Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it wont. And actually there are quite a few BitTorrent sites that have been blocked by ISPs for non-security reasons. They do it because they get pressure from the copyright holders, which in some cases (i.e. Comcast/NBC) is the same company.


I consider BitTorrent to be a security related one, but you might not - I get that. However, almost 50% of zero day vectors are estimated to have been distributed by BitTorrent, more than 15% of all BitTorrent content is estimated to contain zero day "infections", and far more than the US ISPs have "blocked BitTorrent". In fact, in other countries, their (form of) Federal Government have ordered the block of many BitTorrent related sites.

More to the point, just because it has not happened also does not mean it WILL happen either. Frankly, from a pure logic perspective, there is more reason IMHO to believe it will NOT happen given that it has not to date, than there is to believe it WILL happen. The data happens to be on my side of this particular point.



Dan203 said:


> I never said it wouldn't, but technology will march on. ISPs may not feel an urgent need to increase bandwidth/capacity, but it'll happen eventually just because the technology progresses and they upgrade out of necessity. Especially if they need to insure the network is good enough to support their own video services.


Why would they? I provided the factual and historical example of the gas industry. When they did what you are proposing, companies stopped investing. They didn't care that there was going to be a shortage. So, there was a massive, national, shortage. And they don't need to do it to support their own video services either. They can reserve their own "internal" capacity and whatever is left over is the "pipe". So no, I totally disagree with your premise here as well. And again, the facts sure seem to be on my side of the argument.



Dan203 said:


> I've said before that I expect internet access to eventually be metered, just like power. Or at the very least like cellular data. The current scheme of all you can eat for a flat fee probably isn't going to last forever. But that's OK I'm willing to pay more for an unaltered, unbias, internet connection.


Ah, so here it is. You're willing to pay more. So, let's get this out there right now. Everyone else (and I actually thought you were as well) is saying that this "separation" will bring price down due to competition. You're now admitting the truth in that this will likely INCREASE pricing - correct? I understand that you personally are willing to pay more in order to get some sort of "open" transit. I don't think everyone will, but if you're admitting that it will cost more than I can understand your opinion even if I don't agree with it. As for the "metering" thing, I'm still waiting for some explanation of this, because the Internet (as already specified) is completely different than any "current" utility. In other words, the ONLY way I can POSSIBLY see this technically working is not if you simply separate the pipe from the content - but if you also nationalize the ISPs. Because to treat it like natural gas, electricity, etc, keep in mind AGAIN that you don't actually change what gas or electricity flows through your lines. It never, ever, ever, ever changes. You only change accounting. So, to use the same "logic" for the Internet it would mean that your ISP service would Never change. Such TCP/IP and other services would always be provided via the same infrastructure (meaning above layer 2, to be very clear). And the only way to do that is to have the same "ISP" provide those layer 3 and up services for every single person.



Dan203 said:


> I have *zero* trust that a giant corporation, like Comcast, will do anything that is not in the interest of their bottom line unless compelled to do so by the government. Greed rules all in the corporate world. However they're smart about it. They know if they do too much all at once they'll scare people off and induce regulation. So they tip toe around it, implement minor changes along the way and hope that no one notices. Then by the time they get to the point where they're throttling 3rd party services, or charging them an arm and a leg to be on the "fast lane", it will be too late and no one will realize what's going on.


Why would it be too late? If they start doing it in a truly unethical way, then legislate a change. Like I said, I totally and absolutely want QoS type services being available, with service providers (meaning application hosting companies such as Netflix, or whoever) paying for what level of service they require if they need higher SLAs. I feel that is not only reasonable, but that it is essential for the continued development of connected services.



Dan203 said:


> The ONLY things that gets these giant corporations to behave better is competition or government regulation. And since they pretty much have a functional monopoly in most places there really isn't any competition so regulation is the only option.


And there it is again - that "monopoly" word. I find it reprehensible to use that word. It could be applied to almost any market for which services delivered already approach the estimated market cap. To me, using that word is just a deliberate refusal to acknowledge reality, and to instead just "want it to be different". I'm sorry you feel that way, and there is nothing whatsoever I will ever be able to do about it. There is nothing anybody could ever say to change your mind. There are no amount of facts that will change your opinion. So, let's just agree that while neither of us "trust" corporations, we also fundamentally disagree with this point.



Dan203 said:


> You see this "fast lane" thing as an opportunity for them to make more money which they will then use to expand and improve their service. I see it as a slippery slope that's going to lead to them using their position as a way to extort and/or squeeze out the competition. I don't disagree with any of the facts you've posted, but you and I do have very different opinions on what their ultimate intentions for this power are.


Dan, this is a dishonest statement. I do NOT see this "fast lane" thing as an opportunity for them to make more money. I see this as a way for those companies that NEED higher SLAs to PAY for what they USE. It is the "non-entitlement" perspective. I believe that failing to do so does two things.

1) It makes them less profitable. Clearly, expansion of "real" physical broadband has already been stalled. This would provide even less reason for either expansion in terms of geographic expansion, or capacity expansion. In pure, absolute fact, this is true. The ONLY way it would not is if the regulatory impact also FORCED expansion - which will never happen. And if the government tried, they could not possible be successful. The legal wrangling alone would take years - years of which our current capability would be degraded in terms of availability, cost, performance, and reliability.

2) I don't even understand the "squeeze out the competition" idea. What competition are they going to squeeze out? Frankly, that makes no sense. Or are you saying that the more "liquid" or "larger" service companies (not the MSOs, but customers of the MSOs) would be able to put greater pressure on smaller companies? Well, duh! Um, that is the fact in every single industry, product, market, or service that exists in this country. Even the "regulated ones". Just because somebody is delivering a service or product through the Internet does not make them immune from market effects. We're not a socialist country - yet.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr said:


> You've already admitted you don't know how the tech works - which means you don't know what you're talking about. And you continue to make utterly BS statements. The statement highlighted in bold shows that you are in fact utterly without the slightest hesitation to make statements that are in fact false. I've seen a LOT of enterprise global networks. I'm not sure that I've ever seen one yet in the last 15 years that was sized for "peak demand" without traffic prioritization. Nor have I ever heard of one. Nor have I ever read about one. Nor has one ever been discussed at CIO summits or forums. Or at Gartner symposiums. Or.... Heck. That's enough.


Your doing it again, slightly changing words so we again are not taking about the same thing. Traffic prioritization isn't the same as demanding payment from a web site/service to not block/degrade their service. And again there is no need for me to know how the tech works to know how I want the Government to regulate this industry.



wmhjr said:


> And it's clear that your interpretation is missing some facts.


My Interpretation is of your comments which are opinions, not facts (just like my comments are also opinions). The information you supply to support your opinions may or may not be correct and your interpretation of it may or may not be correct I have no way of knowing.



wmhjr said:


> I could care less what "you don't see". Frankly, if you really can't see it, you're simply incapable of a rational discussion. The statement in bold (again) highlights your lack of comprehension. Companies choose to not offer MANY services for MANY reasons every single day - even when those services would in fact "be profitable". I strongly suggest you do a little self education before making absurd statements. And more to the point, even if your statements were remotely accurate (which they are not) it would be proving yet ANOTHER point against your argument. That would be cost. But you just won't get it. Let me be perfectly clear. Everybody on this planet except for you apparently understands that the reason Verizon is not expanding further is to not take on more long term debt due to the high cost of expansion - and frankly, at this point due to questionable ROI because of possible regulation at least party due to pressure from people who "don't care how it works".


First I could care less about Verizon, your the one own keeps saying they can not afford to build out FIOS, that it costs too much money to build out FIOS, that they can not make enough profit to build out FIOS, or building out FIOS isn't a good investment, say it however you want it all means the same thing. And has nothing to do with how I think ISPs should be regulated.



wmhjr said:


> And there it is, the entitlement attitude in full view. "I don't know what I'm talking about, don't know how it works, but I want what I want - and if they can't do it they are evil people bent on making my life miserable". To then make an analogy about "regulating the internet" being compared to "your car not blowing up" is another example of that entitlement mentality. Sorry, I can't take your comments serious.


Well the last time I looked I was still an American Citizen - so yes I am entitled to want my Government to regulate this Industry in a way that I believe benefits the public and myself. Just like you are entitled to want the Government to not regulate them or regulate them in a different way.

The comment about cars blowing up is extremely relevant. We have a history in this country of large companies being willing to allow people to die if they think that is cheaper than fixing a problem. We also have a history of companies that are being regulated saying fixing problems will cost too much or meeting regulatory requirements will cost too much etc. etc. to try and stop regulation. But once required to do so meet the regulations. So no I don't need to worry about the tech required to know how I want this industry regulated. And frankly the only thing I trust these large companies to do is make as much money as they can with no concern for anything else.


----------



## wmhjr

atmuscarella said:


> Your doing it again, slightly changing words so we again are not taking about the same thing. Traffic prioritization isn't the same as demanding payment from a web site/service to not block/degrade their service. And again there is no need for me to know how the tech works to know how I want the Government to regulate this industry.


No, I'm not changing it. You just don't understand the technology enough to recognize it. You need to understand the possible and the implications to recommend a solution, otherwise you're just an uninformed lemming wanting your entitlement regardless of cost.



atmuscarella said:


> My Interpretation is of your comments which are opinions, not facts (just like my comments are also opinions). The information you supply to support your opinions may or may not be correct and your interpretation of it may or may not be correct I have no way of knowing.


No, you don't have any way to understand the facts apparently.



atmuscarella said:


> First I could care less about Verizon, your the one own keeps saying they can not afford to build out FIOS, that it costs too much money to build out FIOS, that they can not make enough profit to build out FIOS, or building out FIOS isn't a good investment, say it however you want it all means the same thing. And has nothing to do with how I think ISPs should be regulated.


And you keep making dishonest statements. At this point, I'm going with deliberately dishonest. I can't say more clearly that their decision is a BUSINESS DECISION based on overall investment, or how much profit they could make. They could have a zillion percent margin, but the overwhelming cost is still a dampening effect. but you simply can't comprehend the difference between that and just making an utterly unsubstantiated and inaccurate re-statement about what is a "good investment" - and going back to your point - which I can quote if you really want me to rub your continued dishonesty in it - was that they stopped because they "couldn't compete with the incumbents".



atmuscarella said:


> Well the last time I looked I was still an American Citizen - so yes I am entitled to want my Government to regulate this Industry in a way that I believe benefits the public and myself. Just like you are entitled to want the Government to not regulate them or regulate them in a different way.


Yes you are entitled to your opinion. But not just like mine. Yours are based apparently on an entitlement mentality devoid of facts and deliberately stating you don't care "how it works" (or if it's even feasible). Mine are based on actual facts, data, technology, engineering, and market impact.



atmuscarella said:


> The comment about cars blowing up is extremely relevant. We have a history in this country of large companies being willing to allow people to die if they think that is cheaper than fixing a problem. We also have a history of companies that are being regulated saying fixing problems will cost too much or meeting regulatory requirements will cost too much etc. etc. to try and stop regulation. But once required to do so meet the regulations. So no I don't need to worry about the tech required to know how I want this industry regulated. And frankly the only thing I trust these large companies to do is make as much money as they can with no concern for anything else.


Oh, BS. It's an utterly ridiculous statement unless you're going to somehow make a point that somebody will die of massive trauma due to their body being blown apart because a particular site didn't get unlimited bandwidth and zero latency. In one instance, people die. In the other, you feel slighted.

I'm done. I can't debate with somebody who does not care about facts, and who actively says they "don't want to know how". Logic is the core of any debate, and you want your entitlements without consideration of logic or facts. Sorry, but I have to hit the ignore button.


----------



## Dan203

You obviously have faith in these mega corps and the free market. I do not! I think they will do anything and everything they are allowed to do to maintain their bottom line. If 3rd party services like Netflix start cutting into their profits too much they will use thier position to squeeze them out or extort them for enough money to make up the difference. We may not have seen an example of this yet, but we've seen plenty of other examples of giant corporations doing whatever it takes to make a buck. I have no faith they will not do it here and given the importance of the internet to our society I just don't think we can intrust it, unregulated, in the hands of these corporations. 

If you want to see proof of this just look at the state laws. The cable lobby has managed to get laws passed in 20 states that prevent local municipalities from using their tax dollars to create municipal ISPs. So they've used their money and clout to squeeze out competition. What makes you think they wont use other tactics to squeeze out competition from other sources?


----------



## ebockelman

Dan203 said:


> I'll admit I'm not an expert on this subject.
> 
> So you're telling me that Comcast could come to my area (currently serviced by Charter), get a license to lay all their own cable right along side the Charter cable, and directly compete with Charter for customers? If that's true then why has it never happened? Anywhere? There must be some sort of barrier to entry other then just money.


It has happened. There are some areas that have multiple cable companies servicing the same address.


----------



## joewom

ebockelman said:


> It has happened. There are some areas that have multiple cable companies servicing the same address.


Right. As I pointed out earlier Beaufort, SC has Charter and Hargray Communication. Hargray is a local company so they had no fear of pissing off the incumbent. Very rarely will you see any of the big Cable companies move into one another territory. I think they have an understanding not to among themselves for many reasons. And not to many local companies can do what Hargray did in this city. Most don't have the capital to invest in and undertaken like this.


----------



## Diana Collins

ebockelman said:


> It has happened. There are some areas that have multiple cable companies servicing the same address.


Sure...even parts of New York City are served by TWC and RCN (RCN being the overbuilder). But those are exceptions.

But at the same time, wmhjr was making the point that any overbuilder is in the position of needing to wring every last cent of efficiency savings from their operation - and still may not make money. This is because the market is a fixed size. This is unlike most other products where there are totally new customers out there to be had. The only way an overbuilder gets a customer is by taking one away from the incumbent. How do they do that? By offering the same service at a lower cost, or a superior service at the same (or higher, if it is better enough) cost.

So, since it is unreasonable to expect that they will get 100% of users to switch, they must be able to provide their service to fewer customers than the incumbent while still making a profit. Since the cost of wiring a block of homes is fixed, the only place to save money is in operations - either by being more efficient or paying less for raw materials (in this case, TV content). Of course, the incumbent is not going to just sit there - they will meet your challenge to the best of their ability.

So this quickly turns into a war of attrition, resulting in both providers cutting every corner they can to save a buck. This will, in turn, lead to a deterioration of service quality for everyone.

Given this, you have to be VERY sure you can out-compete the incumbent before you try to overbuild an area. Very few areas offer such an assurance.

Verizon (not to keep harping on them as a provider, but they do fit the bill here) has seen this in spades. They have been very successful at competing with Cablevision, Comcast and TWC. However, if they didn't have such deep pockets they could never have deployed FiOS. They spent a LOT of money pulling fiber and building their optical network before they ever collected a dollar. I don't know how profitable (or unprofitable) the FiOS business is today, but they sure lost money big time for a long time. Unless you are Verizon, Comcast or AT&T you wouldn't last long enough to ever turn a profit.

That's why few overbuilders exist. The market is not just mature, it is saturated. A saturated market is generally a low margin one, since the only way to increase market share is generally to buy it through discounts and new customer offers.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> You obviously have faith in these mega corps and the free market. I do not! I think they will do anything and everything they are allowed to do to maintain their bottom line. If 3rd party services like Netflix start cutting into their profits too much they will use thier position to squeeze them out or extort them for enough money to make up the difference. We may not have seen an example of this yet, but we've seen plenty of other examples of giant corporations doing whatever it takes to make a buck. I have no faith they will not do it here and given the importance of the internet to our society I just don't think we can intrust it, unregulated, in the hands of these corporations.
> 
> If you want to see proof of this just look at the state laws. The cable lobby has managed to get laws passed in 20 states that prevent local municipalities from using their tax dollars to create municipal ISPs. So they've used their money and clout to squeeze out competition. What makes you think they wont use other tactics to squeeze out competition from other sources?


Dan, first of all - let me say I totally understand your perspective and see your point. I just don't agree.

I do not "have faith in mega corps". I do have faith in the market. I simply cannot see a future, given the already significant market penetration of Netflix for example, that Netflix could be "squeezed out". No way. Do I think Netflix could end up paying more for a guaranteed SLA? Yes - and they should IMHO. I simply refuse to endorse what I believe would increase consumer cost and reduce performance in a significant way because we're "scared" and "don't trust". Guess what? I don't trust ANY company. I'm a customer. Period. I don't love Verizon. I don't love Tivo. I don't love Amazon. My relationship with each of them is a completely unemotional fact based provider/consumer relationship, and only lasts as long as they treat me reasonably. So I don't feel "loyal" to any of them, but neither will I condemn them and frankly cut off my nose to spite my face because I don't "trust" them. By your own logic, I would then require regulatory controls on virtually every single company that I do business with. That is preposterous IMHO.

And I don't see proof of it. If you want the feds to pass a law prohibiting states from doing something that violates the spirit of the 1992 and 1996 laws - fine. Frankly, my opinion of those "20 state laws" are also BS. They will likely be overturned, and frankly the days when a municipality can really drive their own service via co-op, etc, are quickly diminishing - and honestly, based on the kind of requirements you're asking for, a "municipal" provider could never fit the bill anyway.

Here's my solution. I don't believe there's a problem. I think you're afraid that there will at some point in the future possibly be a problem. If there is, then approach it with regulatory action or legislation. If that happened I would fully support it. However I simply based on logic, I could never endorse what you're asking for. It's a solution for a problem that may never exist, but which would have negative impacts today - for certain. It's like cutting off your arm because you think maybe in the future, you'll get an infection in it.


----------



## Grakthis

wmhjr said:


> Dan, first of all - let me say I totally understand your perspective and see your point. I just don't agree.
> 
> I do not "have faith in mega corps". I do have faith in the market. I simply cannot see a future, given the already significant market penetration of Netflix for example, that Netflix could be "squeezed out". No way. Do I think Netflix could end up paying more for a guaranteed SLA? Yes - and they should IMHO. I simply refuse to endorse what I believe would increase consumer cost and reduce performance in a significant way because we're "scared" and "don't trust". Guess what? I don't trust ANY company. I'm a customer. Period. I don't love Verizon. I don't love Tivo. I don't love Amazon. My relationship with each of them is a completely unemotional fact based provider/consumer relationship, and only lasts as long as they treat me reasonably. So I don't feel "loyal" to any of them, but neither will I condemn them and frankly cut off my nose to spite my face because I don't "trust" them. By your own logic, I would then require regulatory controls on virtually every single company that I do business with. That is preposterous IMHO.
> 
> And I don't see proof of it. If you want the feds to pass a law prohibiting states from doing something that violates the spirit of the 1992 and 1996 laws - fine. Frankly, my opinion of those "20 state laws" are also BS. They will likely be overturned, and frankly the days when a municipality can really drive their own service via co-op, etc, are quickly diminishing - and honestly, based on the kind of requirements you're asking for, a "municipal" provider could never fit the bill anyway.
> 
> Here's my solution. I don't believe there's a problem. I think you're afraid that there will at some point in the future possibly be a problem. If there is, then approach it with regulatory action or legislation. If that happened I would fully support it. However I simply based on logic, I could never endorse what you're asking for. It's a solution for a problem that may never exist, but which would have negative impacts today - for certain. It's like cutting off your arm because you think maybe in the future, you'll get an infection in it.


I'm an armchair economics enthusiast. I have an undergrad in business and an MBA. I read a half-dozen econ blogs regularly. I'm a huge free market guy. So listen to me when I tell you that cable companies and subscription media are not free markets, and having faith in an oligopoly to produce consumer optimal outcomes is foolish and will ultimately leave you disappointed damn near 100% of the time.


----------



## atmuscarella

wmhjr: In any discussion with differing points of view there is one sure way I know when one party has figured out their comments/opinions don't hold water. They start calling people names. Congrats you win that prize.



wmhjr said:


> atmuscarella said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your doing it again, slightly changing words so we again are not taking about the same thing. Traffic prioritization isn't the same as demanding payment from a web site/service to not block/degrade their service. And again there is no need for me to know how the tech works to know how I want the Government to regulate this industry.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not changing it. You just don't understand the technology enough to recognize it. You need to understand the possible and the implications to recommend a solution, otherwise you're just an uninformed lemming wanting your entitlement regardless of cost.
Click to expand...

Sorry you can try and change the subject all you want but traffic prioritization is about quality/reliability of service issues and demanding payment from a specific web site/service to not block/degrade it's site/service is about money. They are not the same thing. In any event when it comes to regulations I would want regulations that prevent an ISP from deciding what services to block/degrade and which service to not block/degrade. Plus I would want regulations the require ISPs to provide the service they are selling or put another way only sell service they can provide.



wmhjr said:


> No, you don't have any way to understand the facts apparently.


The fact is lots of people agree more with my point of view than with yours including the President of the US and heads of major corporations. So apparently I am not the only person who doesn't think your "facts" are "facts".



wmhjr said:


> atmuscarella said:
> 
> 
> 
> First I could care less about Verizon, your the one own keeps saying they can not afford to build out FIOS, that it costs too much money to build out FIOS, that they can not make enough profit to build out FIOS, or building out FIOS isn't a good investment, say it however you want it all means the same thing. And has nothing to do with how I think ISPs should be regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> And you keep making dishonest statements. At this point, I'm going with deliberately dishonest. I can't say more clearly that their decision is a BUSINESS DECISION based on overall investment, or how much profit they could make. They could have a zillion percent margin, but the overwhelming cost is still a dampening effect. but you simply can't comprehend the difference between that and just making an utterly unsubstantiated and inaccurate re-statement about what is a "good investment" - and going back to your point - which I can quote if you really want me to rub your continued dishonesty in it - was that they stopped because they "couldn't compete with the incumbents".
Click to expand...

Ya last time I looked every decision a business makes about their business is a BUSINESS DECISION. What's your point? If you like the words further investment in FIOS was determined to be a bad business decision I am good with that not that that means anything substantially different than anything else that has been said.



wmhjr said:


> Yes you are entitled to your opinion. But not just like mine. Yours are based apparently on an entitlement mentality devoid of facts and deliberately stating you don't care "how it works" (or if it's even feasible). Mine are based on actual facts, data, technology, engineering, and market impact.


My opinions on how this industry should be regulated are based on the opinions of others I have seen and my belief on how the industry would act without regulations. So yes I do not have any first hand knowledge of this specific technical area (how to move data over the Internet) and yes I think if a company sells me service I am entitled to receive that service.



wmhjr said:


> atmuscarella said:
> 
> 
> 
> The comment about cars blowing up is extremely relevant. We have a history in this country of large companies being willing to allow people to die if they think that is cheaper than fixing a problem. We also have a history of companies that are being regulated saying fixing problems will cost too much or meeting regulatory requirements will cost too much etc. etc. to try and stop regulation. But once required to do so meet the regulations. So no I don't need to worry about the tech required to know how I want this industry regulated. And frankly the only thing I trust these large companies to do is make as much money as they can with no concern for anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, BS. It's an utterly ridiculous statement unless you're going to somehow make a point that somebody will die of massive trauma due to their body being blown apart because a particular site didn't get unlimited bandwidth and zero latency. In one instance, people die. In the other, you feel slighted.
> 
> I'm done. I can't debate with somebody who does not care about facts, and who actively says they "don't want to know how". Logic is the core of any debate, and you want your entitlements without consideration of logic or facts. Sorry, but I have to hit the ignore button.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I assumed you knew something you don't. Let me clarify. In the late 70's Ford decided that it would be cheaper to pay fines and settlements than to fix a flaw with their Pinto car that caused it to burst into flames when rear ended. The bottom line is that Corporate America (mostly mega corps) have shown repeatedly that they can not be trusted to do what is in the best interests of people even if they those people are their customers if it is more profitable to do what is not in peoples best interests - even if it kills people. So I believe in any area where competition can not keep companies interested in serving their customers, the Government will need strong regulation/over site to force them to do so. We just went through one of our worse recessions because Government relaxed banking regulations in the late 90's because the industry said they could self regulate and would never allow/cause what just happen to happen. Well you see how that went. So no I do not trust any of these companies.


----------



## wmhjr

slowbiscuit said:


> Again, stop with the blowhard posts about how this will cause the end of 401ks, tech investments, and life as we know it etc. What I posted is my opinion about what will happen in the future due to public pressure, and it will be enabled by gov't intervention just as (almost) universal electric access was enabled with the Rural Electrification Act. It really doesn't matter at this point how it will happen, but it will IMO and the shift to all-IP TV will make it even easier.
> 
> My opinion means I'm not going to dig up a zillion links to support it and then write totally overblown posts over and over again explaining how nothing can be done (while likewise ignoring any possible alternative solutions). It's just my opinion. And I think at this point we're way overdue for a thread lock, pretty much the only person here with your opinion on what will happen is you, no one else thinks the status quo of folks being held hostage by one or two providers will continue.


Blowhard posts? Look in the mirror, pal. You have every right to your opinion. I have every right to believe it's as flawed as the your post that I just quoted. 401K being "blowhard"? Really? My "Opinion" is that you have not the slightest clue, and in your anger of not having facts that support your position, you'd prefer to just attack the person. Fine.

My posts have facts and evidence. Logic. I've never said you don't have a right to your opinion. You? IMHO just another example of why stupid legislation gets passed due to "public opinion" fueled by urban myth, and a belief in magic unicorns. Have fun with that. An unwillingness to actually FIND facts typically means that the person making the "claim" realizes that they have nothing but emotional rhetoric behind them and just says they "won't". How's that working out for you?


----------



## slowbiscuit

Time for a lock.


----------



## HerronScott

Arcady said:


> The sky is blue.
> 
> (I'm seeing if this will get thrown out as inaccurate or misguided or some other silly reply.)


Arcady,

It's kinda gray here today. 

I was surprised to see that people still thought that cable franchises were still exclusive, but otherwise my eyes are just glazing over with this back and forth...

Scott


----------



## aaronwt

Is this still going on?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

A novel idea.... Try to get back on topic. 

The 18-member DSTAC Committee created to pursue a downloadable security replacement for cablecards has been selected and will report back in September with their findings. Players like Tivo and Hauppauge are represented.

Meetings are open to the public. The first one is on Feb. 17 in D.C.


----------



## lessd

BigJimOutlaw said:


> A novel idea.... Try to get back on topic.
> 
> The 18-member DSTAC Committee created to pursue a downloadable security replacement for cablecards has been selected and will report back in September with their findings. Players like Tivo and Hauppauge are represented.
> 
> Meetings are open to the public. The first one is on Feb. 17 in D.C.


I will hope that any downloaded security can be downloaded onto a card that will fit into the existing cable card slot in my TiVos.
The transition will be hard, as all cable co.s will not transition at the same time and one would not know what model of TiVo to purchase CC version or downloaded security type, but if they could do as I propose it would not matter as you could use the current cable card or get the new downloadable-security card to put into your TiVo.


----------



## Dan203

Unless they can use the downloadable version in existing TiVos without the need for a card at all. Then it wouldn't matter. Really depends on how exactly it works and the CPU power needed for the decryption scheme.

Although we'd still have the whole TA issue. Current TiVos don't have the hardware required to talk to a cable head end via coax. So we'll need a new TiVo with DOCSIS hardware, or for all MSOs to open up their head ends to internet requests so TiVo could use that instead.


----------



## Diana Collins

Dan203 said:


> ...So we'll need a new TiVo with DOCSIS hardware, or for all MSOs to open up their head ends to internet requests so TiVo could use that instead.


Or a single adapter per installation to take commands from the LAN (via MOCA probably) and then inject them into coax using the appropriate protocol.


----------



## Dan203

I think they're planning on doing something like that with RCN.


----------



## atmuscarella

Any thoughts if the satellite companies will loose their waiver and be required to support a downloadable security replacement for cablecards?


----------



## Dan203

Dish is part of the committee BigJim mentioned above, so I assume that whatever they're working on is suppose to work on all platforms including DSS.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

I HOPE AT&T and Dish being on the committee means good news in the end.


----------



## Dan203

Downloadable doesn't necessarily mean interoperable. There are still differences in tuner technology that would prevent a single box from working with any provider. The only way to make a universal box would be to move the tuner technology into a gateway device, ala AllVid.

Although with DLNA CVP-2 up and running creating AllVid would be technically easy at this point. Basically you'd just have a gateway box with the tuners in it that presented itself to the network as a CVP-2 host and all the DVRs/DTAs would be simple CVP-2 clients. I think the spec is even robust enough to allow a DVR to be a client. Although I'm not 100% sure based on my skimming of the spec. One reason MSOs might go for this approach now is that they're being forced to use CVP-2 in their boxes anyway and it gives them something that they can still rent to users.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

I think Tivo would be fine making multiple boxes if necessary. Adding AT&T and satellite pretty much expands their potential customer pool by like 70% or 80% or something. That has to be worth it.

If the barriers of entry for 3rd party boxes is dropped in this process, that could legitimize the 3rd party STB business, raise their profile and we may actually see some semblance of competition. Shut up, I can dream. 

Replacing a cablecard with a gateway box would sort of defeat the purpose of downloadable security, wouldn't it? I've never had to use a tuning adapter before, but relying on MSO equipment for channel tuning reeks of continued abuse potential.

If 3rd party devices could be gateways (customers decide how advanced a box they want), flashing the security to a ROM or saved to the hard drive of existing hardware (if possible) seems like the ideal solution to me.

MSO's would almost definitely want a "3rd party equipment fee" to replace the cablecard fee. Just hope it's equal or less.


----------



## JosephB

So I missed a lot of this thread but I wanted to chime in on the monopoly/franchise discussion from a page or two back.

It's true that franchise agreements are not exclusive NOW, but they WERE in the past. In the time at which it would have been economical to build out two systems to compete was when franchise agreements were government sanctioned monopolies.

Also, it took government intervention, force, and subsidies to get universal electrical and telephone service back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. There are wide swaths of America that wouldn't have electricity *even today* much less land line telephone service if it weren't for government regulation.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Shhh, don't get him started again.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Diana Collins said:


> Or a single adapter per installation to take commands from the LAN (via MOCA probably) and then inject them into coax using the appropriate protocol.


Which is beyond stupid, no one needs yet another gateway/adapter in 2015. What they need to do is what Comcast has done and upgrade their stuff to allow Tivos etc. to send IP upstream to servers to stream VOD or change channels in SDV systems.

Actually what they need to do is go beyond that and go all-IP instead of linear QAM channel delivery, but that's a bigger fish that will need to be fried over time.


----------



## qz3fwd

Give me a box that I can buy at retail (like a tivo), connects to the LAN/WAN and downloads decryption code, and has a GUI in control of the box manufacturer and includes 2 way communication including VOD/On-Demand and I will be a happy consumer. In other words take EVERYTHING away from the MSO except providing a stream which needs to be decrypted. I have a dream.....


----------



## CoxInPHX

BigJimOutlaw said:


> A novel idea.... Try to get back on topic.
> 
> The 18-member DSTAC Committee created to pursue a downloadable security replacement for cablecards has been selected and will report back in September with their findings. Players like Tivo and Hauppauge are represented.
> 
> Meetings are open to the public. The first one is on Feb. 17 in D.C.


I find it very odd that neither Cisco or Pace are listed on the committee.


----------



## larrs

tarheelblue32 said:


> Just a point of clarification. Verizon does not have a single DVR with 12 tuners. They give you 2 6-tuner DVRs.


And, I might add it is not "cheaper" and it gives you 200 HD hours total. For six TVs in my house they quoted over $70 per month in hardware fees- that is $840 PER year, plus I need to buy a streaming device for each TV on top of that for another $600.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Article on the first meeting of the DSTAC group.

http://www.multichannel.com/fcc-committee-seek-cablecards-successor/388450

We even have video if you have 4 hours to blow. 

http://www.fcc.gov/events/downloadable-security-technology-advisory-committee-meeting-02232015


----------



## slowbiscuit

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Article on the first meeting of the DSTAC group.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/fcc-committee-seek-cablecards-successor/388450
> 
> We even have video if you have 4 hours to blow.
> 
> http://www.fcc.gov/events/downloadable-security-technology-advisory-committee-meeting-02232015


From the article:

_Talks gravitated toward a virtual module or even a chip that can support the baseline input and output requirements of pay-TV operators. That could end up spanning elements such as service discovery, channel tuning/content requests, emergency alert system information, closed captioning data, copy control information, subscriber authentication, and the audio and video streams themselves. There are already factions forming on what this black box shouldn't be. Joe Weber, the chief technology officer for TiVo's Service Provider Business Unit, warned that it would not be feasible for a retail CE company to support a multitude of separate devices that sits between it and the retail device from a wide range of MVPDs

Concerns were also raised that adding yet another power-sucking device to the mix runs counter to the desire to lessen the pay TV industry's already sizable carbon footprint._

Gee, ya think? Nobody wants yet another damn provider box, that defeats the whole purpose of IP-based security. Not to mention that it's yet another hardware approach a la Cablecard instead of software.

Why is it that I can use my Comcast user/pw combo to watch damn near anything I want on a PC/tablet/phone but I can't use the same simple tech to authenticate and stream to a Tivo? Yeah I know, sharing account info with others is bad etc. but just using this as an example to show how stupid this new black box approach would be.


----------



## tarheelblue32

I watched the whole thing, and the satellite and cable guys were such handwringers. It felt like every time they spoke, they tried to inject some kind of excuse for why something wasn't going to work. "OH NO! WE CAN'T DO THAT! OUR CONTRACTS WITH THE CONTENT PROVIDERS WOULDN'T ALLOW SUCH A THING!" Hey idiots, FCC regulations would override your private contractual agreements. It almost seemed like they don't want a CableCard replacement to succeed.


----------



## Dan203

slowbiscuit said:


> From the article:
> 
> _Talks gravitated toward a virtual module or even a chip that can support the baseline input and output requirements of pay-TV operators. That could end up spanning elements such as service discovery, channel tuning/content requests, emergency alert system information, closed captioning data, copy control information, subscriber authentication, and the audio and video streams themselves. There are already factions forming on what this black box shouldn't be. Joe Weber, the chief technology officer for TiVo's Service Provider Business Unit, warned that it would not be feasible for a retail CE company to support a multitude of separate devices that sits between it and the retail device from a wide range of MVPDs
> 
> Concerns were also raised that adding yet another power-sucking device to the mix runs counter to the desire to lessen the pay TV industry's already sizable carbon footprint._
> 
> Gee, ya think? Nobody wants yet another damn provider box, that defeats the whole purpose of IP-based security. Not to mention that it's yet another hardware approach a la Cablecard instead of software.
> 
> Why is it that I can use my Comcast user/pw combo to watch damn near anything I want on a PC/tablet/phone but I can't use the same simple tech to authenticate and stream to a Tivo? Yeah I know, sharing account info with others is bad etc. but just using this as an example to show how stupid this new black box approach would be.


This is essentially what AllVid was suppose to be. A "gateway" device that sits between the CE device and the provider and does all the tuning and authentication. I actually think that this is the best option, because it removes the tuner hardware from the DVR and puts it into the gateway. That way a single TiVo could be interoperable between multiple services. If we stick with a system where the tuner is built into the DVR then we'll still have a situation where the technology in each box is provider specific.

What they need to do is design these gateway devices around an open standard like DLNA CVP-2. That way CE companies like TiVo don't need to support each one individually, they just need to support CVP-2 and it's up to the provider to develop a gateway that adheres to the standard. CVP-2 would also allow the MSOs to offer extended features, like VOD, using the HTML5 RUI feature so that they retain control over the UI like they want while creating a standard interface that any CE device can access and use. Their VOD offerings would essentially become "apps" that the user could access from the TiVo without TiVo actually having to develop and maintain actual apps for each provider.

The FCC is already mandating that the cable companies deploy CVP-2 by June this year, so they're already going to have experience with it. It seems like the logical progression of the technology.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> This is essentially what AllVid was suppose to be. A "gateway" device that sits between the CE device and the provider and does all the tuning and authentication. I actually think that this is the best option, because it removes the tuner hardware from the DVR and puts it into the gateway. That way a single TiVo could be interoperable between multiple services. If we stick with a system where the tuner is built into the DVR then we'll still have a situation where the technology in each box is provider specific.
> 
> What they need to do is design these gateway devices around an open standard like DLNA CVP-2. That way CE companies like TiVo don't need to support each one individually, they just need to support CVP-2 and it's up to the provider to develop a gateway that adheres to the standard. CVP-2 would also allow the MSOs to offer extended features, like VOD, using the HTML5 RUI feature so that they retain control over the UI like they want while creating a standard interface that any CE device can access and use. Their VOD offerings would essentially become "apps" that the user could access from the TiVo without TiVo actually having to develop and maintain actual apps for each provider.
> 
> The FCC is already mandating that the cable companies deploy CVP-2 by June this year, so they're already going to have experience with it. It seems like the logical progression of the technology.


If the tuner is in an external box, how will you record multiple channels?


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> If the tuner is in an external box, how will you record multiple channels?


The original AllVid "spec" was going to require each gateway device to support at least 6 tuners. It would essentially work like an HDHomeRun, but with a standards base interface that any CE device could use to access the tuners.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Watched the whole thing too. The Comcast guy is a pill. The satellite guy really doesn't even know what a cablecard does, and so while he tried and offered good input, he also derailed things somewhat with issues not really before the group (e.g. content contracts, parental controls and EPGs).

The group is good at self-regulating however, and they redirect back on topic.

It's fair to say satellite may have unique challenges. Wouldn't be surprising if IP and QAM had one solution while satellite had another for the sake of time to market. But whatever, as long as there's an open market for STB competition.

Everything was talked about with a "black box" metaphor. They discussed whether this will be literal, or may end up being a chip. To be determined as they get into the nitty gritty.

Overall good first meeting (second half is better than the first if anyone is curious about the video). I think the second meeting (March 24) will have more focus and understanding.

In the meantime they've divided into working groups (commercial requirements and technology/architecture) to start on details.


----------



## tarheelblue32

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Watched the whole thing too. The Comcast guy is a pill. The satellite guy really doesn't even know what a cablecard does, and so while he tried and offered good input, he also derailed things somewhat with issues not really before the group (e.g. content contracts, parental controls and EPGs).
> 
> The group is good at self-regulating however, and they redirect back on topic.
> 
> It's fair to say satellite may have unique challenges. Wouldn't be surprising if IP and QAM had one solution while satellite had another for the sake of time to market. But whatever, as long as there's an open market for STB competition.
> 
> Everything was talked about with a "black box" metaphor. They discussed whether this will be literal, or may end up being a chip. To be determined as they get into the nitty gritty.
> 
> Overall good first meeting (second half is better than the first if anyone is curious about the video). I think the second meeting (March 24) will have more focus and understanding.
> 
> In the meantime they've divided into working groups (commercial requirements and technology/architecture) to start on details.


Yeah I got the same impressions you did. The cable guys were debbie-downers, and didn't even seem to want to be there really. The one guy kept holding his hands over his head like he was in pain.

And it may eventually be that there would have to be a different standard for satellite. While not ideal to have two different standards, I guess that wouldn't be the end of the world as long as it's an open standard. I think it's feasible that TiVo could build one box for the wireline standard and another box for the satellite standard.

The satellite guy seemed pretty smart and knowledgeable about satellite technology, but obviously didn't know the first thing about CableCards. A lot of the issues the satellite guy brought up seemed solvable to me, and the guys from Google and TiVo seemed to rebut some of the issues he raised. Since he did seem pretty smart, I think he'll be able to get up to speed on how the current CableCard standard works and whether it could be adapted in some way for satellite security.

Oh and for people who don't want to watch the whole thing, there was a surprise guest appearance by the FCC Chairman himself, Mr "Title II" Wheeler. He gave a nice little inspirational speech that actually made me feel like he understood the importance of having a unified open security standard. I'm liking this guy more and more.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

tarheelblue32 said:


> Yeah I got the same impressions you did. The cable guys were debbie-downers, and didn't even seem to want to be there really. The one guy kept holding his hands over his head like he was in pain.


Heh. I was getting a little frustrated at some of the group's confusion. They seemed to think they were developing a customer-interacting set top box with all its UI, EPG and cloud features, which I don't think they ultimately are. The task before them doesn't really care about any of that except for 2-way communication protocols to deal with security, VOD, SDV, and whatever else.

Hopefully that noise is handled quickly within the working groups. Like you said, they're pretty smart so I think it'll work itself out.


----------



## tarheelblue32

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Heh. I was getting a little frustrated at some of the group's confusion. They seemed to think they were developing a customer-interacting set top box with all its UI, EPG and cloud features, which I don't think they ultimately are. The task before them doesn't really care about any of that except for 2-way communication protocols to deal with security, VOD, SDV, and whatever else.
> 
> Hopefully that noise is handled quickly within the working groups. Like you said, they're pretty smart so I think it'll work itself out.


Yeah hopefully the people on the working group who are serious about this task (the TiVo rep, the Google rep, etc) will be able to get everyone else to focus in on their real mission and not get distracted by things like trying to download the MSO's UI onto a retail device like the cable reps seemed to be talking about.

For people who are interested, here are the working groups of the committee:

Working Group 1-Current Commercial Requirements 
Co-editors:
Milo Medin, Google
Jay Rolls, Charter

FCC Liaisons:
Julissa Marenco
Nancy Murphy

Description: The working group will identify the requirements of content owners, multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), consumer electronics companies, system equipment manufacturers, and consumers that exist as of February 23, 2015. The working group will discuss risks and threats including (but not limited to) content piracy, brand protection, consumer privacy, device cloning, and device spoofing. The working group will identify issues that must be addressed to develop a software-based downloadable security system that would allow a manufacturer to build a functional equivalent to a CableCARD device for any MVPD. 
Product: The working group will deliver and present a written summary of its findings to the full DSTAC on March 24, 2015.

Members:
John Card II, DISH
Matthew Clark, Amazon
Adam Goldberg, Public Knowledge
Brad Love, Huappauge
John McCoskey, MPAA
Milo Medin, Google
Jay Rolls, Charter
Brent Smith, Evolution
Robin Wilson, NAGRA

Working Group 2-Technology and Preferred Architectures
Co-editors:
Bob Clyne, Cablevision
Dr. Joe Weber, TiVo

FCC Liaison:
Henning Schulzrinne
Media Bureau, Engineering Division Representative [TBA]

Description: The working group will describe each of the system architectures in place today, in enough detail to uncover salient differences in how commercial requirements are met. Systems include Direct Broadcast Satellite, facilities-based wireline video providers (including systems that deliver video via coaxial cable, twisted pair copper, and fiber-optic cable), and over-the-top video. The working group will prepare a written report describing how each type of architecture protects against risks and threats (e.g., hardware renewability; software updates; device, service, and user authentication). The working group shall also include methods for adjusting and updating security measures to protect against adapting security threats in its written summary.
Product: The working group will deliver and present a written summary of its findings to the full DSTAC on March 24, 2015.

Members:
Ahmad Ansari, AT&T
Brant Candalore, Sony
Bob Clyne, Cablevision
Mark Hess, Comcast
Ken Lowe, Vizio
Bruce McClelland, ARRIS
Alan Messer, Samsung
Simha Sethumadhavan, Special Government Employee
Joe Weber, TiVo


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

In this month's meeting, the two working groups started listing their various Commercial (one group) and Technical (second group) needs. Some of those needs were in conflict with each other, but that was to be expected at this point as they haven't reconciled them yet. They just wanted to express what they're hoping for and put those needs into buckets to be dealt with as they go forward.

One thing to come out of this is that they seem to have banned the term "black box" as it was confusing even though they intended to be conceptual and not an actual second box.

Most of the Commercial group's needs are expected and uninteresting (e.g. 3rd party devices shouldn't be able to arbitrarily put their own ads on top of broadcasted ads, or arbitrarily filter MVPD channels unless the user wants to for parental control needs, etc.)

Tivo later said that should be true in reverse too. For example Tivo has a recommendation engine, but doesn't want various MVPD marketing deals with content providers to prevent Tivo from recommending House of Cards (Netflix) if somebody likes Game of Thrones (HBO).

One thing of note is that MVPDs want their UIs available on third party devices, should the user want to use them. Insert groaning here. Again these are just ideas they're putting out there.

They tapped on some other Tivo-relevant issues such as cci and out-of-home distribution, and one of the desires out of the Commercial working group is to prevent 3rd party devices from independently violating in home/out-of-home licenses that the MVPD's may or may not have. We'll see how that pans out. (Again, just ideas at this point.)

Tivo would like to keep things simple and use the cablecard as the starting position. The satellite guy (who now has a grasp on cablecard) thinks cablecard has it mostly right, but what isn't right is very important. The satellite guy seems to be the most audibly concerned about security and what the standard looks like because they have changed their security many times over the years.

There were a lot more small debates in the Technology half. They didn't go into a lot of coherent details for very long because discussions started to break out. Tivo makes their voice heard pretty well.

The Charter guy made a good point that the groups have so far talked a lot about "how" but not the "what."

The Comcast guy who I lovingly call "The Pill" was argumentative about what he thinks is competition -- He basically makes the argument that MVPD apps = competition. And a few of them correctly get into it on that point. Tivo pointed out that apps don't record.

As an observer this segment was more entertaining, but much shorter.

The next part was open discussion which didn't go on for too long. There was discussion as to whether OTT services should be included into this discussion because they may be labeled as MVPDs someday. That will be determined later. Existing working groups must finish their existing reports by April 17. At that point they'll define the next set of working groups and go from there.

The last segment was comments from the public, and one of the comments reminded them that security can be separated from all the UI and Guide stuff. That they don't really need to get into that. They could just focus on the security aspect. (I mostly agree although I also appreciate the unanimity that the next generation model should include a 2-way communications element to open the way for VOD, PPV, etc.) 

The next public meeting might not be until May, but there's a chance of late April if they can get the room.


----------



## Dan203

It would be nice if they could flag content as being available for out of home streaming separate from the "copy once" flag. I know it gives the MSOs another point of abuse, but if used properly it could open up OOH streaming for channels which use "copy once" to prevent downloading but don't mind OOH streaming. 

I'm OK with the MSOs displaying their own UI as long as it's optional. In fact if they want to exclusively use their own UI for VOD that's fine by me as well. But in the old CableCARD 2.0 discussions they wanted to force all 3rd party devices to use their UI exclusively for the entire product. That's not going to work.

Personally I still think they should use DLNA CVP-2 as a starting point. It has pretty much everything they need except the authorization stuff.


----------



## Dan203

So I'm wondering how these new streaming MSOs fit into this? The ones that stream live TV like SlingTV, Apple TV and Playstation Vue. Are they going to be included in this conversation? I know they mention OTT apps, but that seems to be referring more to services that are purely VOD like Netflix, Amazon, etc... Services that stream live TV should be allowed to use this technology as well that way DVRs like TiVo can use them as an alternative to traditional cable or satellite. 

Is AT&T included in this panel? Their U-verse service basically works the same as these streaming services. So maybe if they design a spec that works for them then it will work for these other services as well.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> Is AT&T included in this panel? Their U-verse service basically works the same as these streaming services. So maybe if they design a spec that works for them then it will work for these other services as well.


Yes, AT&T has a representative on the committee and U-verse is expected to be included in the new security standard.


----------



## slowbiscuit

BigJimOutlaw said:


> The Comcast guy who I lovingly call "The Pill" was argumentative about what he thinks is competition -- He basically makes the argument that MVPD apps = competition. And a few of them correctly get into it on that point. Tivo pointed out that apps don't record.


That's always been their argument for stuff like the TV Everywhere initiative - 'look at our apps out there on all those platforms, what's not to like??'

Um, the ability to NOT have to use your apps? To be able to just get a stream like we do today and do whatever we want with it as long as we're authenticated to get it?



BigJimOutlaw said:


> The last segment was comments from the public, and one of the comments reminded them that security can be separated from all the UI and Guide stuff. That they don't really need to get into that. They could just focus on the security aspect. (I mostly agree although I also appreciate the unanimity that the next generation model should include a 2-way communications element to open the way for VOD, PPV, etc.)


Nail hit on head but sounds like some of these guys actually need a clue-by-four upside the noggin.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Dan203 said:


> So I'm wondering how these new streaming MSOs fit into this? The ones that stream live TV like SlingTV, Apple TV and Playstation Vue. Are they going to be included in this conversation? I know they mention OTT apps, but that seems to be referring more to services that are purely VOD like Netflix, Amazon, etc... Services that stream live TV should be allowed to use this technology as well that way DVRs like TiVo can use them as an alternative to traditional cable or satellite.


That's a huge question lingering over this committee. The FCC is separately proposing MVPD be redefined as technology-neutral, making those services effectively MVPD's too. They spent some time debating whether to include them in the discussion or not, since that issue is completely up in the air at this point.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view/view?name=14-261



> Personally I still think they should use DLNA CVP-2 as a starting point. It has pretty much everything they need except the authorization stuff.


The authorization between the MSO and gateway is the objective before this committee, not so much the distribution between the gateway and devices. They did touch on VidiPath a little bit though. They're getting sidetracked a lot, but sooner or later they'll hone in.



> That's always been their argument for stuff like the TV Everywhere initiative - 'look at our apps out there on all those platforms, what's not to like??'


Yeah, that argument gets under my skin a lot. They keep pointing to their own home-grown apps on the blessed devices of their choosing, and call that device competition.

None of those apps can record. Virtually none of those apps I know of provide the entire channel lineup. And they can (and have) pulled their apps from devices later, giving consumers no reason to be confident in their continued support, half-assed as it already was.


----------



## Dan203

BigJimOutlaw said:


> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view/view?name=14-261


Wow the arguments in that are interesting. The people you'd think would be against this aren't and some you'd think wouldn't be are.

Personally I hope whatever they come up with to replace CableCARD is completely technology neutral and can be applied to any service. Even if that whole thing fails I think some of these internet based services might use the technology voluntarily just so they can more easily pursued traditional cable/DSS customers to jump over to their service.


----------



## Bigg

atmuscarella said:


> Any thoughts if the satellite companies will loose their waiver and be required to support a downloadable security replacement for cablecards?


I sure hope they will. When DirecTV gets TiVo, I'm switching. They have literally all the sports games in HD in every market, multiple ESPN feeds during the championships, Al Jazeera America, and their own encoders in local stations to keep the over-compression at bay.



Dan203 said:


> One reason MSOs might go for this approach now is that they're being forced to use CVP-2 in their boxes anyway and it gives them something that they can still rent to users.


Great. So a full blown cable box could end up as a tuner for a TiVo? That's not a kludge or anything.



BigJimOutlaw said:


> I think Tivo would be fine making multiple boxes if necessary. Adding AT&T and satellite pretty much expands their potential customer pool by like 70% or 80% or something. That has to be worth it.


I'm sure they'd make a DirecTV box, as it fits well with their tech-savvy target market and has a CONUS footprint. U-Verse is easy, it's just IPTV, so the other boxes can work with it. That just leaves DISH up in the air. There is bad blood between them, so I wouldn't hold your breath there. Plus, TiVo's target market is far more likely to be on DirecTV than DISH.



Dan203 said:


> The original AllVid "spec" was going to require each gateway device to support at least 6 tuners. It would essentially work like an HDHomeRun, but with a standards base interface that any CE device could use to access the tuners.


That would be the ultimate. Then, if you wanted to switch from DirecTV to cable or visa-versa, you just get a new gateway and plug it in.


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> That would be the ultimate. Then, if you wanted to switch from DirecTV to cable or visa-versa, you just get a new gateway and plug it in.


That's the benefit of the gateway approach. It allows the MSOs themselves to significantly change their own technology without having to worry about devices in the field as much. So at some point the cable company could switch to pure IP and all they would have to do is replace the gateways, not every box/DVR in the field.

Unfortunately I think they're going to resist this approach. They don't want it to be easy for people to switch back and forth between dish and cable. They like locking you in with hardware.

I'm not sure where this ends up, but if they come up with a universal authorization standard then we could still see gateway type devices from 3rd parties. It would basically be the same as an HDHomeRun Prime and MCE PC. The HDHomeRun has all the tuning and authorization hardware and the MCE PC does the actual recording. Except this would allow them to do the same thing for DirecTV or U-Verse as well. Plus if they use an open standard like CVP-2 for accessing the gateway then any compatible 3rd party device could use it's tuners to watch TV or record.


----------



## randian

Why do the MSOs want control over the UI? For one thing, I don't want a crappy app whose UI doesn't match the rest of the box and doesn't get updated in sync with it. Second, it's none of their business how I access content, security and authentication for accessing content is the only thing they should care about.


----------



## Dan203

Because they put ads in their UI and they make money off those ads. They also claim to want a "consistent user experience". Unfortunately Charter achieves that by putting the same dated UI on all their boxes that they've had for the last two decades. My brand new HD box I got last year has the same UI that the SD box I got 15+ years ago had. The underlying video is HD but all the menus are 4:3 SD and look like garbage.


----------



## HarperVision

Do you think you'll be able to mix and match MSOs, like Directv and cable? Like have a gateway for each and have your device (WMC, TiVo, etc) be able to mix the two programming sources together?


----------



## Dan203

That would be awesome if you could. If they use an open standard for the tuner allocation part I couldn't see why not. But it would be up to the device to support it. They may make you choose one.


----------



## Diana Collins

Dan203 said:


> That's the benefit of the gateway approach. It allows the MSOs themselves to significantly change their own technology without having to worry about devices in the field as much. So at some point the cable company could switch to pure IP and all they would have to do is replace the gateways, not every box/DVR in the field.
> 
> Unfortunately I think they're going to resist this approach. They don't want it to be easy for people to switch back and forth between dish and cable. They like locking you in with hardware.
> 
> I'm not sure where this ends up, but if they come up with a universal authorization standard then we could still see gateway type devices from 3rd parties. It would basically be the same as an HDHomeRun Prime and MCE PC. The HDHomeRun has all the tuning and authorization hardware and the MCE PC does the actual recording. Except this would allow them to do the same thing for DirecTV or U-Verse as well. Plus if they use an open standard like CVP-2 for accessing the gateway then any compatible 3rd party device could use it's tuners to watch TV or record.


Just as an interesting side note, DirecTV is currently field testing a new system where the tuners are in one box that has NO local output capability. It serves the tuners out to viewing devices via RVU (or a proprietary IP protocol for legacy devices). The tuner gateway is available without a hard drive (for strictly live viewing) or you mate a second component to it to add DVR functions. It is currently enabled for 5 tuners, but I hear the hardware is capable of 7 (or 8 if you count the program guide tuner).

This is really just a LAN protocol change (to CVP-2) away from the model described.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> Unfortunately I think they're going to resist this approach. They don't want it to be easy for people to switch back and forth between dish and cable. They like locking you in with hardware.


True, they make friction in switching in terms of getting a new DVR and losing whatever was on the other one, and reprogramming it, and learning a new interface. TiVo makes this pretty frictionless today in areas with more than one QAM provider, although outside of the northeast (FIOS), most areas don't have two QAM providers available. The areas with 3 are very lucky, as they have 3 providers to work with their TiVos.



> I'm not sure where this ends up, but if they come up with a universal authorization standard then we could still see gateway type devices from 3rd parties. It would basically be the same as an HDHomeRun Prime and MCE PC. The HDHomeRun has all the tuning and authorization hardware and the MCE PC does the actual recording. Except this would allow them to do the same thing for DirecTV or U-Verse as well. Plus if they use an open standard like CVP-2 for accessing the gateway then any compatible 3rd party device could use it's tuners to watch TV or record.


I would think the cable companies would want to control the tuner hardware, even more than they do today, which is OK, as long as they give TiVo uninhibited access to those tuners. At some point, if everything went IP, they might be able to do it all in software, since there would be no reason anymore for a hardware gateway to carry the physical QAM or DBS tuners.

If we end up with a situation where individual companies can build their own hardware, I hope that TiVo makes either tuner modules/cards, or USB adapters, so that we can swap tuners on an existing box. It would be nice if those USB boxes or modules could integrate everything from 5 or 8 SWiM tuners on DirecTV to a full TA/SDV implementation for cable providers.



Dan203 said:


> That would be awesome if you could. If they use an open standard for the tuner allocation part I couldn't see why not. But it would be up to the device to support it. They may make you choose one.


Yeah, TiVo would have to support it, and it would get really squirrely really quick. Although today TiVo or MCE can mix cable and OTA.


----------



## Dan203

Diana Collins said:


> Just as an interesting side note, DirecTV is currently field testing a new system where the tuners are in one box that has NO local output capability. It serves the tuners out to viewing devices via RVU (or a proprietary IP protocol for legacy devices). The tuner gateway is available without a hard drive (for strictly live viewing) or you mate a second component to it to add DVR functions. It is currently enabled for 5 tuners, but I hear the hardware is capable of 7 (or 8 if you count the program guide tuner).
> 
> This is really just a LAN protocol change (to CVP-2) away from the model described.


That's awesome!

I've talked to the people at Silicone Dust about creating a similar device for cable where it uses CVP-2 to feed cable tuners to any CVP-2 device. They actually said they are looking into it. I think it would be popular for secondary TVs in areas where they've gone all digital and they require you to have a box on every TV. This way you could just rent one CableCARD and then use it to fee every TV in the house via your network and a small dongle type device like a Roku Stick or FireTV Stick. (do any of those support CVP-2 yet?)


----------



## HarperVision

Diana Collins said:


> Just as an interesting side note, DirecTV is currently field testing a new system where the tuners are in one box that has NO local output capability. It serves the tuners out to viewing devices via RVU (or a proprietary IP protocol for legacy devices). The tuner gateway is available without a hard drive (for strictly live viewing) or you mate a second component to it to add DVR functions. It is currently enabled for 5 tuners, but I hear the hardware is capable of 7 (or 8 if you count the program guide tuner). This is really just a LAN protocol change (to CVP-2) away from the model described.


Yes that is way cool! Any idea when they may actually field this thing?


----------



## Bigg

Diana Collins said:


> Just as an interesting side note, DirecTV is currently field testing a new system where the tuners are in one box that has NO local output capability. It serves the tuners out to viewing devices via RVU (or a proprietary IP protocol for legacy devices). The tuner gateway is available without a hard drive (for strictly live viewing) or you mate a second component to it to add DVR functions. It is currently enabled for 5 tuners, but I hear the hardware is capable of 7 (or 8 if you count the program guide tuner).
> 
> This is really just a LAN protocol change (to CVP-2) away from the model described.


That sounds awesome. Now if TiVo makes the matching TiVo box, DirecTV will have a new customer here!


----------



## tarheelblue32

The video of the March 24th meeting is up for anyone who wants to watch it:

http://www.fcc.gov/events/downloadable-security-technology-advisory-committee-meeting-03242015


----------



## foghorn2

tarheelblue32 said:


> The video of the March 24th meeting is up for anyone who wants to watch it:
> 
> http://www.fcc.gov/events/downloadable-security-technology-advisory-committee-meeting-03242015


Wow, must decide between that exciting FCC video and twerking videos on YouTube.

I just don't know


----------



## Mikeguy

foghorn2 said:


> wow, must decide between that exciting fcc video and twerking videos on youtube.
> 
> I just don't know


The humor for the day.


----------



## Bigg

tarheelblue32 said:


> The video of the March 24th meeting is up for anyone who wants to watch it:
> 
> http://www.fcc.gov/events/downloadable-security-technology-advisory-committee-meeting-03242015


God, I haven't finished the last one! Those meetings are kind of funny though with how the different people all address each other and try to make corny jokes about talking too much, then proceed to talk too much.


----------



## innocentfreak

I tried to watch the video but just gave up. I skipped around and quit once they started debating apps and how it is competitive. Is there anyone there on the consumer side?


----------



## tarheelblue32

innocentfreak said:


> I tried to watch the video but just gave up. I skipped around and quit once they started debating apps and how it is competitive. Is there anyone there on the consumer side?


The representatives from TiVo, Public Knowledge, and Google seem to be pro-consumer.

The worst guy is "The Pill" from Comcast, followed closely by the other cable company reps.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

I like the Public Knowledge guy. He's an apparent Tivo user and as knowledgeable as anyone (no pun intended). He wasn't afraid to smack down The Pill even when sitting right next to him. Heh. Awkward.

Really all CE parties are ultimately helpful to us too. Sony, Amazon, Tivo, Hauppauge, Vizio, Google, Samsung are all on the committee. Some more vocal than others.

The Pill and other cable guys waste time with their nonsense, but they're not able to derail things. It's going fine, if a bit slow. I'm just enough of a policy wonk and Tivo enthusiast to tolerate watching this and break it down to what's relevant to us so nobody has to suffer a 5 hour video. 

It looks like they were able to secure the room for an April 21 meeting. So that's the next one.


----------



## i.hardon

BigJimOutlaw said:


> It's fair to say satellite may have unique challenges. Wouldn't be surprising if IP and QAM had one solution while satellite had another for the sake of time to market. But whatever, as long as there's an open market for STB competition.


I'd be surprised if the satellite companies have a huge challenge here. Both Dish and DirecTV use DVB-S2, and Dish and DirecTV don't use any special proprietary encryption - I believe NDS/Cisco Videoguard for DTV and Nagravision 3 for Dish.

Both encryption systems are used in European pay-TV, including through the use of CAMs (conditional access module, sort of like a cablecard, part of the DVB standards).

I think NDS/Cisco even has some experience here, because they had to make Videoguard Cablecards for Cablevision's systems (and of course they do cablecards for the SA encryption system too)


----------



## Diana Collins

HarperVision said:


> Yes that is way cool! Any idea when they may actually field this thing?


It has been in field testing for several months now, so it could be soon. I have no idea how well the tests are going. The advantage to DirecTV, I think, is in the ability to upgrade a customer to UHD down the road by simply replacing the IP client from a HD model to a UHD one (to the tuner box it is all just a bit stream).


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

i.hardon said:


> I'd be surprised if the satellite companies have a huge challenge here. Both Dish and DirecTV use DVB-S2, and Dish and DirecTV don't use any special proprietary encryption - I believe NDS/Cisco Videoguard for DTV and Nagravision 3 for Dish.


Right. Satellite's unique difference is that they're one-way. For the 2-way communications needs, they're most likely going to need an internet-based backdoor standard that's different from cable's/IP's 2-way managed networks. They can do it, it's just a different set of technical needs.


----------



## sangs

Diana Collins said:


> It has been in field testing for several months now, so it could be soon. I have no idea how well the tests are going. The advantage to DirecTV, I think, is in the ability to upgrade a customer to UHD down the road by simply replacing the IP client from a HD model to a UHD one (to the tuner box it is all just a bit stream).


It really sounds like there's a lot of innovation coming our way from Directv soon, which - as much as I'm enjoying FiOS and the Tivo environment - is why I'm extremely hesitant to leave them for good.


----------



## Bigg

The flip side to DirecTV, as I found out yesterday when I went to their site is that they absurdly expensive. Easily $50/mo more than the TV portion of bundles from MSOs. They used to compete on price, they definitely don't anymore.


----------



## sangs

Bigg said:


> The flip side to DirecTV, as I found out yesterday when I went to their site is that they absurdly expensive. Easily $50/mo more than the TV portion of bundles from MSOs. They used to compete on price, they definitely don't anymore.


But it's pretty easy to get them to offer you a bunch of credits to offset some costs. People do it all the time. Unlike FiOS, which rarely offers anything other than the initial price.


----------



## HarperVision

sangs said:


> It really sounds like there's a lot of innovation coming our way from Directv soon, which - as much as I'm enjoying FiOS and the Tivo environment - is why I'm extremely hesitant to leave them for good.





Bigg said:


> The flip side to DirecTV, as I found out yesterday when I went to their site is that they absurdly expensive. Easily $50/mo more than the TV portion of bundles from MSOs. They used to compete on price, they definitely don't anymore.


That's why I finally just cancelled my DirecTV service for good a couple days ago (had base family pack with $20/month credits so only $10/month). I was just riding out my last contract with them and basically was just using it for NFL ST.

Maybe now if they come out with that cool system Diana mentioned, they'll offer an amazing deal to return?


----------



## HarperVision

Diana Collins said:


> It has been in field testing for several months now, so it could be soon. I have no idea how well the tests are going. The advantage to DirecTV, I think, is in the ability to upgrade a customer to UHD down the road by simply replacing the IP client from a HD model to a UHD one (to the tuner box it is all just a bit stream).


I'll have to head over to DBSTalk again. Know any good threads you can point me to?


----------



## Bigg

sangs said:


> But it's pretty easy to get them to offer you a bunch of credits to offset some costs. People do it all the time. Unlike FiOS, which rarely offers anything other than the initial price.


In areas that have RCN, switching the internet over to them would make DirecTV *somewhat* more attractive, although it's still not going to beat the price of a FIOS bundle. FIOS's bundling practices are aggressive, and cut DirecTV out of the loop. But DirecTV doesn't help themselves either, as they tack on all sorts of insane fees, and you don't have the option of buying your equipment outright and owning it all with no monthly fees like you do with FIOS.

It really depends on the market you're in for how DirecTV compares, but the cheapest thing in a market that has 2 or 3 QAM providers is to provider hop every two years, or try to threaten the existing provider to give you a better contract/deal.



HarperVision said:


> Maybe now if they come out with that cool system Diana mentioned, they'll offer an amazing deal to return?


Yeah, that's the hope, as then once you have the dish installed, you can just swap a few cables and switch providers, and include DirecTV in the mix for the video side of things, and be able to use your own equipment and avoid some of the more egregious fees that DirecTV tacks on.


----------



## sangs

Bigg said:


> FIOS's bundling practices are aggressive, and cut DirecTV out of the loop. But DirecTV doesn't help themselves either, as they tack on all sorts of insane fees, and you don't have the option of buying your equipment outright and owning it all with no monthly fees like you do with FIOS. It really depends on the market you're in for how DirecTV compares, but the cheapest thing in a market that has 2 or 3 QAM providers is to provider hop every two years, or try to threaten the existing provider to give you a better contract/deal. Yeah, that's the hope, as then once you have the dish installed, you can just swap a few cables and switch providers, and include DirecTV in the mix for the video side of things, and be able to use your own equipment and avoid some of the more egregious fees that DirecTV tacks on.


You think DirecTV tacks on some egregious fees, I suggest you price out FiOS using their equipment to get the Quantum 12-tuner setup. For four TVs, it's an additional $64 per month - $32 for the Quantum service itself, $32 for the equipment. With DirecTV I believe it's $15 for Whole Home DVR then only $6.50 for every additional outlet - whether it's a simple receiver or a DVR. Not to mention the taxes tacked on for FiOS if your bundle includes a land line. (Oh and the Quantum equipment is a glitchy mess to boot.)


----------



## Diana Collins

sangs said:


> You think DirecTV tacks on some egregious fees, I suggest you price out FiOS using their equipment to get the Quantum 12-tuner setup. For four TVs, it's an additional $64 per month - $32 for the Quantum service itself, $32 for the equipment. With DirecTV I believe it's $15 for Whole Home DVR then only $6.50 for every additional outlet - whether it's a simple receiver or a DVR. Not to mention the taxes tacked on for FiOS if your bundle includes a land line. (Oh and the Quantum equipment is a glitchy mess to boot.)


You have to also add the upfront cost for equipment. Should you want more than the basic package, 2 tuner DVRs are $199, non-DVR boxes ar $99 and you can only have 1 Genie (the 5 tuner DVR) per installation.


----------



## innocentfreak

http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/cablecard-successor-inches-ahead/389273


----------



## Dan203

Do the cable companies really just want dumb boxes that will run their "app"? How could they possibly see that as a real option? If this were 1995 and people still only watched live TV then maybe, but without the ability for a 3rd party device to record and stream the content it's useless to most people.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> Do the cable companies really just want dumb boxes that will run their "app"? How could they possibly see that as a real option? If this were 1995 and people still only watched live TV then maybe, but without the ability for a 3rd party device to record and stream the content it's useless to most people.


And at least in 1995 we had VCRs to record with.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> Do the cable companies really just want dumb boxes that will run their "app"? How could they possibly see that as a real option? If this were 1995 and people still only watched live TV then maybe, but without the ability for a 3rd party device to record and stream the content it's useless to most people.


Cable companies are also okay if the "app" does on-demand, as long as you can't fast-forward through the commercials. Cable companies (and content owners) consider it "stealing" if you fast-forward through commercials, even though you are paying them over $100/month for the content.


----------



## HarperVision

tarheelblue32 said:


> Cable companies are also okay if the "app" does on-demand, as long as you can't fast-forward through the commercials. Cable companies (and content owners) consider it "stealing" if you fast-forward through commercials, even though you are paying them over $100/month for the content.


Really, what ever happened to cable channels not having commercials? That used to be a big point about cable tv. That you could either use an antenna to pickup free tv networks that had commercials or you could pay to get cable with channels that didn't have commercials. We were in one of the first test markets for cable tv when I was a kid (Philly area) and I remember this being so cool with channels like HBO and Prism!

Now it's a double whammy (well, it's been for awhile now). Pay a subscription AND get commercials. Lucky us.


----------



## Bongo

There have never been basic cable channels without ads.


----------



## lpwcomp

Bongo said:


> There have never been basic cable channels without ads.


What do you mean by "basic cable'? AMC didn't used to have ads. TCM still doesn't.


----------



## Bigg

sangs said:


> You think DirecTV tacks on some egregious fees, I suggest you price out FiOS using their equipment to get the Quantum 12-tuner setup. For four TVs, it's an additional $64 per month - $32 for the Quantum service itself, $32 for the equipment. With DirecTV I believe it's $15 for Whole Home DVR then only $6.50 for every additional outlet - whether it's a simple receiver or a DVR. Not to mention the taxes tacked on for FiOS if your bundle includes a land line. (Oh and the Quantum equipment is a glitchy mess to boot.)


But on FIOS, you can have TiVo. Same for Comcast. I'm going to completely preach to the choir here, but an equivalent TiVo setup costs $900 per 6-tuner DVR, has no monthly fees, and if you add more TVs on Minis, the cost advantage gets even bigger. So for four TVs, you're saying $64/mo for four TVs. With TiVo, that's $2100 up front and zero monthly cost, split out over the expected 48 month equipment life with no resale value (although as we know, it can be much longer and they have resale value), is $43.75/mo plus $10/mo for CableCards is $53.75/mo.

With DirecTV, they'll give you 4 rooms of Genie (5 tuners total) for nothing up front and $41/mo, but that's roughly equivalent to a single TiVo or a 6-tuner Quantum DVR, not the 12-tuner monster.

The bottom line, is TiVo is a bit cheaper apples to apples, and can be quite a bit cheaper with a bunch of Minis. Any system with 12+ tuners is going to be crazy expensive. And most people don't need something that insane.



Diana Collins said:


> You have to also add the upfront cost for equipment. Should you want more than the basic package, 2 tuner DVRs are $199, non-DVR boxes ar $99 and you can only have 1 Genie (the 5 tuner DVR) per installation.


They'll give you up to 4 TV's for free on a new installation. There's got to be a way to get two Genie's, even though it would require 4 coax from the dish and a SWiM16, which would probably add considerable cost...


----------



## Dan203

tarheelblue32 said:


> Cable companies are also okay if the "app" does on-demand, as long as you can't fast-forward through the commercials. Cable companies (and content owners) consider it "stealing" if you fast-forward through commercials, even though you are paying them over $100/month for the content.


The app is fine for VOD. I kind of expect that. But linear content should be accessible by the 3rd party device directly for recording, transcoding and streaming. Just like they are now with CableCARD.

I still think that an external tuner gateway is the best solution. I envision a system where all the tuners, SDV hardware, authentication and anything else needed to access a live stream will be contained in a headless black box which is attached to the users home network. (or they can use MoCa to establish a network if needed) 3rd party devices will then access this box using an open standard like DLNA CVP-2 using one of two methods... 1) Access the stream directly using their own UI and have complete control over the stream just like they do now or 2) launch a remote "app" (aka RUI) designed by the MSO which allows them to access and watch live channels directly. VOD would only be accessible via an RUI "app" but would be accessible by any 3rd party device.

This system would give us all the functionality we have now with CableCARD but in a technology agnostic system so that a TiVo, or any 3rd party device, would be completely portable between MSOs. It would also give everyone access to the VOD features of the MSO through the RUI "app" without the MSOs having to relinquish control of the "experience". They can continue to block FF, insert ads, etc... to their hearts content.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> The app is fine for VOD. I kind of expect that. But linear content should be accessible by the 3rd party device directly for recording, transcoding and streaming. Just like they are now with CableCARD.
> 
> I still think that an external tuner gateway is the best solution. I envision a system where all the tuners, SDV hardware, authentication and anything else needed to access a live stream will be contained in a headless black box which is attached to the users home network. (or they can use MoCa to establish a network if needed) 3rd party devices will then access this box using an open standard like DLNA CVP-2 using one of two methods... 1) Access the stream directly using their own UI and have complete control over the stream just like they do now or 2) launch a remote "app" (aka RUI) designed by the MSO which allows them to access and watch live channels directly. VOD would only be accessible via an RUI "app" but would be accessible by any 3rd party device.
> 
> This system would give us all the functionality we have now with CableCARD but in a technology agnostic system so that a TiVo, or any 3rd party device, would be completely portable between MSOs. It would also give everyone access to the VOD features of the MSO through the RUI "app" without the MSOs having to relinquish control of the "experience". They can continue to block FF, insert ads, etc... to their hearts content.


If the MSO agree to a new system to replace the cable card, they could insist on a system that lets you record but stops you from fast forward over commercials or anything. Why would they not want such a system, your DVR and OD would be the same use restrictions (except you could record TV but not OD).


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> The app is fine for VOD. I kind of expect that. But linear content should be accessible by the 3rd party device directly for recording, transcoding and streaming. Just like they are now with CableCARD.
> 
> I still think that an external tuner gateway is the best solution. I envision a system where all the tuners, SDV hardware, authentication and anything else needed to access a live stream will be contained in a headless black box which is attached to the users home network. (or they can use MoCa to establish a network if needed) 3rd party devices will then access this box using an open standard like DLNA CVP-2 using one of two methods... 1) Access the stream directly using their own UI and have complete control over the stream just like they do now or 2) launch a remote "app" (aka RUI) designed by the MSO which allows them to access and watch live channels directly. VOD would only be accessible via an RUI "app" but would be accessible by any 3rd party device.
> 
> This system would give us all the functionality we have now with CableCARD but in a technology agnostic system so that a TiVo, or any 3rd party device, would be completely portable between MSOs. It would also give everyone access to the VOD features of the MSO through the RUI "app" without the MSOs having to relinquish control of the "experience". They can continue to block FF, insert ads, etc... to their hearts content.


If the MSO agree to a new system to replace the cable card, they could insist on a system that lets you record but stops you from fast forward over commercials or anything. Why would they not want such a system, your DVR and OD would have the same use restrictions (except you could record TV but not OD).


----------



## randian

lessd said:


> If the MSO agree to a new system to replace the cable card, they could insist on a system that lets you record but stops you from fast forward over commercials or anything.


While I wouldn't be surprised if they demanded that, I don't understand why they care. As I understand it advertising is paid to the networks, not the MSOs. I don't have to watch commercials live (I can go to the kitchen or do something else while the commercials are on) so why force commercials on people who aren't viewing live? It doesn't increase viewing of commercials and annoys the customer.


----------



## Dan203

The MSOs may want that, but they'll never get it. This new standard will at the very least have the same functionality as current CableCARDs. The main goal here is to get rid of the actual CableCARDs, get rid of the TAs, incorporate VOD into the system and make it as technology agnostic as possuble so it can be applied to other MSOs that use different means to deliver their content. (misery loves company)


----------



## aaronwt

Dan203 said:


> Do the cable companies really just want dumb boxes that will run their "app"? How could they possibly see that as a real option? If this were 1995 and people still only watched live TV then maybe, but without the ability for a 3rd party device to record and stream the content it's useless to most people.


1995? I had at least half a dozen VCRs in use. The last thing I was doing was watching live TV.


----------



## Diana Collins

Bigg said:


> ...They'll give you up to 4 TV's for free on a new installation. There's got to be a way to get two Genie's, even though it would require 4 coax from the dish and a SWiM16, which would probably add considerable cost...


The one Genie limit is technical...the minis can't deal with two hosts.

The "free" setup in one Genie and 3 Minis. Add a mini is $99. Add a 2 tuner DVR is $199. Add a non-DVR STB (with its own tuner) is $99. The Genie only has a 1TB drive and 5 tuners. Since you don't own the equipment (you have to send it back when you cancel service) opening the Genie to put in a larger drive is a risk. The 2 tuner DVRs have 500GB drives. To get the equivalent DirecTV setup as my Tivo configuration would require the basic "free" setup plus three 2 tuner DVRs (~$600), a GenieGo (like a Stream) ($100), 3 external 1TB drives, plus a 3TB drive (all in ESATA enclosures), or about $1,000 total. Then you'd still be paying $42 per month in outlet fees, plus $25 per month for "Advanced Services" (DVR and whole home).

This is why we switched to FiOS and TiVo. Between no monthly "add-on" fees and the lower price for content, we're saving over $100/month. DirecTV is a great service, but it is very expensive.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> The app is fine for VOD. I kind of expect that. But linear content should be accessible by the 3rd party device directly for recording, transcoding and streaming. Just like they are now with CableCARD.


They need to add universal VOD access. The MSOs aren't playing nicely with TiVo and VOD now, with the exception of Comcast. RCN and a few other MSOs even have their system working with TiVo, and won't flip the switch for customer-owned boxes to get access to it.



> I still think that an external tuner gateway is the best solution. I envision a system where all the tuners, SDV hardware, authentication and anything else needed to access a live stream will be contained in a headless black box which is attached to the users home network. (or they can use MoCa to establish a network if needed) 3rd party devices will then access this box using an open standard like DLNA CVP-2 using one of two methods... 1) Access the stream directly using their own UI and have complete control over the stream just like they do now or 2) launch a remote "app" (aka RUI) designed by the MSO which allows them to access and watch live channels directly. VOD would only be accessible via an RUI "app" but would be accessible by any 3rd party device.


That would be the ideal situation. That would also allow a fully modular approach in that you could then add a second headless box to be a customer-owned DVR like a TiVo, with a GUI totally independent from the MSO, and then access that via RVU or the DLNA CVP-2 again. The latter part could already be done today, it's just not widely implemented outside of DirecTV.



> This system would give us all the functionality we have now with CableCARD but in a technology agnostic system so that a TiVo, or any 3rd party device, would be completely portable between MSOs. It would also give everyone access to the VOD features of the MSO through the RUI "app" without the MSOs having to relinquish control of the "experience". They can continue to block FF, insert ads, etc... to their hearts content.


CableCARD is technology agnostic on the device side (i.e. PC, TiVo, TV, etc), but it's not on the MSO side in that is was designed for QAM network. I really want to see the replacement truly be universal from an MSO perspective. Putting U-Verse and satellite on a level playing field for TiVo would really open things up.

I'm not sure why we should be forced to use the MSO's crappy VOD app, when it could be baked into the device, with a different interface, although the MSOs are probably going to want more control.



Diana Collins said:


> The one Genie limit is technical...the minis can't deal with two hosts.


Oh, that sounds like a software limitation. Why couldn't Genie #2 be set up like a 2-tuner DVR would be today? Because you could have a Genie and a bunch of HR24's right?



> The "free" setup in one Genie and 3 Minis. Add a mini is $99. Add a 2 tuner DVR is $199. Add a non-DVR STB (with its own tuner) is $99. The Genie only has a 1TB drive and 5 tuners. Since you don't own the equipment (you have to send it back when you cancel service) opening the Genie to put in a larger drive is a risk. The 2 tuner DVRs have 500GB drives. To get the equivalent DirecTV setup as my Tivo configuration would require the basic "free" setup plus three 2 tuner DVRs (~$600), a GenieGo (like a Stream) ($100), 3 external 1TB drives, plus a 3TB drive (all in ESATA enclosures), or about $1,000 total. Then you'd still be paying $42 per month in outlet fees, plus $25 per month for "Advanced Services" (DVR and whole home).


Yeah, their stuff is expensive. But, to be fair, the 1TB Genie is roughly equivalent to a 2TB TiVo, at least until cable goes to MPEG-4.



> This is why we switched to FiOS and TiVo. Between no monthly "add-on" fees and the lower price for content, we're saving over $100/month. DirecTV is a great service, but it is very expensive.


Yeah. I'm on cable because of TiVo. If it weren't for TiVo, we would have gotten DirecTV.


----------



## lessd

randian said:


> While I wouldn't be surprised if they demanded that, I don't understand why they care. As I understand it advertising is paid to the networks, not the MSOs. I don't have to watch commercials live (I can go to the kitchen or do something else while the commercials are on) so why force commercials on people who aren't viewing live? It doesn't increase viewing of commercials and annoys the customer.


The MSO do care because the advertising is paid to the cable ch and they want people to watch the ads, why then would some OD programs not let you fast forward ? Some ch have 10 min of program to 5 min of ads, that would be a lot of kitchen time.


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> They need to add universal VOD access. The MSOs aren't playing nicely with TiVo and VOD now, with the exception of Comcast. RCN and a few other MSOs even have their system working with TiVo, and won't flip the switch for customer-owned boxes to get access to it.


DLNA CVP-2 has something called RUI. Which is basically an HTML5 app that the host device, in this case the gateway, serves up to the client device. If they used this for VOD then any client device, even a TiVo, could access VOD. The video would come across as part of the app so there would be no need for the client device to know, or care, what technology the gateway uses to get the video. The reason VOD is an issue with TiVosnow is because the TiVo has no way to talk to the head end, so the MSOs have to open up their VOD servers to the internet so TiVo can communicate with them. But with an RUI app that's unnecessary. The gateway device would do all the communicating, with whatever hardware and protocols they wanted, and all the client device would need to do is be able to run the app.

They could do something similar for live TV and the guide as well, for simple client devices that don't want to have their own UI. As long as they also offer an alternative method for accessing the streams directly so that devices like TiVo could still access and record them using their own UI. Again CVP-2 provides all of this.

I think a gateway device, using whatever internal technology the specific MSO needs but serving 3rd party devices via CVP-2, would be perfect for all parties involved. The technology exists to do this right now, so it could be deployed quickly and relatively easily.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> DLNA CVP-2 has something called RUI. Which is basically an HTML5 app that the host device, in this case the gateway, serves up to the client device. If they used this for VOD then any client device, even a TiVo, could access VOD. The video would come across as part of the app so there would be no need for the client device to know, or care, what technology the gateway uses to get the video. The reason VOD is an issue with TiVosnow is because the TiVo has no way to talk to the head end, so the MSOs have to open up their VOD servers to the internet so TiVo can communicate with them. But with an RUI app that's unnecessary. The gateway device would do all the communicating, with whatever hardware and protocols they wanted, and all the client device would need to do is be able to run the app.
> 
> They could do something similar for live TV and the guide as well, for simple client devices that don't want to have their own UI. As long as they also offer an alternative method for accessing the streams directly so that devices like TiVo could still access and record them using their own UI. Again CVP-2 provides all of this.
> 
> I think a gateway device, using whatever internal technology the specific MSO needs but serving 3rd party devices via CVP-2, would be perfect for all parties involved. The technology exists to do this right now, so it could be deployed quickly and relatively easily.


Right, but doesn't that force the MSO's UI onto a third party device for VOD? I can see offering that as an option, but devices like TiVo should be able to get VOD at a lower level, like they do today (except that many MSOs just don't let them).

Yeah, that approach sounds pretty good overall. Would it work for DirecTV and DISH in situations where there is no internet access?


----------



## lparsons21

Bigg said:


> Right, but doesn't that force the MSO's UI onto a third party device for VOD? I can see offering that as an option, but devices like TiVo should be able to get VOD at a lower level, like they do today (except that many MSOs just don't let them).
> 
> Yeah, that approach sounds pretty good overall. Would it work for DirecTV and DISH in situations where there is no internet access?


For the sat services, probably not. Their satellite bandwidth is pretty saturated so other than getting VOD via the internet, I don't see it going to stream from the satellite.


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> Right, but doesn't that force the MSO's UI onto a third party device for VOD? I can see offering that as an option, but devices like TiVo should be able to get VOD at a lower level, like they do today (except that many MSOs just don't let them).
> 
> Yeah, that approach sounds pretty good overall. Would it work for DirecTV and DISH in situations where there is no internet access?


They don't access VOD directly now. They do it via an app that the MSO provides. They use the tuner in the TiVo to access the stream but the app takes control and can even prevent FF. So really this is no different then how it works now except that the app is an RUI running on the gateway and served to the TiVo as HTML5 rather then running directly on the TiVo itself.


----------



## Bigg

lparsons21 said:


> For the sat services, probably not. Their satellite bandwidth is pretty saturated so other than getting VOD via the internet, I don't see it going to stream from the satellite.


Obviously VOD doesn't work over satellite, but I was referring to the whole CVP-2 gateway thing without internet. On a cable MSO, they're guaranteed internet, since they can build DOCSIS into it.



Dan203 said:


> They don't access VOD directly now. They do it via an app that the MSO provides. They use the tuner in the TiVo to access the stream but the app takes control and can even prevent FF. So really this is no different then how it works now except that the app is an RUI running on the gateway and served to the TiVo as HTML5 rather then running directly on the TiVo itself.


Hmmm, interesting. At least now it kind of looks like TiVo, but did Comcast just do that for TiVo specifically? VOD doesn't really have FF, it's just a sped-up video file, so if the head-end won't feed the FF, then the box isn't going to get it. No limits locally needed.


----------



## Dan203

Yes Comcast and RCN did it specifically for TiVo. Which is why they are the only two that have it. 

With a DLNA RUI app any device capable of displaying it would work and the technology they use to get the stream from the head end wouldn't matter because it would be converted to DLNA inside the gateway device. 

A LOT of what we have now with these VOD apps and tuning adapters are kludges that attempt to give devices like TiVo access to features they don't have the hardware to actually support. By using a gateway device the technology wouldn't matter. All the hardware needed to support all their services would be in the gateway which would act like a bridge between their proprietary hardware and technology and an open standard like DLNA CVP-2.


----------



## Bigg

Other MSOs that rent TiVos have it available. Even RCN, however, doesn't allow it on user-owned TiVos, which is bizarre, since it obviously works, they're just not flipping the switch that let it load onto user-owned TiVos.

TAs are just a kludge, period. If the MSO supported it, TiVo and MCE could use IP instead, like TiVo does with VOD, and eliminate the need for the TA. However, TWC, the largest user of SDV, goes out of their way to make life as miserable as possible for TiVo users.

Yeah, the gateway system would fix a LOT of problems.


----------



## Dan203

That's one bad thing about the gateway approach. We'd be putting a lot of faith into the MSO supplied gateway hardware working correctly. If the MSOs wanted to they could make users of the gateways miserable by putting out flaky firmware on them or limiting/delaying features. So there is a lot of room for them to manipulate the system. Although the system would actually be pretty cool for them too, so hopefully they would want to use gateways for their own devices too. Diana mentioned DirecTV is already working on a similar system for their own use, so obviously they see value of this type of setup. Maybe the cable companies will too.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> That's one bad thing about the gateway approach. We'd be putting a lot of faith into the MSO supplied gateway hardware working correctly. If the MSOs wanted to they could make users of the gateways miserable by putting out flaky firmware on them or limiting/delaying features. So there is a lot of room for them to manipulate the system. Although the system would actually be pretty cool for them too, so hopefully they would want to use gateways for their own devices too. Diana mentioned DirecTV is already working on a similar system for their own use, so obviously they see value of this type of setup. Maybe the cable companies will too.


Maybe with gateways third party DVRs will gain a little more market share. That will also keep them honest, as they want those customers too.


----------



## Dan203

They're going to have to start adding DLNA CVP-2 to new boxes and DVRs in a few months. (June for big guys, Sept for smaller MSOs) After that we should start to see a lot of CVP-2 enabled TVs and client devices. If this gateway is based on CVP-2 as well then the transition should be simple for both the MSOs and the client devices. In fact it's a natural progression of the technology. I just hope the MSOs don't fight it becuase they want to maintain controll.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> They're going to have to start adding DLNA CVP-2 to new boxes and DVRs in a few months. (June for big guys, Sept for smaller MSOs) After that we should start to see a lot of CVP-2 enabled TVs and client devices. If this gateway is based on CVP-2 as well then the transition should be simple for both the MSOs and the client devices. In fact it's a natural progression of the technology. I just hope the MSOs don't fight it becuase they want to maintain controll.


But does that implementation offer direct tuner access, or only work for "extender" boxes with the MSO's UI? And can they still charge outlet fees per connected/registered device?


----------



## Dan203

That's unclear. The FCC regulation that forces them to do this is very vague. It doesn't even specifically say CVP-2 has to be used. Just an "open standard". CVP-2 was settled on by the industry because it ticked all the boxes on both sides.

However there are two ways to deliver video with CVP-2. You can either do it as part of the RUI app, in which case the client device never directly accesses the stream, or you can expose the stream in such a way that the client accesses it directly. I'm guessing that the initial implementation will use the former method, since it gives the MSOs the most control over "the user experience". But if they used it for this gateway device they would need to allow the second option so that 3rd party DVRs could record the stream. 

I don't think they are allowed to charge outlet fees for client devices accessing these tuners. However I doubt they will initially offer devices with multiple tuners, so really it's just a way to share a single tuner in multiple rooms. But only one client will be able to access it at a time. Although things might be different for DVRs where there are multiple tuners and the ability to stream pre-recorded content. I'm not sure what the rules on that are.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> That's unclear. The FCC regulation that forces them to do this is very vague. It doesn't even specifically say CVP-2 has to be used. Just an "open standard". CVP-2 was settled on by the industry because it ticked all the boxes on both sides.
> 
> However there are two ways to deliver video with CVP-2. You can either do it as part of the RUI app, in which case the client device never directly accesses the stream, or you can expose the stream in such a way that the client accesses it directly. I'm guessing that the initial implementation will use the former method, since it gives the MSOs the most control over "the user experience". But if they used it for this gateway device they would need to allow the second option so that 3rd party DVRs could record the stream.
> 
> I don't think they are allowed to charge outlet fees for client devices accessing these tuners. However I doubt they will initially offer devices with multiple tuners, so really it's just a way to share a single tuner in multiple rooms. But only one client will be able to access it at a time. Although things might be different for DVRs where there are multiple tuners and the ability to stream pre-recorded content. I'm not sure what the rules on that are.


Hmmm, that's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. I feel like the MSOs would be OK with something where they control the experience and can charge for additional TVs like DirecTV does today with RVU.

What we can hopefully avoid is a situation where an MSO like Comcast ends up using their mega-DVR as the gateway for another DVR, making a user using a competing DVR pay twice. It would be a horrendous kludge, but it's something I could see them doing just to try and maintain control over their system. Unfortunately, even with a headless gateway, they may end up at the same price point situation just by bundling X1 into their bundles, and then not giving much of a discount for the gateway users, which they are already starting to kind of do with X1 Triple Play.


----------



## lpwcomp

Comcast already charges for each piece of cable connected equipment beyond one. IMHO, that's the _*real*_ reason they started encrypting everything.


----------



## lessd

Bigg said:


> Hmmm, that's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. I feel like the MSOs would be OK with something where they control the experience and can charge for additional TVs like DirecTV does today with RVU.
> 
> What we can hopefully avoid is a situation where an MSO like Comcast ends up using their mega-DVR as the gateway for another DVR, making a user using a competing DVR pay twice. It would be a horrendous kludge, but it's something I could see them doing just to try and maintain control over their system. Unfortunately, even with a headless gateway, they may end up at the same price point situation just by bundling X1 into their bundles, and then not giving much of a discount for the gateway users, which they are already starting to kind of do with X1 Triple Play.


My Comcast contract (2 years X1 Triple play) does that, because I use TiVos and Minis I get a $2.50 CR for having my own equipment, and no $7.45 charge for the cable card, so I am saving about $10 + tax on my final bill, big deal


----------



## Bigg

lessd said:


> My Comcast contract (2 years X1 Triple play) does that, because I use TiVos and Minis I get a $2.50 CR for having my own equipment, and no $7.45 charge for the cable card, so I am saving about $10 + tax on my final bill, big deal


Yeah exactly. There's no way TiVo is equivalent cost wise to X1 in those circumstances.


----------



## Connor

lessd said:


> My Comcast contract (2 years X1 Triple play) does that, because I use TiVos and Minis I get a $2.50 CR for having my own equipment, and no $7.45 charge for the cable card, so I am saving about $10 + tax on my final bill, big deal


I have X1 double play with a X1 and 2 Tivo's. They charge $2.50 each for cable cards for the Tivo's. I can save $2.50 by Turing in the X1.


----------



## lessd

Connor said:


> I have X1 double play with a X1 and 2 Tivo's. They charge $2.50 each for cable cards for the Tivo's. I can save $2.50 by Turing in the X1.


You will save the $2.50 and get a $2.50 CR for use of your own equipment, at least in the Comcast Hartford CT area YMMV.


----------



## telemark

Comcast as a MSO does control some and get revenue from linear ad insertions.

This article claims 2 minutes per hour.
http://adage.com/article/media/comcast-time-warner-cable-means-advertising/291713/

That whole system is under evolution though.


----------



## innocentfreak

Tension Builds Around Downloadable Security
MVPDs Voice Concerns About Pursuit of CableCARD Successor


----------



## slowbiscuit

Quick summary - as usual, our apps and STBs are all you'll ever need and we're going to do everything in our power to avoid coming up with any successor that would grant open authorized access to our content without our control.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Today's meeting was a half-day. Both working groups (Commercial Requirements and Preferred Architectures) have submitted their final preliminary reports.

The Commercial Requirements group had over 200 (!!) items on their list of requirements. They didn't go through them all, they just itemized the major tenets -- encryption, security of the security system itself, etc. They admit a lot was overlap and could be cleaned up. They spent an unusual amount of time on the details of guide data delivery and how that might be delivered, or if it should be.

Tivo rightly argued some things on the list -- pointing out they're more like an anti-competitive Wishlist instead of a list of "Requirements." For example, blocking Fast Forwarding and reserving hard drive space for MSO ads.

The satellite guy clarified and conceded it is partly a Wishlist but it also depends on what the end product is that DSTAC comes up with. DBS systems need space on their own systems to push data ahead of time, as a 2-way connection can't be assumed due to DBS's 1-way nature. A lot of the stuff on the list goes away depending on the end solution.

The Preferred Architectures group started off summarizing delivery systems (DBS, QAM, IP, and hybrids). They then discuss how the MSO systems currently deal with security and the chain of trust from supplier to consumer, as well as the hardware chain of trust from chip makers to hardware keys. The group internally dicussed the existing 3rd party box suppliers and the cablecard's success in accomplishing everybody's core needs.

Tivo guy made a comment about the lack of mvpd competition, so the success of mvpd apps have only gone so far. The Pill (Comcast guy) tried to wedge in his "there IS competition" line, and that was smacked down again.

The Pill injected what almost sounded like a prepared statement about how cablecards are the sux0rs. The Tivo guy then ran down a list of cablecard's successes and its versatility. Tivo would love to see the card go away but the embodiment and flexibility should pass on to its successor. It is platform neutral. It uses existing protocols as opposed to app API's. It's close to the model we should be looking for.

Satellite guy had some deep questions about cablecards and their capabilities and had some reasonable requests for the replacement system.

While discussing the creation of the next working groups going forward, some of the guys stress focusing on simplicity of the solution. Tons of time is being spent on questionable things because the goals are vague. Which of the "requirements" are truly before this committee?

Public comments... Most of them stressed again that the goal is to replace cablecards with downloadable security to further the 629 rules, nothing more or less, and to take advantage of security experts availing themselves to the process.

The next working groups haven't yet been defined, but will soon for the next meeting.

The next meeting is on May 13.

I'm in agreement with the Tivo, Public Knowledge, and the public commenters. This is getting kind of stupid. It's about universal downloadable security. Wrap 2-way communications into the solution if you can, but otherwise stay on the ball.

Well, FIND the ball first, then stay on it.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

innocentfreak said:


> Tension Builds Around Downloadable Security
> MVPDs Voice Concerns About Pursuit of CableCARD Successor


It's hilarious that so many of the people who signed that letter are the same people dragging it down with their fluff over guide data, music services, weather apps, etc.


----------



## Dan203

Another reason to use a gateway device with CVP-2. They can put all the apps, and storage, and ads they want on it via RUI. As long as TiVo can access the tuners and record the shows what do we care?


----------



## Dan203

How do you make a public comment on this?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Dan203 said:


> How do you make a public comment on this?


They take comments in person at the end of the meetings.

So far I think all comments have been from industry players who aren't on the DSTAC committee, as opposed to the "real" public.

Though I suppose there's nothing stopping the public from sending email to Brendan Murray who is the Federal Officer moderating the group. Don't think it'll become part of the public record though.

http://www.fcc.gov/dstac


----------



## Dan203

Wow so I emailed Brendan Murray with my idea about a gateway device using DLNA CVP-2 technology and he actually got back to me. He said he forwarded the idea to the other members of the committee and made it part of the public record. He also said the representative from Sony wanted to know if he could contact me directly. 

I figured they'd just ignore my email as rants from a commoner, but they seem to actually be taking it seriously. How awesome would it be if I actually had some sort of influence over this whole thing.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> Wow so I emailed Brendan Murray with my idea about a gateway device using DLNA CVP-2 technology and he actually got back to me. He said he forwarded the idea to the other members of the committee and made it part of the public record. He also said the representative from Sony wanted to know if he could contact me directly. I figured they'd just ignore my email as rants from a commoner, but they seem to actually be taking it seriously. How awesome would it be if I actually had some sort of influence over this whole thing.


Ummmmm.......WAY awesome!!! Way to go Dan!


----------



## telemark

That is really awesome. Though I'm a bit perplexed by them. Isn't it the same thing as the FCC, SiliconDust, Boxee, and Comcast has been talking about in different forms?


----------



## Dan203

Yes. My "idea" is essentially what AllVid was purposed as a few years ago. The big difference is that now there is an open standard (DLNA CVP-2 / VidiPath) that actually does all the stuff they wanted AllVid to do, so there is no need for the MSOs to invest anything into developing their own standard. It's done. 

But for some reason they're ignoring all that and arguing over trying to include ridiculous stuff like weather apps and caller ID in a "downloadable security" solution. 

A CVP-2 gateway device provides the best of both worlds. For simple client devices they can use an RUI app that can essentially do everything that their settop boxes do. The guide, the caller ID, the VOD, the ads, whatever. They have full control over the experience. And then for devices like TiVo, that want to use their own UI, they can just access the tuners directly for playback, recording, whatever AND offer access to the RUI for features they can't support directly like VOD. In addition, since all the tuner hardware would be contained in the gateway and not the client, devices like TiVo would be completely provider agnostic. You could switch from cable to DirecTV or U-verse or whatever, and your TiVo would still work. As long as the MSO supplied a gateway device that could translate their technology into the CVP-2 standard it wouldn't matter how the video was delivered.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Awesome. 

I'm not crazy about needing a second box because it smells like a rental fee and SDV/cablecard-like issues potentially continuing for another generation, but at least it's in the neighborhood of the end goal, and not out to lunch with countless BS distractions. As a starting point to work from, I'm all for it.

I don't fully understanding the technology and I might be misunderstanding the complexity of the CVP-2 gateway, but is there a technical need for the tuners to be in the gateway? Would a tunerless gateway be possible or be more flexible in allowing people to choose how simple or complex their equipment needs are? The goal in my mind is to keep the gateway as simple as possible and hopefully avoid an excessive rental fee.

Basically in my mind I'm thinking of a 2-way "Super Cablecard" in a box that does authentication, # of standardized streams, return path, RUI hooks, etc. and then people can choose the 1-6 tuner device they want themselves without an overkill gateway.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Agreed on the questionable need for tuners in cable and U-Verse - we should be past the point now where tuners are required since everything should be available over IP. There should be no need for a box in any cable-based system.

Satellite is a different story of course, and yes I am dreaming here.

But thanks Dan for stepping up with your AllVid successor idea, I think it's a great idea to get the ball rolling with these guys. Unfortunately I believe the tech folks will have little say on the matter once their non-tech bosses get wind of what's being proposed, as evidenced by the complaint letter linked above.


----------



## Dan203

I'm using the word "tuners" loosely. Basically the gateway would use whatever technology they needed to present 6 live streams to the local network via CVP-2. Whether they use actual tuners, IP delievery, or some other future technology doesn't matter. As long as the video streams are coming out of the gateway in a standard format. That's the whole point. If the "tuners" need to be in the client device the each client will need to be designed for a specific MSO technology. But if the "tuners" ate in the gateway then the client devices are completely MSO agnostc and can be used for any service which provides a gateway that can output a standard CVP-2 stream. 

It's very similar to how the HDHomerun works now. The gateway would be the HDHomerun box and the client would be the MCE PC. However the gateway would be supplied by the MSO so it can use whatever technology it needs to access the channels. In the case of cable it would be like renting an HDHomerun from your cable company that had a built in CableCARD and tuning adapter, that were pre-authorized. All your MCE PC would need to do is discover the HDHomerun on the network and it would just work.

Now I realize this provides a point for the MSO to charge rental fees, but that's inevitable. They are not going to agree to a replacement which wioes out their profits from rental fees. And since these are complex devices I suspect they will cost more then a CableCARD. Although if the MSOs use the same technology for their own supplied boxes then at least 1 will be included in your normal monthly fee and you'll only have to rent more if you need more "tuners" then the default gateway device supplies. 

One thing that is tricky is designating a minimum number of "tuners" the gateway has to support. For cable 6 is sort of the current standard, but for services like U-verse 6 isn't even possible. They can only fo 3-4 depending on your connection. And I think DirecTV's similar service only allows 5. I fear the spec might get set at 4 and we'll all have to rent multiple gateway devices if we want 6+ tuner DVRs again.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> Wow so I emailed Brendan Murray with my idea about a gateway device using DLNA CVP-2 technology and he actually got back to me. He said he forwarded the idea to the other members of the committee and made it part of the public record. He also said the representative from Sony wanted to know if he could contact me directly.
> 
> I figured they'd just ignore my email as rants from a commoner, but they seem to actually be taking it seriously. How awesome would it be if I actually had some sort of influence over this whole thing.


How much control would any cable co have over what I recorded using this DLNA CVP-2 as in could they stop me from fast forwarding etc. ?? As I understand it the recording device after this DLNA CVP-2 would get up to 6 recordable streams, what if one of the IP streams was from OD service, could they stop me from recording that stream ? Could this DLNA CVP-2 be built into say a TiVo so you would not have to have any cable co equipment ?


----------



## Dan203

I envision the gateway device offering up two ways to access content...

1) It would have a way to access the raw live streams of each "tuner" so that an advanced client with it's own UI, like TiVo, could display and record the live streams just like they can now with CableCARD. The main advantage for advanced client devices with their own UI, like TiVo, when compared to CableCARD, is that the hardware could be much simpler. It would not need to include physical tuners or a CableCARD slot, nor would it need to deal with external devices like tuning adapters. All the tuning, authorization and SDV hardware would be in the gateway. The client would just need to request a channel from the gateway and it would get back a raw stream. The technology used to actually deliver that stream to the gateway device wouldn't matter to the client. This would not only make the hardware cheaper but would also allow it to work with any MSO, or even multiple MSOs simultaneously. As long as there was a gateway device available for that MSO then the client could use it. 

2) It would have a Remote User Interface. This is essentially an HTML5 app that the client displays which offers access all the services the MSO offers, including their guide, playback of live TV, VOD, cloud DVR service, weather, etc... It's essentially the same UI running on an MSO supplied box but running as an app on the client instead. This allows the MSOs to have complete control of the user experience, so they can disable FF, display ads, overlay caller ID, whatever they wanted to do. The advantage of this is that it provides a way for inexpensive clients to be embedded directly into TVs and other devices without the need for them to invest in the development of their own UI. It also gives the MSOs control over services like VOD that they require without the client having to adhere to any special rules. Since all video would be played inside the "app" itself they can do whatever they want and the client is none the wiser.

Now I know as TiVo users we also want access to services like VOD. It may not be ideal, but a device like TiVo could use #1 for it's core functionality and then use #2 as a means of allowing access to the extended features the MSO offers. If the MSO wanted to be more friendly they could even break their services into individual RUI "apps", rather then lumping them all into one, so that devices like TiVo could ignore the services they don't need, like the guide/live TV, but allow access to the ones they do like VOD. Although having any means to access VOD, even through a lumped together RUI, would be better then nothing.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Dan, I believe your letter and others can be found here. 

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view/view?name=15-64


----------



## Dan203

That is me. I didn't really write that up to be a public document, more of an idea email. Didn't realize it was going to end up as a PDF on a government website. But it is cool to see my idea up there. Never heard anything beyond the original email so maybe they realized I was a nobody and decided to ignore me after all.


----------



## telemark

Dan203 said:


> How do you make a public comment on this?


Be careful what you ask for. It's good though. Now it needs an architecture diagram.

There's a lot to like about that model in general. I am concerned the RUI even if HTML5 is going to be a source of incompatibility.

I'm trying to build a frontend UI for SiliconDust tuners, and looked to the independent Plex client developers for examples. Many times, even though an HTML app, their app was rejected from store inclusion. If HTML5 was ready for embedded UI's, we wouldn't be talking about porting effort and approval processes.


----------



## Dan203

DLNA has a spec for the RUI as well. Every client which is DLNA certified will be required to meet a minimum standard and possibly even pass a compliance test. So there "shouldn't" be the same kind of issues we see with things like Plex where they are trying to design something that will run on any hardware.

Edit: I also realize there could be a big difference between the idea and the reality. These sorts of things always look great on paper but don't always turn out great in implementation. (I'm sure TAs had a fantastic spec)


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> DLNA has a spec for the RUI as well. Every client which is DLNA certified will be required to meet a minimum standard and possibly even pass a compliance test. So there "shouldn't" be the same kind of issues we see with things like Plex where they are trying to design something that will run on any hardware.
> 
> Edit: I also realize there could be a big difference between the idea and the reality. These sorts of things always look great on paper but don't always turn out great in implementation. (I'm sure TAs had a fantastic spec)


Good point, what happens if downloaded security does not work, for some reason, on your hardware, where is the fault ? at least with cable cards you can replace the cable card as one point of troubleshooting, but if the hardware is built into say your TiVo, what then ??


----------



## Dan203

There are a couple of advantages to using a gateway device when it comes to security...

1) It allows the MSO to use whatever security system they want. So they can go back to using whatever system works best with their head end equipment. It doesn't matter how the gateway talks to the head end, as long as the streams coming out are converted to a standard DLNA compatible stream. (which uses open standards for security)

2) It gives them a big incentive to use the same hardware for their own boxes. If they use a gateway device then even if the user is using 100% MSO supplied equipment it will still be in the MSOs best interest to use this gateway technology. They can supply a single gateway and then rent the user little boxes or sticks to use at each TV. And if the MSO uses the same gateway for their own equipment then there is less of a chance we'll have issues with 3rd party equipment. And unlike CableCARD, which attempted to do the same thing via the integration ban, this would actually be interoperable. You could use one gateway to feed streams to a mix of MSO supplied hardware AND 3rd party hardware, so there would be no way for them to create a special path for their own equipment like they did with CableCARD.


----------



## Diana Collins

IMHO, one of the real advantages of a "two box" solution is that the STB (TiVo or otherwise) would only have to authenticate with the gateway, not with the headend. All content control (what package you subscribe to) would be handled by the gateway, as well as interacting with the headend to get the decryption key. 

The cable company would own and control everything between the headend and the gateway. This should satisfy all the content providers, satisfy the cable companies, and security between two boxes on the same network is WAY easier than securing a link from the headend all the way to the 3rd party STB.

ETA: Dan, of course, was way ahead of me.


----------



## slowbiscuit

The problem with local auth is that it's too easily hackable, methinks.


----------



## Dan203

How would the gateway be any more hackable then a current STB supplied by the MSO?

We're basically talking about a headless MSO supplied STB with multiple tuners and a way to access the live stream from those tuners using a secure DLNA connection.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

I would like to say the FCC is laying down the law on the emerging clown show of distractions outside the scope of downloadable security, but they have issued a directive that calls on both sides of the argument to continue with their approaches, for the benefit of "full information" for the Commission.

See the 4/27 document.

http://www.fcc.gov/dstac

"In order to ensure that the Commission has the benefit of full information in any subsequent deliberations on this topic, we instruct the committee to make recommendations concerning both approaches- an approach under which MVPDs would maintain control of the user interface and an approach that would allow consumer electronics manufactures to build devices with competitive interfaces..."


----------



## Dan203

Wow if they approve a system that allows the MSOs to maintain full control of the UI then TiVo is dead. My hybrid system of using a combination of open access to the live streams and then an MSO supplied RUI for advanced features is looking better and better.


----------



## lessd

At this time all HDTV sold have to have OTA tuners (I don't know if QAM tuners are also required), but many people don't use either of those tuners, so I though that the FCC was looking for a solution so that you would purchase a new HDTV, connect it to your cable and call your cable co the authorize your new HDTV to receive all your cable stations (you were paying for). The problem with the cable cards is they were not two way in 3rd pty equipment and you could not see any information on the station you were watching (I had a cable card HDTV early on and it was a pain to use). Any new system would give you the station guide information, like TiVo does now.


----------



## Dan203

My solution offered two ways to access the content...

The first would allow the 3d party device to access the live streams of the gateway device directly using their own UI. This would allow full featured devices, like TiVo, to continue to function as they do now.

The second would be a RUI which would allow simple devices to display the UI designed by the MSO with access to all of the features the MSO offers. Basically like an app that looks and functions exactly like the UI on your cable box, but that could be displayed and used from any client device. 

So in the case of a TV all the TV manufacturer would need to do is include a simple DLNA CVP-2 client and a way for the TV to access to the local network (Ethernet, MoCa or even WiFi) and then the TV would suddenly look and act just like a full fledged cable box.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> My solution offered two ways to access the content...
> 
> The first would allow the 3d party device to access the live streams of the gateway device directly using their own UI. This would allow full featured devices, like TiVo, to continue to function as they do now.
> 
> The second would be a RUI which would allow simple devices to display the UI designed by the MSO with access to all of the features the MSO offers. Basically like an app that looks and functions exactly like the UI on your cable box, but that could be displayed and used from any client device.
> 
> So in the case of a TV all the TV manufacturer would need to do is include a simple DLNA CVP-2 client and a way for the TV to access to the local network (Ethernet, MoCa or even WiFi) and then the TV would suddenly look and act just like a full fledged cable box.


Looks good, would you need a* special cable * (that now does not exists, or could you use a HDMI cable) between gateway device and your HDTV/TiVo/other 3rd pty. devices


----------



## HarperVision

lessd said:


> Looks good, would you need a special cable (that now does not exists, or could you use a HDMI cable) between gateway device and your HDTV/TiVo/other 3rd pty. devices


I'm thinking it should be ethernet so you could use MoCA if your home isn't wired for other technologies and for backwards compatibility.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> Looks good, would you need a* special cable * (that now does not exists, or could you use a HDMI cable) between gateway device and your HDTV/TiVo/other 3rd pty. devices


It would be network based. So it would use ethernet, moca or even wifi, to transmit the digital stream between the gateway and the client device. I'm guessing that if the user doesn't have an existing network then the MSOs will likely use moca to take advantage of existing coax wiring. Moca 2.0 has enough bandwidth to support 40+ HD streams and can dynamically allocate a frequency that does not conflict with the MSOs broadcasting technology, so it would be a good choice.

Have you ever seen how a HDHomerun works? Basically it's a box with 3 tuners and a CableCARD slot that you can install anywhere on your network. Your media center PC can be anywhere else in your house and as long as it can access the HDHomerun via the network it can access it's tuners and record the live streams from them. This gateway device would work similarly but the hardware would be provided by the MSO with all the authentication and tuner tech and any 3rd party client could access it using an open protocol. (i.e. DLNA CVP-2)


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> It would be network based. So it would use ethernet, moca or even wifi, to transmit the digital stream between the gateway and the client device. I'm guessing that if the user doesn't have an existing network then the MSOs will likely use moca to take advantage of existing coax wiring. Moca 2.0 has enough bandwidth to support 40+ HD streams and can dynamically allocate a frequency that does not conflict with the MSOs broadcasting technology, so it would be a good choice.
> 
> Have you ever seen how a HDHomerun works? Basically it's a box with 3 tuners and a CableCARD slot that you can install anywhere on your network. Your media center PC can be anywhere else in your house and as long as it can access the HDHomerun via the network it can access it's tuners and record the live streams from them. This gateway device would work similarly but the hardware would be provided by the MSO with all the authentication and tuner tech and any 3rd party client could access it using an open protocol. (i.e. DLNA CVP-2)


I am loving the idea, another question, any way for the current Roamios to have some hardware/software between them and this gateway so we don't have to change TiVos again.


----------



## Dan203

Since it would be completely network based the current hardware could easily be used. The tuners would just sit there and do nothing, but it should still work.


----------



## innocentfreak

Dan203 said:


> Wow if they approve a system that allows the MSOs to maintain full control of the UI then TiVo is dead. My hybrid system of using a combination of open access to the live streams and then an MSO supplied RUI for advanced features is looking better and better.


If that happens, I see me cutting the cord and stabbing myself in the eye so I have to wear an eyepatch.


----------



## telemark

innocentfreak said:


> If that happens, I see me cutting the cord and stabbing myself in the eye so I have to wear an eyepatch.


3D is already dead. Don't do anything drastic.


----------



## innocentfreak

I just know if I had to go back to a UI from the cable company, it would be an easy choice to drop TV.


----------



## HarperVision

innocentfreak said:


> I just know if I had to go back to a UI from the cable company, it would be an easy choice to drop TV.


So the menu system of your equipment is more important than the actual content you watch? That's scary and interesting at the same time!


----------



## tarheelblue32

HarperVision said:


> So the menu system of your equipment is more important than the actual content you watch? That's scary and interesting at the same time!


You can get pretty much the same content apps on either android or apple, yet some people choose one over the other due to the hardware/UI. It's the same thing really.


----------



## ej42137

tarheelblue32 said:


> You can get pretty much the same content apps on either android or apple, yet some people choose one over the other due to the hardware/UI. It's the same thing really.


But do they choose not to have a mobile because they don't like the UI?


----------



## innocentfreak

HarperVision said:


> So the menu system of your equipment is more important than the actual content you watch? That's scary and interesting at the same time!


It is all part of the experience. For example I don't use Netflix or Amazon because I don't like how streaming and trickplay work. Since they don't locally buffer and seamlessly allow me to fast forward and rewind as if I was watching a local TiVo recording, I have no interest in using their service.

This is one of the same reasons I didn't stick with media center. I didn't like the playback controls. I also missed the remote management capabilities I have with TiVo and KMTTG.

I am also one of those people who have no need to be part of the conversation about a show so I could easily just wait for the Blu-Rays to watch. I tend to binge watch seasons as it is. Everything I record gets dumped to my NAS until I find time to check it out. Even then I prefer to push back to the TiVo rather than watch it through Plex again because of the way trickplay works.


----------



## HarperVision

innocentfreak said:


> It is all part of the experience. For example I don't use Netflix or Amazon because I don't like how streaming and trickplay work. Since they don't locally buffer and seamlessly allow me to fast forward and rewind as if I was watching a local TiVo recording, I have no interest in using their service. This is one of the same reasons I didn't stick with media center. I didn't like the playback controls. I also missed the remote management capabilities I have with TiVo and KMTTG. I am also one of those people who have no need to be part of the conversation about a show so I could easily just wait for the Blu-Rays to watch. I tend to binge watch seasons as it is. Everything I record gets dumped to my NAS until I find time to check it out. Even then I prefer to push back to the TiVo rather than watch it through Plex again because of the way trickplay works.


So I guess when you said you would "drop tv", you meant linear tv like cable, OTA, satellite, etc.? You didn't mean tv as in tv shows in general, because that's the way I took it and it sounded?

Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## innocentfreak

HarperVision said:


> So I guess when you said you would "drop tv", you meant linear tv like cable, OTA, satellite, etc.? You didn't mean tv as in tv shows in general, because that's the way I took it and it sounded?
> 
> Thanks for clarifying.


Sorry I thought that was clear since my original reply was about cutting the cord.

Yeah I wouldn't drop the content, but would change how I watched and acquired content. I probably would become pickier about what I watch though since I wouldn't be able to just record whatever I want.

Of course if you had told me back in the 90s I would quit going to the movies and just about quit watching movies, I never would have believed you. As it is now, I went from going every week to never.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Apparently on the 29th, the committee divided into Working Groups 3 and 4 for the next phase of objectives.


WG3:

Description: The working group will identify performance objectives, technical capabilities, and technical standards that relate to the security elements of the downloadable security system. The working group will also identify minimum requirements needed to support the security elements of the downloadable security system. 

Product: The working group will deliver a written functional description of its performance objectives, technical capabilities, and technical standards, and minimum requirements to the full DSTAC. It will present an outline of its work at the May 13, 2015 meeting, a first draft of its report at the July 7, 2015 meeting, and a final report for full DSTAC discussion and consideration at the August 4, 2015 meeting.

Members:
Adam Goldberg, Public Knowledge
Mark Hess, Comcast
Bruce McClelland, ARRIS
Alan Messer, Samsung
Jay Rolls, Charter
Simha Sethumadhavan, Special Government Employee
Brent Smith, Evolution
Joe Weber, TiVo
Robin Wilson, NAGRA

WG4:

Description: The working group will identify existing devices and technologies that receive MVPD and OTT service, such as DVRs, HDTVs, personal computers, tablets in home, connected mobile devices, take-and-go mobile devices, etc., and identify the salient differences important to implementation of the non-security elements of a system to promote the competitive availability of such devices based on downloadable security.

For each category of existing device identified above, the working group will identify a system comprising minimum standards, protocols, and information other than security elements to enable competitive availability of devices that receive MVPD services.

The working group may identify alternative systems as appropriate to promote the availability of different categories of navigation devices, consistent with the Commission&#8217;s instruction to recommend an approach that would allow consumer electronics manufactures to build devices with competitive interfaces and an approach under which MVPDs would maintain control of the user interface.

Product: The working group will deliver and present its findings to the full DSTAC. It will present an outline of its work at the May 13, 2015 meeting, a first draft of its report at the July 7, 2015 meeting, and a final report for full DSTAC discussion and consideration at the August 4, 2015 meeting.

Members:
Ahmad Ansari, AT&T
Brant Candelore, Sony
John Card II, DISH
Matthew Clark, Amazon
Bob Clyne, Cablevision
Brad Love, Huappauge
Ken Lowe, Vizio
John McCoskey, MPAA
Milo Medin, Google


----------



## Dan203

If they go the gateway route then the "downloadable security" part is irrelevant. The gateway dvice can use whatever security system they choose, as long as it outputs in an open format like DLNA CVP-2 so 3rd party dvices can access the streams. 

It's really not that hard. DirecTV and Pace are both working on systems that do something similar. (i.e. headless gateway and small extender boxes that connect via local network) They just need to use an open protocol so that any 3rd party device can access the gateway. Forget about the downloadable security, there is no way that's ever going to work across all systems. There are just too many different technologies involved.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

I'm kinda thinking they're not going to go the gateway path. The Allvid gateway solution sorta tanked from the beginning when it was first proposed.

While I generally support anything that gets us to the goal, I don't think anybody really wants 2 boxes just to watch TV. They kicked and screamed over 1. And nowadays power consumption concerns are even more of a thing.

Whatever's in the gateway can be built into the STB with existing technologies. They just need to package it and put a pretty little bow on it.


----------



## Dan203

But there's the thing. People don't "need" two boxes. TVs could build the client in so they would be "cable ready" again. And eventually, cable at least, could move the DLNA server up to their headend and use some sort of simple VPN to allow your 3rd party devices to connect to virtual "tuners". 

Regardless of how this whole thing actually turns out the gateway approach is where we are heading. Several MSOs and MSO suppliers are already working on systems using that paradigm. It would just be better for us if they made it part of this spec because it would make our TiVos, TVs, etc... interoperable between MSOs so we could easily switch if we decide we like DirecTV or Uverse better then cable.


----------



## innocentfreak

I always envisioned the gateway working like the FiOS ONT boxes. They company would install the gateway where the cable met the house. 

Of course my technical knowledge about these things are slim to none, but I just pictured it as possibly a larger ONT that was mounted where the main drop came into the house.


----------



## Dan203

The only problem with doing it that way, or integrating it with the modem/phone so it was like a "triple play solution" is that you would be limited by the number of tuners the gateway has. With some services, like Uverse, that would be OK because they're limited by bandwidth, but with a linear solution like cable or DSS there would be no physical limit if you were allowed to add multiple gateways.


----------



## innocentfreak

I think at the time I was also picturing the option to add additional tuner cards which would expand how many tuners could be used at once. I remember having a conversation with one of the guys from Ceton, who developed the first 4 tuner media center tuners, about it when talking with them about their InfiniTV cards which weren't out yet. 

The advantage of this is essentially it could go in now and use CableCARD until the downloadable security details were worked out. You would just need support to be able to assign or take one of the tuners similar to how you can in Media Center with network tuners or TiVo with the Mini in the interim. 

This was back when details of AllVid were just starting to come out though.


----------



## Dan203

There are two things that make me optomistic about this approach.

1) It doesn't require any cooperation between MSOs for developing the security portion, as that's all in the gateway and can work however they want. 

2) There is already a mandate that cable companies deploy DLNA on their existing boxes by June/September of this year. 

#2 could organically evolve into what I'm looking for here. I assume it's already going to use the RUI so that cable companies can control the experience. All they need are the lower level APIs so that devices like TiVo can access the tuners, and a box with multiple tuners.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

The May 13th DSTAC meeting was short and sweet. Only about an hour long. Working Groups 3 and 4 submitted their outlines regarding Security Requirements (WG3) and non-security requirements (WG4).

They didn't go into explicit detail of the outlines, but the outlines may be posted on the DSTAC website at some point. There was a lot of general inside baseball discussion about how they'll reach their goal of getting to draft language. 

Their goal is to get to draft language by the July meeting, but there will be a lot of work to be done between now and then.

There was only one public comment at the end, from the same guy who has been making the point about the distractions undermining the goal of reaching a downloadable security standard. He was extra pissy this time, I think because of the FCC staff allowing the broadening the workload rather than narrowing it (see the 4/27 document).


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

The video archive of today's DSTAC meeting isn't up yet, but the long-winded draft reports for WG3 and WG4 are up.

https://www.fcc.gov/events/downloadable-security-technology-advisory-committee-meeting-07072015


----------



## Dan203

I have a feeling this is going to go no where. Now that congress removed the integration ban there is really no incentive to get this done so the MSOs are just going to keep confusing the issue with false "requirements" until the spec is so over engineered that no one actually uses it. (like OCAP)


----------



## slowbiscuit

Yep, just like I posted before - mgmt doesn't want anything to do with this regardless of whether the tech guys come up with a workable solution. Opening up access removes lock-in and control, so what MSO wants that? There's not enough cards around in third-party devices for them to care enough to replace them, so it's going to take FCC intervention to force change and as we've seen they really don't care either.


----------



## innocentfreak

desperately-seeking-a-cablecard-replacement

Lightreading article about it.


----------



## Dan203

I still think that a gateway device is the only way this is ever going to work. There is just no other way to include all the various systems and their extended services in a downloadable standard.


----------



## lessd

slowbiscuit said:


> Yep, just like I posted before - mgmt doesn't want anything to do with this regardless of whether the tech guys come up with a workable solution. Opening up access removes lock-in and control, so what MSO wants that? There's not enough cards around in third-party devices for them to care enough to replace them, so it's going to take FCC intervention to force change and as we've seen they really don't care either.


Would any new system be integrated into new HDTVs ? If so than one would be paying for unneeded stuff in the HDTV if they had any workable DVR. No easy answer, however the cable cards do the trick, after setup most work forever, in TiVos anyways, so why replace them ?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Watching the video and scanning through the documents, what I'm seeing are some good and valid discussions going on to iron out the necessary (evil) details. But they're only just now getting all their ideas down on paper, and are still miles away from semi-ironed-out recommendations. They should have been at this point in April. This hasn't been a case of time well managed.

There is now an FCC officer sitting in on this who seems to be taking a little control by pushing the committee to nail down some key fundamentals. It might be a case where everything is chaos until the last minute. Who knows.

They are (not surprisingly) floating the idea of satellite and possibly AT&T using external tuning hardware with still-to-be-agreed-upon outputs as a transitional method due to the nature of their tuning methods and architectures. Existing QAM setups are less affected.


----------



## gastrof

lessd said:


> Would any new system be integrated into new HDTVs ? If so than one would be paying for unneeded stuff in the HDTV if they had any workable DVR. No easy answer, however the cable cards do the trick, after setup most work forever, in TiVos anyways, so why replace them ?


I'm not supporting either line of thought here, but look at it this way-

People didn't want to have to get new TVs or converter boxes, but the decision was made to go to widescreen/digital/HD, and so it happened.

Will people now have to buy TVs with electronics they really don't want, but which will be included in their TV (and the price) anyway?

People not wanting something hasn't stopped "them" before...


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Nobody as of yet is calling on the downloadable security system to be a mandatory part of television sets or devices. But including it can be a competitive advantage for them and a benefit for customers who want it.

People don't generally want boxes to begin with. People have grown to tolerate them if they want to record shows, or to get the scrambled or encrypted channels they want. But nobody's screaming for more boxes, remotes, and $20 lines on their monthly bills. Grandma, who doesn't want anything flashy, can have a Smart-er-er TV with the security built in and no boxes to deal with.


----------



## Dan203

That's another advantage to using a gateway type device with network based output. Any current smart TV could be upgraded via software to support it and instantly be "cable ready". Also the majority of TVs these days are smart TVs anyway, so it wouldn't require a major change to manufacturing to add this ability to new TVs either.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> That's another advantage to using a gateway type device with network based output. Any current smart TV could be upgraded via software to support it and instantly be "cable ready". Also the majority of TVs these days are smart TVs anyway, so it wouldn't require a major change to manufacturing to add this ability to new TVs either.


Are you saying current smart HDTV have the software capacity and inside connections to get a software download to use whatever downloaded security the FCC and other come up with, I not sure about that as I would think that it would require some additional hardware that not now in any smart HDTV. Correct me if I am wrong about this.


----------



## Dan203

No, not necessarily. I'm saying that if they used a gateway device as the tuner(s), which then allowed access via a DLNA CVP-2 RUI app, then pretty much every smart TV on the market would be capable of being updated to support it. RUI is basically a simple HTML5 app that doesn't require much processing power to run. That's the whole point actually that small, inexpensive, devices could be used to present a full blown MSO supplied UI with minimal hardware.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> No, not necessarily. I'm saying that if they used a gateway device as the tuner(s), which then allowed access via a DLNA CVP-2 RUI app, then pretty much every smart TV on the market would be capable of being updated to support it. RUI is basically a simple HTML5 app that doesn't require much processing power to run. That's the whole point actually that small, inexpensive, devices could be used to present a full blown MSO supplied UI with minimal hardware.


OK I now understand, but it still would require hardware from the MSO. My smart HDTV does DLNA without problems.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Right, and no MSO wants more niche hardware to support third-party devices. That's the real sticking point IMO - as Dan pointed out it's the best solution for all the reasons he mentioned, but they're not going to make it easy for the CE companies to implement something like RUI and let people easily switch providers. Especially when that requires them to replace one hardware solution with another, or in sat and Uverse's case, possibly deploy new hardware.


----------



## lessd

And the more time they debate the more time we will have with the cable cards as they are now, I for one don't want to invest any more money and time in DVRs, the combo of Roamio and the Mini is all most of us need, and now for the people that want over 900 hours of HD record time, this Forum has a solution. People do reach a point of having all they need in the DVR space, at least that the case for me and my TiVo owning friends.


----------



## Parkers

Cable Cards should be smaller


----------



## Dan203

That's not the point. The point is to replace CableCARDs with something that's simpler and universal across all MSOs regardless of the technology they use to deliver content.

However I just don't see that happening. There is such a vast difference between the technologies used for cable, DSS and IP based services. I just can't see how they can make a single universal standard that works with all of them without some sory of gateway device in the middle. And the MSOs don't want to use a gateway device because that would make it really, really, easy for customers to jump ship to other providers and they like how people be ome hadrware locked to their specific service. 

One hope we have is that by September there will be a mandate in place that requires all new cable boxes to include support for DLNA CVP-2. Maybe once the cable companies get use yo how it works they will want to take the gateway approach since they will essentially have all the technology working in the field anyway.


----------



## slowbiscuit

It will definitely require FCC intervention to make this happen. I'm sort of surprised (don't know why given how toady they are) that they haven't dusted off AllVid and simply said 'do this, we don't care how you get it done but this is what you have to do'.


----------



## tarheelblue32

slowbiscuit said:


> It will definitely require FCC intervention to make this happen. I'm sort of surprised (don't know why given how toady they are) that they haven't dusted off AllVid and simply said 'do this, we don't care how you get it done but this is what you have to do'.


I'm a little surprised that I haven't heard anyone even bring up AllVid once during any of the meetings.

I'm still hopeful that something tangible will come out of all this kabuki theater, though I wouldn't bet money on it. We'll know more after they issue their final report in September. If by some miracle the stars align and all the members of the committee agree on a single solution, then something might actually happen. But if all the MSO reps try to object to every proposed solution by saying that it would be unduly burdensome on them to implement, then it will very likely fail completely. I just can't see the Comcast rep agreeing to anything. He is a complete tool.


----------



## BobCamp1

lessd said:


> OK I now understand, but it still would require hardware from the MSO. My smart HDTV does DLNA without problems.


Most devices have all kinds of problems with DLNA. It's available on FIOS Quantum boxes, but it's certainly a work in progress. Currently they only support the PS3.

If you want, you can experience all the DLNA headaches yourself by getting an HDHomeRun Prime. Non-PC clients generally have low-quality video, that is if you're even allowed to play it back.

The main problem is the DTCP-IP license. Most devices claim to support DLNA, but not DTCP-IP because they haven't paid the license fee for it. As a result, the encrypted content doesn't play. And FIOS encrypts all HD content over DLNA. (The national SD channels seem to crash a lot too. Only the SD locals currently work.)

Since Sony co-invented DTCP-IP, you can get it for your PS3 for free. That currently seems to be the best client out there. The PC software to do that is around $50.


----------



## Dan203

DLNA CVP-2 is a little different. It builds on the existing DLNA + DTCP-IP stuff for clients that want full support, but it also has something called RUI which basically allows the host device to serve up an HTML5 app to client devices. The app handles the complete user experience and serves up the video. So essentially any CVP-2 compliant device could display the same UI as your cable box, complete with the ability to display video, without needing a DTCP-IP license of it's own.

It also adds protection flags to DTCP-IP (just like CableCARD), as well as features like tuner scheduling and priority, so that DVRs can actually record the DTCP-IP protected streams using their own UI. 

CVP-2 is essentially everything that AllVid was purposed to be. The MSOs could produce a gateway device, with tuners and security, that acts as a CVP-2 host. Simple devices like TVs and streaming sticks could use the RUI to basically display the MSOs "user experience" and essentially act like an MSO supplied box, while more complex devices like TiVo could access the tuners/streams directly via the more extensive protocols in the spec. (similar to how your PC records from an HDHomeRun) 

The beauty of a system like this is that it's completely tuner and security agnostic. A TiVo that could record from a cable gateway could just as easily record from a DSS gateway or an IPTV gateway. It doesn't matter how the signal is transmitted to the gateway, or what kind of security they use, as long as the gateway outputs a standard CVP-2 signal.

Also extended services, like VOD, could be handled by a secondary RUI. So they don't need to expose those services to 3rd party devices directly. The 3rd party devices could just display the RUI app for users to access those services and the MSO would have complete control over the experience. If they want to block you from FFing past commercials (which they do) they don't have to trust that every implementation supports that. They can just build that into their RUI app.

It really is the best system for all parties involved. Except that it is a bit complex to develop and it gives consumers a bit too much freedom of choice which the MSOs don't like.


----------



## BobCamp1

I thought the MSOs would prefer DLNA solutions, but the CE mfrs don't like it. I thought one of the main arguments in the committee was who controls the GUI. The MSOs want consistency between the devices because it's easier for them to support, while the CE mfrs want a way to diversify their products from their competitors. Everybody want to show ads to make money, because that's where the real revenue is, and the one who controls the GUI controls the ads.

The problems with any new standard that would be developed are the same problems that currently plague CableCards:

1. Several parties involved are being forced to do it kicking and screaming. That's a guaranteed way to ensure something is done [email protected]$$ed, and when it doesn't work they'll be a lot of finger-pointing with the customer stuck in the middle with a non-functioning device.

2. By the time the standard is created, approved, and devices are made for it and tested, and the major bugs are worked out, it'll already be obsolete. (CableCards have USB Tuning Adapters, quirky PPV ordering, and no VOD.)

3. There is no money to be made in making independent CE devices themselves, especially if they are all forced to have the same GUI. Only one third-party DVR company remains, and mainly because it's sitting on a lot of intellectual property. And their stand-alone sales are slowly declining.

On the other hand, Tivo is making money without the FCC's help at all. Tivo's MSO partnerships solve all three problems. The MSO really wants a better DVR solution than the one it has, there is no finger pointing because the MSO owns and has partial control of the box, it knows what new services will be rolled out in the next few years, and the agreement to buy a certain number of units gives incentive to the CE mfr. to build them.

Now, Tivo doesn't prefer the MSO partnerships because it doesn't make as much money from each customer. But they are still making a decent amount of money.


----------



## Dan203

DLNA CVP-2 has a good middle ground for the UI thing. As mentioned above it supports RUI (Remote UI) which is essentially an HTML5 app that any device can display. It also has lower level APIs that allow more advanced devices to access the streams directly via their own UI. And it allows a mixture of the two.

My ideal solution would be one where the gateway device offers both an RUI and lower level access to the tuners. Simple devices like smart TVs and streaming sticks would simply display the RUI giving the MSO full control of the user experience without the user having to rent a box for every TV. More advanced devices like TiVo would access the streams directly via their own UI for recording and live TV but would still allow access to the RUI, as an app, for access to advanced features like VOD and PPV. Sorta the best of both worlds for all parties involved.


----------



## BobCamp1

Dan203 said:


> DLNA CVP-2 has a good middle ground for the UI thing. As mentioned above it supports RUI (Remote UI) which is essentially an HTML5 app that any device can display. It also has lower level APIs that allow more advanced devices to access the streams directly via their own UI. And it allows a mixture of the two.
> 
> My ideal solution would be one where the gateway device offers both an RUI and lower level access to the tuners. Simple devices like smart TVs and streaming sticks would simply display the RUI giving the MSO full control of the user experience without the user having to rent a box for every TV. More advanced devices like TiVo would access the streams directly via their own UI for recording and live TV but would still allow access to the RUI, as an app, for access to advanced features like VOD and PPV. Sorta the best of both worlds for all parties involved.


But why would anybody make a streaming stick if they can't control the content that's displayed on it? There's no money to be made in that product. They would only do that if they were contracted out by the MSO to do it, and the MSO handled all the technical support. The MSO would probably rent those sticks out, and we're right back where we started.

Plus, I think the MSOs want control of the guide data GUI. It's what they use to advertise their VOD and PPV content. Maybe there could be a designated space on the GUI for everyone involved to place ads. But then even though the MSO and CE vendors would be happy, customers would now be unhappy because their screen would be full of ads.

Finally, such a complicated device is bound to have more technical issues and cost more to rent than CableCards. More cost, more problems, more ads. The only benefit is to be able to stream live TV, DVR recordings, and VOD to any device in the house. But if the MSOs already offer a solution for that on their own, there's no real benefit in making that an open standard.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Which of course is why the FCC has to force them to do so to replace cards (i.e create an open standard), and probably won't. We're going to end up with a bad replacement methinks.


----------



## Dan203

BobCamp1 said:


> But why would anybody make a streaming stick if they can't control the content that's displayed on it? There's no money to be made in that product. They would only do that if they were contracted out by the MSO to do it, and the MSO handled all the technical support. The MSO would probably rent those sticks out, and we're right back where we started.
> 
> Plus, I think the MSOs want control of the guide data GUI. It's what they use to advertise their VOD and PPV content. Maybe there could be a designated space on the GUI for everyone involved to place ads. But then even though the MSO and CE vendors would be happy, customers would now be unhappy because their screen would be full of ads.
> 
> Finally, such a complicated device is bound to have more technical issues and cost more to rent than CableCards. More cost, more problems, more ads. The only benefit is to be able to stream live TV, DVR recordings, and VOD to any device in the house. But if the MSOs already offer a solution for that on their own, there's no real benefit in making that an open standard.


They already do. All existing streaming sticks do is display apps with the UIs of other services. This would essentially be an app. You launch it and you get the complete UI of the MSOs cable box, including their guide, advertisements, VOD, etc...

For more advanced devices like TiVo there would be a lower level API for accessing the live TV signal so they could display or record it using their own UI, but for things like VOD they could just display the same app as the streaming stick. No need to develop special protocols or rules about blocking FF, the MSO would have complete control over VOD via their RUI app.

Essentially from a TiVo perspective it would work exactly like CableCARDs do now except that because the tuners and security are all inside the gateway the TiVo would be interoperable between any MSO regardless of the technology they used. Unhappy with your cable company, no problem, switch to DSS and your TiVo will still work because their gateway device would convert their signal into standard DLNA CVP-2 that the TiVo could access.

The biggest issue with this setup is that because the tuners would be in the gateway the gateway would be expensive so probably not cheap to rent. And you'd need multiple gateways if you wanted more tuners then a single gateway supported.


----------



## innocentfreak

http://www.lightreading.com/video/video-services/dstac-still-seeking-common-ground-/d/d-id/717448


----------



## Dan203

They seem to be coming to the realization that some sort of gateway device is going to be necessary to fulfill all the requirements. Although I don't get the Comcast guy's assertion that it's going to require years of development. DLNA CVP-2 already has most (all?) of what they need.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> They seem to be coming to the realization that some sort of gateway device is going to be necessary to fulfill all the requirements. Although I don't get the Comcast guy's assertion that it's going to require years of development. DLNA CVP-2 already has most (all?) of what they need.


The Comcast guy on the committee is just being an obnoxious a-hole. His only goal is to obstruct and derail the entire project at every turn.

The August 4th meeting video is up now, for anyone who wants to watch:

https://www.fcc.gov/events/downloadable-security-technology-advisory-committee-meeting-08042015


----------



## slowbiscuit

Yep, this comment from a Tivo guy in that article is telling:

_In a brief sideline discussion during the meeting, TiVo's Matthew Zinn lamented that there's "a fundamental policy question as to whether you're going to allow third-party interfaces."

Asked if he thought the committee would be able to come to any consensus in its recommendations, Zinn replied, "I don't think so."_

Um, seriously? We're still debating whether third-party UIs that ALREADY EXIST are going to be allowed with an IP-based access standard? Really?

We're doomed. All the MSOs want is their own apps to satisfy the FCC, nothing else.


----------



## Dan203

They did the same thing with the CableCARD 2.0 discussions. They kept pushing OCAP which basically let them download their entire UI/software to the 3rd party device. They want total control over the UI and keep coming up with BS reasons as to why nothing else will be acceptable. 

I hope the FCC realizes what they are doing and steps in and forces something on them that s more reasonable.


----------



## tarheelblue32

I'm still holding on to some hope. The members of the committee that actually want a true solution are still pushing forward despite the opposition. Even if the committee doesn't reach a consensus and the MSO members dissent from the IP solution that gets proposed, it's still possible that this FCC (which has appeared more consumer friendly of late) will defy the dissenters and mandate a new open IP standard for retail devices.


----------



## Dan203

I hope you're right


----------



## JosephB

I think the ship has sailed on TiVo-style 3rd party retail devices. In 5 years linear TV will be dead except for sports and live news/events. The concept of recording shows at all, much less recording them locally on a device in your house will soon be as common as a rotary telephone. 

If the MVPDs can drag this out long enough, then it will be moot. The app-ification and Netflix-ification of TV will negate this whole process. And even if they do come up with something, this will be the last iteration of "retail navigation" devices.


----------



## Dan203

While I agree we will eventually get to that point, I don't think we're that close. There are still major MSOs in play (Dish and DirecTV) that have no way of providing VOD access to content. I think we're at least a decade away, probably more, from converting to a pure VOD model. In the mean time people are going to continue to use DVRs. I just hope that the FCC doesn't bend to the will of the cable companies and allow them to squeeze 3rd party DVRs out.

We need a new standard that encompases all MSOs and technologies. The inly thing that's going to be able to do that is a gateway device. The Comcast rep can ***** and moan about it all he wants, but it's not that big if a deal. They lease you a box, just like they do now, and instead of outputting a video signal it outputs and IP signal that other devices can i teract with. They can use an RUI app for most devices, giving them full control of the UI like they want, and provide a simple protocol for more advanced devices like TiVo to access the tuners directly. Most, if not all, of that can be done today using DLNA CVP-2. They might have to make a few tweaks here and there, but there is no need for years of development. The cable companies are dragging their feet hoping the FCC will give up and just let the. Do whatever they want. I personally hope they give them the finger and stick them with whatever the CE guys come up with out of spite.


----------



## lpwcomp

I hope never to see the day when I am dependent on the availability of some server to watch anything. Anyone who thinks this is a a good thing is a short-sighted fool particularly since they are very unlikely to keep everything forever.


----------



## Dan203

Unfortunately that is the direction we're heading. Eventaully even your "DVR" will be in the cloud. There will be no option to record anything locally or even purchase physical media. The content providers and the MSOs want complete control and they are pushing us in a direction that will give it to them. And once the "analog hole" is close there wont even be a way for you to capture playback the old fashion way.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> Unfortunately that is the direction we're heading. Eventaully even your "DVR" will be in the cloud. There will be no option to record anything locally or even purchase physical media. The content providers and the MSOs want complete control and they are pushing us in a direction that will give it to them. And once the "analog hole" is close there wont even be a way for you to capture playback the old fashion way.


There won't be a way to do it legally at least. If your predictions come true, I think piracy will greatly increase. But I think it will be a very long time before that happens. Just think about how long it will be before everyone in rural areas of the country have access to a high-speed internet connection. And the satellite systems will have a very hard time offering cloud-based solutions to their customers. Even the DOCSIS networks don't currently have the capacity to handle everyone who currently uses a local-storage DVR converting to a cloud-based DVR.


----------



## lpwcomp

I hope that at least your 10+ years prediction is accurate.


----------



## JosephB

10 years is optimistic at best. Remember, the iPhone is not even 10 years old and look at what it has done not only to the tech industry but to the world overall.

Disney and Viacom tanked last week because ESPN saw a minute dip in their subscriber numbers. That's not something that happens if the market is worried about something 10+ years out. That happens when the market is worried about next quarter.

This chart means that something drastic will happen soon. TV providers have been growing for 30 years. This is the first time they've ever, as an industry, dropped.









I don't even know if getting access to all MVPDs will be good enough for TiVo at this point.


----------



## Dan203

Well they are rolling the OTT apps into the mix too. They really need to work on getting a few more core apss, like HBO, Showtime, and an updated Hulu, and they will have a higher appeal to the cord cutters. Especially if they can get the price of the OTA down. (I think $299 with lifetime is the sweet spot)

For cable they really need some way to gain access to VOD without having to strike a special deal with every MSO. A gateway device with an RUI app would allow them to do that.


----------



## lpwcomp

AI has been 5-10 years away for 40-50 years now.


----------



## Dan203

That's a little different though, that's still theoretical. Computing power has probably reached the point that AI is possible, but actually creating the software for it is still something we can't comprehend. Boiling down the complex reasoning that the human brain can do to lines of code is really, really, hard. 

This is more of a trend that we're simply predicting how soon it will result in a mass change in the market. Based on current data it's moving that direction quickly. However unlike smart phones there are a few more technological, and habitual, hurdles to overcome. Smart phones were 99% positive. (with the exception of battery life) Moving everything to VOD creates some positives for the user but it also creates a lot of negatives as well. People are going to be a lot more resistant to the change because of these negatives.


----------



## lpwcomp

I also fail to see why MSOs would be in favor of this. Exactly what value added would they provide to the consumer?


----------



## Dan203

It reduces support costs by not having to support DVRs in the field and making the playback equipment simpler.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> It reduces support costs by not having to support DVRs in the field and making the playback equipment simpler.


Yes, but if all content is coming via OD IPTV, what is the value to the customer of one provider over another?


----------



## JosephB

Dan203 said:


> That's a little different though, that's still theoretical. Computing power has probably reached the point that AI is possible, but actually creating the software for it is still something we can't comprehend. Boiling down the complex reasoning that the human brain can do to lines of code is really, really, hard.
> 
> This is more of a trend that we're simply predicting how soon it will result in a mass change in the market. Based on current data it's moving that direction quickly. However unlike smart phones there are a few more technological, and habitual, hurdles to overcome. Smart phones were 99% positive. (with the exception of battery life) Moving everything to VOD creates some positives for the user but it also creates a lot of negatives as well. People are going to be a lot more resistant to the change because of these negatives.


TiVo's business model breaks down if everything is an app, though. What am I paying for in my monthly fee? Not even Xbox requires a paid subscription for media apps these days.


----------



## lpwcomp

I think comparison to the smart phone is bogus. A more apt comparison is to the PC. Suppose your ISP decided that the only way you access the net was by using a terminal you rent from them and that all your data would reside in "the cloud" and that all computing would be done on their servers? Oh, you could have your own keyboard, mouse, and display but the rest would be theirs.


----------



## lessd

lpwcomp said:


> I think comparison to the smart phone is bogus. A more apt comparison is to the PC. Suppose your ISP decided that the only way you access the net was by using a terminal you rent from them and that all your data would reside in "the cloud" and that all computing would be done on their servers? Oh, you could have your own keyboard, mouse, and display but the rest would be theirs.


Most (not all as in myself) people now rent the cable modem from the cable co., I guess that modem is not a fixed terminal.


----------



## lpwcomp

lessd said:


> Most (not all as in myself) people now rent the cable modem from the cable co., I guess that modem is not a fixed terminal.


And I get my internet from AT&T, own the modem, and a modem is in no way any kind of terminal.

Technically, i don't rent any equipment. That's one of the reasons I haven't even considered moving to a higher speed on U-verse. I am at the highest speed supported by my modem and you can't buy one that supports higher speeds, only rent.

BTW, I was almighty glad that Comcast is not my ISP as my cable was totally out for 6 days a short while back.


----------



## JosephB

Well, of course TiVo is not exactly a PC or phone or modem. It's completely different.

None of that matters, though, it's clear the path that the video providers are going and where the vast majority of customers are going. I love my TiVo. I've owned at least one of every series, bought my first one in 1999. But it's clear that the days of TiVo are over. I'm not sure what Bolt will entail, but this week I will probably cut the cord, and deactivate my last TiVo. With the Xbox One DVR functionality and Sling TV, it will be "good enough" for me when I can save about $150 a month. 99% of folks out there don't care about "terminals" or who "owns" their content. If the apps are decent experiences, that's what they'll go with.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Yes, but if all content is coming via OD IPTV, what is the value to the customer of one provider over another?


Nothing, but you still need to pay someone for the IP connection. I believe that evetually cable companies will become ISPs and will offer video content as a add-on similar to Sling TV. To maintain their profits I think cable companies will switch to metered pricing for data.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> Nothing, but you still need to pay someone for the IP connection. I believe that evetually cable companies will become ISPs and will offer video content as a add-on similar to Sling TV. To maintain their profits I think cable companies will switch to metered pricing for data.


Some will try to go to metered data, but the question is will they be able to. There will clearly be some providers in markets that will have unlimited data connections, like where Google Fiber or other FTTH providers exist. If some people in the country have unlimited data options yet others do not, there will be a general feeling that this is inherently unfair. People may not be willing to accept this, and that is when politicians get involved and restrict cable companies' ability to have metered data pricing.


----------



## lessd

tarheelblue32 said:


> Some will try to go to metered data, but the question is will they be able to. There will clearly be some providers in markets that will have unlimited data connections, like where Google Fiber or other FTTH providers exist. If some people in the country have unlimited data options yet others do not, there will be a general feeling that this is inherently unfair. People may not be willing to accept this, and that is when politicians get involved and restrict cable companies' ability to have metered data pricing.


One big advantage for cable. as it now is, there is no load problem if everybody starts to watch TV at the same time, unlike your cell phone or Land Line phone (when 9/11 happend all phone lines were overloaded so most calles could not get out), can't happen with cable that does not use TA and such. If 100 mill people watch the Super Bowl over cable, no problem, but if the same number tried to watch over IP..I don't know.


----------



## Diana Collins

Dan203 said:


> Nothing, but you still need to pay someone for the IP connection. I believe that evetually cable companies will become ISPs and will offer video content as a add-on similar to Sling TV. To maintain their profits I think cable companies will switch to metered pricing for data.


This is the heart of the matter.

The decline in pay-TV subscriptions that Joseph B posted reflects the decline of linear broadcasting in ALL forms. In the future, if everything is delivered via Netflix/Hulu/Amazon and other similar services, where does the cable company make ANY money from programming content? We already see HBO, Showtime, CBS and others moving to this type of delivery where they sell directly to the viewer, with the cable company getting nothing. This is why I find the Comcast rep at these committee meetings so ludicrous. He is trying to protect a system that will die a natural death soon anyway.

Once IP delivery becomes the way the majority of viewers get content the only difference between cable providers will be speed, reliability and cost. In my area of New Jersey I can get broadband from either Verizon FiOS or Cablevision. I have had both, and currently we use Verizon. An internet connection is an internet connection. The only reason I get internet from Verizon is because I get linear TV and phone service from them. Their service is slightly more robust and more reliable than Cablevision, but I had no serious problems with Cablevision. Once the quality of linear television delivery (FiOS has much better HD PQ than Cablevision) is no longer an issue I will choose whichever one offers more speed and higher caps (if any) for the best price. In this world, the device used to host the various service's apps becomes the pivotal item. Do you use Roku, Apple, Tivo or some other vendor's streaming box? That will be the decision. Which broadband provider you use will be like which electric power provider you use - it will depend on where you live and how many options exist, but the decision will be largely driven by cost effectiveness.

Regarding the speed of this transition, I don't think comparing cable TV and smartphones is quite right...I think the better analogy is cellular versus wired telephones. Cellular technology is around 30 years old, and today MANY people have no wired phone service, relying solely on cellular. Yet there are vast portions of the country where cell service is not robust enough for that, just as vast portions of the country does not have sufficiently robust broadband for IPTV delivery alone. As result, just as many manufacturers still make traditional telephone devices, there will be a market for linear television devices for quite a few more years. Right now, it seems to me that Tivo is the ONLY manufacturer that is positioning itself for this transition by fusing linear and OTT services into a single platform.

As to how Tivo adapts it's business model of selling hardware with a monthly cost, I can think of several possibilities. They could change their business model to be more like Roku's (sell a small cheap device at a profit) or they could provide an integrated, searchable, content list, covering programming available across all the streaming services and using your past viewing preferences to suggest new offerings. Will they do so? They are already moving in that direction. TiVo may not survive, but if they don't then no STB manufacturer will...everything will be built into the display devices.


----------



## lpwcomp

It's analogous to the load on the water system during commercials in the days before user recording capability when everyone was watching live.


----------



## Dan203

IP has a multicast method they could use for linear programming. However if everything was truly VOD then there are still options. Lets assume all linear channels were eliminated and the entire bandwidth of the cable was used for data. The average 800Mhz cable system, using DOCSIS 3.1, would be able to support something like 8Gbps of throughput. Now DOCSIS 3.1 actually allows frequencies up to 1.7Ghz, so theoretically they could more then double that. Although the physical limitations of coax cable and length of runs makes even 1Ghz systems difficult to manage. Now that 8Gbps is only a limitation of each physical node. The connection between the node and the head end is fiber so they've got virtually unlimited bandwidth there. In most cases a node services less then 200 homes, less in neighborhoods with single family homes. So even if you had a max of 200 homes you'd have 40Mbps guaranteed to every home. With encoding similar to Netflix you could stream roughly 6 simultaneous streams without interference to every home. 

If they did multicast of linear channels then it would really be no different then it is now, except that they could use DOCSIS 3.1 to increase the total bandwidth of an 800Mhz system from ~5Gbps to ~8Gbps and eliminate some of the gaps generated by the current QAM system that results in some of the 5Gbps being unused.


----------



## Diana Collins

lessd said:


> One big advantage for cable. as it now is, there is no load problem if everybody starts to watch TV at the same time, unlike your cell phone or Land Line phone (when 9/11 happend all phone lines were overloaded so most calles could not get out), can't happen with cable that does not use TA and such. If 100 mill people watch the Super Bowl over cable, no problem, but if the same number tried to watch over IP..I don't know.


That particular problem can be solved by using a multi-casting protocol, though that would still be linear. In this scenario a single feed leaves the origination point and each router it comes to checks to see is there are any downstream session requests for the feed. Each time there is, the router sends a SINGLE stream down to the next router. Ultimately, a single feed goes out across the last mile and anyone watching the program (the Super Bowl, for example) receives the feed - everyone else ignores it. Worse case is that you could have a streaming session for every viewing device served by the last router in the chain. But without linear TV on the cable, each "last mile" cluster could have several gigabit's per second available for such traffic. Using MPEG-4 each megabit of bandwidth could easily support 50 to 75 HD feeds - nearly double that if they use h.265.

That works for things people want to see live. But in an all VOD environment however, you could easily have 100 million different streaming sessions going at once across the country, putting a load of well over 600,000,000,000,000 bits (around 600 terabits) per second on the Internet. So yes, that is a technological challenge that will have to be addressed.

Edited to add: Dan beat me to it...great minds think alike.


----------



## Dan203

Diana Collins said:


> Using MPEG-4 each megabit of bandwidth could easily support 50 to 75 HD feeds - nearly double that if they use h.265.


That's not quite right. An HD feed is typically 6-8Mbps using H.264. H.265 could maybe cut that down to about 2/3, or 4-6Mbps. Maybe you meant each gigabit could support 50-75 feeds?


----------



## atmuscarella

Verizon is testing new type of fiber system that they claim will give users 10Gbps and could go upto 80Gbps. The future is coming fast and my guess is that linear cable will be nearly dead sooner than most think.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/11/verizon-tests-new-fiber-system-that-hits-10-gbps-speeds/

The reality is if they used OTA/sat for broadcasting live news & sports the rest of cable could go away now.


----------



## tarheelblue32

atmuscarella said:


> Verizon is testing new type of fiber system that they claim will give users 10Gbps and could go upto 80Gbps. The future is coming fast and my guess is that linear cable will be nearly dead sooner than most think.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/11/verizon-tests-new-fiber-system-that-hits-10-gbps-speeds/
> 
> The reality is if they used OTA/sat for broadcasting live news & sports the rest of cable could go away now.


Well great. Just as soon as everyone in the country has a 10Gbps FTTH or DOCSIS 3.1 connection, we can do that. I'm thinking that'll happen sometime around 2050.


----------



## Dan203

The theoretical limit of fiber is something like 1 petabit per second, so there is a LOT of headroom in fiber if we need it. However running fiber to the home is still really expensive and takes a long time to recoup the investment, so companies are leery of going that route. That's why AT&T is still using VDSL, which is fiber to the curb and then copper to the house, in most areas. FIOS is the only wide spread FTTH service in America. There are a couple of small regional providers that have it, AT&T has done it in a few test markets, and Google is doing it in a few areas, but the vast majority of the country has coax cable as the widest pipe into their homes.

Edit: Obviously Comcast thinks linear TV will still be around for a while. They are currently doing a wide spread rollout of H.264 video. That requires new encoders (which aren't cheap) at all their head ends and a lot of new set top boxes to replace the older ones that don't decode H.264. They're making a huge investment in linear TV so they obviously think that it's going to be around for the foreseeable future.


----------



## JosephB

The only problem with multicasting is that it would require the cooperation of the ISPs, and specialized network equipment and clients. It's not something that could just be turned on for everyone everywhere with a browser or app, spanning various ISPs. It may be a transitory method (especially for the IP transition for cable and telco) but it's not really a solution for 100% ISP-independent video providers.

Not to mention that only truly live events will be eligible, because when everything is VOD from a service, the chances of any two people in the same geographic node being sync'd up is very remote. Maybe a solution for ESPN or presidential debates, not so much for Netflix or YouTube or even Twitch.


----------



## atmuscarella

tarheelblue32 said:


> Well great. Just as soon as everyone in the country has a 10Gbps FTTH or DOCSIS 3.1 connection, we can do that. I'm thinking that'll happen sometime around 2050.


The solution to slower Internet access (note my only option is DSL that maxes out at 9.5Mbps) is alluded to in Verizon's video - they talk about how fast the 10Gbps service can _*download*_ a UHD movie (8 seconds). The solution is really simple allow secure downloads whenever a persons service is slow. This is where a OTA DVR could really shine and with a service like TiVo you could even setup the downloads to be via a legal torrent type service. All the shows I sub to could just as easily be automatically downloaded as recorded with my slow DSL service without any issues at all if the content providers would allow it.



Dan203 said:


> ...
> Edit: Obviously Comcast thinks linear TV will still be around for a while. They are currently doing a wide spread rollout of H.264 video. That requires new encoders (which aren't cheap) at all their head ends and a lot of new set top boxes to replace the older ones that don't decode H.264. They're making a huge investment in linear TV so they obviously think that it's going to be around for the foreseeable future.


Comcast controls the pipe and would like to continue to control the content so their actions makes complete sense to me - by default they will be able to control where this goes by what actions they take.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> Edit: Obviously Comcast thinks linear TV will still be around for a while. They are currently doing a wide spread rollout of H.264 video. That requires new encoders (which aren't cheap) at all their head ends and a lot of new set top boxes to replace the older ones that don't decode H.264. They're making a huge investment in linear TV so they obviously think that it's going to be around for the foreseeable future.


Does Comcast have a lot of deployed HD boxes that don't support H.264?


----------



## JosephB

Dan203 said:


> Edit: Obviously Comcast thinks linear TV will still be around for a while. They are currently doing a wide spread rollout of H.264 video. That requires new encoders (which aren't cheap) at all their head ends and a lot of new set top boxes to replace the older ones that don't decode H.264. They're making a huge investment in linear TV so they obviously think that it's going to be around for the foreseeable future.


I would be willing to bet that Comcast only has to encode once, or just a few times, and transmits unencrypted encodes to the local hubs to apply the security. Probably not that big of a cost in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Does Comcast have a lot of deployed HD boxes that don't support H.264?


Are they only converting HD channels? I thought they were doing everything except locals?



JosephB said:


> I would be willing to bet that Comcast only has to encode once, or just a few times, and transmits unencrypted encodes to the local hubs to apply the security. Probably not that big of a cost in the grand scheme of things.


I don't think it works that way. I think each individual cable company picks up the feed directly from content provider and then recodes it locally. They need a local encoder anyway as that's the only way they can do local ad insertion.


----------



## Dan203

JosephB said:


> The only problem with multicasting is that it would require the cooperation of the ISPs


The cable companies own the nextwork between their head end and your house. They don't need permission from any other ISP to multicast on their private network.


----------



## tarheelblue32

atmuscarella said:


> The solution to slower Internet access (note my only option is DSL that maxes out at 9.5Mbps) is alluded to in Verizon's video - they talk about how fast the 10Gbps service can _*download*_ a UHD movie (8 seconds). The solution is really simple allow secure downloads whenever a persons service is slow. This is where a OTA DVR could really shine and with a service like TiVo you could even setup the downloads to be via a legal torrent type service. All the shows I sub to could just as easily be automatically downloaded as recorded with my slow DSL service without any issues at all if the content providers would allow it.


The content owners want to move away from downloads and towards streaming only. I speculate that is why Amazon ended its downloading service and is now streaming only. I also suspect that it's only a matter of time before they force Apple to stop the downloads too.


----------



## JosephB

Dan203 said:


> The cable companies own the nextwork between their head end and your house. They don't need permission from any other ISP to multicast on their private network.


That's great but that doesn't do anything for Sling, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Twitch, or any of the services and websites that are the source of the decline in MVPD subscribers.

Simply moving cable company distribution to IP instead of QAMs on coax isn't going to fix what's wrong with cable companies.


----------



## atmuscarella

tarheelblue32 said:


> The content owners want to move away from downloads and towards streaming only. I speculate that is why Amazon ended its downloading service and is now streaming only. I also suspect that it's only a matter of time before they force Apple to stop the downloads too.


I believe with Amazon it also had something to do with not having closed captioning - at least that is in my memory but I can not find info now. As far as content producers/providers are concerned I am sure they want to generate as much revenue as possible and do what they think does that. Not sure why they think preventing legal downloads does that, after all pretty much ever show is available for illegal download within hours of being broadcast.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> Are they only converting HD channels? I thought they were doing everything except locals?


Just HD.


----------



## tarheelblue32

atmuscarella said:


> I believe with Amazon it also had something to do with not having closed captioning - at least that is in my memory but I can not find info now. As far as content producers/providers are concerned I am sure they want to generate as much revenue as possible and do what they think does that. Not sure why they think preventing legal downloads does that, after all pretty much ever show is available for illegal download within hours of being broadcast.


There is a belief in the entertainment industry, either rightly or wrongly, that allowing downloads leads to more pirating and lost revenue in the long run. The lack of CC was one of the reasons given for new TiVos not being able to use the Amazon app, but they didn't have to kill downloading for currently in-use equipment. That was a decision Amazon made on their own for other reasons. And TiVo wasn't the only way to download Amazon content. Amazon had their "unbox player" that you could use to download content and play on your PC. That too was killed, and it wasn't because it didn't support CC.


----------



## Dan203

JosephB said:


> That's great but that doesn't do anything for Sling, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Twitch, or any of the services and websites that are the source of the decline in MVPD subscribers.
> 
> Simply moving cable company distribution to IP instead of QAMs on coax isn't going to fix what's wrong with cable companies.


I never said it would help those other services. What it does is it allows the cable companies to squueze more bandwidth out of the coax running to your house. By going pure IP they can essentailly make every channel an SDV channel and by going with DOCSIS 3.1 they can increase their total bandwidth by 60%. That gives them more room to offer higher internet speeds and more VOD content so that they can better compete with those services you mentioned.


----------



## foghorn2

Just bring all the good cable (non HBO type) channels on local OTA subchannels. They all play commercials anyway.


----------



## lpwcomp

foghorn2 said:


> Just bring all the good cable (non HBO type) channels on local OTA subchannels. They all play commercials anyway.


Most local sub-channels are SD.


----------



## JosephB

Dan203 said:


> I never said it would help those other services. What it does is it allows the cable companies to squueze more bandwidth out of the coax running to your house. By going pure IP they can essentailly make every channel an SDV channel and by going with DOCSIS 3.1 they can increase their total bandwidth by 60%. That gives them more room to offer higher internet speeds and more VOD content so that they can better compete with those services you mentioned.


But higher internet speeds actually gives customers the incentive to switch to a third party, non-affiliated OTT service. And moving to VOD means they can't really use multicasting. I agree that they will eventually move to IP, but it will have more to do with app-ification of the interface, and making it available outside of their network, than it does to somehow compete purely because it's IP.



foghorn2 said:


> Just bring all the good cable (non HBO type) channels on local OTA subchannels. They all play commercials anyway.


Even though cable channels show commercials, most of them still get a per-subscriber fee from the cable company. Losing that fee would make many of them economically unviable (including ESPN)



lpwcomp said:


> Most local sub-channels are SD.


There's no requirement that they be SD. If they wanted, broadcasters could (and sometimes do) have multiple HD streams on one ATSC broadcast channel.


----------



## CoxInPHX

JosephB said:


> I would be willing to bet that Comcast only has to encode once, or just a few times, and transmits unencrypted encodes to the local hubs to apply the security. Probably not that big of a cost in the grand scheme of things.





Dan203 said:


> I don't think it works that way. I think each individual cable company picks up the feed directly from content provider and then recodes it locally. They need a local encoder anyway as that's the only way they can do local ad insertion.


Cox Arizona and maybe Cox in general, get many of its cable channel feeds directly from Comcast, and often times the Xfinity commercials are not inserted over, or not completely.

So I would bet the encoding is happening locally, as Cox is not switching to H.264.


----------



## JosephB

CoxInPHX said:


> Cox Arizona and maybe Cox in general, get many of its cable channel feeds directly from Comcast, and often times the Xfinity commercials are not inserted over, or not completely.
> 
> So I would bet the encoding is happening locally, as Cox is not switching to H.264.


It's possible internally within Comcast, though, that they encode once and send out to the local hubs, and it's possible that ads get inserted after the encode. Heck, DirecTV has the ability to insert local ads that are stored on the hard drive of the set top box. The only point at which the video is not modifiable is after it's encrypted, which is going to happen at the last possible moment anyway.


----------



## lpwcomp

JosephB said:


> There's no requirement that they be SD. If they wanted, broadcasters could (and sometimes do) have multiple HD streams on one ATSC broadcast channel.


An HD channel requires a larger portion of the total bandwidth available.


----------



## JosephB

lpwcomp said:


> An HD channel requires a larger portion of the total bandwidth available.


What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

A broadcaster can combine any number of streams into one ATSC channel, as long as they stay under the ~19mbps limit. Many cable systems cram HD into 3mbps or less, so you could get 3 or 4 HD streams in one ATSC channel.

Would probably look like crap, but it is possible.


----------



## tarheelblue32

JosephB said:


> What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
> 
> A broadcaster can combine any number of streams into one ATSC channel, as long as they stay under the ~19mbps limit. Many cable systems cram HD into 3mbps or less, so you could get 3 or 4 HD streams in one ATSC channel.
> 
> Would probably look like crap, but it is possible.


And why would I want to watch HD channels that look like crap?


----------



## Dan203

JosephB said:


> A broadcaster can combine any number of streams into one ATSC channel, as long as they stay under the ~19mbps limit. Many cable systems cram HD into 3mbps or less, so you could get 3 or 4 HD streams in one ATSC channel


QAM has 38Mbps per "channel" which is how they cram 3-4 HD channels into each one.

ATSC only has 19.2Mbps and the main channel is required by law to be MPEG-2. So even if they over compress the HD down to 10-12Mbps there still isn't enough left for a second HD channel. (maybe one if it was H.264) Plus OTA channels have to consider legacy equipment. Their main goal is to reach as many viewers as possible, and there are still a lot of OTA watchers using older boxes that don't have the hardware needed to decode H.264. Between that and the mandate that the primary channel be MPEG-2 they're pretty much stuck doing what they do now which is an HD main channel and a few SD sub channels.


----------



## Dan203

JosephB said:


> It's possible internally within Comcast, though, that they encode once and send out to the local hubs, and it's possible that ads get inserted after the encode. Heck, DirecTV has the ability to insert local ads that are stored on the hard drive of the set top box. The only point at which the video is not modifiable is after it's encrypted, which is going to happen at the last possible moment anyway.


Inserting ads into an H.264 stream is a LOT harder then you think. (trust me this is my area) You have to ensure that both the program and the ads are encoded in a very specific way for it to even work at all. So the head end would still need an encoder so that they could encode the ads to match the source. Or some sort of software to pre-encode the ads to match the source exactly. We've had discussions with a lot of people at NAB about using our technology to do this type of ad insertion, but AFAIK no one is doing it yet. They're still decoding the source, doing the insertion in the uncompressed stream and then reencoding.


----------



## JosephB

Dan203 said:


> QAM has 38Mbps per "channel" which is how they cram 3-4 HD channels into each one.
> 
> ATSC only has 19.2Mbps and the main channel is required by law to be MPEG-2. So even if they over compress the HD down to 10-12Mbps there still isn't enough left for a second HD channel. (maybe one if it was H.264) Plus OTA channels have to consider legacy equipment. Their main goal is to reach as many viewers as possible, and there are still a lot of OTA watchers using older boxes that don't have the hardware needed to decode H.264. Between that and the mandate that the primary channel be MPEG-2 they're pretty much stuck doing what they do now which is an HD main channel and a few SD sub channels.


Multiple HD streams per ATSC channel exist today. I know, my local ABC and MyTV affiliates share an ATSC channel and both are in HD.



Dan203 said:


> Inserting ads into an H.264 stream is a LOT harder then you think. (trust me this is my area) You have to ensure that both the program and the ads are encoded in a very specific way for it to even work at all. So the head end would still need an encoder so that they could encode the ads to match the source. Or some sort of software to pre-encode the ads to match the source exactly. We've had discussions with a lot of people at NAB about using our technology to do this type of ad insertion, but AFAIK no one is doing it yet. They're still decoding the source, doing the insertion in the uncompressed stream and then reencoding.


*shrug* DirecTV does it today at the set top level and they're all MPEG-4. I'm pretty sure with the expense and horespower that a dedicated headend encoder has it's possible for Comcast and their vendors to figure out.


----------



## atmuscarella

Dan203 said:


> ....
> 
> ATSC only has 19.2Mbps and the main channel is required by law to be MPEG-2. So even if they over compress the HD down to 10-12Mbps there still isn't enough left for a second HD channel. (maybe one if it was H.264) Plus OTA channels have to consider legacy equipment. Their main goal is to reach as many viewers as possible, and there are still a lot of OTA watchers using older boxes that don't have the hardware needed to decode H.264. Between that and the mandate that the primary channel be MPEG-2 they're pretty much stuck doing what they do now which is an HD main channel and a few SD sub channels.


I wish you would tell my local ABC/CW station they can only broadcast one HD channel per frequency. Currently ABC is 720p HD on 13.1 and CW is 720p HD on 13.2, plus they have a really low quality SD channel on 13.3. The quality of both (ABC & CW) is noticeably lower than my other OTA HD Channels. The recording size is also considerable less, with an hour show on ABC being 3,700,000 - 4,000,000 KB, on CW being 3,100,000 KB+/-, as compared to Fox at 720p where an hour show is 6,500,000 KB +/-.


----------



## Dan203

720p can be compressed more so I could see them maybe fitting a 720p and a 1080i into the same ATSC stream if they compressed the crap out of them. Not sure how they squeeze another sub channel in there though, that one must really look like sh*t.

Are either of you VideoReDo users? You should download a show from each channel and look at it's bitrate, then count how many frames they have between I frames. I'm betting the ABC shows are somewhere around 7-8Mbps and the CW stuff is around 10-11Mbps. And that they are using really long GOPs like 25-32 frames.


----------



## jonw747

We'll have to see what becomes of net neutrality, but one possibility for the cable providers would be to transition to charging VOD providers for hosting their traffic/servers. 

The internet can handle the bandwidth if the load is properly distributed via local hosting.


----------



## Dan203

jonw747 said:


> We'll have to see what becomes of net neutrality, but one possibility for the cable providers would be to transition to charging VOD providers for hosting their traffic/servers.
> 
> The internet can handle the bandwidth if the load is properly distributed via local hosting.


Netflix already does this. Nothing in Net Neutrality prevents them from making these sorts of deals. They just have to offer them fairly to all services and they can't favor traffic from them over standard internet traffic. Although having them inside the local network provides a speed advantage just from reduced latency and avoids backend bandwidth fees so there are still incentives for making these types of deals with major ISPs.


----------



## JosephB

Dan203 said:


> 720p can be compressed more so I could see them maybe fitting a 720p and a 1080i into the same ATSC stream if they compressed the crap out of them. Not sure how they squeeze another sub channel in there though, that one must really look like sh*t.
> 
> Are either of you VideoReDo users? You should download a show from each channel and look at it's bitrate, then count how many frames they have between I frames. I'm betting the ABC shows are somewhere around 7-8Mbps and the CW stuff is around 10-11Mbps. And that they are using really long GOPs like 25-32 frames.


My local ABC station has ABC, MyTV, and one more SD subchannel all on one ATSC channel. Granted I only watch about an hour a week, but it looks fine to me. At any rate, this whole sub-discussion was predicated on someone said that you could not do multiple HD subchannels, which is patently not true. Never did I claim it would have good picture quality if they crammed 5 or 6 in there. Just that it was possible.


----------



## tarheelblue32

JosephB said:


> My local ABC station has ABC, MyTV, and one more SD subchannel all on one ATSC channel. Granted I only watch about an hour a week, but it looks fine to me. At any rate, this whole sub-discussion was predicated on someone said that you could not do multiple HD subchannels, which is patently not true. Never did I claim it would have good picture quality if they crammed 5 or 6 in there. Just that it was possible.


You can certainly have 2 HD channels on 1 physical OTA channel space. However, there's no way you could have 5 or 6.


----------



## Dan203

I had never heard of such a situation. Honestly I wouldn't have thought it was possible. The majority of my OTA stations are 12-14Mbps with a couple of low bitrate sub channels. Squeezing two HD stations into a single ATSC seems like a bit of a stretch.

5 stations would have an average bitrate of 3.8Mbps. No way you could get HD down that small unless maybe you used H.265 which isn't even part of the ATSC spec yet. H.264 would allow you to get them down to maybe 6Mbps/ea but as I said above they're required by law to have at least one feed of their main station in MPEG-2. Doesn't have to be HD though. So lets assume a 3Mbps SD station, they could still only add 2 HD stations at 6Mbps.

With QAM at 38Mbps they could cram 6 HD stations using H.264 onto a single frequency.


----------



## JoeKustra

Dan203 said:


> I had never heard of such a situation. Honestly I wouldn't have thought it was possible. The majority of my OTA stations are 12-14Mbps with a couple of low bitrate sub channels. Squeezing two HD stations into a single ATSC seems like a bit of a stretch.
> 
> 5 stations would have an average bitrate of 3.8Mbps. No way you could get HD down that small unless maybe you used H.265 which isn't even part of the ATSC spec yet. H.264 would allow you to get them down to maybe 6Mbps/ea but as I said above they're required by law to have at least one feed of their main station in MPEG-2. Doesn't have to be HD though. So lets assume a 3Mbps SD station, they could still only add 2 HD stations at 6Mbps.
> 
> With QAM at 38Mbps they could cram 6 HD stations using H.264 onto a single frequency.


Nobody ever uses call letters so they can be fact checked. Ever notice that?


----------



## JosephB

JoeKustra said:


> Nobody ever uses call letters so they can be fact checked. Ever notice that?


Not sure if you're referring to me, but the station I am referring to is WABM in Birmingham. Check it if you want. MyTV is the .1 (HD), ABC is the .2 (HD), and a weather barker is .3 (SD).


----------



## tarheelblue32

JoeKustra said:


> Nobody ever uses call letters so they can be fact checked. Ever notice that?


In my area, there is a channel with 2 720p channels and 1 480i channel all on a single channel space.

WTVD-D1: ABC11 (720p)
WTVD-D2: Live Well Network (720p)
WTVD-D3: Laff Network (480i)


----------



## JoeKustra

JosephB said:


> Not sure if you're referring to me, but the station I am referring to is WABM in Birmingham. Check it if you want. MyTV is the .1 (HD), ABC is the .2 (HD), and a weather barker is .3 (SD).


I wasn't, but two 720p and a 480i works for me. Are the two 720p stations using 5.1 or 2.0? That counts too. A dead give away is the storage needed by any program on the HDD. Bigger the file, better the content. My ABC can drop to 3GB for an hour of some content. That's not good. If it takes 7-8GB for an hour that's good.


----------



## JoeKustra

tarheelblue32 said:


> In my area, there is a channel with 2 720p channels and 1 480i channel all on a single channel space.
> 
> WTVD-D1: ABC11 (720p)
> WTVD-D2: Live Well Network (720p)
> WTVD-D3: Laff Network (480i)


See above.


----------



## Dan203

For some reason I thought you said The CW, which is 1080i. MyTV is 720p, just like ABC, so having two 720p stations and one SD sub channel makes sense. That gives each one a little over 8Mbps. I've seen my local ABC station drop that low a few times. (they seem to mess with the bitrate sometimes)


----------



## JosephB

JoeKustra said:


> I wasn't, but two 720p and a 480i works for me. Are the two 720p stations using 5.1 or 2.0? That counts too. A dead give away is the storage needed by any program on the HDD. Bigger the file, better the content. My ABC can drop to 3GB for an hour of some content. That's not good. If it takes 7-8GB for an hour that's good.


No clue, the only thing I ever watch is a local sports show on the MyTV affiliate once or twice a week. I haven't recorded anything from ABC in ages.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> For some reason I thought you said The CW, which is 1080i.


That was atmuscarella.


----------



## atmuscarella

Dan203 said:


> For some reason I thought you said The CW, which is 1080i. MyTV is 720p, just like ABC, so having two 720p stations and one SD sub channel makes sense. That gives each one a little over 8Mbps. I've seen my local ABC station drop that low a few times. (they seem to mess with the bitrate sometimes)


CW was me. In the TiVo guide CW out of Rochester NY (13.2) shows as 720p. So I am assuming it really is 720p & not 1080i, but of course all I know is what I see in the guide.


----------



## JoeKustra

atmuscarella said:


> CW was me. In the TiVo guide CW out of Rochester NY (13.2) shows as 720p. So I am assuming it really is 720p & not 1080i, but of course all I know is what I see in the guide.


It's very good. Wiki shows both CW and ABC as sending 720p with 5.1 audio. That's better than my CW station.


----------



## Dan203

Mine is 1080i with 2.0 audio


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> Mine is 1080i with 2.0 audio


Interesting. My CW is 720p also.


----------



## lpwcomp

tarheelblue32 said:


> Interesting. My CW is 720p also.


1080i here. 1 480i sub-channel.


----------



## foghorn2

Goes to prove we should be keeping an eye on OTA's future. The Wireless vultures are eyeing the frequencies while we worry about dinosaur cable providers and their delivery methods.


----------



## tarheelblue32

foghorn2 said:


> Goes to prove we should be keeping an eye on OTA's future. The Wireless vultures are eyeing the frequencies while we worry about dinosaur cable providers and their delivery methods.


True. They already took all broadcast channels above 50, and soon they'll be taking all channels above 30. And I doubt that'll satisfy them forever. Eventually they'll probably come back for what's left of the UHF band. The VHF band (channels 2-13) will probably be all that remains of broadcast television before the wireless vultures are done.


----------



## osu1991

Check the Ada,OK/Sherman, TX DMA for stations with multiple HD on one ATSC channel. My family's ranch is down there. If I remember correctly (and I'm probably not) KXII was the first station to go with multiple HD feeds

KTEN has NBC 10801, ABC 720p and CW 480i on 1 ATSC channel and KXII has CBS 1080i, Fox 720p and MyNet 480 on the other ATSC channel for the market.

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

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


----------



## HarperVision

We have repeater sites on Maui broadcasting 2 "HD" channels on one ATSC channel. They're NBC and CBS from Oahu, which are both natively 1080i but each converted to 720p, and yes, they do look like A55, especially with any fast motion!


----------



## Dan203

I wonder if in that case they are using 720p/30 instead of 720p/60? Seems like a waste of bits to frame double to 720p/60.


----------



## aaronwt

Dan203 said:


> QAM has 38Mbps per "channel" which is how they cram 3-4 HD channels into each one.
> 
> ATSC only has 19.2Mbps and the main channel is required by law to be MPEG-2. So even if they over compress the HD down to 10-12Mbps there still isn't enough left for a second HD channel. (maybe one if it was H.264) Plus OTA channels have to consider legacy equipment. Their main goal is to reach as many viewers as possible, and there are still a lot of OTA watchers using older boxes that don't have the hardware needed to decode H.264. Between that and the mandate that the primary channel be MPEG-2 they're pretty much stuck doing what they do now which is an HD main channel and a few SD sub channels.


We have at least a couple of stations that have an HD main channel and an HD sub channel. We also have one station that has ten SD channels. But they use two separate frequencies and put five programs on each one. But to the user it just looks like ten sub channels.


----------



## Dan203

Well each frequency is allowed 19.2Mbps, so if they're using multiple frequencies then that's a different story. Although I'm not sure how that would work. The tuners themselves are hardwired to use specific frequencies for each major channel number. The sub channels are different as they're just PIDs in the TS stream. But I'm pretty sure the major channel number directly correlates to specific frequency, so I'm not sure how they would bond two of them to have them act as a single channel.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> Well each frequency is allowed 19.2Mbps, so if they're using multiple frequencies then that's a different story. Although I'm not sure how that would work. The tuners themselves are hardwired to use specific frequencies for each major channel number. The sub channels are different as they're just PIDs in the TS stream. But I'm pretty sure the major channel number directly correlates to specific frequency, so I'm not sure how they would bond two of them to have them act as a single channel.


They are just using virtual channel numbers to make it appear like all the channels are on the same channel number.


----------



## JoeKustra

During one cold winter day I decided to map all my channels to their QAM frequencies. It seemed pretty logical at first, with one 1080i and one 720p local channel per 6MHz. But after the broadcast locals, things got strange with no pattern. Sometimes, like HDB/MAX they would have both HD feeds on one frequency. Sometimes there was just one HD network on a channel. The SD feeds, like when I had clear QAM, are pretty much 10 stations per 6MHz channel. I could detect nothing like a pattern in the HD, SD or Premium networks. It would be impossible to generalize, so I end with my favorite saying: all cable is local.


----------



## JosephB

Dan203 said:


> Well each frequency is allowed 19.2Mbps, so if they're using multiple frequencies then that's a different story. Although I'm not sure how that would work. The tuners themselves are hardwired to use specific frequencies for each major channel number. The sub channels are different as they're just PIDs in the TS stream. But I'm pretty sure the major channel number directly correlates to specific frequency, so I'm not sure how they would bond two of them to have them act as a single channel.


I've read a lot about PSIP, because the merger that resulted in the co-ownership of our ABC and MyTV affiliates mean that the ABC affiliate would be changing channels and was trying to figure out if they would have to re-brand, or if they would be able to take their virtual channel numbers with them (they were surrendering their licenses for two full power stations..complicated setup).

From what I understand, with PSIP you can do pretty much anything you want. Two streams on the same RF channel can have different major channel numbers (IE: you could have 10.1 and 52.1 both be on RF channel 6). It would not surprise me in the least if you could spread subchannels of the same major channel over more than one RF channel.

PSIP trickery is one way the FCC is dealing with spectrum issues that are impeding on broadcast stations. They're offering financial incentives to stations to give up their licenses so that those frequencies can be sold to cell phone companies. Then, they are given permission to share time with other broadcast stations that aren't using all of their bandwidth. So, if two stations are only using half or less of their bandwidth, they're being allowed to multiplex two major channels into one ATSC RF channel.

What would surprise me more, though, is that the FCC would let someone use the same major channel over two RF channels. As far as I can tell the FCC is actually very strict on PSIP virtual channel numbers. Essentially you only get a virtual channel number if your RF channel changed during the analog-to-digital conversion. After that, if there's any change that isn't mandated by the FCC, you lose your virtual channel, unless your RF channel number is already taken by some virtual channel number. And even then, you only can use the reciprocal channel number (meaning, if you were moving to or starting a new station on RF channel 6, but there's already a virtual channel 6, then the virtual channel you'd be assigned is whatever RF channel virtual channel 6 is occupying). I can't think of any situation that would fall within FCC rules that would allow a major channel number to span multiple RF channels.

(for the record, our local ABC affiliate didn't rebrand. They were branded as "ABC 33/40" because pre-digital conversion the ABC affiliation was 'shared' between channels 33 and 40, which were at either end of the DMA instead of centrally located. They carried the same signal and were owned by the same company--it was effectively one station, but they dual branded for obvious reasons. When the digital switchover happened, they got 33 and 40 as virtual channel numbers, and also picked up channel 58 as a low power translator in the middle of the DMA. The wrench in the works came when the company that owned 33/40 was sold to Sinclair which already owned two other full power stations in town, and they had to divest two of the four full power stations. They ended up selling/vacating 33/40 and moving ABC to channel 68, which is high power and centrally located. However, they didn't rebrand the ABC affiliate, so we now have "ABC 33/40" which is on 68.2)


----------



## Dan203

JoeKustra said:


> During one cold winter day I decided to map all my channels to their QAM frequencies. It seemed pretty logical at first, with one 1080i and one 720p local channel per 6MHz. But after the broadcast locals, things got strange with no pattern. Sometimes, like HDB/MAX they would have both HD feeds on one frequency. Sometimes there was just one HD network on a channel. The SD feeds, like when I had clear QAM, are pretty much 10 stations per 6MHz channel. I could detect nothing like a pattern in the HD, SD or Premium networks. It would be impossible to generalize, so I end with my favorite saying: all cable is local.


Most cable systems in the US are still using 550MHz or 800MHz systems. (there are a rare few using 1GHz) The system starts at 54MHz (channel 2) so a 550MHz system only has 83 QAMs to work with, each with 38Mbps that can not be shared between QAMs. (except for DOCSIS) And a few of those are dedicated to DOCSIS for internet and internal communication, and a large block is usually dedicated to VOD, so they get pretty creative with where they put the channels and how they set the bitrates to fit their 200+ channels in that space. 800MHz systems have 50% more QAMs to work with so they can be a little less creative, more generous with the bandwidth and typically have higher internet speeds too.


----------



## Dan203

JosephB said:


> I've read a lot about PSIP, because the merger that resulted in the co-ownership of our ABC and MyTV affiliates mean that the ABC affiliate would be changing channels and was trying to figure out if they would have to re-brand, or if they would be able to take their virtual channel numbers with them (they were surrendering their licenses for two full power stations..complicated setup).
> 
> From what I understand, with PSIP you can do pretty much anything you want. Two streams on the same RF channel can have different major channel numbers (IE: you could have 10.1 and 52.1 both be on RF channel 6). It would not surprise me in the least if you could spread subchannels of the same major channel over more than one RF channel.
> 
> PSIP trickery is one way the FCC is dealing with spectrum issues that are impeding on broadcast stations. They're offering financial incentives to stations to give up their licenses so that those frequencies can be sold to cell phone companies. Then, they are given permission to share time with other broadcast stations that aren't using all of their bandwidth. So, if two stations are only using half or less of their bandwidth, they're being allowed to multiplex two major channels into one ATSC RF channel.
> 
> What would surprise me more, though, is that the FCC would let someone use the same major channel over two RF channels. As far as I can tell the FCC is actually very strict on PSIP virtual channel numbers. Essentially you only get a virtual channel number if your RF channel changed during the analog-to-digital conversion. After that, if there's any change that isn't mandated by the FCC, you lose your virtual channel, unless your RF channel number is already taken by some virtual channel number. And even then, you only can use the reciprocal channel number (meaning, if you were moving to or starting a new station on RF channel 6, but there's already a virtual channel 6, then the virtual channel you'd be assigned is whatever RF channel virtual channel 6 is occupying). I can't think of any situation that would fall within FCC rules that would allow a major channel number to span multiple RF channels.
> 
> (for the record, our local ABC affiliate didn't rebrand. They were branded as "ABC 33/40" because pre-digital conversion the ABC affiliation was 'shared' between channels 33 and 40, which were at either end of the DMA instead of centrally located. They carried the same signal and were owned by the same company--it was effectively one station, but they dual branded for obvious reasons. When the digital switchover happened, they got 33 and 40 as virtual channel numbers, and also picked up channel 58 as a low power translator in the middle of the DMA. The wrench in the works came when the company that owned 33/40 was sold to Sinclair which already owned two other full power stations in town, and they had to divest two of the four full power stations. They ended up selling/vacating 33/40 and moving ABC to channel 68, which is high power and centrally located. However, they didn't rebrand the ABC affiliate, so we now have "ABC 33/40" which is on 68.2)


We have a little bit of that weirdness going on here too. The local CW/WB station went bankrupt a few years back and was bought up by the local Univision affiliate. Unfortunately they put it as an SD sub station of the Univision frequency, so for years I couldn't get any CW/WB shows in HD. Then at some point another company came along and started broadcasting in HD on a low power station. However the cable company still only carries that station in SD for some reason, so the only way to get HD is using OTA. This one station, and like 3 shows I watch on it, is the only reason I own a Roamio OTA.


----------



## JoeKustra

Dan203 said:


> Most cable systems in the US are still using 550MHz or 800MHz systems. (there are a rare few using 1GHz) The system starts at 54MHz (channel 2) so a 550MHz system only has 83 QAMs to work with, each with 38Mbps that can not be shared between QAMs. (except for DOCSIS) And a few of those are dedicated to DOCSIS for internet and internal communication, and a large block is usually dedicated to VOD, so they get pretty creative with where they put the channels and how they set the bitrates to fit their 200+ channels in that space. 800MHz systems have 50% more QAMs to work with so they can be a little less creative, more generous with the bandwidth and typically have higher internet speeds too.


Thanks for the information. My analog channel 135, a test pattern is at 869Mhz. My modem has 16 channels down with the highest at 825MHz. They just finished some infrastructure work and everything is working great.


----------



## Series3Sub

All the digital channels can be virtual and ANY channel can be mapped to ANY virtual channel the software is told to do it. However, the agreed upon convention is main channel should be .1, and that's about it, meaning there is no _technical_ limitation to channel mapping. And no there is nothing "hard wired" about the DTV/ATSC frequencies and an HDTV or other device tuners. When you attempt to tune to ANY channel, the HDTV or other device like a TiVo checks its internal Table (or channel map, which is the result of Scanning for OTA channels) to determinate which frequency to tune to and which packets on that stream (main channel or other "sub-channels") to capture and process and which to discard. This is all digital and virtual not "hard wired" in the old analog TV sense.


----------



## JosephB

Series3Sub said:


> All the digital channels can be virtual and ANY channel can be mapped to ANY virtual channel the software is told to do it. However, the agreed upon convention is main channel should be .1, and that's about it, meaning there is no _technical_ limitation to channel mapping. And no there is nothing "hard wired" about the DTV/ATSC frequencies and an HDTV or other device tuners. When you attempt to tune to ANY channel, the HDTV or other device like a TiVo checks its internal Table (or channel map, which is the result of Scanning for OTA channels) to determinate which frequency to tune to and which packets on that stream (main channel or other "sub-channels") to capture and process and which to discard. This is all digital and virtual.


There are FCC rules, though, regulating what you can do with virtual channel numbers. It's not just a free for all.


----------



## HarperVision

Seems they've submitted a proposal today:

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/fc.../2015-08-28?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal



> NCTA: FCC's Downloadable Security Committee 'veers off course' with AllVid support
> 
> "An FCC advisory committee has presented the agency with several different software-based options for securing MVPD video content on retail devices.
> The Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC) was appointed in January to develop a successor to CableCard requirement, which was ended when President Obama signed the Satellite Television Extension Act Reauthorization (STELAR) into law in December.
> 
> The DSTAC is tasked with coming up with a downloadable security technology that can spur a robust retail market for set-tops and other devices that can be used in the pay-TV ecosystem. Members include Jay Rolls, senior VP and CTO of Charter Communications (NASDAQ: CHTR); and Milo Medin, VP of access services at Google.
> 
> In making its six-page proposal Friday, the committee walked a tightrope of making the technology relatively simple, recognizing the user interface needs of both retail set-top makers and pay-TV operators, and also accounting for the broad flora and fauna of operator access and video-delivery systems.
> 
> The actual proposal has not yet been publicly released, but Rolls indicated that there is broad agreement on several issues. For one, the DSTAC has agreed that its recommendations should focus on an IP-based approach. The committee also said that the solution doesn't have to be uniform across retail and MVPD-supplied set-top boxes. Schemes to address cloud-based video distribution systems were also introduced in a proposal of differing security technologies that could ultimately be mixed and matched.
> 
> While setting a Sept. 4 deadline for the committee's proposals, the FCC has not established a timeline on which it will act on them.
> 
> The National Cable & Telecommunications Association said, "The DSTAC report highlights the tremendous success of MVPD launched apps, which millions of consumers use today to watch video content via all kinds of retail devices including tablets, smartphones, Xbox, Roku, Kindle Fire, Smart TVs and more. The ongoing introduction of IP technology and cloud-based services will only continue to develop more exciting retail options for consumers."
> 
> The NCTA, however, did not look fondly on the committee's inclusion of AllVid, a technology enabling a government-defined gateway device that would unite video from various sources. AllVid is backed by tech companies including Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) and Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN).
> 
> "Regrettably, the report veers off course by including a controversial proposal to place a burdensome technology mandate on MVPDs known as AllVid," the NCTA said. "This approach could jeopardize consumer protections including privacy, emergency alerts, parental controls, and inhibit innovation by allowing the government to dictate the way video content is delivered to consumers. Fortunately, the report reflects substantial opposition to the idea of a new, government-imposed technology mandate and extensively describes the proposal's shortcomings."


----------



## Dan203

Love the comment at the bottom about AllVid.  Not sure how having a gateway device would jeopardize consumer protections like "privacy" nor how it would inhibit innovation when the only requirement is that the gateway device deliver a standards complaint IP stream that 3rd party devices can access. What sort of innovation could they come up with that couldn't be translated into a standard IP stream? And if they used DLNA like I suggested they could add their "innovations" to the RUI app. In my scenario they would only be required to present live TV streams via IP, all other services like VOD, PPV, etc.. could be confined to their RUI app. 

To me it seems like the main reason they are against AllVid, or something like it, is because it makes it easy for consumers to switch providers without losing their equipment. They like having people equipment locked to their service, it gives people a hurdle for switching and offers them more leverage when deciding on pricing.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> Love the comment at the bottom about AllVid.  Not sure how having a gateway device would jeopardize consumer protections like "privacy" nor how it would inhibit innovation when the only requirement is that the gateway device deliver a standards complaint IP stream that 3rd party devices can access. What sort of innovation could they come up with that couldn't be translated into a standard IP stream? And if they used DLNA like I suggested they could add their "innovations" to the RUI app. In my scenario they would only be required to present live TV streams via IP, all other services like VOD, PPV, etc.. could be confined to their RUI app. To me it seems like the main reason they are against AllVid, or something like it, is because it makes it easy for consumers to switch providers without losing their equipment. They like having people equipment locked to their service, it gives people a hurdle for switching and offers them more leverage when deciding on pricing.


Haha yeah I figured you of all people would love this article! 

I agree that they want to keep you equipment locked so that's why they're poo-pooing AllVid. They figure if they make it harder and more frustrating to switch, you won't, and unfortunately I think that works for Joe Sixpack, and they know it.


----------



## DCIFRTHS

HarperVision said:


> The actual proposal has not yet been publicly released, but Rolls indicated that there is broad agreement on several issues. For one, the DSTAC has agreed that its recommendations should focus on an IP-based approach. The committee also said that the solution doesn't have to be uniform across retail and MVPD-supplied set-top boxes. Schemes to address cloud-based video distribution systems were also introduced in a proposal of differing security technologies that could ultimately be mixed and matched.


I'm confused. Doesn't the text above indicate that even though the solution should be IP based, that different cable companies could implement it differently?

The way I interpret it is that if I bought an STB that worked with the new standard, for use in Comcast country, it might not work if I moved it into Cablevision country. Am I misinterpreting it?


----------



## tarheelblue32

DCIFRTHS said:


> I'm confused. Doesn't the text above indicate that even though the solution should be IP based, that different cable companies could implement it differently?
> 
> The way I interpret it is that if I bought an STB that worked with the new standard, for use in Comcast country, it might not work if I moved it into Cablevision country. Am I misinterpreting it?


That's what it sounds like, which is so stupid. If everyone agrees that all future standards will be IP based, I don't know why the FCC doesn't just tell CableLabs to come up with a new IP standard for all cable companies to use and be done with it.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Well yeah that's what we're all saying but the FCC is way too meek to actually regulate in favor of the consumer most times. They'd rather let the MSOs explain why they can't do something then pretend that the issue never existed and ignore a good solution (see: AllVid). I hate to say it but the end of the integration ban is the only thing pushing them to do something now because they realize they can't duck the issue any longer.


----------



## BobCamp1

Dan203 said:


> To me it seems like the main reason they are against AllVid, or something like it, is because it makes it easy for consumers to switch providers without losing their equipment. They like having people equipment locked to their service, it gives people a hurdle for switching and offers them more leverage when deciding on pricing.


I disagree with that statement. Consumers couldn't care less if they get to keep their equipment. On the contrary, they WANT their equipment to be updated every two years or so, because the new device is always faster and has more features. Plus DVRs have a much higher failure rate than TVs. They're not thinking about DVRs like a TV, they're thinking about DVRs like a smart phone or tablet. If it hasn't broken before the two years is up, it has become slow and outdated anyway.

My parents have to turn in their equipment every six months when they suspend service to head south for the winter, and then again when they move back north for the summer. So they get a new DVR every six months. I haven't heard them complain about it.


----------



## BobCamp1

slowbiscuit said:


> Well yeah that's what we're all saying but the FCC is way too meek to actually regulate in favor of the consumer most times. They'd rather let the MSOs explain why they can't do something then pretend that the issue never existed and ignore a good solution (see: AllVid). I hate to say it but the end of the integration ban is the only thing pushing them to do something now because they realize they can't duck the issue any longer.


Cable companies will always complain because it's a bunch of their R&D money being spent on something that won't result in a profit for them.


----------



## ncbill

Plenty of us want to own the equipment 'cause we're cheapskates.

Tivo users are already saving money via renting one CableCard to support multiple TVs vs. renting multiple cable DVRs (@$20-$25/month).

After owning it for 2 years, there's nothing slow about my base Roamio - the only two parts likely to fail are easy & relatively inexpensive to replace (external power brick is $6, your choice of hard drive up to 3TB).

And if I want to be really cheap I can switch the Roamio back to OTA once my cable promo ends.



BobCamp1 said:


> I disagree with that statement. Consumers couldn't care less if they get to keep their equipment. On the contrary, they WANT their equipment to be updated every two years or so, because the new device is always faster and has more features. Plus DVRs have a much higher failure rate than TVs. They're not thinking about DVRs like a TV, they're thinking about DVRs like a smart phone or tablet. If it hasn't broken before the two years is up, it has become slow and outdated anyway.
> 
> My parents have to turn in their equipment every six months when they suspend service to head south for the winter, and then again when they move back north for the summer. So they get a new DVR every six months. I haven't heard them complain about it.


----------



## Dan203

BobCamp1 said:


> I disagree with that statement. Consumers couldn't care less if they get to keep their equipment. On the contrary, they WANT their equipment to be updated every two years or so, because the new device is always faster and has more features. Plus DVRs have a much higher failure rate than TVs. They're not thinking about DVRs like a TV, they're thinking about DVRs like a smart phone or tablet. If it hasn't broken before the two years is up, it has become slow and outdated anyway.
> 
> My parents have to turn in their equipment every six months when they suspend service to head south for the winter, and then again when they move back north for the summer. So they get a new DVR every six months. I haven't heard them complain about it.


I was talking about it in relation to retail devices. I'm sure there are many of us here that would rather have DSS but are stuck with cable because we love our TiVos and they wont work with DSS. If there was a TiVo that was interoperable between providers I'd likely at least test out DSS and see how I liked it.

So what's your theory? Why are cable companies s against AllVid? It's basically what DirecTV is already doing with RVU just using open standards. So why are they so dead set against it and claim that it will invade consumer privacy and stifle innovation?


----------



## aaronwt

BobCamp1 said:


> I disagree with that statement. Consumers couldn't care less if they get to keep their equipment. On the contrary, they WANT their equipment to be updated every two years or so, because the new device is always faster and has more features. Plus DVRs have a much higher failure rate than TVs. They're not thinking about DVRs like a TV, they're thinking about DVRs like a smart phone or tablet. If it hasn't broken before the two years is up, it has become slow and outdated anyway.
> 
> My parents have to turn in their equipment every six months when they suspend service to head south for the winter, and then again when they move back north for the summer. So they get a new DVR every six months. I haven't heard them complain about it.


They actually get a new one each time? Many people get previously used DVRs. That will still have the previous owners content on it.


----------



## innocentfreak

Looks like we will have a chance to comment.

FCC Seeks Comment on DSTAC Report


----------



## mattack

Umm, doesn't the government *already* "dictate the way video content is delivered to consumers"? E.g. current cablecard, cable channel specifications? Even satellite is governed in some ways since it uses broadcast spectrum.. right?


----------



## trip1eX

BobCamp1 said:


> I disagree with that statement. Consumers couldn't care less if they get to keep their equipment. On the contrary, they WANT their equipment to be updated every two years or so, because the new device is always faster and has more features. Plus DVRs have a much higher failure rate than TVs. They're not thinking about DVRs like a TV, they're thinking about DVRs like a smart phone or tablet. If it hasn't broken before the two years is up, it has become slow and outdated anyway.
> 
> My parents have to turn in their equipment every six months when they suspend service to head south for the winter, and then again when they move back north for the summer. So they get a new DVR every six months. I haven't heard them complain about it.


TRue for some. However, many don't like the hassle of constantly switching to new equipment. There's a learning curve associated with all that and new stuff often doesn't mean better.

Your parents have to go thru the hassle of returning equipment and getting new equipment every year. IT's either that or pay for 6 months of cable that they won't watch and equipment they won't use. And who says they get a new DVR every 6 months? Often times you get a used one. And I doubt cable companies have a new dvr model every year either.


----------



## Dan203

The "Virtual Head End" part for security sounds kind of like the gateway device in AllVid. It allows them to use pure IP delivery to the home or use a device in the home to convert, which is essentially a gateway.

For the non-security stuff they seem to be split. The MSOs want a pure app based approach where the devices have to launch their apps to gain access to anything other then live streams. The CE manufacturers want low level APIs for service discovery and access to the streams and controls so they can wrap their own UI around things like VOD. I think they could meet somewhere in the middle. I think they could offer HTML5 based apps but throw in the requirement that they allow direct entry points into the apps like how TiVo can launch existing Netflix and Amazon apps right to the point of playing a video. They should also have some way for 3rd parties to access metadata for available services so that they can incorporate those into a universal search. 3rd party devices should also be required to offer an entry point directly into the top level of the app so the user could use that UI exclusively if they choose. That should satisfy at least some of what both parties want and should be a workable compromise.


----------



## lpwcomp

I don't understand why they can't do access control via IP but still deliver the content via multi-cast QAM using the CableCARD for decryption.

Oh, I understand why the MSO's want to change. They want to control everything and be able to charge the consumer out the wazzoo. I also understand the reason the FCC is going along with this. For the most part, they are in the MSO's pockets. But what is their explanation/justification or have they not bothered to give one?


----------



## slowbiscuit

I don't think I've ever seen the FCC explain why they bailed on stuff like AllVid.


----------



## Dan203

The MSOs keep acting like AllVid is the devil and will destroy their business. Basically they want control. You can see it in the comments from the MSO reps at the meetings. They basically don't want 3rd party equipment on their network at all, and if they have to they want it to be a dumb device that just runs some app they developed with no UI of it's own other then what's needed to launch the app.


----------



## BobCamp1

trip1eX said:


> TRue for some. However, many don't like the hassle of constantly switching to new equipment. There's a learning curve associated with all that and new stuff often doesn't mean better.
> 
> Your parents have to go thru the hassle of returning equipment and getting new equipment every year. IT's either that or pay for 6 months of cable that they won't watch and equipment they won't use. And who says they get a new DVR every 6 months? Often times you get a used one. And I doubt cable companies have a new dvr model every year either.


It's not new new, but it's refurbished. Just like Tivo. You pay for a new one, but if it breaks 60 days later you get a refurbished one even though you originally paid for a new one. At least when you're leasing it, you don't feel ripped off when that happens and have the chance of getting a newer model.

If they owned Tivos, my parents would have to go through the hassle of repairing a CableCard every six months, because when you suspend cable service you have to return everything. You can't suspend Tivo service, so they'd always be paying for something they're not using (remember they have two houses). Unless they buy lifetime service, but then their break even point is over four years out compared to TWC's DVR.

Finally, all DVRs and their software are being updated with new features. The VOD library is expanding, and cable companies are now rolling out 6 and 8 tuner DVRs. The usability gap that existed several years ago has shrunk significantly. In fact, since Tivo eliminated the Season Pass, I think the cable company DVRs are better than Tivo for what my parents and I use them for.

I see all the problems that exist with CableCards being repeated here. I still see the lack of profit for third-party devices unless you use those devices to push your own content (or in Tivo's case, you've got patent royalties). I hope it goes better than before, but I don't think it will. How is it different this time around?


----------



## trip1eX

BobCamp1 said:


> It's not new new, but it's refurbished. Just like Tivo. You pay for a new one, but if it breaks 60 days later you get a refurbished one even though you originally paid for a new one. At least when you're leasing it, you don't feel ripped off when that happens and have the chance of getting a newer model.
> 
> If they owned Tivos, my parents would have to go through the hassle of repairing a CableCard every six months, because when you suspend cable service you have to return everything. You can't suspend Tivo service, so they'd always be paying for something they're not using (remember they have two houses). Unless they buy lifetime service, but then their break even point is over four years out compared to TWC's DVR.
> 
> Finally, all DVRs and their software are being updated with new features. The VOD library is expanding, and cable companies are now rolling out 6 and 8 tuner DVRs. The usability gap that existed several years ago has shrunk significantly. In fact, since Tivo eliminated the Season Pass, I think the cable company DVRs are better than Tivo for what my parents and I use them for.
> 
> I see all the problems that exist with CableCards being repeated here. I still see the lack of profit for third-party devices unless you use those devices to push your own content (or in Tivo's case, you've got patent royalties). I hope it goes better than before, but I don't think it will. How is it different this time around?


I hear ya, but I commented on your post about people wanting new equipment all the time. I don't think many actually like getting new equipment too often.

I didn't say anything about Tivo vs Cable dvr.


----------



## Dan203

BobCamp1 said:


> I see all the problems that exist with CableCards being repeated here. I still see the lack of profit for third-party devices unless you use those devices to push your own content (or in Tivo's case, you've got patent royalties). I hope it goes better than before, but I don't think it will. How is it different this time around?


I doubt it will. CableCARDs didn't need to be difficult, the cable companies made them difficult on purpose. They chose to use completely different setup processes for their equipment and 3rd party equipment even though both were using CableCARDs. They chose to not train their techs on installing CableCARDs in 3rd party equipment. Even if they come up with some new standard, it's not going to be any different. They're going to make the whole process as difficult as possible because they don't want you to use anything other then their rented boxes.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> I doubt it will. CableCARDs didn't need to be difficult, the cable companies made them difficult on purpose. They chose to use completely different setup processes for their equipment and 3rd party equipment even though both were using CableCARDs. They chose to not train their techs on installing CableCARDs in 3rd party equipment. Even if they come up with some new standard, it's not going to be any different. They're going to make the whole process as difficult as possible because they don't want you to use anything other then their rented boxes.


If Comcast can set up a new modem without calling in why can't Comcast (and other MSOs) set up the cable card on-line, could be very easy, but as you said they may want to make it hard.


----------



## tarheelblue32

lessd said:


> If Comcast can set up a new modem without calling in why can't Comcast (and other MSOs) set up the cable card on-line, could be very easy, but as you said they may want to make it hard.


They absolutely could set up an automated system for pairing CableCards if they wanted to. I think Verizon FiOS actually has this now. But the cable companies don't want to. They want to keep it as difficult as possible.


----------



## TazExprez

tarheelblue32 said:


> They absolutely could set up an automated system for pairing CableCards if they wanted to. I think Verizon FiOS actually has this now. But the cable companies don't want to. They want to keep it as difficult as possible.


I used the FiOS automated system and the website several times, but was unable to get the two cards activated and paired about ten days ago. I also had to call customer service twice. The last CSR was able to get everything working right.

It should be like using an app on a smartphone or tablet. Those just work and you only have to log in. No calls need to be made to a CSR or an automated system, and no special activation website is needed. They could just look at your IP address to see that it's being used at your place.


----------



## BobCamp1

trip1eX said:


> I hear ya, but I commented on your post about people wanting new equipment all the time. I don't think many actually like getting new equipment too often.
> 
> I didn't say anything about Tivo vs Cable dvr.


So if somebody were automatically given the latest version of the iPhone for free, they would refuse it? I think people like getting new equipment all the time. We are becoming a disposable society.

Most people don't use their DVRs to archive recordings. And they shouldn't. So if they lose the few recordings they have it's no big deal. They could probably watch them online or through VOD anyway.

I know you didn't say anything about Tivo vs. cable DVR. The multi-quotes disappeared when I posted.  My point is that so few people want to own their DVR, and third-party DVRs don't really have anything special to offer, so why go through all this work mandating an interface to something that 1% or fewer people are going to use?


----------



## Dan203

TazExprez said:


> I used the FiOS automated system and the website several times, but was unable to get the two cards activated and paired about ten days ago. I also had to call customer service twice. The last CSR was able to get everything working right.
> 
> It should be like using an app on a smartphone or tablet. Those just work and you only have to log in. No calls need to be made to a CSR or an automated system, and no special activation website is needed. They could just look at your IP address to see that it's being used at your place.


CableCARDs are one way. They don't send any information back to the head end. The way they work is the cable company's system uses the host and data numbers from your device and generates a set of encryption keys. They're then sent to the CableCARD as a sort of message using an out of bounds frequency. (i.e. one not used for cable channels) One key allows the card to decrypt the data being sent over the cable and is private to the card. The other is shared with the device. The card uses the private key to decrypt the channel you're tuning and then reencrypts it using the shared key. The device then decrypts that using the shared key and reencrypts it again using it's own, pre-approved, encryption scheme. So the device never directly decrypts the cable company's signal, only the reencrypted stream coming from the card.

The authorization data is also sent via an out of bounds signal, but it's sent more frequently, not just once like the pairing keys. That way your cable company can constantly alert the card as to which channels you're allowed to access.

One common cause of cards not pairing correctly is there being noise or low signal in the OOB frequency that prevents these messages from being received. Another is that because all devices on the system are using the same frequency to listen for these messages they have to be queued up, so it can take a while for them to reach the front of the line if the queue is busy. Cable systems also seem to have weird issues internally where cards have to be in a specific position in their system compared to leased boxes and tuning adapters or their system wont authorize them. That one seems to cause a lot of issues for Charter because I've heard several knowledgeable techs site that as the issue when I was having trouble getting a card paired.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> CableCARDs are one way. They don't send any information back to the head end.


I though that also, but a few years ago when I was having problems pairing a cable card the Comcast CSR could tell if I puled the card from the TiVo and when I put it back in, The CSR said he can't get any data from the card as he can from a Comcast installed cable card in their own cable box, but he can tell if the card is on the system, so something does go back to the head end, for some cable systems.


----------



## Dan203

Huh, not sure how they pull that off. None of the hardware has the ability to send data back to the headend. Except the tuning adapter. Maybe it was reporting the card status back to the headend?


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> Huh, not sure how they pull that off. None of the hardware has the ability to send data back to the headend. Except the tuning adapter. Maybe it was reporting the card status back to the headend?


Comcast, therefore no TA.


----------



## Dan203

I wonder if it has anything to do with the internet system they have that allows you access to VOD? Maybe TiVo reports the card status via the internet?

I know I've talked to Charter before and they had no way to know when/if my card was plugged in and I'm pretty sure the spec doesn't allow for any reverse communication. In fact IIRC it specifically forbids CableCARD host devices from having OOB transmitters in them.


----------



## JoeKustra

lessd said:


> I though that also, but a few years ago when I was having problems pairing a cable card the Comcast CSR could tell if I puled the card from the TiVo and when I put it back in, The CSR said he can't get any data from the card as he can *from a Comcast installed cable card in their own cable box*, but he can tell if the card is on the system, so something does go back to the head end, for some cable systems.


That's your answer. The STB can send info back. That why VOD works without the internet.


----------



## lpwcomp

JoeKustra said:


> That's your answer. The STB can send info back. That why VOD works without the internet.


 It doesn't explain how he knows if the CableCARD is installed in the TiVo.


----------



## Dan203

I read a whitepaper about how CableCARDs worked a while back and as far as I remember there is no way for it to send any information back to the head end, not even basic status like being inserted. So I have no idea how Comcast was able to do that.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> I read a whitepaper about how CableCARDs worked a while back and as far as I remember there is no way for it to send any information back to the head end, not even basic status like being inserted. So I have no idea how Comcast was able to do that.


That was my understanding also, that CableCards were entirely one-way, with no way to communicate back to the headend.


----------



## JoeKustra

lpwcomp said:


> It doesn't explain how he knows if the CableCARD is installed in the TiVo.


He doesn't. I didn't highlight the words *as he can*. My mistake. He doesn't know if a cable card is in a TiVo, but he's sure one is in the STB.

I've heard that people have received free HBO for a weekend (I have). Then, in the old days, they would turn off their boxes on Monday so the signal to block those channels would never get to the box. That was a long time ago.


----------



## Dan203

That will work on some cable systems. Others send the authorization signal more frequently so that it wont.


----------



## JoeKustra

Dan203 said:


> That will work on some cable systems. Others send the authorization signal more frequently so that it wont.


I miss the good old days.


----------



## tarheelblue32

JoeKustra said:


> I've heard that people have received free HBO for a weekend (I have). Then, in the old days, they would turn off their boxes on Monday so the signal to block those channels would never get to the box. That was a long time ago.


Huh, that's a brilliant idea. I might have to unplug my Roamio Plus to "conserve energy" the next time I get a free preview weekend on one of the premium channels.


----------



## JoeKustra

tarheelblue32 said:


> Huh, that's a brilliant idea. I might have to unplug my Roamio Plus to "conserve energy" the next time I get a free preview weekend on one of the premium channels.


That was a long time ago. My feed is now encrypted at the source. So all they do is drop that for the weekend. The TiVo already has the channels in its VCT, so all I do is enable them when they be come clear. The "free" sample runs from 00:00 Friday to 23:59 Monday. I record stuff for later viewing. It happens about every six months.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> Huh, not sure how they pull that off. None of the hardware has the ability to send data back to the headend. Except the tuning adapter. Maybe it was reporting the card status back to the headend?


I do get VOD so their is some communions back to the Comcast head end, and if the cable card is not paired correctly all ch. will come in but not VOD, that was the problem I was having at the time I tested out the card, pulling, and the CSR know knew within a short time that the card was out of the TiVo, and when I put it back in a short time later she knew I had installed the card. To get the card to work for VOD a tech. came out and called a special number and the person at the other end did something to my CC that made TiVo think I had removed the CC itself, that person then program the card from scratch and all worked great.


----------



## lpwcomp

Communication for VOD on TiVo's is done via IP. In my case, VOD control is using a Uverse connection.


----------



## BobCamp1

tarheelblue32 said:


> That was my understanding also, that CableCards were entirely one-way, with no way to communicate back to the headend.


All CableCards are two-way. However, they are only being used one-way. Mainly because there was no agreement as to how the upstream communications should work. So the FCC only mandated the downstream comms. of the two-way device, essentially making it one-way. But an MSO could make a two-way device and with the right firmware in the CableCard, you'd have two-way communications.

There is no need for a separate USB dongle to support SDV. All CableCards can do this effortlessly. But because there was no universally accepted way to perform this function, the USB-SDV dongle was born.

It may even be that the Tivos were developed as one-way CableCard devices because Tivo thought there would never be a need for two-way communication. But Tivo got caught with their pants down when SDV came out. Tivo may have had to go and beg/threaten the MSOs to develop the SDV dongle because that's the only way Tivo could support it. There is no proof of that, it's just speculation on my part. It's also possible that it was easier to develop the SDV dongle at that point in time than it was to develop different CableCard firmware for each MSO.

This is the point where you bang your head against a hard surface and realize that the new standard is just another exercise in futility.


----------



## aaronwt

BobCamp1 said:


> So if somebody were automatically given the latest version of the iPhone for free, they would refuse it? ...


I would.


----------



## tarheelblue32

BobCamp1 said:


> So if somebody were automatically given the latest version of the iPhone for free, they would refuse it?


I would take it and immediately sell it on ebay.


----------



## aaronwt

tarheelblue32 said:


> I would take it and immediately sell it on ebay.


 I assumed you wouldn't be able to sell it. Just like when getting a free repalcement phone on Verzion. How you sign an agreeemnet saying you can't resell it.


----------



## tarheelblue32

aaronwt said:


> I assumed you wouldn't be able to sell it. Just like when getting a free repalcement phone on Verzion. How you sign an agreeemnet saying you can't resell it.


If that's the case, then I wouldn't take it either.


----------



## trip1eX

BobCamp1 said:


> So if somebody were automatically given the latest version of the iPhone for free, they would refuse it?


No. They'd take it for free. It is worth $700.



BobCamp1 said:


> I think people like getting new equipment all the time. We are becoming a disposable society.


I don't think a lot of people like getting new gadgets because gadgets are a pain the ass for many. They don't like learning new remotes just for the sake of it. They don't see that big a difference in in the upgrade. They don't like when new stuff moves around all the old stuff to new locations. They don't like change especially when often times it is just for change's sake.



BobCamp1 said:


> I know you didn't say anything about Tivo vs. cable DVR. The multi-quotes disappeared when I posted.  My point is that so few people want to own their DVR, and third-party DVRs don't really have anything special to offer, so why go through all this work mandating an interface to something that 1% or fewer people are going to use?


You lost me on the interface thing. But I agree most don't want to own a dvr because the fee scares them away and it is so convenient to lease it.


----------



## Dan203

BobCamp1 said:


> All CableCards are two-way. However, they are only being used one-way


This is 100% false. CableCARDs are one way only. Their only purpose is to decrypt the cable stream and reencrypt it to a scheme using a shared key exchanged with the host device. That's it! They contain absolutely no hardware that would allow them to be two way. The whole point of CAbleCARDs was separated security, nothing more. It had nothing to do with communication at all. In fact when they started working on CableCARDs back in the late 90s most cable systems weren't even two way. VOD was barely a thing and cable modems still used phone modems for up stream communication. CableCARDs weren't actually released until 2005 because MSOs drug their feet and kept requesting extensions, but the basic technology was designed before two way cable was really even a thing.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> This is 100% false. CableCARDs are one way only. Their only purpose is to decrypt the cable stream and reencrypt it to a scheme using a shared key exchanged with the host device. That's it! They contain absolutely no hardware that would allow them to be two way. The whole point of CAbleCARDs was separated security, nothing more. It had nothing to do with communication at all. In fact when they started working on CableCARDs back in the late 90s most cable systems weren't even two way. VOD was barely a thing and cable modems still used phone modems for up stream communication. CableCARDs weren't actually released until 2005 because MSOs drug their feet and kept requesting extensions, but the basic technology was designed before two way cable was really even a thing.


My Moto cable card has some screens that have return IP address and other things that indicate that they could be set up for two way, the IP on my cable card is all zeros, but it sure looks like the cable card could go two way if the hardware it is connected to would have the circuits to let it.


----------



## JoeKustra

Dan203 said:


> This is 100% false. CableCARDs are one way only.





lessd said:


> My Moto cable card has some screens that have return IP address and other things that indicate that they could be set up for two way, the IP on my cable card is all zeros, but it sure looks like the cable card could go two way if the hardware it is connected to would have the circuits to let it.


I'm not going to say everything you read on the internet is true, but if you lookup cablecard in Wiki, the reading of the whole text does seem to support both sides. The cable card can be both ways, but the firmware was never developed to allow it to send data back. None of the participants in the development could agree on a standard, so the TA was born. I'd be happy if the internet is used to send data back to my headend. I don't have SDV and doubt my feed will every go that route. I still have dozens of unassigned channels even with a 16/4 channel internet.

My cable provider has VOD with its STB, and supports TVE, which is mostly a link to other streaming sources.


----------



## Dan203

The CableCARD itself has no hardware to send data back. That would require a DOCSIS modem or OOB transmitter. They attempted to create a CableCARD 2.0 spec as part of the M card spec that would allow bidirectional communication but the MSOs insisted on using OCAP, which essentially allowed them to download their UI to all boxes, so the CE companies gave up. MSOs ended up using OCAP in their own boxes with CableCARDs so that's where those other screens come from. Remnants of something 3rd party devices can't actually use.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> The CableCARD itself has no hardware to send data back. That would require a DOCSIS modem or OOB transmitter. They attempted to create a CableCARD 2.0 spec as part of the M card spec that would allow bidirectional communication but the MSOs insisted on using OCAP, which essentially allowed them to download their UI to all boxes, so the CE companies gave up. MSOs ended up using OCAP in their own boxes with CableCARDs so that's where those other screens come from. Remnants of something 3rd party devices can't actually use.


So cable cards could go two ways with the correct hardware as the MSO do in their own cable boxes, but that two way is not a standard so TiVo could not use such two way hardware.


----------



## JoeKustra

lessd said:


> So cable cards could go two ways with the correct hardware as the MSO do in their own cable boxes, but that two way is not a standard so TiVo could not use such two way hardware.


Sounds logical.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> So cable cards could go two ways with the correct hardware as the MSO do in their own cable boxes, but that two way is not a standard so TiVo could not use such two way hardware.


Pretty much. Except that not only would the hardware needed vary from system to system, but the FCC mandate specifically forbids them from including it.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> Pretty much. Except that not only would the hardware needed vary from system to system, but the FCC mandate specifically forbids them from including it.


Why would FCC care ? unless 3rd pty can't do anything with cable without a fixed standard that is FCC approved.


----------



## Dan203

I'm not sure. Perhaps the provision is in there to prevent 3rd party devices from interfering with cable systems?


----------



## Johncv

Dan203 said:


> I'm not sure. Perhaps the provision is in there to prevent 3rd party devices from interfering with cable systems?


Oh, Bull S**T, it there to prevent "computation" from TiVo or Apple. If FCC lets any other party devices on the system then no one would use crappy genie box or cable box.


----------



## Dan203

That could be as well. As I said they tried to come up with an open standard for CableCARD 2.0 and the MSOs essentially said they wanted full control over the box, via OCAP, or nothing. The talks fell apart and nothing ever happened because they were unwilling to compromise in any way. And based on what I saw in the videos for these talks they're still holding on to that stubborn stance. They want full control over the UI or nothing.


----------



## BobCamp1

Dan203 said:


> Pretty much. Except that not only would the hardware needed vary from system to system, but the FCC mandate specifically forbids them from including it.


CableCard 2.0, section 4.2.1 says:

4.2.1 Reporting Card and Host Identification Information

The Card extracts the Card_ID from its Device Certificate and the Host_ID from the authenticated Host Device Certificate for reporting purposes. Two means are employed to report these IDs. In order of preference:

Automated: If the Card has an active electronic means to report IDs to the headend, such as an active cable plant RDC and a Host RDC transmitter, or via a DOCSIS cable modem, the Card may use it to report the IDs to the headend.

Manual: If an automated means is not available, the Card will display the ID information on the subscribers TV screen with a reporting telephone number and a request for the subscriber to call the operator to manually report the ID information.​
I can't find the FCC mandate that forbids two-way -- I thought that was a licensing agreement/certification issue. If you're not certified as a two-way device, you can't attempt to communicate to the headend. Is that what you meant? All I know is that CableCards are two-way capable and that the host can be one-way or two-way.

Tivos are only certified as uni-directional hosts. To get certified as a two-way host, they would have to support & license OCAP. Which they didn't do. Here's the current list of OpenCable (two-way) and UDCP (one-way) devices, many of which aren't made anymore. But a few were two-way:

http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/OpenCable_PlugNPlay_UDCP_20150622.pdf


----------



## Dan203

Yes only devices with OCAP can communicate with the head end, which means the cable company essentially downloads a UI into your box and takes it over. The CE manufacturers protested this and none ever created a retail device that used it. All those devices listed are devices purchased and leased by MSOs.

Someone up thread quoted the mandate that prevented retail devices from having transmission hardware.


----------



## BobCamp1

Dan203 said:


> Yes only devices with OCAP can communicate with the head end, which means the cable company essentially downloads a UI into your box and takes it over. The CE manufacturers protested this and none ever created a retail device that used it. All those devices listed are devices purchased and leased by MSOs.
> 
> Someone up thread quoted the mandate that prevented retail devices from having transmission hardware.


Not exactly true. We're full circle. Retail devices can't have transmission hardware if they're just UDCP certified, but an MSO cable box is not a retail device. It's not UDCP certified. Therefore, according to all the rules that have been pointed out to me, it's still possible for a CableCard in an MSO device to be used in a two-way mode.

Put another way, I've NEVER seen the manual pairing/authorization screen on an MSO box. New MSO boxes I receive via UPS can pair and authorize themselves automatically. I just plug them in and wait a few minutes. I only have to call if something isn't working correctly. And even then I don't usually have to report the ID numbers -- they seem to be able to pull them down from the box and remotely perform diagnostics to check if the box and CableCard are working correctly.

MSO boxes will always have competitive advantages over retail boxes. It's not fair, but life isn't fair. Unless somebody like Apple develops a revolutionary retail box that has a ground-breaking feature in it (like the iPhone was to smartphones), I don't see how retail devices can compete.


----------



## Dan203

Well if you're going to get technical like that then I come back to the point that the CableCARD itself does not do any two way communication. It's the OCAP software and extra hardware in the MSO boxes that does the return communication. CableCARDs are only the security piece of the puzzle.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> Well if you're going to get technical like that then I come back to the point that the CableCARD itself does not do any two way communication. It's the OCAP software and extra hardware in the MSO boxes that does the return communication. CableCARDs are only the security piece of the puzzle.


Depends how you define two way, as I said before the cable card has screens for two way communication that do nothing in the TiVo, you can't get to the cable card screen on any MSO box, so the cable card may have two way if the correct hardware is in the MSO cable boxes. TiVo may be prevented from including two way hardware as some have said, therefore in the current TiVos all cable cards can only go one way.


----------



## TazExprez

Has there been any progress since August 28th? Do you think that we will have a successor to the CableCARD by the end of this year?


----------



## ajwees41

lessd said:


> Depends how you define two way, as I said before the cable card has screens for two way communication that do nothing in the TiVo, you can't get to the cable card screen on any MSO box, so the cable card may have two way if the correct hardware is in the MSO cable boxes. TiVo may be prevented from including two way hardware as some have said, therefore in the current TiVos all cable cards can only go one way.


I know the motorola cable cards have DSG screens and mention 2way


----------



## lessd

ajwees41 said:


> I know the motorola cable cards have DSG screens and mention 2way


The card can go two way, and it does when used in the MSO box, but when used in TiVo the extra hardware needed for two way is not inside the TiVo.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

TazExprez said:


> Has there been any progress since August 28th? Do you think that we will have a successor to the CableCARD by the end of this year?


They're seeking public comment until November 9. After that, the FCC can create a proposed set of rules anytime between November 10th and infinity, with mandatory compliance dates likely set fairly well into the future to allow for the transition to occur.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=15-64


----------



## HarperVision

*Peering into the future of DSTAC and the pay-TV set-top box*



> Pay-TV operators are being zinged by lawmakers, consumer groups and big technology companies about their proprietary set-tops. Operators, they say, are making a killing, leasing proprietary boxes that hold the only keys to their video systems.
> 
> "Decades ago we ended the practice of forcing customers to lease a black rotary dial phone from Ma Bell," said Chip Pickering, CEO of Comptel, a trade group representing Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) and others. "The archaic practice of forced leasing a set-top box from the cable company is a holdover from a bygone era."
> 
> Of course, as FierceCable's latest special report illustrates, the reality isn't so simple. Operators are spending much of their time deploying cloud-based systems that emphasize low-cost set-top devices. They're launching authenticated TV Everywhere services that leverage streaming devices from the same technology companies that are screaming for the set-top market to be opened up. Operators are also launching new services like Sling TV that use no set-top at all.
> 
> "We agree with Apple's [CEO] Tim Cook -- the future of TV is apps," said Neal Goldberg, general counsel for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA).
> 
> Almost a decade after CableCard, how did the industry arrive at this point? And what is the FCC's Downloadable Security Technical Advisory Committee (DSTAC) doing to push the issue forward? And how will the cable industry react?
> 
> For a deep-dive into this topic, check out this special report: DSTAC, CableCard, pay-TV apps and the future of the cable industry's $20B set-top business


----------



## Dan203

I'm sure the leasing fees account for some of their profits, but what they really care about is control. They want full control over the "user experience". They're all for apps because it pushes the cost of the hardware off to the user but allows them to retain full control of the UI where they can make money on ads and pushing their VOD/PPV services. I'm sure they would eventually like to eliminate hardware DVRs completely and shift everything to the cloud so that they can then force us to watch commercials and limit how long we can keep content in out list. 

I hope the FCC can see through this strategy.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> I'm sure the leasing fees account for some of their profits, but what they really care about is control. They want full control over the "user experience". They're all for apps because it pushes the cost of the hardware off to the user but allows them to retain full control of the UI where they can make money on ads and pushing their VOD/PPV services. I'm sure they would eventually like to eliminate hardware DVRs completely and shift everything to the cloud so that they can then force us to watch commercials and limit how long we can keep content in out list.
> 
> I hope the FCC can see through this strategy.


Yep, agree 100%! I don't think the FCC can "see through" their own plate glass windows in Washington though! 

Did you login and read the extended article it links, Dan? It talks about AllVid and some of the things you proposed, and of course the NCTA poo-poo'd it, saying it would require an additional box in the home, but I would think the gateway would replace the modem, which seems to at least be required for the foreseeable future, hence not *adding* a box, but *replacing* it, right?


----------



## lpwcomp

HarperVision said:


> Yep, agree 100%! I don't think the FCC can "see through" their own plate glass windows in Washington though!
> 
> Did you login and read the extended article it links, Dan? It talks about AllVid and some of the things you proposed, and of course the NCTA poo-poo'd it, saying it would require an additional box in the home, but I would think the gateway would replace the modem, which seems to at least be required for the foreseeable future, hence not *adding* a box, but *replacing* it, right?


You're assuming that _*everyone*_ who has cable TV also has cable internet.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> You're assuming that _*everyone*_ who has cable TV also has cable internet.


The box would need the hardware of a cable modem anyway for the bidirectional communication portion of the TV service. (i.e. VOD, SDV, etc...) So it would still work for those that didn't have internet, but it could also be used as a replacement for the modem for those that do have cable internet.

Like how the cable modem I got from Charter has the stuff needed for their phone service even though I don't actually have their phone service.


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> You're assuming that _*everyone*_ who has cable TV also has cable internet.


True, but I would think most do if they also have cable tv.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> The box would need the hardware of a cable modem anyway for the bidirectional communication portion of the TV service. (i.e. VOD, SDV, etc...) So it would still work for those that didn't have internet, but it could also be used as a replacement for the modem for those that do have cable internet.
> 
> Like how the cable modem I got from Charter has the stuff needed for their phone service even though I don't actually have their phone service.





HarperVision said:


> True, but I would think most do if they also have cable tv.


_*I*_ don't. And BTW, Comcast On Demand works fine. Back channel communication via the internet does not require _*cable*_ internet.


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> _*I*_ don't. .....


Well, *I* have a TiVo and *MOST* people don't. By the same logic, it still doesn't make the statement false that *MOST* people with cable tv also have and use their cable internet, just because *YOU* don't


----------



## lpwcomp

HarperVision said:


> Well, *I* have a TiVo and *MOST* people don't. By the same logic, it still doesn't make the statement false that *MOST* people with cable tv also have and use their cable internet, just because *YOU* don't


 to you too. My objection was to the assumption that the new box would simply be replacing an existing for _*everybody*_ and to Dan's assumption that cable internet was required for VOD and SDV.

While probably true that MOST people don't, you really have no idea what percentage of people are doing the same thing I am.

By your logic, since "*MOST* people don't" (have a TiVo), why should the FCC care what happens to the minority who do?


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> ......By your logic, since "*MOST* people don't" (have a TiVo), why should the FCC care what happens to the minority who do?


I'd say the FCC should care because that is the reason that *MOST* people don't have a TiVo!


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Back channel communication via the internet does not require _*cable*_ internet.


No but it uses the same technology (DOCSIS) in most areas. So they could use the DOCSIS modem in the gateway for both the internet and back channel communication.

The point is that having the technology in the gateway does not hurt non-internet users.

It would also act a a replacement for your Tuning Adapter, if you have one of those, so again another box it could replace.


----------



## Jed1

lpwcomp said:


> to you too. My objection was to the assumption that the new box would simply be replacing an existing for _*everybody*_ and to Dan's assumption that cable internet was required for VOD and SDV.
> 
> While probably true that MOST people don't, you really have no idea what percentage of people are doing the same thing I am.
> 
> By your logic, since "*MOST* people don't" (have a TiVo), why should the FCC care what happens to the minority who do?


If you live in Johns Creek Fulton County Georgia then you have Charter Communications which is owned by Cable Equities Colorado LLC. This is the most recent report for your system.
https://apps.fcc.gov/formsPrint?ref...3&FCC_Identifier=N/A&appType=AR&showMsg=False

Charter has 46613 subs out of a potential 175,000 homes and 44526 have cable internet. It looks like Charter is running at 25% of potential homes which is quite poor. This is why TiVo has one hell of a mountain to climb if they are going to get new members. My system is running at 53% of potential homes which is down from 88% ten years ago.

Here is Charter in Johns Creek in 2005:
https://apps.fcc.gov/formsPrint?ref...6&FCC_Identifier=N/A&appType=AR&showMsg=False
They had 76962 households ten years ago. So they lost 36000 homes in the last ten years.


----------



## HarperVision

Jed1 said:


> .............*Charter has 46613 subs* ........... *and 44526 have cable internet*..........


Sounds like *MOST* to me, right?


----------



## lessd

HarperVision said:


> Sounds like *MOST* to me, right?


Most people think the word *most* means 60% to 70% see http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/55920/is-most-equivalent-to-a-majority-of

But many think most is more than 50%, so let just say* most *means between 51% and 99% and end this.


----------



## HarperVision

lessd said:


> Most people think the word most means 60% to 70% see http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/55920/is-most-equivalent-to-a-majority-of But many think most is more than 50%, so let just say most means between 51% and 99% and end this.


If you do the numbers that's about 95%, lessd. I'd say that qualifies as "most" and meets your criteria above.


----------



## lpwcomp

Jed1 said:


> If you live in Johns Creek Fulton County Georgia then you have Charter Communications which is owned by Cable Equities Colorado LLC.


From where are you getting your info? While I do live in Johns Creek Fulton County Georgia and have for 7+ years, I have and have always had Comcast in this location.


----------



## Jed1

lpwcomp said:


> From where are you getting your info? While I do live in Johns Creek Fulton County Georgia and have for 7+ years, I have and have always had Comcast in this location.


This information comes directly from the FCC. The cable operator database is difficult to search as it is set up to search the operator ID number and then that is broken into community ID numbers. Since I do not know the specific System ID number and the Community ID numbers then I have to do a basic search which yields some very poor results.

I originally did a state, county, and community search but that only yields the first name on the list. I had to just do a state, county search but then I have to sift through all the cable systems in that county to find the one specific to you.
If I try to search for Comcast I get an error because there is more than one company name Comcast uses because they used different names as they were buying up smaller systems.
This is the different names in your cluster for Comcast:
Comcast of Georgia
Comcast of Greater Florida/Georgia INC
Comcast of Georgia/Massachusetts INC
Comcast of Georgia/Michigan LP

This is the report that Comcast issued for your system:
https://apps.fcc.gov/formsPrint?ref...7&FCC_Identifier=N/A&appType=AR&showMsg=False

If you take note you are on a 750Mhz system so you are a little bandwidth constrained. A lot of their smaller suburban to rural systems are small.
Now Dan's Cox system in Las Vegas is a 1Ghz system.
https://apps.fcc.gov/formsPrint?ref...0&FCC_Identifier=N/A&appType=AR&showMsg=False
It also appears that Cox only controls around the Las Vegas area. The rest of the state is controlled by smaller independent systems. Most do not have to support CableCards as they are to small.


----------



## Dan203

Jed1 said:


> Now Dan's Cox system in Las Vegas is a 1Ghz system.
> https://apps.fcc.gov/formsPrint?ref...0&FCC_Identifier=N/A&appType=AR&showMsg=False
> It also appears that Cox only controls around the Las Vegas area. The rest of the state is controlled by smaller independent systems. Most do not have to support CableCards as they are to small.


I'm actually in Carson City, NV and we have Charter. According to what I could find we actually have a 860MHz system here, but the last report is from 2012.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> I'm actually in Carson City, NV and we have Charter. According to what I could find we actually have a 860MHz system here, but the last report is from 2012.


If you really want to know for sure, you can actually check this yourself if you have a TV with a clearQAM tuner. Just run a channel scan and see what the highest number channel it detects is, and then go take a look at the channel frequency chart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_television_frequencies#Channel_frequencies_2

So if the highest channel your TV detects is 135, then you have an 860MHz system.


----------



## Jed1

Dan203 said:


> I'm actually in Carson City, NV and we have Charter. According to what I could find we actually have a 860MHz system here, but the last report is from 2012.


I just realized I have you confused with another forum member who doesn't post here anymore, nooneknows I think he was in Las Vegas.
I see that they call it Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P. It has Charters address in Missouri.
https://apps.fcc.gov/formsPrint?ref...0&FCC_Identifier=N/A&appType=AR&showMsg=False

It started out as TCI CABLEVISION OF NEVADA INC in 1957.


----------



## Dan203

It was TCI when I first moved here, then they sold to AT&T, which then sold to Charter after just 2-3 years.


----------



## lpwcomp

Jed1 said:


> This is the report that Comcast issued for your system:
> https://apps.fcc.gov/formsPrint?ref...7&FCC_Identifier=N/A&appType=AR&showMsg=False


That report is from 2011 and things have changed since then. No more analog for instance.

There was one very odd number on there - number of leased STBs. It indicates the average subscriber has 3. Seems high to me, particularly if it doesn't include CableCARDs.


----------



## Jed1

lpwcomp said:


> That report is from 2011 and things have changed since then. No more analog for instance.
> 
> There was one very odd number on there - number of leased STBs. It indicates the average subscriber has 3. Seems high to me, particularly if it doesn't include CableCARDs.


These reports are filed directly from the cable operators to the FCC. These reports were filed in the spring of 2012 and is the last ones that have been submitted. These reports are supposed to be submitted every year so it appears the FCC is falling way behind on filing the reports. Most likely budget cuts and sequestration has eliminated the needed personnel to do this. My cable system is still submitting the reports so it is on the FCCs side that they are filed on time.


----------



## HarperVision

Oh dear Lord, the NCTA is at it again! 

NCTA: There is no need for FCC's DSTAC to produce a CableCard successor for set-tops



> The NCTA has urged the FCC to reject calls for a new technology standard aimed at opening the pay-TV set-top market to devices sold at retail.
> 
> Commenting on a report issued from the FCC's Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC), the cable lobbying group said the report "underscores that there is no need for FCC technology mandates in a marketplace where consumers can access MVPD and OVD content on a wide array of retail devices."
> 
> In August, DSTAC issued a report suggesting a range of new technologies intended to replace the CableCard, which has been the security standard for enabling retail-sold devices, such as DVRs made by TiVo, to be used in the pay-TV echo-system.
> 
> Last year's passage of the Satellite Television Extension Act Reauthorization (STELAR) sunsetted the requirement that cable operators include CableCard support in their own boxes. It also mandated that the FCC form a committee, DSTAC, to come up with a successor to CableCard.
> 
> DSTAC's report includes several proposals, including supporting the AllVid standard, which the NCTA and cable industry oppose. Under DSTAC's AllVid proposal, a "translation device" would be placed somewhere within the network -- either in the customer's home or at the cable operator's head end. This device, which would be federally mandated, would enable retail-sold set-tops to authenticate and work with proprietary cable networks.
> 
> The DSTAC committee also recommended an apps-based solution to the set-top situation -- but the NCTA said the cable industry is already supporting that approach in the form of TV Everywhere. The NCTA said an "apps revolution" is already occurring, with pay-TV content available on "millions of smartphones, tablets, smart TVs, streaming devices, game consoles and PCs." Apps from pay-TV providers have been downloaded more than 56 million times, the NCTA said, to more than 460 million video devices in the U.S., more than twice the number of set-top boxes currently in use.
> 
> In short, the NCTA said the market is already deploying an apps-based solution, so the DSTAC's recommendations are outdated and moot. The proposal "puts the government -- not TV innovators -- in charge of how video is delivered to consumers," NCTA said.
> 
> *Matt Zinn, corporate counsel for TiVo, disagreed with the NCTA's conclusions. In comments to FierceCable, Zinn said the cable industry's embrace of TV Everywhere multiscreen apps isn't good enough to satisfy consumer choice, and that government intervention is still required. He also voiced support for the AllVid standard and accused the NCTA of framing the technology as a "boogeyman."*
> 
> TiVo is one of the main suppliers of retail set-top boxes and also was a supporter of CableCard.
> 
> For more:
> - read this NCTA announcement


----------



## Dan203

Man there have been a LOT of comments posted to the FCC site in the last few days. Looks like the split is clear. The MSOs and content owners want the "apps" approach while the 3rd party CE companies want the "virtual head end". 

I still really think they need to develop a hybrid of the two approaches. Use the "virtual head end" for all linear channels while using the "apps" approach for all extended features. However the "apps" need to be in some sort of open, accessible, format like HTML5 and not deployed only to devices that the MSOs deem worthy. 

As cool as it would be for something like TiVo to have direct access to extended features like VOD I think that's impractical and would ultimately be technologically limiting to the MSOs. That's why I think a hybrid approach is best. Linear TV is essentially the same across all technologies with the only differences being how the channels are tuned and protected. Bridging that to a common standard using some sort of gateway device, local or in the cloud, wouldn't be that hard for them to accomplish. And most MVPs already have apps or websites that could be converted to an RUI to allow devices to access the rest of their technology.


----------



## slowbiscuit

The crassness of the NCTA's approach is typical - our apps or nothing, notwithstanding the fact that it's ALL IP DELIVERY ANYWAY. All they have to do is allow third-party access to the streams on their own freaking network.

Sat is obviously a matter for AllVid so they have a somewhat legit beef but cable has none IMO.


----------



## Dan203

Why does sat have a legit beef with AllVid? AllVid is essentially a gateway device that translates the technology of the provider into a common IP standard. It's no more difficult for sat then cable, or any other provider. It essentially a multi tuner STB with a standard IP output. Basically what DirecTV is already doing with their RVU technology.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Because they have to provide gateways and cable does not, assuming cable simply streams IP across their networks to third party devices (thereby satisfying the replacement mandate). What Tivo and Comcast were working on, in other words, which requires no hardware.

It's not a level playing field unless the FCC enforces AllVid across the board which I highly doubt they will do.


----------



## Dan203

slowbiscuit said:


> Because they have to provide gateways and cable does not, assuming cable simply streams IP across their networks to third party devices (thereby satisfying the replacement mandate). What Tivo and Comcast were working on, in other words, which requires no hardware.
> 
> It's not a level playing field unless the FCC enforces AllVid across the board which I highly doubt they will do.


Cable companies aren't ready for an IP switchover, so they'd need gateways too.


----------



## slice1900

Dan203 said:


> I still really think they need to develop a hybrid of the two approaches. Use the "virtual head end" for all linear channels while using the "apps" approach for all extended features. However the "apps" need to be in some sort of open, accessible, format like HTML5 and not deployed only to devices that the MSOs deem worthy.


I agree, this makes perfect sense. Which is why we probably won't see it.


----------



## slice1900

Cable companies will always need a "gateway", even if all-IP - the cable modem is the gateway for IP services. The incremental cost of adding AllVid features to a cable modem are pretty small and will shrink to irrelevance by the time cable companies are ready to abandon QAM and go to an all IP solution for video. Even a customer who doesn't use their cable company for internet will need a cable modem (gateway) then.

Satellite companies shouldn't complain about needing a gateway either, they already have them in the form of the Genie and the Hopper. RVU and CVP-2 have an identical software stack, and were both developed by JetHead. I wouldn't be at all surprised if RVU is CVP-2 (or a pre-standard version) with RUI.

Directv dipped their feet into customer controlled hardware with RVU TVs, but they're slower than client boxes and smart TVs are forgotten about as far as updates by the OEM after a year or two so they're a terrible idea in the long run. A standard set in stone like AllVid would keep working even after years with no updates, a manufacturer controlled standard like RVU or some cable company 'app' leaves you orphaned when the OEM loses interest in updating the TV (because they want you to buy a new TV)


----------



## Dan203

slice1900 said:


> I agree, this makes perfect sense. Which is why we probably won't see it.


Hopefully the FCC will see that this is the obvious choice. It's technically possible right now, via CVP-2, and the hardware burden on the MSOs is really minimal. The gateway is essentially a headless, and driveless, DVR. The design involved should be minimal.


----------



## slowbiscuit

slice1900 said:


> Cable companies will always need a "gateway", even if all-IP - the cable modem is the gateway for IP services. The incremental cost of adding AllVid features to a cable modem are pretty small and will shrink to irrelevance by the time cable companies are ready to abandon QAM and go to an all IP solution for video. Even a customer who doesn't use their cable company for internet will need a cable modem (gateway) then.
> 
> Satellite companies shouldn't complain about needing a gateway either, they already have them in the form of the Genie and the Hopper. RVU and CVP-2 have an identical software stack, and were both developed by JetHead. I wouldn't be at all surprised if RVU is CVP-2 (or a pre-standard version) with RUI.


- A cable modem is not a 'gateway' for this purpose and they will never add code to provide TV streams to/from it via QAM. The cable modem is a single purpose device to allow HSI access, nothing more (optionally with built-in wireless but there are plenty of modems that don't have this). Not to mention that all of the modem tuners are tied up doing HSI access.
- It's silly to say that sat could use their DVRs to provide IP streams to third-party devices, because why would you want to pay for their DVR if you have a Tivo? They will have to deploy a new device.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Dan203 said:


> Cable companies aren't ready for an IP switchover, so they'd need gateways too.


There are no big roadblocks for companies that are already doing SDV to add multicast IP (see: U-Verse). And Comcast, a non-SDV provider, is working with Tivo to provide access. The only issues are access and stream standards which are addressed by this committee.

It would be a very dumb decision for the big cableCos to deploy a limited number of gateways post-Cablecard.


----------



## Dan203

slowbiscuit said:


> There are no big roadblocks for companies that are already doing SDV to add multicast IP (see: U-Verse). And Comcast, a non-SDV provider, is working with Tivo to provide access. The only issues are access and stream standards which are addressed by this committee.
> 
> It would be a very dumb decision for the big cableCos to deploy a limited number of gateways post-Cablecard.


We're not going to see a full scale shift to IP delivery until they switch to DOCSIS 3.1. Going IP using existing DOCSIS 3.0 provides no advantage over standard QAM.


----------



## lpwcomp

slowbiscuit said:


> There are no big roadblocks for companies that are already doing SDV to add multicast IP (see: U-Verse). And Comcast, a non-SDV provider, is working with Tivo to provide access. The only issues are access and stream standards which are addressed by this committee.
> 
> It would be a very dumb decision for the big cableCos to deploy a limited number of gateways post-Cablecard.


What the heck does SDV have to do with IP? SDV is still delivered via QAM.


----------



## Dan203

Also Uverse isn't doing multicast. It essentially uses an internet connection to deliver IP streams on demmand. And it uses a gateway device to accomplish that. The STBs don't talk directly to the head end. They talk to a gateway device installed in your home which then talks to the head end. 

Cable could use a similar system, but since they are using more shared bandwith at the node level it makes more sense for them to do multicast.


----------



## tarheelblue32

lpwcomp said:


> What the heck does SDV have to do with IP? SDV is still delivered via QAM.


Being delivered over QAM doesn't mean it can't also be IP. DOCSIS is delivered over QAM.


----------



## Dan203

tarheelblue32 said:


> Being delivered over QAM doesn't mean it can't also be IP. DOCSIS is delivered over QAM.


SDV is not using DOCSIS though. It basically uses the VOD system. However instead of a prerecorded show being streamed over one of the dedicated QAMs it streams a live channel. And if someone else in your neighborhood happens to be watching the same channel it just sends you the frequency of the already assigned QAM rather then dedicating another one just to you.

If they converted the entire system to DOCSIS 3.0 and transmitted in IP there would be zero gain. They'd have exactly the same bandwidth as they do now using traditional QAM transmission. The only way converting to IP makes sense is if they upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1. DOCSIS 3.1 uses different modulation which allows a typical 800Mhz system to gain about 3Gbps in bandwidth. (from ~5Gbps to ~8Gbps)


----------



## HarperVision

*Comcast says additional AllVid gear would add $1.6B a year in consumer energy costs*



> Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) said that the actual deployment of the FCC's "AllVid" proposal would cost consumers $1.6 billion each year in additional energy expenses.
> 
> Intended to enable set-tops sold at retail to be used in the pay-TV ecosystem, the AllVid plan would require cable operators to deploy additional hardware in their networks, or in customer homes, to "decode" cable signals for authenticated third-party devices.
> 
> "Under AllVid, consumers would have to rely on additional servers and on-premises devices to receive their MVPD service on retail devices," Comcast said in comments to the FCC. "Rather than simplify home networks as the apps-based approach does, AllVid could actually complicate such networks and require more equipment for customers, increasing energy consumption."
> 
> Comcast's comments -- which followed a similar missive by the National Cable Telecommunications Association last week -- relate to technology proposals rendered last month by the FCC's Downloadable Security Advisory Committee (DSTAC).
> 
> Late last year, Congress mandated that the FCC form this committee to explore the replacement of CableCard, a dated, 1990s-era technology standard for including set-tops sold at retail in the pay-TV ecosystem.
> 
> Tech companies including Google and Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), as well as several lawmakers, are pushing DSTAC to come up with a solution that more seamlessly allows retail devices to work in the pay-TV environment. In September, DSTAC proposed two different technologies, including AllVid, to achieve this goal.
> 
> While cable companies and their associated lobbying groups have taken aim at AllVid -- as well as DSTAC's broader objectives -- technology companies like Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) are hoping this committee can come up with a scheme that can achieve the primary goal that was never achieved by CableCard.
> 
> *"To date, no retail device has been able to provide an integrated viewing experience across MVPDs' service offerings (i.e., linear content, video on demand, pay per view, etc.) that is comparable to what MVPDs provide with their leased navigation devices,"* _ [Doesn't TiVo pretty much do this already, at least in Comcast and Charter Markets, and could elsewhere too if only the MSOs would agree to work with TiVo?] _ Google said in comments to the FCC. "Nearly all MVPD subscribers therefore pay monthly fees to lease technologically stunted set-top boxes."
> 
> For their part, the cable industry has voiced support for DSTAC's other proposal, an "app-based" approach centered on HTML5 technology. Cable operators and their various lobbying orgs say it's essentially what they're doing now with TV Everywhere, with operators enabling a range of third-party devices through deployment of apps.
> 
> "This approach allows MVPDs to develop technologies that support the use of retail devices in a manner that reflects both their own technical capabilities and consumer demand," said the American Cable Association in its comments.
> 
> "MVPDs like Comcast, as well as OVDs, rely on apps to support the delivery of their services to connected devices and to provide the flexible viewing options that consumers demand," Comcast said. "This apps revolution is already well underway today -- with even more to come in the future -- and is being driven by market forces, in the absence of any government mandates."
> 
> Added Arris: "As detailed in the DSTAC Report, the apps-based approach is built on a track record of marketplace success in enabling consumer access to a widening array of connected devices. In contrast, an AllVid-type approach would be unduly burdensome on MVPDs and their customers and should be avoided."
> 
> *On the opposing side are technology companies like TiVo, Amazon and Google, which say apps provided by cable companies aren't delivering a rich enough experience to customers.
> 
> "Using 'apps' to watch content on tablets, smartphones and other devices does not give consumers options for viewing video content using competitive user interfaces that present MVPD content in more innovative, interesting, and user-friendly ways than the cable operator dictates in its app," TiVo said.
> 
> "The user experience is what differentiates consumer electronics products and is the reason that a consumer would purchase a retail device that provides a better experience than the consumer can get with an operator-supplied box," the TiVo comments added. "Retail competition involves more than simply viewing video programming on different screens; it involves innovative user interfaces, search functions, and so on that give consumers greater choice and an enhanced user experience -- a true alternative to what is provided by the operator."*
> 
> TiVo is among a group of technology companies favoring DSTAC's AllVid-based proposal. Google is also a staunch supporter of the AllVid solution, noting that its own pay-TV service lets users toggle between video interfaces in a similar way. "Google Fiber devices and interfaces allow subscribers easily to switch between Google Fiber's linear programming channels and online video options like VUDU, YouTube, and a Netflix account. The Commission should commence a rulemaking to ensure that all consumers enjoy these sorts of options," Google said in comments.
> 
> It's unclear where the issue will go from here. As NCTA officials have pointed out, Congress mandated that the FCC form DSTAC but it did not give the committee the ability to issue rules or regulations.
> 
> For more:
> - read TiVo's FCC comments
> - read Google's FCC comments
> - read Amazon's FCC comments
> - read Comptel's FCC comments
> - read the ACA's FCC comments
> - read Comcast's FCC comments


----------



## Dan203

That's total crap. Right now they require a STB at every TV to decode and authenticate their service. With an AllVid like solution they could have a single box with 6 tuners which could feed up to 6 TVs all of which had a built in app. I can't imagine that a single 6 tuner gateway would require more energy then 6 individual STBs, one at each TV.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> That's total crap. Right now they require a STB at every TV to decode and authenticate their service. With an AllVid like solution they could have a single box with 6 tuners which could feed up to 6 TVs all of which had a built in app. I can't imagine that a single 6 tuner gateway would require more energy then 6 individual STBs, one at each TV.


Even if they could get rid of those STBs in the house like they're claiming, it goes back to them still needing _SOMETHING_ in house like your modem to convert QAM/DOCSIS to ethernet, and this could be the AllVid Gateway device, right?

Read TiVo's FCC letter dated 8 OCT 2015. You go TiVo!!!


----------



## Dan203

I've read all of the comments. They basically split along a hard line with the MSOs and content providers on the side of the "apps" approach and the CE manufacturers and consumer groups wanting the "virtual head end" approach. The only real exception was the DLNA which didn't really take a side but basically said "we've got all the technology you need to support either approach", basically pushing their tech as the solution regardless of the final regulation.


----------



## i.hardon

Dan203 said:


> Why does sat have a legit beef with AllVid? AllVid is essentially a gateway device that translates the technology of the provider into a common IP standard. It's no more difficult for sat then cable, or any other provider. It essentially a multi tuner STB with a standard IP output. Basically what DirecTV is already doing with their RVU technology.


If anything, satellite should be easier - as a lot of it can be borrowed from the DVB world as it's not the totally proprietary mess that is US digital cable.

e.g. IP LNBs that output the TV channels as IP streams straight from the dish, no RF cabling needed. Many LNB manufacturers already have products like this out on the market. Instead of F connectors, there's an ethernet connector, with Power over Ethernet support. It shows up on your network like any other device, and a tablet or PC or TV or set top box with the appropriate software can view the channels. It's already using an open standard, "SAT>IP" which seems to be overseen by a group of CE manufacturers, chip companies and satellite operators. Products also exist to take in feeds from a standard LNB and spit out the same IP streams

Plus Dish and DirecTV's conditional access companies (Nagra and Cisco) already have experience making their systems work on third party hardware without any sort of prior approval process, as it's required in many European countries for terrestrial, cable and satellite broadcasts. I don't think they're doing any downloadable stuff at the moment though - but with DVB's version of the cablecard.


----------



## Dan203

Yeah these guys are making it sound like it's the end of the world because they want the FCC to get confused and just say "your apps are fine". When in fact apps would be a huge step back from CableCARD. We need something at least as functional as CableCARD, hopefully with an easier setup and some way to access extended service like VOD so 3rd party devices aren't at a competitive disadvantage.


----------



## Jed1

Dan203 said:


> That's total crap. Right now they require a STB at every TV to decode and authenticate their service. With an AllVid like solution they could have a single box with 6 tuners which could feed up to 6 TVs all of which had a built in app. I can't imagine that a single 6 tuner gateway would require more energy then 6 individual STBs, one at each TV.


Outside of having an app to access the Gateway DVR, Arris already offers the solution that you talk about. My cable system is using this setup.
Whole Home Gateway:
http://www.arrisi.com/products/media-gateway-5-series/
Whole Home Media Player:
http://www.arrisi.com/products/media-player-mp2150/
Media Streamer:
http://www.arrisi.com/products/media-streamer-ms4000/

These Arris units have been on the market since 2012 which is before TiVo even had the mini and the stream. So TiVo is still behind the curve and finally catching up.

I suspect that the Bolt Pro will be a MSO triple play box with built in wireless router that most likely will be back ported to retail with some of the features disabled. It will be a headless unit which means it will have no video outputs so you will need a mini at each TV.
Arris has already released 4k boxes for MSOs last year and one is round in shape.

You also have to keep in mind if the current Bolt does not do well that this will spell the end of the line for the consumer unit. Since TiVo is the biggest user of CableCard that will drive the final nail into the CableCard coffin.
Also there will be no need to have any replacements for CableCard as there will be no more CE companies left making retail cable devices.
Right now the MSOs just have to bide their time until TiVo makes the announcement. That may come as early as next summer.


----------



## Dan203

The solution I'm talking about would be even simpler then that. The gateway would be headless, so it wouldn't need video output or DVR capabilities. And each TV would be able to use a small device like a Fire TV stick as it's "Mini". (or even an app built in to the TV itself) And if you added a DVR it would be a separate device that wouldn't need any internal tuners, as it would be using the tuners in the gateway device instead, so it could be smaller and more power efficient then even the Bolt. All of these things should actually lower the cost of the hardware, or at least spread it out, and lower the power consumption. 

As for TiVo going out of business and there no longer being a need for a replacement.... I don't think that will be the case. Even if TiVo goes under I think other CE manufacturers will step in to fill the void. Right now there isn't more competition because CableCARDs are a PITA and most people don't want to deal with them. But if there was a simple, open, standard that CE manufacturers could design against I think more of them would jump into the field. And if TiVo goes under before this comes to fruition I think those CE companies will still push the FCC for the replacement.


----------



## wco81

With companies like Comcast pushing its own DVR "platform" what are the prospects of them continuing to support CableCard or a successor after the FCC deadline?

Some of these cable DVRs cost almost $20 a month. Even if they don't collect that from most subscribers, they can push subscribers to triple play bundles which include their own DVRs for "free" as part of those bundles.


----------



## Jed1

Dan203 said:


> The solution I'm talking about would be even simpler then that. The gateway would be headless, so it wouldn't need video output or DVR capabilities. And each TV would be able to use a small device like a Fire TV stick as it's "Mini". (or even an app built in to the TV itself) And if you added a DVR it would be a separate device that wouldn't need any internal tuners, as it would be using the tuners in the gateway device instead, so it could be smaller and more power efficient then even the Bolt. All of these things should actually lower the cost of the hardware, or at least spread it out, and lower the power consumption.
> 
> As for TiVo going out of business and there no longer being a need for a replacement.... I don't think that will be the case. Even if TiVo goes under I think other CE manufacturers will step in to fill the void. Right now there isn't more competition because CableCARDs are a PITA and most people don't want to deal with them. But if there was a simple, open, standard that CE manufacturers could design against I think more of them would jump into the field. And if TiVo goes under before this comes to fruition I think those CE companies will still push the FCC for the replacement.


It is the management/sales side of the cable industry that keeps pushing for the STB. The engineering/technical side has been pushing for a CableCard solution as this would get the industry out of the STB business.
It is the STB business where most of the cable systems lose money as the customer is extremely hard on the equipment. Most STBs are not in the system long enough to get back the money they pay for them.
Management keeps coming up with more ways in order to generate more money streams coming in. In order to do this you need some type of Trojan horse in the customer home to entice them to use these services. Of course this is the STB.
The sad thing is those that make all these decisions have no knowledge or experience on how these cable systems work. The bandwidth is just a mechanism to keep generating more revenue instead of just making it a dumb pipe and let the market determine what data and programming the customer wants.
The CableCard was a simple device to let the customer access a secured system and at minimum cost to the operator. We would live in a utopian world if most decisions would be left up to engineering/technical.


----------



## Dan203

wco81 said:


> With companies like Comcast pushing its own DVR "platform" what are the prospects of them continuing to support CableCard or a successor after the FCC deadline?


There is no deadline. They have to keep supporting CableCARDs forever unless it's replaced. The deadline you're likely referring to is the one that ends the integration ban, which means cable companies will no longer have to use CableCARDs in their own equipment. They'll still have to provide CableCARDs for 3rd party equipment.


----------



## Dan203

Jed1 said:


> It is the management/sales side of the cable industry that keeps pushing for the STB. The engineering/technical side has been pushing for a CableCard solution as this would get the industry out of the STB business.
> It is the STB business where most of the cable systems lose money as the customer is extremely hard on the equipment. Most STBs are not in the system long enough to get back the money they pay for them.
> Management keeps coming up with more ways in order to generate more money streams coming in. In order to do this you need some type of Trojan horse in the customer home to entice them to use these services. Of course this is the STB.
> The sad thing is those that make all these decisions have no knowledge or experience on how these cable systems work. The bandwidth is just a mechanism to keep generating more revenue instead of just making it a dumb pipe and let the market determine what data and programming the customer wants.
> The CableCard was a simple device to let the customer access a secured system and at minimum cost to the operator. We would live in a utopian world if most decisions would be left up to engineering/technical.


Even if it worked perfectly it still had some limitations that would prevent it from being utopian.

First off it was one way, which precluded it from accessing any 2 way features like VOD or SDV. That's how we ended up with kludge solutions like tuning adapters and VOD running as device specific apps.

Secondly it was specific to cable. So even if it worked perfectly the user was tied to cable, which usually has a monopoly in most areas.

The gateway solution would make the whole system technology agnostic. So you could use the same TiVo or TV app with DirecTV, UVerse or cable. Since the gateway is translating all incoming channels to a standard IP format the 3rd party devices no longer need any hardware which would be service specific. The gateway solution also eliminates the need for any sort of standard for security. The gateway itself contains all the hardware needed for decryption and authorization, so the provider could use whatever security scheme they wanted as long as the gateway could translate the signal into the standard IP stream.

Think of the gateway like a HDHomeRun. It has all the tuners and security hardware in that box. That box does the tuning and translates the stream into a standard, secure, IP format that it then sends over to the DVR hardware. But instead of buying the HDHomeRun from Silicone Dust you'd rent it from your provider and the IP format it put out would be an open standard that any device could access.


----------



## lpwcomp

How would this gateway device be controlled? Plus, you're going to be limited to the number of simultaneous streams that the gateway can handle, aren't you?


----------



## Dan203

The gateway would be controlled via an open protocol like DLNA CVP-2. 

Yes the gateway wold be limited by the number of physical tuners it contains. However the DLNA spec has a discovery protocol as well, so you could have multiple gateways on your network and the device requesting a tuner could move to another one if all the tuners on that one are in use.

That solution will provide a bit of a hurdle for people like me that have a LOT of tuners. (19 here) But most people don't really need that many. I think if they required each gateway to have 6 tuners and capped the rental fee to a reasonable amount then it shouldn't be too bad. The 3rd party devices will be cheaper since they wont have tuners or security hardware, so that should help offset the cost a bit as well.

Also with something like TiVo you could have it permanently hold on to X tuners from the gateway so that you never have to worry about scheduled recordings failing due to no tuners being available. (a danger with this type of shared tuner system)


----------



## lpwcomp

I currently have 12 HD tuners available and there are times when I need most of them.

LAN bandwidth is also an issue.


----------



## innocentfreak

You could probably easily build a gateway today with existing tech using tuner cards like the Ceton InfiniTV6, CableCARDs to decode the streams, and system on a chip to handle the software needed to be able to grab a tuner like Media Center or TiVo does. 

Then if you needed more than 6 tuners, you would add additional InfiniTV6s and CableCARDs. 

The only tricky part is coming up with universal software where any device can see the tuner and grab it. 

My biggest fear is apps, but of course if cable companies truly wanted to demonstrate the app model we would already see it. Instead some companies still block HBO on Roku, tons of missing apps on TiVos, and other streaming devices. 

Of course it could just be as bad the other way where they nickel and dime you on the gateway, then on each additional stream. Cable needs to just be a dumb pipe where I can hook whatever I want up to it without any interaction from the cable company just like internet.


----------



## dmurphy

Dan203 said:


> Right now there isn't more competition because CableCARDs are a PITA and most people don't want to deal with them.


To be honest, I couldn't find the CableCARD setup to be easier with FiOS. It just worked. Input the numbers to Verizon's website and like magic, it paired and activated successfully.

In fact, the in-store rep when I picked up my CableCARDs said he's giving out a TON of them lately and having trouble keeping them in stock... in fact, he said he gives out at least 15-20 of them for every 1 he gets back.

That's a good, positive sign.

When I dropped off my FiOS boxes today, that rep said he's been hearing about TiVo quite a bit now.

All anecdotal, but there's buzz and chatter... that can't be anything but good.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> LAN bandwidth is also an issue.


The max bitrate of an MPEG-2 HD channel is about 15Mbps. DSS, Uverse, and some cable systems are H.264 and use about 1/2 that. (or less) A MoCa 2.0 network can carry 400Mbps. (800Mbps bounded) So even worse case scenario, with full bitrate MPEG-2 channels and a single frequency MoCa network, you've got enough bandwidth on your coax to support over 30 tuners. With H.264, which will likely be widespread by the time this gets approved, you could have up to 70. Even with 4K we're only talking like 30-35Mbps so you could still have 12 UHD tuners and not hit the limit. Bandwidth is not an issue.


----------



## Dan203

dmurphy said:


> To be honest, I couldn't find the CableCARD setup to be easier with FiOS. It just worked. Input the numbers to Verizon's website and like magic, it paired and activated successfully.
> 
> In fact, the in-store rep when I picked up my CableCARDs said he's giving out a TON of them lately and having trouble keeping them in stock... in fact, he said he gives out at least 15-20 of them for every 1 he gets back.
> 
> That's a good, positive sign.
> 
> When I dropped off my FiOS boxes today, that rep said he's been hearing about TiVo quite a bit now.
> 
> All anecdotal, but there's buzz and chatter... that can't be anything but good.


Unfortunately that's the exception. Last time I setup a CableCARD it took 4 calls and a truck roll to get it working. Charter doesn't have a magic website. You have to call and hope you don't get some incompetent tech that doesn't know what they're doing. If you do then you're screwed because they basically have a policy where they will only send the pairing signal once and if it doesn't work they require a truck roll. Even though 99% of the time the tech shows up, calls his special tech number, has them resend the hit and it works the second time. 

From what I understand most cable companies have similar, or worse, experiences.


----------



## slowbiscuit

lpwcomp said:


> I currently have 12 HD tuners available and there are times when I need most of them.
> 
> LAN bandwidth is also an issue.


With GigE? Um, no. Even MoCA has more than enough.

I don't understand how the FCC is going to get past this obvious roadblock between the two sides - based on the inaction with AllVid I predict that nothing will happen and we will keep muddling along with cards for another five years.


----------



## Dan203

You're probably right, and that's exactly what the MSOs want. They can continue to develop their "apps" and then 5 years from now they can use them as evidence that they support 3rd party hardware.


----------



## zerdian1

Comcast says they do not have a CableCard in their DVR.
but they probably have the equivalent builtin.
they have not updated or changed their cable cards since they updated for the 6 tuners over a decade ago.

Right now the current 6 tuner cable card option costs Comcast Nothing to them, except that they periodically have to replace defective ones and they reprogram them after every use.

I did come across a number of 2 tuner cable cards this past winter when I went through dozens of cable cards. Comcast said the old two channel cable cards were being taken out of service. My problem at the time was discovered after 5 weeks of troubleshooting and a lot of wasted tech home visits was that the Outlet 2 SW in Denver had not been programmed correctly for 6 tuners. You only get to use Outlet 2 if you have at least two 6 tuner CableCards.



wco81 said:


> With companies like Comcast pushing its own DVR "platform" what are the prospects of them continuing to support CableCard or a successor after the FCC deadline?
> 
> Some of these cable DVRs cost almost $20 a month. Even if they don't collect that from most subscribers, they can push subscribers to triple play bundles which include their own DVRs for "free" as part of those bundles.


----------



## Dan203

zerdian1 said:


> Comcast says they do not have a CableCard in their DVR.


Whoever said that is wrong. All MSO supplied boxes have been required to use CableCARDs since 2007. There have been a few waivers granted for devices called DTAs, which are small boxes which can only receive basic digital cable and contain no two way hardware. Everything else produced after 2007 has a CableCARD in it somewhere. Although it can be internal with no external access to it and they are allowed to preactivate them so you don't have to go through the whole pairing thing like you do with a TiVo. So in practice they work very differently then retail CableCARDs which is why the "integration ban" was considered to be a failure and repealed with STELAR.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> How would this gateway device be controlled? Plus, you're going to be limited to the number of simultaneous streams that the gateway can handle, aren't you?


One other advantage to having the tuners separate from the DVR is that the DVR could, theoretically, record as many simultaneous channels as you had available tuners. So if there was a gateway device with 12 tuners (or you had 2 with 6ea) a single TiVo could then access all 12 of those tuners and record 12 different things to the same box. No more need for multiple TiVos for more then 6 tuners. You could also potentially mix and match tuners from different sources. Like you could get a DSS gateway from DirecTV for your main programming but also buy an OTA gateway for your local channels and have the TiVo record from both.


----------



## lpwcomp

How is copy protection going to work?


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> How is copy protection going to work?


DNA CVP-2 has a flagging system just like CableCARD, so that would work just like it does now.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> DNA CVP-2 has a flagging system just like CableCARD, so that would work just like it does now.


Which means that any recording device connected to the gateway would have to be certified.


----------



## tatergator1

lpwcomp said:


> Which means that any recording device connected to the gateway would have to be certified.


Yes, but that's really no different than the CableLabs certification that all Tivo's have currently.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> ........ You could also potentially mix and match tuners from different sources. Like you could get a DSS gateway from DirecTV for your main programming but also buy an OTA gateway for your local channels and have the TiVo record from both.


Ooooooohhhhh, I like that!!! :up:


----------



## HarperVision

New relevant thread here.


----------



## lpwcomp

tatergator1 said:


> Yes, but that's really no different than the CableLabs certification that all Tivo's have currently.


Not really. In the current situation, security, authorization, decryption, etc. are all handled in the device that has a CableCARD. With this gateway device, both it and any attached recording device(s) would have to be authorized.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Not really. In the current situation, security, authorization, decryption, etc. are all handled in the device that has a CableCARD. With this gateway device, both it and any attached recording device(s) would have to be authorized.


They would all be certified by the DLNA, which certifies all DLNA devices.

At least they'd be using an open standards body, rather then an industry controlled consortium like CableLabs.


----------



## slice1900

lpwcomp said:


> Not really. In the current situation, security, authorization, decryption, etc. are all handled in the device that has a CableCARD. With this gateway device, both it and any attached recording device(s) would have to be authorized.


Again, how is that different from the current situation? Today: all devices that have a cablecard or can decrypt encrypted video that originated with a cablecard device have to be certified. Tomorrow: all gateway devices that can tune (using whatever downloadable security method) or can decrypt encrypted video that originated with a gateway device will have to be certified.

There's no way the MPAA or the networks are going to allow unencrypted copies of their content to be handled by open source DIY hardware or software. That's what the whole cablecard thing, HDCP, and DTCP-IP (used in CVP-2 / Vidipath) were created for.


----------



## Jonathan_S

lpwcomp said:


> Not really. In the current situation, security, authorization, decryption, etc. are all handled in the device that has a CableCARD. With this gateway device, both it and any attached recording device(s) would have to be authorized.


Nope, the consumer eletronics device that uses the cable card also requires certification to ensure that (for example) it doesn't ignore setting HDCP flags.

Also for a device like TiVo with onboard recording capability there is additional certification to ensure that the device is properly securing the content, and enforcing the any copy protection rules, after the cable card had decrypted it. IIRC TiVo had to get their on-disk encryption mechanisms, as well as the TiVo to TiVo encrypted transfers, and finally the TiVo to App one-way encrypted moves of copy one material all certified and approved.
None of that encryption is being done by the cable card; it's all encryption being applied to the plaintext after the cablecard strips the original encryption off.


----------



## lpwcomp

slice1900 said:


> Again, how is that different from the current situation? Today: all devices that have a cablecard or can decrypt encrypted video that originated with a cablecard device have to be certified. Tomorrow: all gateway devices that can tune (using whatever downloadable security method) or can decrypt encrypted video that originated with a gateway device will have to be certified.
> 
> There's no way the MPAA or the networks are going to allow unencrypted copies of their content to be handled by open source DIY hardware or software. That's what the whole cablecard thing, HDCP, and DTCP-IP (used in CVP-2 / Vidipath) were created for.


Today, any device that access an encrypted video stream is either a box from the cable/satellite company or has a CableCARD (presumably also from the cable company) in it. Tomorrow, not so much.

One of the purported advantages of this gateway device is that it eliminates the need to deploy a device at every access point. How does it do that if the streams are encrypted? Not to mention the fact that most TV's out there cannot access an IP stream at all.


----------



## lpwcomp

Jonathan_S said:


> Nope, the consumer eletronics device that uses the cable card also requires certification to ensure that (for example) it doesn't ignore setting HDCP flags.
> 
> Also for a device like TiVo with onboard recording capability there is additional certification to ensure that the device is properly securing the content, and enforcing the any copy protection rules, after the cable card had decrypted it. IIRC TiVo had to get their on-disk encryption mechanisms, as well as the TiVo to TiVo encrypted transfers, and finally the TiVo to App one-way encrypted moves of copy one material all certified and approved.
> None of that encryption is being done by the cable card; it's all encryption being applied to the plaintext after the cablecard strips the original encryption off.


What you mean "Nope"? I didn't say or even imply that the encryption was handled by the CableCARD. I said it was handled by the _*device*_ that has a CableCARD in it. Your second graph is exactly my point - CableLabs requirements to get certified.

With a gateway device, how do you ensure that all attached devices are enforcing copy protection?


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> What you mean "Nope"? I didn't say or even imply that the encryption was handled by the CableCARD. I said it was handled by the device that has a CableCARD in it. Your second graph is exactly my point - CableLabs requirements to get certified. With a gateway device,* how do you ensure that all attached devices are enforcing copy protection?*


I would think the gateway would have to authenticate the certificate of the attached device before it streams anything to it. Good point.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Today, any device that access an encrypted video stream is either a box from the cable/satellite company or has a CableCARD (presumably also from the cable company) in it. Tomorrow, not so much.
> 
> One of the purported advantages of this gateway device is that it eliminates the need to deploy a device at every access point. How does it do that if the streams are encrypted? Not to mention the fact that most TV's out there cannot access an IP stream at all.


The gateway device would be supplied by the MSO. It would contain the "tuners" and all the proprietary encryption/authorization hardware needed to receive a channel. Think of it like a headless receiver with 6 tuners in it. 3rd party devices would talk to it using the open DLNA CVP-2 protocol. When a 3rd party device requested a channel the gateway device would tune it, decrypt it, and then convert it into a standard DTCP-IP stream. (part of the DLNA spec and already approved by CableLabs) If the cable company wants to forego deploying a physical gateway device in the home then they could move all that functionality up the head end and deliver the DTCP-IP stream directly to the 3rd paty device from the head end. A simple bridging device could be built into the cable modem to facilitate the communication between the 3rd party devices in the home and the "gateway" on the head end.

Service like DSS which are mostly one way couldn't work that way so they would need a physical gateway inside the home. However DirecTV is already using a system like this with the only real difference being that they are using RVU instead of DLNA.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> With a gateway device, how do you ensure that all attached devices are enforcing copy protection?


That's part of the DLNA certification process. DTCP-IP requires a certificate issues by the DLNA to function. A device only gets one of those certificates after it's certified by the DLNA to adhere to all the requirements.


----------



## lpwcomp

One of my points is that a majority of people are still going to require a separate box at every TV.


----------



## i.hardon

lpwcomp said:


> One of my points is that a majority of people are still going to require a separate box at every TV.


Why would that be so?

In theory the TV manufacturers can ensure that their TVs are appropriately approved or licenced or have the correct certificates, no? If anything the TV should be the least to worry about regarding copy protection - as TVs tend not to have video outputs and could encrypt any storage they may use for recording.

Ditto TiVo and anyone else.

It would be harder to enforce under the current arrangements since it is inevitable that an HDCP 2.0 hack will come along and someone can just capture the HDMI output of the cable boxes and TiVos of today.


----------



## lpwcomp

i.hardon said:


> Why would that be so?
> 
> In theory the TV manufacturers can ensure that their TVs are appropriately approved or licenced or have the correct certificates, no? If anything the TV should be the least to worry about regarding copy protection - as TVs tend not to have video outputs and could encrypt any storage they may use for recording.
> 
> Ditto TiVo and anyone else.
> 
> It would be harder to enforce under the current arrangements since it is inevitable that an HDCP 2.0 hack will come along and someone can just capture the HDMI output of the cable boxes and TiVos of today.


Most currently owned TVs can't handle IP at all, much less certification and decryption and most people don't replace their existing equipment at the drop of a hat, even if they can afford it.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> One of my points is that a majority of people are still going to require a separate box at every TV.


The whole point of using an open standard like DLNA is that the app used to access the gateway could be built right into the TV. Or into a tiny stick device like the Fire TV or Roku sticks.

CableCARD devices need a physical tuner, access to the coax, and to be large enough to hold a PCMCIA card.

The original goal of CableCARD was to have a slot built into your TV so that TVs could be "cable ready" again in a digital world. However the high cost of certification, which translated into more expensive TVs, the poor experience of installation and the deployment of SDV killed that whole sector. SDV and tuning adapters were really the nail in the coffin. If TVs had to have an external box connected to them anyway to support SDV then what was the point of having the CableCARD built in? They tried to get CableCARD 2.0 to include bidirectional communication, so they could get rid of the TA, but the cable companies insisted that CableCARD 2.0 use OCAP, which essentially allowed the cable company to take over the entire UI of the host device, so the CE manufacturers dropped out. TiVo and a few PC card vendors are the only ones that continued to support CableCARD from that point forward.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Most currently owned TVs can't handle IP at all, much less certification and decryption and most people don't replace their existing equipment at the drop of a hat, even if they can afford it.


That's where inexpensive streaming sticks, like the Fire TV, come in to play.


----------



## i.hardon

lpwcomp said:


> Most currently owned TVs can't handle IP at all, much less certification and decryption and most people don't replace their existing equipment at the drop of a hat, even if they can afford it.


Most TVs couldn't handle HDMI at introduction, they couldn't do HD, they couldn't do 4K, they couldn't do high frame rates. Ditto for any new technology.

Of course TVs of today can't do it. That'll be because there is no demand for it. Create a demand (through releasing gateways and a standard) and CE manufacturers will make products that support it.

Then you can buy a TV with it, or buy a set top box/streaming device, or rent a cable company adapter. Just like what you can do with CableCARD? And of course legacy STBs and cablecard products won't be instantly obsolete, so you won't have to change anything immediately.


----------



## lpwcomp

i.hardon said:


> Most TVs couldn't handle HDMI at introduction, they couldn't do HD, they couldn't do 4K, they couldn't do high frame rates. Ditto for any new technology.
> 
> Of course TVs of today can't do it. That'll be because there is no demand for it. Create a demand (through releasing gateways and a standard) and CE manufacturers will make products that support it.
> 
> Then you can buy a TV with it, or buy a set top box/streaming device, or rent a cable company adapter. Just like what you can do with CableCARD? And of course legacy STBs and cablecard products won't be instantly obsolete, so you won't have to change anything immediately.


You clearly have no idea what it's like for most people who operate on a limited budget. And if they change the method by which programming is delivered, then existing STBs and CableCARD products _*will*_ be "instantly obsolete".


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> You clearly have no idea what it's like for most people who operate on a limited budget. *And if they change the method by which programming is delivered, then existing STBs and CableCARD products will be "instantly obsolete".*


Not the ones that have IP support already built in I suppose.


----------



## i.hardon

lpwcomp said:


> You clearly have no idea what it's like for most people who operate on a limited budget. And if they change the method by which programming is delivered, then existing STBs and CableCARD products _*will*_ be "instantly obsolete".


I am fully aware. Like the transition from analogue to digital in both the OTA and cable worlds, adapters will be made available at minimal cost. No new TVs will be needed. TV manufacturers and Roku/Amazon/Apple and co could probably release software updates to enable the necessary functionality, if they wanted.

And more importantly, the cable companies aren't going to switch from the current system to a brand new one overnight. Even if they went IP from the headend to the home, rather than IP from the home gateway to TV, they could still offer TV service over QAM for years. Like some cable companies continue to do right now with analogue. It's only been, what, 15 years since digital cable was a thing? Or the slightly more fast paced world of cable modems - where people whose modems that are several years old are only now being asked to replace them

I don't think the gateway proposals need a revolutionary new method of delivery to the home, though? Can't the companies just make gateways that take in today's conventional signals and spit them out as IP streams for distribution within the home? So you can have a gateway and lots of whizzbang IP-based viewers, or a stodgy old cable box or cablecard device.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> You clearly have no idea what it's like for most people who operate on a limited budget. And if they change the method by which programming is delivered, then existing STBs and CableCARD products _*will*_ be "instantly obsolete".


The good news is that there are really only a handful of devices on the market that use CableCARD and most/all of them could probably be updated to this new standard without the need for new hardware.

TiVo already has all the hardware needed to access DLNA streams, and most other devices that use CableCARD are designed to be uses with a HTPC which could handle the DLNA stuff on it's own eliminating the need for the CableCARD device completely.


----------



## Jonathan_S

lpwcomp said:


> What you mean "Nope"? I didn't say or even imply that the encryption was handled by the CableCARD. I said it was handled by the _*device*_ that has a CableCARD in it. Your second graph is exactly my point - CableLabs requirements to get certified.
> 
> With a gateway device, how do you ensure that all attached devices are enforcing copy protection?


It means I read too quickly and missed the "device" and just saw the " CableCARD" 
Sorry about that.


----------



## Jonathan_S

Dan203 said:


> That's part of the DLNA certification process. DTCP-IP requires a certificate issues by the DLNA to function. A device only gets one of those certificates after it's certified by the DLNA to adhere to all the requirements.


I'm not familiar with the details of the DLNA specs. Does it also include how the device capabile of receiving a DTCP-IP stream registers itself with the gateway?

I think the bigger short term win from this would be if it could eliminate the necessity to interact with the cable company directly when activating a STB or DRV. That's really what, IMHO, makes the cable card activation (or reactivation) process such a pain.

But if there was a standard way for any compliant set top box, or app, to securely register itself with the gateway that would be a big advantage, even if it took a while for TVs to start building in native DTCP-IP support.


----------



## Dan203

Jonathan_S said:


> I'm not familiar with the details of the DLNA specs. Does it also include how the device capabile of receiving a DTCP-IP stream registers itself with the gateway?
> 
> I think the bigger short term win from this would be if it could eliminate the necessity to interact with the cable company directly when activating a STB or DRV. That's really what, IMHO, makes the cable card activation (or reactivation) process such a pain.
> 
> But if there was a standard way for any compliant set top box, or app, to securely register itself with the gateway that would be a big advantage, even if it took a while for TVs to start building in native DTCP-IP support.


It wouldn't need to be registered. As long as it has the proper DLNA certificate then it will be able to communicate with the gateway without any intervention from the MSO. Only the gateway device itself would need to be registered with the MSO, which, presumably, happen would happen when they install it.

The DLNA CVP-2 specification was written specifically to comply with FCC mandate 47 C.F.R. 76.640(b)(4)(iii)) ....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/76.640

essentially that mandate would require all HD boxes to include an open IP based protocol that would allow a 3rd party device to communicate with it and receive audio/visual data. Basically exactly what this gateway device needs to do.

Last I checked that mandate was suppose to go into effect this July. Not sure if it did though, or if it got delayed again.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Dan203 said:


> A simple bridging device could be built into the cable modem to facilitate the communication between the 3rd party devices in the home and the "gateway" on the head end.


You do realize that there are a lot of different cable modems and therefore even with CableLabs requirements it will be difficult to do this with the installed base, right? DOCSIS 3.1 is already out the door but this stuff takes a while to get out to retail. The cableCos don't own the firmware, they just deploy and configure it.

The IP gateway should be in the headend, not the customer's home. I'm 100% sure cable doesn't want to deploy new hardware for this, and there's no practical way to implement it in all the different modems whether they are 3.1 compliant or not.


----------



## Dan203

Any sort of open IP standard would require local discovery. How would an open device know how to connect to the head end without some sort of bridging device?


----------



## i.hardon

slowbiscuit said:


> You do realize that there are a lot of different cable modems and therefore even with CableLabs requirements it will be difficult to do this with the installed base, right? DOCSIS 3.1 is already out the door but this stuff takes a while to get out to retail. The cableCos don't own the firmware, they just deploy and configure it.
> 
> The IP gateway should be in the headend, not the customer's home. I'm 100% sure cable doesn't want to deploy new hardware for this, and there's no practical way to implement it in all the different modems whether they are 3.1 compliant or not.


One argument for an in-home gateway is that you level the playing field - maybe you can do IPTV over a cable modem (it may be more inefficient than QAM though), but you can't do it over satellite or OTA. In some wonderful utopia you'd be able to buy or rent a gateway from any TV company that takes in the cable network (QAM or IP), satellite feed, or another IP-based connection, and spits out a standardised format that anything can receive.

I don't get your argument though. You don't have to replace all TV infrastructure in the headend or the home overnight. You could release an all-in-one box that combines DOCSIS 3.whatever + the TV stuff and those who want to take advantage of it can buy or lease it. It's like the change from analogue to digital, or the change in DOCSIS standard - old stuff still continues to work for the medium term. Or cable modems with built in routers. You can still buy a plain cable modem if you don't want the router functions.


----------



## slowbiscuit

You don't get the argument that cable doesn't want to deploy new hardware to meet a niche demand for third-party access? After everything they've (not) done that makes cards difficult to use?

Cable is only going to do this if the FCC makes them, nothing less. And as we saw with AllVid five years ago, the FCC is easily swayed by cable's complaints.


----------



## i.hardon

slowbiscuit said:


> You don't get the argument that cable doesn't want to deploy new hardware to meet a niche demand for third-party access? After everything they've (not) done that makes cards difficult to use?
> 
> Cable is only going to do this if the FCC makes them, nothing less. And as we saw with AllVid five years ago, the FCC is easily swayed by cable's complaints.


Any solution to this problem is going to require force. Hopefully the FCC won't be so easily swayed after they appeared to trust the cable industry on CableCARD, and look where that went. Years until it was introduced, and no two way support in retail devices


----------



## innocentfreak

If the FCC was sensible they would listen to the CE manufacturers after all they are the ones who would be selling the equipment and competing. The cable companies sure won't be competing with each other unless they unbundle the last mile. 

Then again maybe that should be a requirement for the app model. If the FCC opts for the app model, every cable company and satellite company's app should be required to be offered to every consumer so you can truly have competition. Of course there is still the issue on bundles but not sure how you solve that.


----------



## slowbiscuit

The app model is the absolute worst outcome for us, and I hope the FCC says no on that.


----------



## Dan203

slowbiscuit said:


> The app model is the absolute worst outcome for us, and I hope the FCC says no on that.


Hopefully they realize that whatever replaces CableCARD needs at minimum to have the same functionality as the CableCARDs they replace. Which means some way to access the raw streams for recording.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> Hopefully they realize that whatever replaces CableCARD needs at minimum to have the same functionality as the CableCARDs they replace. Which means some way to access the raw streams for recording.


Could any replacement for the cable card fit into the existing cable card slot ?? so all are cable card TiVos don't end up in the land fill.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> Could any replacement for the cable card fit into the existing cable card slot ?? so all are cable card TiVos don't end up in the land fill.


The purpose of this is to replace CableCARDs with some sort of downloadable or network based security, not another physical card. Plus cable companies will continue to support existing CableCARDs for quite some time even if the new standard comes to pass. They have CableCARDs inside most of their own equipment and they're in no rush to recall all those STBs and replace them with something new.


----------



## HarperVision

lessd said:


> Could any replacement for the cable card fit into the existing cable card slot ?? so all are cable card TiVos don't end up in the land fill.


My guess and hope would be that they can just download the new software/security/firmware to at least the existing TiVo Premiere though Bolt lines so you can take the cablecards out and throw them and the TAs back across the counter at the cable CSRs!


----------



## tarheelblue32

HarperVision said:


> My guess and hope would be that they can just download the new software/security/firmware to at least the existing TiVo Premiere though Bolt lines so you can take the cablecards out and throw them and the TAs back across the counter at the cable CSRs!


And maybe that will happen...in your dreams.


----------



## lpwcomp

HarperVision said:


> My guess and hope would be that they can just download the new software/security/firmware to at least the existing TiVo Premiere though Bolt lines so you can take the cablecards out and throw them and the TAs back across the counter at the cable CSRs!


TAs have nothing to do with downloadable security.

Are there enough free cycles on any TiVo to execute downloadable security code?


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Are there enough free cycles on any TiVo to execute downloadable security code?


The Bolt almost certainly. The others would be iffy. Maybe the Roamio, probably not the Premiere.


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> TAs have nothing to do with downloadable security.
> 
> Are there enough free cycles on any TiVo to execute downloadable security code?


But they would most certainly implement the IP SDV option along with this new IP authentication as well, don't you think? Actually, why would you even need SDV anymore?


----------



## Dan203

HarperVision said:


> But they would most certainly implement the IP SDV option along with this new IP authentication as well, don't you think? Actually, why would you even need SDV anymore?


It depends. If the new standard is just downloadable security then they'd still need TAs. If it's a whole gateway device then they can build the bidirectional hardware into the gateway.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> The gateway solution would make the whole system technology agnostic. So you could use the same TiVo or TV app with DirecTV, UVerse or cable. Since the gateway is translating all incoming channels to a standard IP format the 3rd party devices no longer need any hardware which would be service specific. The gateway solution also eliminates the need for any sort of standard for security. The gateway itself contains all the hardware needed for decryption and authorization, so the provider could use whatever security scheme they wanted as long as the gateway could translate the signal into the standard IP stream.


That would be amazing! The ability to get TiVo on DirecTV would be great! And it would create a bigger market for third party DVRs, so maybe, just maybe, someone other than TiVo would bother to make one.



Dan203 said:


> I think if they required each gateway to have 6 tuners and capped the rental fee to a reasonable amount then it shouldn't be too bad. The 3rd party devices will be cheaper since they wont have tuners or security hardware, so that should help offset the cost a bit as well.


Can't be done. They have to require an equal number to that flagship offering of that provider. U-Verse can only do 4 HD tuners, and only on certain installations. I don't believe DISH can do 6 or 8, but I may be wrong on that. DirecTV can easily handle 8 on a modern SWiM system, although their own DVR has only 5. Cable is effectively unlimited.



Dan203 said:


> Whoever said that is wrong. All MSO supplied boxes have been required to use CableCARDs since 2007.


The integration will expire in a couple of months, and there are already a bunch of waivers out there. The integration ban was a failed mess from the get-go, and never helped owned CableCard devices. Of course that got mis-reported as the end of CableCard, which is completely false. It continues on for owned devices. My sense is that newer boxes like X1 that can support integrated security will get their CableCards yanked next time they go through the system, if they don't already have a waiver, and those will provide an effectively limitless supply of them for the few of us who have TiVos and such and still need them.



slice1900 said:


> Again, how is that different from the current situation?


1. It's provider agnostic. It would work with IPTV, DBS, etc.
2. It integrates SDV, VOD, IPTV, everything into one box. In theory, over the course of a long transition to IP, cable companies could have different channels available via linear QAM, SDV, IPTV, and their VOD platforms in a mix of MPEG-2, H.264, and H.265 formats. As long as the DVR supports decoding the appropriate codecs, the gateway can streamline everything else.
3. If properly designed, it will be less of a mess than CableCard in terms of setup. Maybe it will even work properly. Nah, that's asking too much! 



lpwcomp said:


> You clearly have no idea what it's like for most people who operate on a limited budget. And if they change the method by which programming is delivered, then existing STBs and CableCARD products _*will*_ be "instantly obsolete".


CableCard won't go away overnight. Everything will still be QAM, so there will be a transition period away from CableCard. I think the law should just state the cable companies should have to support CableCard for end users as long as they are using it in their own boxes, which would be at least a decade, since they have so much CableCard stuff rolled out from the integration ban days.



i.hardon said:


> One argument for an in-home gateway is that you level the playing field - maybe you can do IPTV over a cable modem (it may be more inefficient than QAM though), but you can't do it over satellite or OTA. In some wonderful utopia you'd be able to buy or rent a gateway from any TV company that takes in the cable network (QAM or IP), satellite feed, or another IP-based connection, and spits out a standardised format that anything can receive.


That's pretty much it. Sending people with TiVos all their video over DOCSIS while keeping QAM for everyone else would suck up ridoinkulous amounts of bandwidth, and is a completely unworkable "solution". It has to be a gateway in the house.



Dan203 said:


> The Bolt almost certainly. The others would be iffy. Maybe the Roamio, probably not the Premiere.


They probably wouldn't do anything for the Premieres, which would just continue on with CableCards in them during a transition period of a couple of years until all of them are ancient anyway. In theory, if they really wanted to, they could probably build some sort of USB dongle that would handle the processing of the encryption/decryption to bridge over hardware like the Roamios.


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> Can't be done. They have to require an equal number to that flagship offering of that provider. U-Verse can only do 4 HD tuners, and only on certain installations. I don't believe DISH can do 6 or 8, but I may be wrong on that. DirecTV can easily handle 8 on a modern SWiM system, although their own DVR has only 5. Cable is effectively unlimited.


That's what I meant, you just worded it better. I knew there were limitations on other platforms that would prevent 6 tuners, but I didn't want to confuse people. Saying that they have to have the same number of tuners as their "flagship product" is perfect. I think there is already a rule which requires that for CableCARDs.



Bigg said:


> They probably wouldn't do anything for the Premieres, which would just continue on with CableCards in them during a transition period of a couple of years until all of them are ancient anyway. In theory, if they really wanted to, they could probably build some sort of USB dongle that would handle the processing of the encryption/decryption to bridge over hardware like the Roamios.


I hadn't considered USB hardware. They could also use the CableCARD slot. It's just a PCMCIA slot, so there is nothing preventing them from deploying a PCMCIA card that adds the required hardware for decryption.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> They could also use the CableCARD slot. It's just a PCMCIA slot, so there is nothing preventing them from deploying a PCMCIA card that adds the required hardware for decryption.


I'm pretty sure I suggested that a while back and the idea was dismissed.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> I hadn't considered USB hardware. They could also use the CableCARD slot. It's just a PCMCIA slot, so there is nothing preventing them from deploying a PCMCIA card that adds the required hardware for decryption.


Yes! Yes! love that idea :up:


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> ........ They could also use the CableCARD slot. It's just a PCMCIA slot, so there is nothing preventing them from deploying a PCMCIA card that adds the required hardware for decryption.





lpwcomp said:


> I'm pretty sure I suggested that a while back and the idea was dismissed.





lessd said:


> Yes! Yes! love that idea :up:


Yes they could effectively make them sort of "backwards compatible"! :up:


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> I'm pretty sure I suggested that a while back and the idea was dismissed.


Personally I'd still rather see a network solution. But if they need a hardware boost to support the new encryption scheme they could use either the USB port or the PCMCIA slot if they wanted.

Although I suspect that they will more likely just release a new TiVo and tell us to upgrade instead.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> That's what I meant, you just worded it better. I knew there were limitations on other platforms that would prevent 6 tuners, but I didn't want to confuse people. Saying that they have to have the same number of tuners as their "flagship product" is perfect. I think there is already a rule which requires that for CableCARDs.


I believe CableCard has to support the full 6 tuners. It's easier for CableCard, as cable is either linear or SDV, and SDV has no issues with 6 channels, plus it's likely that several of the 6 channels would be non-SDV at any given time, too. U-Verse runs up against a brick wall, at least for FTTN installation. They should be able to handle 8 streams over FTTH and some bonded FTTN installations if they wanted to.

But yeah, the concept of requiring a decent number of tuners would make this a viable solution.



> I hadn't considered USB hardware. They could also use the CableCARD slot. It's just a PCMCIA slot, so there is nothing preventing them from deploying a PCMCIA card that adds the required hardware for decryption.


Yeah, you might be able to use the slot. That would be a little bit slicker of an installation than some fugly USB dongle, although the USB dongle would probably be easier/cheaper to actually manufacture. And the TiVo that are out of USB ports wouldn't need to worry, as dumping the TA would free up a USB jack.


----------



## slice1900

lpwcomp said:


> Today, any device that access an encrypted video stream is either a box from the cable/satellite company or has a CableCARD (presumably also from the cable company) in it. Tomorrow, not so much.
> 
> One of the purported advantages of this gateway device is that it eliminates the need to deploy a device at every access point. How does it do that if the streams are encrypted? Not to mention the fact that most TV's out there cannot access an IP stream at all.


DTCP-IP is encrypted. You will need a 'device' at every access point if the TV does not support it. You would have a little box at each one (might only be the size of a pack of cigarettes, so could easily fit behind the TV)

How do you think the video is going to get from the gateway to the TV without some sort of device, or TV being able to handle it? It sure isn't going to output clear QAM channels for the TV to tune!


----------



## slice1900

Dan203 said:


> That's what I meant, you just worded it better. I knew there were limitations on other platforms that would prevent 6 tuners, but I didn't want to confuse people. Saying that they have to have the same number of tuners as their "flagship product" is perfect. I think there is already a rule which requires that for CableCARDs.


The number of tuners in the gateway is not particularly important. What is important is that they support having more than one gateway, for those who have more TVs than whatever the number of tuners in their "flagship product" is.


----------



## lpwcomp

slice1900 said:


> DTCP-IP is encrypted. You will need a 'device' at every access point if the TV does not support it. You would have a little box at each one (might only be the size of a pack of cigarettes, so could easily fit behind the TV)
> 
> How do you think the video is going to get from the gateway to the TV without some sort of device, or TV being able to handle it? It sure isn't going to output clear QAM channels for the TV to tune!


I certainly hope that your post was not aimed at me because that was exactly my point.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> I certainly hope that your post was not aimed at me because that was exactly my point.


But that's the case now. Except now you have to rent a box for every TV in the house. With this you could buy a cheap stick device or even buy a TV with the functionality built in. If you really want to stick to the current model I'm sure the cable company will still rent you a box for each TV.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> But that's the case now. Except now you have to rent a box for every TV in the house. With this you could buy a cheap stick device or even buy a TV with the functionality built in. If you really want to stick to the current model I'm sure the cable company will still rent you a box for each TV.


Every such device will have to authorized, have decryption and copy protection. Except for the fact that it only has to be able to communicate with the gateway device rather than the headend, how is it different fro what we have today? The MSOs are *still* going to charge you for every access point.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Every such device will have to authorized, have decryption and copy protection. Except for the fact that it only has to be able to communicate with the gateway device rather than the headend, how is it different fro what we have today? The MSOs are *still* going to charge you for every access point.


They don't have to be authorized. Any DLNA certified device would be allowed to talk to the gateway without any special authorization from the MSO.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> They don't have to be authorized. Any DLNA certified device would be allowed to talk to the gateway without any special authorization from the MSO.


I don't think the content owners will ever accept purely s/w security.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> I don't think the content owners will ever accept purely s/w security.


They already have. DLNA with DTCP-IP is already a CableLabs approved scheme. You can buy a HDHomeRun today, which uses a CableCARD to decrypt cable channels and then converts those to DLNA which you can watch on any DLNA certified device. The HDHomeRun DVR will also use DLNA.


----------



## wco81

How do these apps authenticate? For instance, you want to use HBO Go on an iPad, you log in with your credentials from a list of providers with whom HBO has cut a deal. You choose one and it loads the web page of the cable or satellite company for you to log in.

Then it hands back and it will allow you to access the on demand content.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Dan203 said:


> They already have. DLNA with DTCP-IP is already a CableLabs approved scheme. You can buy a HDHomeRun today, which uses a CableCARD to decrypt cable channels and then converts those to DLNA which you can watch on any DLNA certified device. The HDHomeRun DVR will also use DLNA.


That includes premium channel support, btw, and the new DVR they're coming out with (eventually) will also support all content. There is no issue with third party devices supporting DLNA/DTCP to work with any gateway as long as they comply with the specs.

https://www.silicondust.com/products/hdhomerun/hd-homerun-dvr/


----------



## Dan203

wco81 said:


> How do these apps authenticate? For instance, you want to use HBO Go on an iPad, you log in with your credentials from a list of providers with whom HBO has cut a deal. You choose one and it loads the web page of the cable or satellite company for you to log in.
> 
> Then it hands back and it will allow you to access the on demand content.


No need. The only authentication they need is that they are on the same local network as the gateway device. The gateway device is what authenticates what you're allowed to access.


----------



## wco81

I can use HBO Go outside my home.

Outside the country in fact.

Only authentication is logging in with Comcast credentials.


----------



## lpwcomp

Are there any recording devices that are certified?


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Are there any recording devices that are certified?


It's my understanding that the HDHomeRun DVR is, but it's still in beta.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> It's my understanding that the HDHomeRun DVR is, but it's still in beta.


And it is a separate device that is "fed" by the HDHomerun?


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> And it is a separate device that is "fed" by the HDHomerun?


It's software that runs on a PC or a NAS which is fed by the HDHomeRun over the network.

You can then play back the recordings using yet another device on the network like a FireTV.

So basically the tuner/authentication, the DVR, and the playback are separated and the video flows across the network, encrypted by DTCP-IP, between them.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> It's software that runs on a PC or a NAS which is fed by the HDHomeRun over the network.
> 
> You can then play back the recordings using yet another device on the network like a FireTV.
> 
> So basically the tuner/authentication, the DVR, and the playback are separated and the video flows across the network, encrypted by DTCP-IP, between them.


I take it the s/w has to be certified to support copy-protection before it can get a valid certificate.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> I take it the s/w has to be certified to support copy-protection before it can get a valid certificate.


The DLNA certification covers that, unless they decrypt and reencrypt to another format then that probably has to be certified.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> The DLNA certification covers that, unless they decrypt and reencrypt to another format then that probably has to be certified.


"The DLNA certification covers that" is what I meant since it's obviously going to have to decrypt it at some point.


----------



## Dan203

OK, but I still don't understand your issue with the system. 

Basically it works like this.... The MSO supplies a gateway device. This gateway device does three things....

1) It contains the "tuners" needed to tune at least as many channels as their flagship device. For cable this would mean 6 QAM tuners, for other systems with other technology it may only be 4 or 5, or maybe for a pure IP system there would be no physical tuners at all.

2) It would do all the authorization and communication with the system head end. Essentially combining the technology from the CableCARD and the tuning adapter into the gateway.

3) It would convert whatever proprietary encryption the system used into DLNA DTCP-IP.

What this would mean is that ANY DLNA certified device would be able to request a stream from the gateway, and if it so chose it would be able to record that stream as well adhering to essentially the same flags used for CableCARD.

All of this is possible right now with cable. In fact the HDHomeRun is essentially doing it. However by making it a universal standard with a gateway controlled by the MSO it would mean that you could swap out that system for one with DSS technology, or Uverse technology, or Sling TV technology, and your DVR would still work. It would give consumers infinate choice. Prices to high from your local cable company? No problem switch to DirecTV without replacing any of your personal equipment. They just come out and install the gateway and your TiVo, FireTV stick or TV with built in DLNA support will be able to receive it exactly the same way as they did with cable. And if the cable companies decide to go all IP and ditch QAM you don't have to buy new TiVos or TVs, they just swap out the gateway and all your equipment continues to function. 

And if they require a RUI app in the gateway as well, then everyone will gain access to features like VOD from their TiVo without having to wait for them to make a special deal with your specific cable company and deploy the app themselves. It would essentially work like a website that is hosted on the gateway devices and served up to any DLNA certified device on your network. And if a TV or streaming stick type device didn't want to write a whole UI themselves to acess the raw streams from the gateway they could just launch this RUI app instead and it would essentially work just like a STB provided by your cable company.


----------



## wco81

How much will cable companies charge for the gateway device?

You have to pay a fee for monthly rental instead of buying your own DOCSIS modem and then you have to pay the guide fee to a theoretical Tivo device which works with this new scheme?


----------



## Dan203

Righ now there are rules in place that limit how much a MSO can charge for a CableCARD. I assume similar rules will be in place for this gateway device as well. Although because it's bigger and contains more technology it will likely be more expensive. However that should be offset by the fact that the TiVo itself will not need physical tuners or CableCARD slots, which should make them cheaper


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> OK, but I still don't understand your issue with the system.
> 
> Basically it works like this.... The MSO supplies a gateway device. This gateway device does three things....
> 
> 1) It contains the "tuners" needed to tune at least as many channels as their flagship device. For cable this would mean 6 QAM tuners, for other systems with other technology it may only be 4 or 5, or maybe for a pure IP system there would be no physical tuners at all.
> 
> 2) It would do all the authorization and communication with the system head end. Essentially combining the technology from the CableCARD and the tuning adapter into the gateway.
> 
> 3) It would convert whatever proprietary encryption the system used into DLNA DTCP-IP.
> 
> What this would mean is that ANY DLNA certified device would be able to request a stream from the gateway, and if it so chose it would be able to record that stream as well adhering to essentially the same flags used for CableCARD.
> 
> All of this is possible right now with cable. In fact the HDHomeRun is essentially doing it. However by making it a universal standard with a gateway controlled by the MSO it would mean that you could swap out that system for one with DSS technology, or Uverse technology, or Sling TV technology, and your DVR would still work. It would give consumers infinate choice. Prices to high from your local cable company? No problem switch to DirecTV without replacing any of your personal equipment. They just come out and install the gateway and your TiVo, FireTV stick or TV with built in DLNA support will be able to receive it exactly the same way as they did with cable. And if the cable companies decide to go all IP and ditch QAM you don't have to buy new TiVos or TVs, they just swap out the gateway and all your equipment continues to function.
> 
> And if they require a RUI app in the gateway as well, then everyone will gain access to features like VOD from their TiVo without having to wait for them to make a special deal with your specific cable company and deploy the app themselves. It would essentially work like a website that is hosted on the gateway devices and served up to any DLNA certified device on your network. And if a TV or streaming stick type device didn't want to write a whole UI themselves to acess the raw streams from the gateway they could just launch this RUI app instead and it would essentially work just like a STB provided by your cable company.


Would this mean my home would have a limit of say 6 recording at the same time, I have 3 Roamios now that gives my familly up to 12 recordings at one time, I am sure we never use all 12 tuners but it also means we don't have to worry about padding, and any conflicts.


----------



## innocentfreak

Dan203 said:


> Righ now there are rules in place that limit how much a MSO can charge for a CableCARD. I assume similar rules will be in place for this gateway device as well. Although because it's bigger and contains more technology it will likely be more expensive. However that should be offset by the fact that the TiVo itself will not need physical tuners or CableCARD slots, which should make them cheaper


Actually there aren't any rules on CableCARD fees last I read. They merely said they would monitor it.

I mean Verizon gets away with charging $5 a CableCARD even though I have the same one since 2009 which means I have now paid close to $360 for something that costs them less than $100 which is what they would charge me if I lost it.


----------



## Bigg

lessd said:


> Would this mean my home would have a limit of say 6 recording at the same time, I have 3 Roamios now that gives my familly up to 12 recordings at one time, I am sure we never use all 12 tuners but it also means we don't have to worry about padding, and any conflicts.


On cable, you could have multiple gateways. DirecTV would be limited by how your SWiM setup is wired, just as it is today, and U-Verse would be limited by it's pathetic POS architecture just as it is today. Basically, nothing changes in that regard.

Why does everyone have such problems with what Dan203 is describing? It's so simple, so logical, and what just makes sense.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> Would this mean my home would have a limit of say 6 recording at the same time, I have 3 Roamios now that gives my familly up to 12 recordings at one time, I am sure we never use all 12 tuners but it also means we don't have to worry about padding, and any conflicts.


If you had two gateways then you'd have access to 12 tuners. Or maybe your MSO would offer a sinlge gateway with 12 tuners. Or maybe they would move the gateway up to the head end and there would be no limit on tuners. DLNA has no limit on the number of hosts. The point here would be to require one gateway to have a minimum number of tuners equal to the MSO's flagship device. If they want to offer a gateway with more then that then it would be their prerogative. However some MSOs have technological limits on the number of tuners they can offer. Uverse can only do 4-6 max, depending on the technology used in your area. Dish can only do 5 I believe. DirecTV has a special technology called SWIM which allows them to do 16, while cable has virtually no limit at all. To make a standard that encompasses all of those you have to make the requirements a bit fluid.

So compared to what we have now with cable there would be a slight step back in that you'd have to rent multiple gateways rather then multiple CableCARDs to gain accesss to more tuners. Which will likely be more expensive. However the removal of the tuners from the 3rd party devices will likely make them cheaper, so that should offset it a little. Also the increased competition from multiple MSOs should help keep prices down too.


----------



## Dan203

innocentfreak said:


> Actually there aren't any rules on CableCARD fees last I read. They merely said they would monitor it.
> 
> I mean Verizon gets away with charging $5 a CableCARD even though I have the same one since 2009 which means I have now paid close to $360 for something that costs them less than $100 which is what they would charge me if I lost it.


There are rules. They don't have specific dollar amount limits, but they are linked to what the MSO charges for a leased box minus the cost of the box amortorized over 60 months. Basically they're trying to make the cost of the card inside a leased box the same as the cost of a card rented for 3rd party equipment. They also have wording that requires them to take bundling prices into acccount to eliminate that form of manipulation.


----------



## lpwcomp

I don't really have a problem with what Dan is describing, I'm just trying to fully understand how it would work. Support for CableCARD isn't all that difficult and look how well that worked.

In any case, I don't see this ever happening absent an FCC mandate which is unlikely.


----------



## innocentfreak

Dan203 said:


> There are rules. They don't have specific dollar amount limits, but they are linked to what the MSO charges for a leased box minus the cost of the box amortorized over 60 months. Basically they're trying to make the cost of the card inside a leased box the same as the cost of a card rented for 3rd party equipment. They also have wording that requires them to take bundling prices into acccount to eliminate that form of manipulation.


I forgot about that. Of course I guess I forgot since we haven't seen any action from the FCC on it. Last I checked Verizon charges nearly the same for their hardware as other providers yet the cable cards cost 3-5x as much.


----------



## innocentfreak

Bigg said:


> Why does everyone have such problems with what Dan203 is describing? It's so simple, so logical, and what just makes sense.


I don't have a problem with it either. I just don't see the FCC doing anything to make it truly be a better solution that doesn't cost more and only makes the cable companies money. It is miles above the app model though. In the end it shouldn't be a profit vehicle for the companies since it is required to access the service you are paying for and it is no different than being required to rent a phone from the phone company.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> I don't really have a problem with what Dan is describing, I'm just trying to fully understand how it would work. Support for CableCARD isn't all that difficult and look how well that worked.
> 
> In any case, I don't see this ever happening absent an FCC mandate which is unlikely.


The major advantages of this approach compared to CableCARDs that I see are...

1) It works with all providers, so your equipment would no longer be locked to a specific type of service. This is going to become more important going forward as more IP type services start to launch.

2) Because the gateway will be supplied by the MSO and will work almost identically to their own STBs from an authorization standpoint they should be much smoother to install.

The biggest issue I foresee with this setup is networking issues. If the network goes down, for whatever reason, your recordings would fail. Whereas now the tuners are inside the TiVo so the chance of failure is a lot lower. However I think most networks are pretty reliable, so I don't think that will be a major issue.


----------



## wco81

We're not talking about a huge market here.

Most subscribers will go along with the box that they get from their cable or satellite company.

If they do shut down Cablecard, Tivo will have to try to produce a box which will be compatible with the current system. And a lot of loyal Tivo customers will adopt these new boxes, at great cost.

But most people are not going to buy a third party box which requires an investment of several hundred or over a thousand up front.

So the FCC may not care about this that much.

The boxes people are likely to buy are the Roku, Apple TV, etc. where on-demand streaming replaces DVRs. That is far more likely to affect more people.


----------



## aaronwt

innocentfreak said:


> I forgot about that. Of course I guess I forgot since we haven't seen any action from the FCC on it. Last I checked Verizon charges nearly the same for their hardware as other providers yet the cable cards cost 3-5x as much.


But no HD outlet fee like on Comcast. FiOS is much cheaper around here than Comcast because FiOS doesn't charge those extra fees.


----------



## slice1900

Dan203 said:


> If you had two gateways then you'd have access to 12 tuners. Or maybe your MSO would offer a sinlge gateway with 12 tuners. Or maybe they would move the gateway up to the head end and there would be no limit on tuners. DLNA has no limit on the number of hosts. The point here would be to require one gateway to have a minimum number of tuners equal to the MSO's flagship device. If they want to offer a gateway with more then that then it would be their prerogative. However some MSOs have technological limits on the number of tuners they can offer. Uverse can only do 4-6 max, depending on the technology used in your area. Dish can only do 5 I believe. DirecTV has a special technology called SWIM which allows them to do 16, while cable has virtually no limit at all. To make a standard that encompasses all of those you have to make the requirements a bit fluid.


Directv has no limits. In a typical install you get a SWM dish which gives you 8 tuners (newer generation SWM dishes will go higher than that) but if you need more tuners you'll have a "legacy" dish installed with external SWM switches. The output from that single dish can be split, amplified and re-amplified as needed to support as many SWM switches as required for the tuner count you want to achieve. With that you can could have 1000 tuners if you want. That's how big apartment buildings are wired where hundreds of units all share a single dish on the roof. Though they have a different technology, Dish can also support effectively unlimited tuners off a single dish. However I think Dish imposes limits on how many receivers individual residential customers can get, so if you hit Powerball and buy a 30 room mansion you probably want to call Directv.

Uverse is really the only one that has hard limits, since unlike cable/satellite isn't a broadcast based technology but rather you are only receiving the specific channels you are watching/recording. Since the bandwidth into your home is limited and each channel requires a chunk, there's a hard limit on the number of tuners. Uverse in a FTTH area would have a much higher limit due to the much higher bandwidth.


----------



## Bigg

lpwcomp said:


> I don't really have a problem with what Dan is describing, I'm just trying to fully understand how it would work. Support for CableCARD isn't all that difficult and look how well that worked.
> 
> In any case, I don't see this ever happening absent an FCC mandate which is unlikely.


This is not that complicated. SilliconDust has been doing this for years with the HDHomeRun series.

That's the point. The FCC is determining what will replace CableCard, so *something* is going to be mandated. It's just a matter of what, how it works, and who has control over what parts of it.



innocentfreak said:


> I don't have a problem with it either. I just don't see the FCC doing anything to make it truly be a better solution that doesn't cost more and only makes the cable companies money.


At a minimum, it is going to account for the developments in VOD, SDV, and be compatible with all pay TV providers. Even if it were a giant USB contraption, those things alone are a massive step forward.



slice1900 said:


> Directv has no limits. In a typical install you get a SWM dish which gives you 8 tuners (newer generation SWM dishes will go higher than that) but if you need more tuners you'll have a "legacy" dish installed with external SWM switches.


I know how SWiM works. It's capped at 8 tuners per gateway, unless you built a gateway with multiple SWiM ports, which is completely pointless, since the vast majority of newer installations have a SWiMLine LNB, and thus are limited to 8 tuners, and ones with SWiM 16 switches would have much more flexibility with 2 gateways.



> Uverse is really the only one that has hard limits, since unlike cable/satellite isn't a broadcast based technology but rather you are only receiving the specific channels you are watching/recording. Since the bandwidth into your home is limited and each channel requires a chunk, there's a hard limit on the number of tuners. Uverse in a FTTH area would have a much higher limit due to the much higher bandwidth.


Correct. And even some FTTN areas should be able to go higher than 4 if they are really close to the VRAD. AT&T also uses HPNA inside, which has way less bandwidth than MoCA. Their whole architecture is crap. It's too bad, as the idea of IPTV is good, if properly implemented, a la Google Fiber. AT&T did not properly implement it.


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> AT&T also uses HPNA inside, which has way less bandwidth than MoCA.


Yikes! So they're really married to using the phone lines for everything huh? Terrible strategy. They'd be better off using powerline networking then HPNA.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> OK, but I still don't understand your issue with the system.
> 
> Basically it works like this.... The MSO supplies a gateway device. This gateway device does three things....
> 
> 1) It contains the "tuners" needed to tune at least as many channels as their flagship device. For cable this would mean 6 QAM tuners, for other systems with other technology it may only be 4 or 5, or maybe for a pure IP system there would be no physical tuners at all.
> 
> 2) It would do all the authorization and communication with the system head end. Essentially combining the technology from the CableCARD and the tuning adapter into the gateway.
> 
> 3) It would convert whatever proprietary encryption the system used into DLNA DTCP-IP.
> 
> What this would mean is that ANY DLNA certified device would be able to request a stream from the gateway, and if it so chose it would be able to record that stream as well adhering to essentially the same flags used for CableCARD.
> 
> All of this is possible right now with cable. In fact the HDHomeRun is essentially doing it. However by making it a universal standard with a gateway controlled by the MSO it would mean that you could swap out that system for one with DSS technology, or Uverse technology, or Sling TV technology, and your DVR would still work. It would give consumers infinate choice. Prices to high from your local cable company? No problem switch to DirecTV without replacing any of your personal equipment. They just come out and install the gateway and your TiVo, FireTV stick or TV with built in DLNA support will be able to receive it exactly the same way as they did with cable. And if the cable companies decide to go all IP and ditch QAM you don't have to buy new TiVos or TVs, they just swap out the gateway and all your equipment continues to function.
> 
> And if they require a RUI app in the gateway as well, then everyone will gain access to features like VOD from their TiVo without having to wait for them to make a special deal with your specific cable company and deploy the app themselves. It would essentially work like a website that is hosted on the gateway devices and served up to any DLNA certified device on your network. And if a TV or streaming stick type device didn't want to write a whole UI themselves to acess the raw streams from the gateway they could just launch this RUI app instead and it would essentially work just like a STB provided by your cable company.


We have this model now. The Roamio is basically a gateway. The Bolt is the new gateway. The Minis at each tv don't have to be replaced when upgrading to the Bolt.

Satellite, if they wanted to, could let Tivo make a satellite dvr which would be compatible with the same Minis. (Of course they don't want to.)

And I'd rather have a gateway directly hooked up to a TV because I find the experience more responsive than using an extender over a network.

You're going to replace equipment anyway. Anyone wanting 4k needs new Minis at each tv in addition to their Bolt.

Streaming is where you're going to get your open model. STreaming will lead the way there.


----------



## snerd

Bigg said:


> AT&T also uses HPNA inside, which has way less bandwidth than MoCA.


It depends. HPNA over twisted pair gives PHY rates up to 160Mbps, which is slower than MoCA. HPNA over coax gives PHY rates up to 300Mbps and data rates up to 200Mbps, which is faster than MoCA 1.1.

HPNA has other advantages over MoCA, because it can work with cable lengths up to 4000 feet, while the MoCA specs limit cable length to 300 feet. So if you need a long run, HPNA might be the best option. Their adapters are also cheaper than MoCA.

http://www.amazon.com/TRENDnet-Mid-...d=1445958151&sr=8-1&keywords=Trendnet+TPA-311

One downside of HPNA is that it runs at frequencies that would stomp on the return path used by DOCSIS cable modems, but that can be worked around without too much trouble by using a dedicated coax that only carries HPNA signals.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> We have this model now. The Roamio is basically a gateway. The Bolt is the new gateway. The Minis at each tv don't have to be replaced when upgrading to the Bolt.
> 
> Satellite, if they wanted to, could let Tivo make a satellite dvr which would be compatible with the same Minis. (Of course they don't want to.)
> 
> And I'd rather have a gateway directly hooked up to a TV because I find the experience more responsive than using an extender over a network.
> 
> You're going to replace equipment anyway. Anyone wanting 4k needs new Minis at each tv in addition to their Bolt.
> 
> Streaming is where you're going to get your open model. STreaming will lead the way there.


Kind of, but not exactly. Any recordings would still be on the local TiVo, connected to a TV. Only the tuners and authorization stuff would be in the gateway. So the only lag added would be when surfing live TV. Otherwise the experience would be identical to how it is now.

The whole point of this model is to force all MSOs, cable, satellite, IPTV, etc..., to use the same standard so that we don't have to buy a TiVo that's specific to cable or DSS. And TiVo doesn't have to get special permission to build a box for each provider. We buy a TiVo that's DLNA and it will work with the gateway of any MSO. This not only gives us choice in providers but opens up the market to competition from new providers using technology we may not even have thought of yet.


----------



## Dan203

snerd said:


> It depends. HPNA over twisted pair gives PHY rates up to 160Mbps, which is slower than MoCA.


I was using HPNA a few years back and never got anywhere near those speeds. I couldn't even reliably stream an HD video from my PC to my networked media player in the living room. Replaced them with powerline adapters and they worked 10x better.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> Kind of, but not exactly. Any recordings would still be on the local TiVo, connected to a TV. Only the tuners and authorization stuff would be in the gateway. So the only lag added would be when surfing live TV. Otherwise the experience would be identical to how it is now.


I think you misunderstand what he is saying. He's not saying that that is where you are heading, he's saying that is where the industry is or should be heading. No local content, everything delivered via the net. Some people don't mind being totally dependent on a crowded, single pipe. 'Cause, you know, there's all that available bandwidth just waiting to be utilized.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Kind of, but not exactly. Any recordings would still be on the local TiVo, connected to a TV. Only the tuners and authorization stuff would be in the gateway. So the only lag added would be when surfing live TV. Otherwise the experience would be identical to how it is now.


Don't see the point. YOu'd send all your recording traffic over your network. Plus seems ripe for even more support calls for the average joe.

IF you're going to put a hard drive in an extender under a tv might as well just put the whole gateway there like we do now. I think it would be cheaper. And look at how small the Bolt is.



Dan203 said:


> The whole point of this model is to force all MSOs, cable, satellite, IPTV, etc..., to use the same standard so that we don't have to buy a TiVo that's specific to cable or DSS. And TiVo doesn't have to get special permission to build a box for each provider. We buy a TiVo that's DLNA and it will work with the gateway of any MSO. This not only gives us choice in providers but opens up the market to competition from new providers using technology we may not even have thought of yet.


Yeah except then you wake up and are in the real world. 

The problem isn't the model but getting everyone to agree and adhere to a standard.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> The problem isn't the model but getting everyone to agree and adhere to a standard.


They'll never agree, that's why the FCC has to mandate. The standards already exist. DLNA CVP-2, aka Vidipath, already has everything they need to make this work.

As for your concern about network traffic... The average HD stream is only 12-14Mbps, so even 6 of them would require less then 90Mbps. MoCa 2.0 is minimum 400Mbps so there is plenty of room there. And if you were really concerned you could just put your TiVo in the same room as your gateway and connect them via ethernet.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> I think you misunderstand what he is saying. He's not saying that that is where you are heading, he's saying that is where the industry is or should be heading. No local content, everything delivered via the net. Some people don't mind being totally dependent on a crowded, single pipe. 'Cause, you know, there's all that available bandwidth just waiting to be utilized.


Cloud DVRs are probably where we are heading long term. But if cable were to eliminate QAM and convert their entire system to DOCSIS 3.1 they could get about 8Gbps from an 800mhz system. That's per node. Even at the high end most nodes sevice 125 homes max. So that's 64Mbps, per home, guaranteed. So even at peak times you could still comfortably stream 6-8 HD streams compressed using H.264, even more if they use H.265. And, as with all shared bandwidth, the chances of every home using thier full 64Mbps simultaneously is basically nill. They could also utilize things like multicast and local buffering for linear streams (i.e. live TV) to save even more bandwidth.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> They'll never agree, that's why the FCC has to mandate. The standards already exist. DLNA CVP-2, aka Vidipath, already has everything they need to make this work.


lol. Of course you need government intervention. That's what I'm getting at. That's really the problem here. The problem isn't the model. All this talk about the "gateway model" is just cover for the real problem.

You don't need to separate tuners from hard drives in order for the FCC to mandate standards. Those things are independent.

Plus we have standards now for cable boxes, mandated by the FCC, and look where that has got us. In theory anyone can build a cable box and it works with all cable providers. 



Dan203 said:


> As for your concern about network traffic... The average HD stream is only 12-14Mbps, so even 6 of them would require less then 90Mbps. MoCa 2.0 is minimum 400Mbps so there is plenty of room there. And if you were really concerned you could just put your TiVo in the same room as your gateway and connect them via ethernet.


Yeah for me, the concern is more about further complicating something that doesn't really need complicating. In this case, separating tuners and hard drives over a network would seem to be adding another point of failure. For what benefit? What's the benefit in exchange for that added complication and probable increased expense.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> You don't need to separate tuners from hard drives in order for the FCC to mandate standards. Those things are independent.


You do if you want a single universal standard that works across all MSOs with their varying technologies. There is no one single downloadable security standard that would work for all MSOs without massive changes to their entire infrastructure.

That's why after months of debate they basically came up with two ideas... The "virtual head end", which is just a fancy name for a gateway, that all the CE manufacturers want. And the "apps model", which the MSOs want, that basically says "we have apps that run on a few 3rd party devices, and that should be good enough".

The "apps model" basically gives complete control to the MSOs. Even if they mandate some sort of apps standard so that any device can run it, without access to the raw linear stream TiVo would be out of business and the only way you could watch TV is live or via VOD with forced commercials and availability windows.

The "virtual head end" the CE manufacturers want goes a bit far in my opinion, in that they want complete service discovery for raw access to extended services like VOD. I think that's a bit complicated with all the various ways that services do VOD and with the extra services some MSOs provide like cloud DVRs. But this system applied strictly to linear channels makes the most sense because it retains the basic functionality of CableCARDs while expanding the system to encompass multiple security and tuner technologies.

The only other alternative would be to impose something akin to CableCARD on all MSOs, which would require major changes to the head end infrastructure for every MSO. That would be, by far, the most expensive options for everyone involved. At least with the gateway approach they just have to design a box that can translate their existing technology into the standard, rather then having to completely change their technology to fit a standard.


----------



## lpwcomp

So question - is the typical MSO network a central site with spokes out to the neighborhood hubs or is it a tree?


----------



## Dan203

More like a tree, but the connection to your individual node is usually 100% fiber, which has virtually unlimited bandwidth, so there is no real limitation on bandwidth until you hit the node.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> You do if you want a single universal standard that works across all MSOs with their varying technologies. There is no one single downloadable security standard that would work for all MSOs without massive changes to their entire infrastructure.
> 
> That's why after months of debate they basically came up with two ideas... The "virtual head end", which is just a fancy name for a gateway, that all the CE manufacturers want. And the "apps model", which the MSOs want, that basically says "we have apps that run on a few 3rd party devices, and that should be good enough".
> 
> The "apps model" basically gives complete control to the MSOs. Even if they mandate some sort of apps standard so that any device can run it, without access to the raw linear stream TiVo would be out of business and the only way you could watch TV is live or via VOD with forced commercials and availability windows.
> 
> The "virtual head end" the CE manufacturers want goes a bit far in my opinion, in that they want complete service discovery for raw access to extended services like VOD. I think that's a bit complicated with all the various ways that services do VOD and with the extra services some MSOs provide like cloud DVRs. But this system applied strictly to linear channels makes the most sense because it retains the basic functionality of CableCARDs while expanding the system to encompass multiple security and tuner technologies.
> 
> The only other alternative would be to impose something akin to CableCARD on all MSOs, which would require major changes to the head end infrastructure for every MSO. That would be, by far, the most expensive options for everyone involved. At least with the gateway approach they just have to design a box that can translate their existing technology into the standard, rather then having to completely change their technology to fit a standard.


Yeah but all I am saying is swapping out set top boxes isn't any different than swapping out gateways if extenders were universal. You already said gateways would be swapped out. And similar to what you said, you could just put your set top box in the basement if you wanted a gateway. 

I think the entire discussion is about having open standards.

I think Tivo is ultimately doomed as tuner tech seems like legacy tech to me. Competition for streaming boxes will be too much for them.

Cloud dvr is On Demand as far as I can tell. Netflix is a cloud dvr.

I think streaming tech is where you're already getting the ability to use whatever box you want to use.

Personally the way things are, are not that bad, considering we can skip commercials and yet pay commericial subsidized rates for our tv. I do imagine with the success of Netflix and Amazon plus the breaking out of HBO from cable that we will see more commercial-free content streaming options.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Yeah but all I am saying is swapping out set top boxes isn't any different than swapping out gateways if extenders were universal. You already said gateways would be swapped out. And similar to what you said, you could just put your set top box in the basement if you wanted a gateway.


But in that case who's going to provide the primary DVR? The MSO? So you're stuck with whatever UI and features they decide to give you?

By separating the tuners and security into a gateway then you still have options for the UI of your DVR and your extenders. If you combine the DVR with the gateway then the whole system is much more limiting.



trip1eX said:


> Cloud dvr is On Demand as far as I can tell. Netflix is a cloud dvr.


It uses the same basic technology, but by law you have to request the recording and you still retain the ability to FF past the ads. (for now)



trip1eX said:


> I think streaming tech is where you're already getting the ability to use whatever box you want to use.


Even with streaming services like Sling TV without some sort of open standard we're only allow to use the service on the devices they choose and in the manner they choose. (i.e. no recording)



trip1eX said:


> Personally the way things are, are not that bad, considering we can skip commercials and yet pay commericial subsidized rates for our tv. I do imagine with the success of Netflix and Amazon plus the breaking out of HBO from cable that we will see more commercial-free content streaming options.


But the FCC, and the MSOs, want to replace CableCARD so the way things are is going away. We're talking about what comes next. If the MSOs get their way then you'll have to use an app to access your linear channels and you'll only be able to watch live. No more DVR unless they offer a cloud DVR, in which case you relinquish all control to your MSO. They could block FFing, they could limit how long you're allowed to keep recordings, they could limit how many times you could watch a particular recording, etc... Third party DVRs with user control are dead.


----------



## lpwcomp

Netflix is _*not*_ a "Cloud DVR". A cloud DVR has to have an individual copy of any recording.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Netflix is _*not*_ a "Cloud DVR". A cloud DVR has to have an individual copy of any recording.


But the only reason for this is that the content providers sued, because they don't like cloud DVRs at all, and the judge ruled that as long as each user specifically requests the program and each user has their own individual copy of it then it's legal. If the MSOs come to an agreement with the content providers they could subvert those requirements.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> But the only reason for this is that the content providers sued, because they don't like cloud DVRs at all, and the judge ruled that as long as each user specifically requests the program and each user has their own individual copy of it then it's legal. If the MSOs come to an agreement with the content providers they could subvert those requirements.


What would be the incentive for them to arrive at any such agreement? Even if they do, it's no longer a DVR, simply an extension of On-Demand.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> Yikes! So they're really married to using the phone lines for everything huh? Terrible strategy. They'd be better off using powerline networking then HPNA.


No. They use coax. It still sucks though. I don't think there are any HPNA phone line products still out there.



snerd said:


> It depends. HPNA over twisted pair gives PHY rates up to 160Mbps, which is slower than MoCA. HPNA over coax gives PHY rates up to 300Mbps and data rates up to 200Mbps, which is faster than MoCA 1.1.


The problem is, in the real world, it's not nearly as robust as MoCA.



trip1eX said:


> Don't see the point. YOu'd send all your recording traffic over your network. Plus seems ripe for even more support calls for the average joe.


This system, at least the version that we are talking about, is not for the average Joe. This is for the people on this forum. A gateway system with a baked-in DVR that then streams out to the user's devices is something that's more average Joe-ish, and really isn't any more complicated than Comcast's X1 or DirecTV's Genie, and those are fine when installed by a professional installer.



Dan203 said:


> But the only reason for this is that the content providers sued, because they don't like cloud DVRs at all, and the judge ruled that as long as each user specifically requests the program and each user has their own individual copy of it then it's legal. If the MSOs come to an agreement with the content providers they could subvert those requirements.


But the bigger difference is that a Cloud DVR lets you record anything that is on TV. Netflix is a glorified VOD service.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> What would be the incentive for them to arrive at any such agreement? Even if they do, it's no longer a DVR, simply an extension of On-Demand.


Probably none. I'm just saying that the whole individual copy thing is a legal requirement that resulted from a law suit. Otherwise the technology they use is identical to VOD.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> But in that case who's going to provide the primary DVR? The MSO? So you're stuck with whatever UI and features they decide to give you?
> 
> By separating the tuners and security into a gateway then you still have options for the UI of your DVR and your extenders. If you combine the DVR with the gateway then the whole system is much more limiting.


IT isn't more limiting. IT's the same stuff except in 2 boxes connected by a longer wire.

The gateway solution is there, from the looks of it, because the open set top box market didn't work. The boxes are too expensive. And the cablecard is a pain.

The solution? Split the set top box into 2. Let the MSO provide the expensive dummy part of the box that is unique to them. The CE manufacturer provides the 2nd cheaper box. YOu remove the two big obstacles to an open working set top box market. HEnce that's why CE manufacturers want this solution.

REality is the solution might not be cheaper for the customer overall. I mean you'll still be paying the provider for equipment (the gateway) at whatever rate they can get away with. PLus you'll have to have a box at every tv and harddrives at at least one tv if you want a DVR. At least now we can buy a Tivo and not use any MSO equipment.

But you'd have an open retail set top market and, in theory, you'd have a much better experience because of competition.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> PLus you'll have to have a box at every tv and harddrives at at least one tv if you want a DVR. At least now we can buy a Tivo and not use any MSO equipment.


You don't need a box at every TV. The whole TiVo/Mini paradigm could still exist. There is nothing precluding that. Plus TVs could access the gateway directly by having a DLNA client built in, or you could just buy a cheap streaming stick device with a DLNA client for TVs that don't have it built in. The only MSO equipment you'd need is the gateway itself. Everything else could be handled by owned equipment.

Also in my suggested system the gateway would not just be a dummy device to convert linear channels. It would also host an HTML5 based app (part of the DLNA spec known as RUI) which would provide you with full access to all of the MSOs features, just like a rented STB. This would allow simple devices, like TVs with built in support or streaming sticks, to simply launch the RUI and give you an experience equivalent to a rented STB without the need for an actual STB. It would also give more complex devices like TiVo a way to allow access to extended MSO features, like VOD, in a standard way without needing a special deal with each MSO. They can just launch the RUI and the user can access VOD via the MSOs UI. Not quite the most elegant solution, but it's better then what we have now, and TiVo could still strike deals for more integrated solutions if they wanted. But this would at least be a way for everyone to have access to every feature that they pay for regardless of the equipment they're using.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> But the FCC, and the MSOs, want to replace CableCARD so the way things are is going away. We're talking about what comes next. If the MSOs get their way then you'll have to use an app to access your linear channels and you'll only be able to watch live. No more DVR unless they offer a cloud DVR, in which case you relinquish all control to your MSO. They could block FFing, they could limit how long you're allowed to keep recordings, they could limit how many times you could watch a particular recording, etc... Third party DVRs with user control are dead.


I don't buy that. MSOs seem to only want apps as a way to satisfy the "requirement" to open up the set top box market.

I don't think that idea has anything to do with cablecards or their replacement.

Cablecard is going to be replaced because it is old and expensive. There is no need for it. YOu can do the same thing with software for much cheaper. CAblecard makes set top boxes bigger than they need to be as well. The providers themselves aleady provide video content via the internet and there is no cablecard involved. Just a log in.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> You don't need a box at every TV. The whole TiVo/Mini paradigm could still exist. There is nothing precluding that. Plus TVs could access the gateway directly by having a DLNA client built in, or you could just buy a cheap streaming stick device with a DLNA client for TVs that don't have it built in. The only MSO equipment you'd need is the gateway itself. Everything else could be handled by owned equipment.


Same difference. Minis or Tvs. You'd need an extra box because you'd have to have hard drives in one box and the Gateway in another.

YOu would have to rent the gateway from the MSO where now, at least in the cable world, you can bypass the MSO equipment altogether and buy a Tivo instead.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Also in my suggested system the gateway would not just be a dummy device to convert linear channels. It would also host an HTML5 based app (part of the DLNA spec known as RUI) which would provide you with full access to all of the MSOs features, just like a rented STB. This would allow simple devices, like TVs with built in support or streaming sticks, to simply launch the RUI and give you an experience equivalent to a rented STB without the need for an actual STB. It would also give more complex devices like TiVo a way to allow access to extended MSO features, like VOD, in a standard way without needing a special deal with each MSO. They can just launch the RUI and the user can access VOD via the MSOs UI. Not quite the most elegant solution, but it's better then what we have now, and TiVo could still strike deals for more integrated solutions if they wanted. But this would at least be a way for everyone to have access to every feature that they pay for regardless of the equipment they're using.


But what you're really talking about is having standards. I think the whole gateway talk just clouds that point cause it really isn't any different a concept as the set top box and extenders.

The gateway configuration, as I have come to think, is really just about making it cheaper and thus easier to sell boxes to consumers at retail.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Even with streaming services like Sling TV without some sort of open standard we're only allow to use the service on the devices they choose and in the manner they choose. (i.e. no recording)


There's a lot of incentive to be on as many devices as possible in this space. IF anything Netflix has shown that it pays dividends to be on as many devices as possible. Hulu is doing this. Amazon is too.

Direct competition between similar OTT cable services should only make this more true.

As far as skipping commercials goes, I see no reason why there wouldn't be on-demand in this space.

...from the little I know about Hulu, I believe they listened to consumer demand and have created a commercial free option? So between that and the other options for commercial free OTT content like Netflix, Amazon, HBO and Showtime, I can only imagine commercial free OTT options will be available to those that want to pay for them.

The possibility of subscribing to a OTT Service and using whatever UI you want is more murky. Some might not want to put the customer experience in the hands of others. But some might give you whatever you want. And say hey the best experience is our app, but you can also access our service through other apps. Netflix is a leader here too because you can access its content through the Tivo UI if you want or through the Netflix app.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> I don't buy that. MSOs seem to only want apps as a way to satisfy the "requirement" to open up the set top box market.
> 
> I don't think that idea has anything to do with cablecards or their replacement.
> 
> Cablecard is going to be replaced because it is old and expensive. There is no need for it. YOu can do the same thing with software for much cheaper. The providers themselves provide video content via the internet and there is no cablecard involved. Just a log in. CAblecard makes set top boxes bigger than they need to be to be too.


There is a law in place that requires MSOs to support a "separable security standard". It was passed in 1996. CableCARDs were the long overdue fruition of that law. The original law requires MSO leased equipment to use the same security system as 3rd party devices, known as the "integration ban", in an effort to create a system where 3rd party devices and leased equipment were on equal footing. Due to manipulation by the cable MSOs that portion failed and STELAR, passed this year, removed that one provision with the provision that the FCC convene a working group to work on a downloadable security standard to replace CableCARD that would encompass all MSOs, not just cable.

The MSOs are trying to argue that their apps are good enough to meet the requirements of the law, since they run on 3rd party equipment. However they fail to acknowledge that apps do not allow 3rd party devices direct access to the linear streams, which is required to produce a DVR or any system with a competitive UI. They also fail to acknowledge that they're only available on the platforms they choose, and can be revoked at any time rendering the consumer's equipment useless.

CE manufacturers want the keys to the kingdom. They want not only access to raw linear streams but also a service discovery protocol with direct access to extended MSO features like VOD.

I'm purposing sort of a hybrid. A system that gives direct access to the linear channels so we can retain the capabilities of CableCARD, but across all MSO systems regardless of tuner/security technology, and also serves up a standards based "app" in the form of an HTML5 RUI that any device can run and allow the user to access the extended services of the MSO. The RUI could also be used by simpler devices as their primary UI giving 3rd party devices full access to all MSO features including live TV.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Same difference. Minis or Tvs. You'd need an extra box because you'd have to have hard drives in one box and the Gateway in another.
> 
> YOu would have to rent the gateway from the MSO where now, at least in the cable world, you can bypass the MSO equipment altogether and buy a Tivo instead.


No different the a CableCARD. You have to rent that now and it's limited to 6 tuners so if you need more then that then you have to rent additional cards.

The only difference here is that we're separating the tuner technology as well as the security so that the system works across multiple MSOs. Right now the biggest hurdle to coming up with some sort of universal standard is that the technology used by the various MSOs is so different. There is really no way to come up with a downloadable security standard that would work across all MSOs. So the alternative is to forgo all that, allow them to use whatever security technology they want and just convert from it to an open standard. ala the gateway system.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> There is a law in place that requires MSOs to support a "separable security standard". It was passed in 1996. CableCARDs were the long overdue fruition of that law. The original law requires MSO leased equipment to use the same security system as 3rd party devices, known as the "integration ban", in an effort to create a system where 3rd party devices and leased equipment were on equal footing. Due to manipulation by the cable MSOs that portion failed and STELAR, passed this year, removed that one provision with the provision that the FCC convene a working group to work on a downloadable security standard to replace CableCARD that would encompass all MSOs, not just cable.
> 
> The MSOs are trying to argue that their apps are good enough to meet the requirements of the law, since they run on 3rd party equipment. However they fail to acknowledge that apps do not allow 3rd party devices direct access to the linear streams, which is required to produce a DVR or any system with a competitive UI. They also fail to acknowledge that they're only available on the platforms they choose, and can be revoked at any time rendering the consumer's equipment useless.
> 
> CE manufacturers want the keys to the kingdom. They want not only access to raw linear streams but also a service discovery protocol with direct access to extended MSO features like VOD.
> 
> I'm purposing sort of a hybrid. A system that gives direct access to the linear channels so we can retain the capabilities of CableCARD, but across all MSO systems regardless of tuner/security technology, and also serves up a standards based "app" in the form of an HTML5 RUI that any device can run and allow the user to access the extended services of the MSO. The RUI could also be used by simpler devices as their primary UI giving 3rd party devices full access to all MSO features including live TV.


I see 2 different issues. I think cablecard is outdated as a security tech. It should be replaced by a cheaper solution.

MSOs see this too.

Now, MSOs may be using this as an opportunity to totally bypass some of the spirit of the original ruling that led to cablecard, but that's a separate issue.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> There's a lot of incentive to be on as many devices as possible in this space. IF anything Netflix has shown that it pays dividends to be on as many devices as possible. Hulu is doing this. Amazon is too.
> 
> Direct competition between similar OTT cable services should only make this more true.
> 
> As far as skipping commercials goes, I see no reason why there wouldn't be on-demand in this space.
> 
> ...from the little I know about Hulu, I believe they listened to consumer demand and have created a commercial free option? So between that and the other options for commercial free OTT content like Netflix, Amazon, HBO and Showtime, I can only imagine commercial free OTT options will be available to those that want to pay for them.
> 
> The possibility of subscribing to a OTT Service and using whatever UI you want is more murky. Some might not want to put the customer experience in the hands of others. But some might give you whatever you want. And say hey the best experience is our app, but you can also access our service through other apps. Netflix is a leader here too because you can access its content through the Tivo UI if you want or through the Netflix app.


I don't think you quite understand what we're talking about here. The FCC and the MSOs want to replace CableCARD. So assume CableCARD is going away. One of the mandates for it's replacement are that it works with multiple MSO technologies, not just cable. So how do you purpose that they create a downloadable security standard that works with all current, and future, MSO systems when they use vastly different technologies for broadcast and communication? The main reason DSS was excluded from CableCARD is because their technology is fundamentally incompatible with how CableCARD works.

The MSOs think we should just dump CableCARD and replace it with nothing. They claim that their existing apps are good enough to satisfy the 1996 law. Do you agree? Are you OK with your only options for accessing the TV you pay for being either a leased box or a simple streaming device that only allows you to watch live TV? Because that's all you'd get with their apps purposeful. Without access to the raw live streams 3rd party DVRs would be impossible.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> No different the a CableCARD. You have to rent that now and it's limited to 6 tuners so if you need more then that then you have to rent additional cards.


CAblecard is a separate issue. You can have a cablecard replacement on a set top box.



Dan203 said:


> The only difference here is that we're separating the tuner technology as well as the security so that the system works across multiple MSOs. Right now the biggest hurdle to coming up with some sort of universal standard is that the technology used by the various MSOs is so different.


But the gateway wont work across multiple MSOs because satellite tuners are different from cable tuners which is different from what Uverse uses. The only thing that works across multiple MSOs would be the protocols. Hence you're really only talking about open standards. And the gateway is a glorified set top box.



Dan203 said:


> There is really no way to come up with a downloadable security standard that would work across all MSOs. So the alternative is to forgo all that, allow them to use whatever security technology they want and just convert from it to an open standard. ala the gateway system.


Aka use whatever set top box they want to use. But make it so other devices can talk to it.

I just think your gateway idea clouds what you're really talking about which is open standards.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> I see 2 different issues. I think cablecard is outdated as a security tech. It should be replaced by a cheaper solution.


If we were only talking about cable, and nothing else, then a downloadable replacement for CableCARD would be completely doable. The problem is that congress mandated that they look into a solution that would encompass all MSOs. And when you start trying to come up with something that would work across such a broad spectrum of technologies that's where the gateway solution makes the most sense. If the FCC decides that's impossible the maybe we will just see a simple downloadable version of CableCARD. But that means we're still stuck with TAs. And if the cable companies decide to switch to IP then the whole thing goes out the window again and we have to start over.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> But the gateway wont work across multiple MSOs because satellite tuners are different from cable tuners which is different from what Uverse uses. The only thing that works across multiple MSOs would be the protocols. Hence you're really only talking about open standards. And the gateway is a glorified set top box.


Exactly. The gateway is supplied by the MSO and translates all their proprietary technology into an open standard. So if you buy a TiVo it can talk to a gateway from DirecTV the same way it talks to one from cable or Uverse. It's completely transparent to the 3rd party equipment. All the "magic" happens inside the gateway. No need for an imposed security standard. The MSO can use whatever security system it wants. As long as the gateway can convert it to an open standard, like DLNA, so that 3rd party devices can access the content. Basically the gateway would be a headless STB with multiple tuners. Any other device on your network could request access to one, or more, of those tuners using open protocols.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> If we were only talking about cable, and nothing else, then a downloadable replacement for CableCARD would be completely doable. The problem is that congress mandated that they look into a solution that would encompass all MSOs. And when you start trying to come up with something that would work across such a broad spectrum of technologies that's where the gateway solution makes the most sense. If the FCC decides that's impossible the maybe we will just see a simple downloadable version of CableCARD. But that means we're still stuck with TAs. And if the cable companies decide to switch to IP then the whole thing goes out the window again and we have to start over.


I get all that. But you act like a gateway is so much different than a set top box. IT's the same thing.

You said you need to replace the gateway if you switch providers. No different than replacing the set top box.

Also why does the security have to be universal!?!??! You have to replace the gateway (aka set top box) and you already have the requirement it has to support open (extender-type) standards. Why would anyone care whether the security is universal or not?


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Exactly. The gateway is supplied by the MSO and translates all their proprietary technology into an open standard. So if you buy a TiVo it can talk to a gateway from DirecTV the same way it talks to one from cable or Uverse. It's completely transparent to the 3rd party equipment. All the "magic" happens inside the gateway. No need for an imposed security standard. The MSO can use whatever security system it wants. As long as the gateway can convert it to an open standard, like DLNA, so that 3rd party devices can access the content. Basically the gateway would be a headless STB with multiple tuners. Any other device on your network could request access to one, or more, of those tuners using open protocols.


I know. IT's a set top box that supports open standards.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> I know. IT's a set top box that supports open standards.


And multiple tuners which can be accessed by multiple devices. That's the main difference. Rather then one STB per TV you could have one gateway connected in an easy to access location and up to six TVs could borrow a tuner from it over your home network, or even via wifi.

This is why I think this is the simplest solution for the MSOs. The technology involved here isn't much different then a STB and there is already a mandate in place that requires STBs to be accessible via an open IP standard. So this is really just expanding on that whole concept a little.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> And multiple tuners which can be accessed by multiple devices. That's the main difference. Rather then one STB per TV you could have one gateway connected in an easy to access location and your TVs could borrow a tuner from it over your home network, even wifi.


Tivo has 6 tuners and I consider it a set top box. It's an easy to access location. And Minis can borrow tuners from it over my home network. I'm sure Tivo could write an app so that a TV could borrow a tuner if they wanted to.

You're really just talking about open standards.

Or maybe I should start calling my Tivo a gateway.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Tivo has 6 tuners and I consider it a set top box.


But TiVo only functions because of the CableCARD (and TA) and it's not transportable to any other MSO technology. Probably not even a downloadable security standard. So no matter what they come up with here expect to have to replace your TiVo.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Or maybe I should start calling my Tivo a gateway.


I guess you could. Technically TiVo is doing a lot of what we're discussing here with the Mini. The problem is that it's dependent on CableCARD to function, and they want to replace that. That's what we're discussing here. While your TiVo may act similar to the gateway I'm purposing it dose not actually include the security technology, that has to be provided by the cable company via the CableCARD. CableCARDs are, as their name suggests, specific to cable technology. The FCC wants to replace them with a more ambiguous technology that would work across multiple MSOs. Simply replacing the CableCARD with something else is not really possible with that goal in mind. So what that means is you'd have to separate all the provider specific technology, including the tuners, into a gateway device provided by the MSO. Your TiVo would then essentially become a Mini with a hard drive. It would request the tuners from the gateway and then write those streams to it's internal disk. You could still have Minis, and they could work in one of two ways. They could either have some sort of internal storage so they could do their own buffering and request a tuner directly from the gateway when they wanted to watch live TV. Or they could continue to piggy back on the main TiVo where it requests tuner from the gateway, buffers to it's disc, and then streams that over to the Mini. The former would probably be more efficient, but the later would provide better integration. Not sure which route they would take.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> But TiVo only functions because of the CableCARD (and TA) and it's not transportable to any other MSO technology. Probably not even a downloadable security standard. So no matter what they come up with here expect to have to replace your TiVo.


You mean, like with a gateway, I can't use my Tivo with other providers nor will it work without security??!?


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> You mean, like with a gateway, I can't use my Tivo with other providers nor will it work without security??!?


Don't understand the question.

If they go the gateway route it's possible existing TiVos could be adapted. They'd have a bunch of hardware they didn't need, like 6 tuners and a CableCARD slot, but they're likely capable of running DLNA software and receiving the streams via MoCa or Ethernet. Although I'm not sure about CPU load. That depends on how much CPU DTCP-IP requires to decrypt.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Don't understand the question.
> 
> If they go the gateway route it's possible existing TiVos could be adapted. They'd have a bunch of hardware they didn't need, like 6 tuners and a CableCARD slot, but they're likely capable of running DLNA software and receiving the streams via MoCa or Ethernet. Although I'm not sure about CPU load. That depends on how much CPU DTCP-IP requires to decrypt.


OK so the Tivo is a gateway. And we're on the same page. Now we just need open standards enforced (assuming processing power is good enough.)


----------



## BobCamp1

trip1eX said:


> OK so the Tivo is a gateway. And we're on the same page. Now we just need open standards enforced (assuming processing power is good enough.)


That product will never sell. It'll be too complicated and too expensive as customers will be paying for hardware and licenses that they'll probably never use. Unless you sell separate Tivo models for cable, DirecTV, and Dish, but that kind of defeats the entire purpose of the new standard.

Plus, support would be a logistical nightmare. You wake up one morning and you have no service. You call Dish, and they tell you it's probably not their problem because you have a Tivo gateway. For a service fee, they can come out and verify it's not their equipment. And if it is, they can claim the Tivo gateway fried their equipment and charge you a damage fee plus an additional fee to replace it. Then you STILL don't have signal, so you have to call Tivo and have them do a truck roll too. Oh wait, Tivo doesn't do that....

The MSO has to provide the gateway to avoid all these problems. The Tivo or other devices then connect to this gateway.


----------



## lessd

BobCamp1 said:


> That product will never sell. It'll be too complicated and too expensive as customers will be paying for hardware and licenses that they'll probably never use. Unless you sell separate Tivo models for cable, DirecTV, and Dish, but that kind of defeats the entire purpose of the new standard.
> 
> Plus, support would be a logistical nightmare. You wake up one morning and you have no service. You call Dish, and they tell you it's probably not their problem because you have a Tivo gateway. For a service fee, they can come out and verify it's not their equipment. And if it is, they can claim the Tivo gateway fried their equipment and charge you a damage fee plus an additional fee to replace it. Then you STILL don't have signal, so you have to call Tivo and have them do a truck roll too. Oh wait, Tivo doesn't do that....
> 
> The MSO has to provide the gateway to avoid all these problems. The Tivo or other devices then connect to this gateway.


Don't we have the same problems with cable cards ?? What the difference with a TiVo gateway or a Cable card if your service does not work.

Cable cards may be old technology but they work except for SDV, and for people that need that service the TA is available. This country has so few 3rd pty DVRs that IMHO we should just keep the cable card, as I don't see what the big gain would be for changing, unless the market would open up to a large number of 3rd pty DVRs if we had a newer system than the Cable Card/TA system.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> Don't we have the same problems with cable cards ?? What the difference with a TiVo gateway or a Cable card if your service does not work.
> 
> Cable cards may be old technology but they work except for SDV, and for people that need that service the TA is available. This country has so few 3rd pty DVRs that IMHO we should just keep the cable card, as I don't see what the big gain would be for changing, unless the market would open up to a large number of 3rd pty DVRs if we had a newer system than the Cable Card/TA system.


The point of the law is not just to support DVRs, it's to support all 3rd party access including cable ready TVs. Even if there were TVs with CableCARD slots TAs ruin their ability to function as a standalone device. If you need an extra box connected to the TV anyway for it to function you might as well just have a STB.

The best part about this gateway approach is that no matter how the MSO changes it's technology all the hardware needed to request, tune and decrypt a channel is in the gateway, so 3rd party devices are completely unaffected. It separates the MSO's technology from the open standard.

This solution would be good for them too. It makes it much easier to service a customer when the only have one box. It's cheaper upfront, easier to install and easier to maintain. DirecTV is actually moving toward a system like this all on their own. They just use a proprietary standard rather then something open like DLNA though. (although from what I understand their system was developed by the same people and is very similar)


----------



## trip1eX

BobCamp1 said:


> That product will never sell. It'll be too complicated and too expensive as customers will be paying for hardware and licenses that they'll probably never use. Unless you sell separate Tivo models for cable, DirecTV, and Dish, but that kind of defeats the entire purpose of the new standard.
> 
> Plus, support would be a logistical nightmare. You wake up one morning and you have no service. You call Dish, and they tell you it's probably not their problem because you have a Tivo gateway. For a service fee, they can come out and verify it's not their equipment. And if it is, they can claim the Tivo gateway fried their equipment and charge you a damage fee plus an additional fee to replace it. Then you STILL don't have signal, so you have to call Tivo and have them do a truck roll too. Oh wait, Tivo doesn't do that....
> 
> The MSO has to provide the gateway to avoid all these problems. The Tivo or other devices then connect to this gateway.


YOu missed the pt. I think I said it 6 ways to Sunday yesterday so I will leave it at that.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> YOu missed the pt. I think I said it 6 ways to Sunday yesterday so I will leave it at that.


I'm not quite sure I get your point. It sounds like you're basically saying that in your setup the TiVo is the gateway and you're fine with that setup and don't think it should change.

However that's not really the goal of this committee. The goal of this committee was to come up with a replacement for CableCARD that would be agnostic to the MSOs technology. They essentially came to the same conclusion I did. It's not possible to just replace the security part and have it work across all MSOs. The only viable solution for doing this that is completely MSO technology agnostic is the gateway approach. (aka the "virtual headend") The MSOs realize this to, but their argument is that they shouldn't have to do anything at all, not even CableCARD, because their apps meet the requirements of the law. If they prevail then we will all be forced to lease a DVR from our MSO, and our only "choice" will be to run their app on one of their approved devices. CableCARD is going away. The setup you have now will eventually cease to function. What we're talking about here is what we want to replace it. You seem fixated on what you already have.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> I'm not quite sure I get your point. It sounds like you're basically saying that in your setup the TiVo is the gateway and you're fine with that setup and don't think it should change.


SEt top box is same thing as a gateway. You act like it's something totally different. It's basically the same thing.



Dan203 said:


> However that's not really the goal of this committee. The goal of this committee was to come up with a replacement for CableCARD that would be agnostic to the MSOs technology.


Never said anything about the committee.



Dan203 said:


> They essentially came to the same conclusion I did. It's not possible to just replace the security part and have it work across all MSOs.


It's still not possible. A gateway won't work across multiple MSOs. btw, you didn't address a separate point I made, ...who cares what security is in the gateway if the gateway is unique to the MSO and has to work on open standards?



Dan203 said:


> The only viable solution for doing this that is completely MSO technology agnostic is the gateway approach. (aka the "virtual headend") The MSOs realize this to, but their argument is that they shouldn't have to do anything at all, not even CableCARD, because their apps meet the requirements of the law.


All this is a set top box with open standards. It's no different than if I took my Tivo or Comcast box or DTV box and put it in the basement.



Dan203 said:


> If they prevail then we will all be forced to lease a DVR from our MSO, and our only "choice" will be to run their app on one of their approved devices. CableCARD is going away. The setup you have now will eventually cease to function. What we're talking about here is what we want to replace it. You seem fixated on what you already have.


I said a gateway is just a set top box. And it is.

I also said what you're really talking about are open standards.

My Tivo, being a set top box, is also a gateway. Just no open standards. Look no further than this FireTV app. Or the fact it streams to mobile devices. Or look at the Tivo Mini. The Tivo has security on it. It has security on it that is only good for the MSOs it works with. No different than the Gateway you're describing.

Now in the future, if/when the security standards change, yes it won't function. That is, unless it is also turns out to be compatible with a future downloadable security solution, which still has a chance of happening afaik. But that's besides the point.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> SEt top box is same thing as a gateway. You act like it's something totally different. It's basically the same thing.


You're right that the hardware isn't much different then a STB, except that it would have 6 tuners, instead of just one, and those 6 tuners would be accessible by 3rd multiple party devices via an open protocol. That's part of the appeal of this approach, the hardware needed to make it happen isn't far fetched. It's basically an offshoot of hardware that already exists.



trip1eX said:


> It's still not possible. A gateway won't work across multiple MSOs.


The gateway isn't suppose to work across multiple MSOs. The standards are. The gateway is a way to translate the proprietary standards used by a given MSO into an open protocol that 3rd party devices can use to access pay TV. So the gateway would be tied to the MSO, but your owned equipment would not. Unlike now where your TiVo will only work with CableCARD and could never be used with DSS because it's hardware is fundamentally incompatible.



trip1eX said:


> All this is a set top box with open standards. It's no different than if I took my Tivo or Comcast box or DTV box and put it in the basement.


Kind of, but not quite. Unlike your TiVo it would have no UI of it's own and no hard drive. It would simply act as a translator between the MSOs broadcasting/security technology and an open standard that any certified device could access. And unlike the Comcast/DTV boxes they would have multiple tuners and not be tied to a specific TV. They would have the same basic hardware, but instead of using them directly the tuners could be borrowed remotely by other devices on the network to use for their own purposes. Whether that purpose is to simply watch or record, it's up to the remote device the gateway doesn't care.



trip1eX said:


> I said a gateway is just a set top box. And it is.


Not quite. It wouldn't have any video output or decoding capabilities of it's own. It's only job would be to tune the channel, decrypt it, reencrypt it using an open standard and then send it along to the network device that requested it. It would be up to that network device to actually decode and display the signal.



trip1eX said:


> My Tivo, being a set top box, is also a gateway. Just no open standards. Look no further than this FireTV app. Or the fact it streams to mobile devices. Or look at the Tivo Mini. The Tivo has security on it. It has security on it that is only good for the MSOs it works with. No different than the Gateway you're describing.


Your TiVo is only compatible with cable. And requires both a CableCARD and a tuning adapter to function. So while it is similar to the gateway we're discussing here it's not quite the same thing.

The main reason to separate just the tuners and security stuff, and make the gateway headless and driveless is cost. You're going to be required to rent one of these gateway devices from your MSO to make this system work. By keeping the hardware as simple as possible it will keep prices down and as such make them cheaper to rent.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> You're right that the hardware isn't much different then a STB, except that it would have 6 tuners, instead of just one, and those 6 tuners would be accessible by 3rd multiple party devices via an open protocol. That's part of the appeal of this approach, the hardware needed to make it happen isn't far fetched. It's basically an offshoot of hardware that already exists.


MY Tivo is a set top box with dvr capability. It has 6 tuners.

Yeah I know the hardware needed to make this happen isn't far fetched because, as I said, it is the same thing we have now except with open standards!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> The gateway isn't suppose to work across multiple MSOs. The standards are. The gateway is a way to translate the proprietary standards used by a given MSO into an open protocol that 3rd party devices can use to access pay TV. So the gateway would be tied to the MSO, but your owned equipment would not. Unlike now where your TiVo will only work with CableCARD and could never be used with DSS because it's hardware is fundamentally incompatible.


But my Tivo is a gateway so it doesn't have to work with DSS. IT just has to talk other devices/apps through open standards.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Kind of, but not quite. Unlike your TiVo it would have no UI of it's own and no hard drive. It would simply act as a translator between the MSOs broadcasting/security technology and an open standard that any certified device could access. And unlike the Comcast/DTV boxes they would have multiple tuners and not be tied to a specific TV. They would have the same basic hardware, but instead of using them directly the tuners could be borrowed remotely by other devices on the network to use for their own purposes. Whether that purpose is to simply watch or record, it's up to the remote device the gateway doesn't care.


In other words like every box every cable and satellite company rent to customers only it would sit in the basement nowhere near a tv and do open standards. Cause my Tivo has 6 tuners. My parent's Comcast box has something like 5 tuners. The GEnie has....I don't know....um 5 tuners too??

They all talk to remote devices.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Not quite. It wouldn't have any video output or decoding capabilities of it's own. It's only job would be to tune the channel, decrypt it, reencrypt it using an open standard and then send it along to the network device that requested it. It would be up to that network device to actually decode and display the signal.


Yes same thing as if I never turn on the TV connected to my Roamio ( put the Roamio in the basement) and just use Minis or mobile apps. That is except for open standards.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I know the hardware needed to make this happen isn't far fetched because, as I said, it is the same thing we have now except with open standards!!!!!!!!!!!!


And again I will say.... not quite. As I've said many, many, times the gateway I'm referring to would be headless, driveless, and contain no decoding hardware of it's own. It would simply act as a bridge between the MSOs tuning/security technology and the open standard. Also you will NOT be able to own the gateway. You will only be able to own the equipment that talks to the gateway. Which is exactly how CableCARDs work.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Your TiVo is only compatible with cable. And requires both a CableCARD and a tuning adapter to function. So while it is similar to the gateway we're discussing here it's not quite the same thing.


NO. Same thing. PUt it in a basement and it's gateway. A gateway is not compatible with every MSO either. So who cares if it only compatible with cable.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> NO. Same thing. PUt it in a basement and it's gateway. A gateway is not compatible with every MSO either. So who cares if it only compatible with cable.


But with a real gateway system you could buy a TiVo that is compatible with all MSOs. Since the TiVo would not contain any tuning or security hardware of it's own it would be able to talk to the gateway supplied by Comcast in exactly the same way as it would talk to the gateway supplied by DirecTV. By completely separating the tuning/security hardware from 3rd party devices you make it so customer owned equipment is transportable between MSOs. As it is now you own a TiVo that can only ever be used with cable. If you wanted to switch to DirecTV you couldn't do that without losing the use of your owned equipment.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> The main reason to separate just the tuners and security stuff, and make the gateway headless and driveless is cost. You're going to be required to rent one of these gateway devices from your MSO to make this system work. By keeping the hardware as simple as possible it will keep prices down and as such make them cheaper to rent.


It won't keep prices down. I pay nothing to my MSO for equipment right now. My costs would go up.

It would remove an obstacle to an open set top box retail market that currently exists. Which is the high up front cost. But that doesn't mean some of us would be paying less overall. Anyone with a lifetime Tivo setup would probably be paying more over the long run if there Tivo wouldn't function as a gateway and they had to rent one. The vast majority, who rent cable boxes, would probably pay less...maybe.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> And again I will say.... not quite. As I've said many, many, times the gateway I'm referring to would be headless, driveless, and contain no decoding hardware of it's own. It would simply act as a bridge between the MSOs tuning/security technology and the open standard. Also you will NOT be able to own the gateway. You will only be able to own the equipment that talks to the gateway. Which is exactly how CableCARDs work.


Again I say same thing. Nothing would be different if moved my Roamio to the basement.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> But with a real gateway system you could buy a TiVo that is compatible with all MSOs.


You could buy a Tivo Mini that is compatible with all MSOs. But not a Tivo.

A Tivo is sure alot more like a Gateway than a Tivo Mini is like a Tivo.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> And again I will say.... not quite. As I've said many, many, times the gateway I'm referring to would be headless, driveless, and contain no decoding hardware of it's own. It would simply act as a bridge between the MSOs tuning/security technology and the open standard. Also you will NOT be able to own the gateway. You will only be able to own the equipment that talks to the gateway. Which is exactly how CableCARDs work.


Er, so why not have the cable co xmit the open addressable standard of the security, than just plug in the compatible TiVo/TV or any other 3rd pty unit, call the cable co with a code for that device and it would be activated, no other hardware needed, this works with my own modem now.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> It won't keep prices down. I pay nothing to my MSO for equipment right now. My costs would go up.


You rent a CableCARD don't you? The reason those are so cheap is because the FCC mandates pricing on them. The same would apply to the gateway devices. Although I assume the price would still be higher then a CableCARD, but the price of the retail hardware would be cheaper, so that would help offset it a little.



trip1eX said:


> It would remove an obstacle to an open set top box retail market that currently exists. Which is the high up front cost. But that doesn't mean some of us would be paying less overall. Anyone with a lifetime Tivo setup would probably be paying more over the long run if there Tivo wouldn't function as a gateway and they had to rent one. The vast majority, who rent cable boxes, would probably pay less...maybe.


That's not the only obstacle to retail devices though. Right now it's essentially impossible to make a "cable ready" TV with CableCARD because of the tuning adapter. If you have to dangle another box off the side of your TV anyway then what's the point? Using a gateway system would not only eliminate the TA but it would make it so no future technology changes could create a similar situation. With all the tuning/security stuff inside the gateway the MSO could change their technology however they wanted as and as long as they supplied a gateway that spit out a standards compliant network stream your TV would continue to function.

The other obstacle with existing retail devices is that you're essentially hardware locked to a single provider. If you spend hundreds of dollars on a TiVo that only supports cable you're unlikely to jump ship to DirecTV even if they offer you a way better deal. Because you'd lose access to the TiVo you paid for AND you'd be forced to start over with new equipment with a new UI. With a gateway system they could simply swap out the gateway and your TiVo would continue to function exactly as it had with cable.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> Er, so why not have the cable co xmit the open addressable standard of the security, than just plug in the compatible TiVo/TV or any other 3rd pty unit, call the cable co with a code for that device and it would be activated, no other hardware needed, this works with my own modem now.


Cable companies don't want to allow 3rd party hardware to have direct access to their system. That's where CableCARDs came from in the first place. It essentially acts as a man in the middle. It uses secret keys to decrypt the cable company's signal, then renecrypts it using an open scheme using keys both it and the host have (this is where host and data come in), then the host decrypts that stream and reencrypts it again using a private scheme that has been pre-approved by CableLabs. So the host device has no direct knowledge of the encryption scheme used by the original stream. They could do something similar in software instead, but that wouldn't improve the situation much because cable companies also don't want 3rd party devices communicating directly with their head end. Hence the need for tuning adapters rather then having the box talk to the head end directly.

They tried to move the bidirectional stuff into the CableCARD spec at one point but the cable companies insisted on using a technology called OCAP, which essentially allows them to download software into the 3rd party device that allows it to take over the complete UI of the box. So basically the box would just be a dummy device running MSO supplied software. This is essentially what they're trying to accomplish with the "apps" approach as well. They want complete control over the UI presented to the user.


----------



## BobCamp1

trip1eX said:


> NO. Same thing. PUt it in a basement and it's gateway. A gateway is not compatible with every MSO either. So who cares if it only compatible with cable.


That's the fundamental goal of the CableCard replacement device! That's what the committee has been told to figure out: how do customers keep their DVR when switching from cable to DSS and back? If you don't want it, that's fine, but that's not what the new concept is required to do.

I agree that it'll be a huge flop and is a complete waste of time, mainly because it won't work well. It also won't be cheaper than an MSO-provided solution. And that's because this new standard lacks the most vital piece of any successful standard: cooperation. Mandated cooperation is an oxymoron. And since "FCC mandate" is also an oxymoron, there's double trouble.


----------



## Dan203

BobCamp1 said:


> I agree that it'll be a huge flop and is a complete waste of time, mainly because it won't work well. It also won't be cheaper than an MSO-provided solution. And that's because this new standard lacks the most vital piece of any successful standard: cooperation. Mandated cooperation is an oxymoron. And since "FCC mandate" is also an oxymoron, there's double trouble.


This may turn out to be true. Although if they institute something similar to the "integration ban" and force MSOs to use the same gateway devices for their own installs then might work out. Unlike the whole CableCARD "integration ban" this would actually work the same way for both leased and user owned equipment, since they would be using a common piece of equipment. (i.e. the gateway)

Although to be honest I don't think they'll even do it. As much as I think they should I think this whole committee is going to flop and nothing is going to come out of it. We'll continue to use CableCARDs until TiVo goes under and then they will disappear and we'll be back to a system where your only option is to lease equipment from the MSO.


----------



## Bigg

Why is this stuff so complicated to understand? Dan203 has explained it about 100x over!



Dan203 said:


> DirecTV is actually moving toward a system like this all on their own. They just use a proprietary standard rather then something open like DLNA though. (although from what I understand their system was developed by the same people and is very similar)


I believe RVU is open, although only DirecTV is actually using it ATM.



Dan203 said:


> We'll continue to use CableCARDs until TiVo goes under and then they will disappear and we'll be back to a system where your only option is to lease equipment from the MSO.


God, the thought of CableCard being used 10 or 20 years down the road is really scary! It barely works now! If cable providers actually terminated access to CableCard, they would run off several hundred thousand subscribers to DirecTV all at once. That would be great for the quarterly report!


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> You rent a CableCARD don't you? The reason those are so cheap is because the FCC mandates pricing on them. The same would apply to the gateway devices. Although I assume the price would still be higher then a CableCARD, but the price of the retail hardware would be cheaper, so that would help offset it a little.


Cablecards are so "cheap" to rent because they aren't expensive to begin with. Let's not act like the FCC is doing anything other than making sure we aren't extremely gouged on the price. But I wouldn't say $4/mo is cheap for a cablecard. I've probaby paid for cablecard a few times over by now.

Having to rent MSO equipment is going to be like renting 3 or 4 cablecards per month.



Dan203 said:


> That's not the only obstacle to retail devices though.


NO one said it was.



Dan203 said:


> The other obstacle with existing retail devices is that you're essentially hardware locked to a single provider. If you spend hundreds of dollars on a TiVo that only supports cable you're unlikely to jump ship to DirecTV even if they offer you a way better deal. Because you'd lose access to the TiVo you paid for AND you'd be forced to start over with new equipment with a new UI. With a gateway system they could simply swap out the gateway and your TiVo would continue to function exactly as it had with cable.


All I said is you take set top box like the Genie or Hopper or X1 etc, make it compatible with open standards, throw it in the basement and slap a name tag on it and call it a Gateway and we have the same thing.

If a flagship MSO box was compatible with open standards, I could keep it in my basement and use whatever extenders I wanted to use at each tv including just the tv itself. If I switched providers I could keep my extenders. I just would have to swap out the box.

To me, it seems that for this simple observation of mine, you can't see the forest for the trees. Yes not every tree is the same. IT's still a forest.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> All I said is you take a MSO Flagship set top box like the Genie or Hopper or X1 etc, make it compatible with open standards, throw it in the basement and slap a name tag on it and call it a Gateway and we have the same thing.


Those are all DVRs with hard drives, video outputs and in the case of the Hopper trancoding hardware. Seems excessive for a simple gateway. But you're right that could count as a gateway.

In fact there is a law on the books already that every MSO supplied STB is suppose to support an open IP standard for interfacing. But the MSOs keep filing for extensions and pushing it back. It was originally mandated for 2012. Last I heard it was suppose to go into effect this September, but so far I haven't actually seen any references to an MSO box that actually has it so I assume they got another extension.

All that being said, none of this is really the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is to talk about a CableCARD replacement. So I'm still not 100% sure what your original point was. Was it just semantics?


----------



## trip1eX

Anyway streaming is leading the way in this open standards model. Internet streaming lends itself to on-demand. No need for a dvr. Equipment is cheaper. Just need a log in for security. You'll be able to pay for commercial free service if you want to skip commercials.

I think that's where everything goes. Satellite, though, really can't offer on-demand though afaik. They would have to continue to do what they are doing. But as OTT services pop up with the same content, they would probably be motivated to be more friendly to other devices/apps.


----------



## lessd

Bigg said:


> God, the thought of CableCard being used 10 or 20 years down the road is really scary! It barely works now! If cable providers actually terminated access to CableCard, they would run off several hundred thousand subscribers to DirecTV all at once. That would be great for the quarterly report!


Why, if cable cards do the job in 3rd pty devices they will just work, like screws holding the cover on. If 4K xmission can also work with Cable Cards what is the big problem with them except they are old, but once paired they just work and the MSO will have a supply forever as they replace their equipment that has the cable cards built in. As I see it the big disadvantage of cable cards is their use in an HDTV as the Cable Card can't provide guide data and the HDTV people don't want to have a TiVo type system to get guide data into their TVs. I guess the SDV is also a problem for most HDTVs.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Those are all DVRs with hard drives, video outputs and in the case of the Hopper trancoding hardware. Seems excessive for a simple gateway. But you're right that could count as a gateway.
> 
> All that being said, none of this is really the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is to talk about a CableCARD replacement. So I'm still not 100% sure what your original point was. Was it just semantics?


If a gateway is just a set top box then what we're really talking about, for a cablecard replacement, are open standards.

I think where the hard drives are or whether or not there is video output on the device aren't really relevant to the cablecard replacement discussion.


----------



## lpwcomp

trip1eX said:


> Seems relevant to me. If a gateway is just a set top box then what we're really talking about, for a cablecard replacement, are open standards.


Do you refer to your Internet gateway as a computer top box?


----------



## trip1eX

lpwcomp said:


> Do you refer to your Internet gateway as a computer top box?


lol. No one I know uses the term "computer top box" for anything.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> If a gateway is just a set top box then what we're really talking about, for a cablecard replacement, are open standards.


I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Of course we're talking about open standards. That's the whole point of any of this. CableCARD is also an open standard.

What are you're trying to convey here? That we already have the "gateway" we're talking about, in the form of an STB, just without the right software? OK, even if that's true, without the mandate to support some sort of open access protocol that means nothing.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> .
> 
> What are you're trying to convey here? That we already have the "gateway" we're talking about, in the form of an STB, just without the right software? OK, even if that's true, without the mandate to support some sort of open access protocol that means nothing.


Sounds like you got it.


----------



## BobCamp1

Dan203 said:


> In fact there is a law on the books already that every MSO supplied STB is suppose to support an open IP standard for interfacing. But the MSOs keep filing for extensions and pushing it back. It was originally mandated for 2012. Last I heard it was suppose to go into effect this September, but so far I haven't actually seen any references to an MSO box that actually has it so I assume they got another extension.


The FIOS boxes support DLNA. They only officially support PS3s as clients. It's buggy and isn't really useful, but it's there:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r30120836-New-APR-2-0-DLNA-Feature


----------



## Dan203

The MSOs said they were going to use DLNA CVP-2, complete with RUI, so they could extend the "user experience" to other rooms. In fact CVP-2 was pretty much designed with this mandate in mind, and should be most, if not all, of the requirements for both sides if the FCC does mandate some sort of AllVid/gateway style solution.


----------



## Bigg

lessd said:


> Why, if cable cards do the job in 3rd pty devices they will just work, like screws holding the cover on. If 4K xmission can also work with Cable Cards what is the big problem with them except they are old, but once paired they just work and the MSO will have a supply forever as they replace their equipment that has the cable cards built in. As I see it the big disadvantage of cable cards is their use in an HDTV as the Cable Card can't provide guide data and the HDTV people don't want to have a TiVo type system to get guide data into their TVs. I guess the SDV is also a problem for most HDTVs.


The problem with CableCards is that they don't work right today, and it's only downhill from here, now that no new CableCards are being made. They have activation problems, they break, they're just a mess.

They're useless for a TV alone, fine. They can't do guide data or DVR or whatnot, even though they do work with SDV adapters. Let's just look at DVRs. They're probably fine for 3-5 years more, as the MSOs will have tons of cards coming out of their equipment to recycle, maybe even beyond that. But in 10 years, they are going to be getting pretty bad. And 20 years. I shudder to think about that!


----------



## trip1eX

Bigg said:


> The problem with CableCards is that they don't work right today, and it's only downhill from here, now that no new CableCards are being made. They have activation problems, they break, they're just a mess.
> 
> They're useless for a TV alone, fine. They can't do guide data or DVR or whatnot, even though they do work with SDV adapters. Let's just look at DVRs. They're probably fine for 3-5 years more, as the MSOs will have tons of cards coming out of their equipment to recycle, maybe even beyond that. But in 10 years, they are going to be getting pretty bad. And 20 years. I shudder to think about that!


Yeah and we don't even need cablecard to view a ton of content from our cable subscription as it is. Download the channel's app and authenticate with your cable login/password and you have bypassed cablecard.

I can see us just using login and password in the future. I don't see why not.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Yeah and we don't even need cablecard to view a ton of content from our cable subscription as it is. Download the channel's app and authenticate with your cable login/password and you have bypassed cablecard.
> 
> I can see us just using login and password in the future. I don't see why not.


The reason those apps can access your cable subscription with a username/password is because they are closed source and have private code that allows them to talk to the cable servers. Cable will never allow 3rd party apps to do the same thing. Which is why they came up with CableCARD and it's man in the middle technology which obscures the actual authentication stuff from the 3rd party device.

Having a proprietary app written and controlled by the MSO is NOT choice. I'd rather stick with CableCARD, warts and all, then convert to a pure apps based approach.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> The reason those apps can access your cable subscription with a username/password is because they are closed source and have private code that allows them to talk to the cable servers. Cable will never allow 3rd party apps to do the same thing. Which is why they came up with CableCARD and it's man in the middle technology which obscures the actual authentication stuff from the 3rd party device.
> 
> Having a proprietary app written and controlled by the MSO is NOT choice. I'd rather stick with CableCARD, warts and all, then convert to a pure apps based approach.


So the ESPN app doesn't bypass cablecard?


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> So the ESPN app doesn't bypass cablecard?


The ESPN app uses your username/password to verify your subscription with your MSO and then streams the channel directly from their own servers. They have no access to the cable company's feeds. CableCARD is a way for 3rd party devices to access the MSO's feeds. Whatever they come up with here should, at minimum, allow the same thing. Apps do not do that.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> The ESPN app uses your username/password to verify your subscription with your MSO and then streams the channel directly from their own servers. They have no access to the cable company's feeds. CableCARD is a way for 3rd party devices to access the MSO's feeds. Whatever they come up with here should, at minimum, allow the same thing. Apps do not do that.


Yeah I'm just pointing out some of the absurdity here where, on one hand, we can just use a login/password to access content our MSO subscriptions pay for, while on the other hand, we need this $4/mo cablecard and all its problems on our Tivo.


----------



## lpwcomp

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I'm just pointing out some of the absurdity here where, on one hand, we can just use a login/password to access content our MSO subscriptions pay for, while on the other hand, we need this $4/mo cablecard and all its problems on our Tivo.


Can you record those streams?


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I'm just pointing out some of the absurdity here where, on one hand, we can just use a login/password to access content our MSO subscriptions pay for, while on the other hand, we need this $4/mo cablecard and all its problems on our Tivo.


They're different though. The channel apps just use a simple protocol to verify the content you subscribe to, then they stream from their own servers. So their interaction with your MSOs service is minimal. A CableCARD actually needs to decrypt the stream your MSO is sending across the coax. To do that it needs private keys. They're much more protective of those keys which is why getting a CableCARD authorized is such an ordeal.

That's the advantage of the whole gateway system. All the technology and keys needed to decrypt the streams would be built in to the gateway device, which they control. They don't have to disclose those keys to anyone else or do any special pairing like with CableCARD. The gateway would do all the authorization, and only if it was authorized to receive a channel would it decrypt the stream and reencrypt it using an open standard before sending it to the device. The other cool thing about DLNA/DTCP-IP is that it has revokable certificates. So if a specific device is discovered to be compromised the gateway will get notified and will refuse a connection to that device. So they have no concern that their system will be compromised by a bad device.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> They're different though. The channel apps just use a simple protocol to verify the content you subscribe to, then they stream from their own servers. So their interaction with your MSOs service is minimal. A CableCARD actually needs to decrypt the stream your MSO is sending across the coax. To do that it needs private keys. They're much more protective of those keys which is why getting a CableCARD authorized is such an ordeal.
> 
> That's the advantage of the whole gateway system. All the technology and keys needed to decrypt the streams would be built in to the gateway device, which they control. They don't have to disclose those keys to anyone else or do any special pairing like with CableCARD. The gateway would do all the authorization, and only if it was authorized to receive a channel would it decrypt the stream and reencrypt it using an open standard before sending it to the device. The other cool thing about DLNA/DTCP-IP is that it has revokable certificates. So if a specific device is discovered to be compromised the gateway will get notified and will refuse a connection to that device. So they have no concern that their system will be compromised by a bad device.


I didn't say they were the same. I did reply to a post talking about how old cablecard is.

Yep and I know the gateway is just a set top box with forced open standards on the other side of it.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> I didn't say they were the same. I did reply to a post talking about how old cablecard is.


You implied that using a simple user/password should be enough to authenticate any sort of replacement. I'm simply pointing out that that's not as easy as it may seem.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> You implied that using a simple user/password should be enough to authenticate any sort of replacement. I'm simply pointing out that that's not as easy as it may seem.


Yeah going forward it seems things will go that direction. To me when something new is much simpler and cheaper compared to the way things are being done then something will give.


----------



## lpwcomp

trip1eX said:


> Yeah going forward it seems things will go that direction. To me when something new is much simpler and cheaper compared to the way things are being done then something will give.


How is the ESPN app either simpler or cheaper?


----------



## trip1eX

The whole cablecard discussion is funny when you place it against the backdrop of threads about OTT streaming services and cutting the cord and Netflix plus HBO and Showtime being cable free...etc.


----------



## lpwcomp

trip1eX said:


> The whole cablecard discussion is funny when you place it against the backdrop of threads about OTT streaming services and cutting the cord and Netflix plus HBO and Showtime being cable free...etc.


And the whole "OTT streaming is the future" is funny when set against the backdrop of data caps.


----------



## NashGuy

Apologies if this has already been brought up (I've not read this entire thread). While it's possible that there will be an FCC-mandated provider-agnostic successor to CableCard, I tend to think we'll see what amounts to its successor unfold gradually through the marketplace. Both Comcast and Charter are working on their own downloadable security solutions for their next-gen set-top boxes that do not depend on CableCard technology. (I think Comcast may already be using such in its X1 boxes.) And both MSOs are said to be in talks with TiVo to allow TiVo boxes to access their TV services using these new software-based solutions. Comcast has even said it will license the tech to other cable TV providers.

http://www.multichannel.com/news/tv-apps/comcast-tivo-working-non-cablecard-approach/375989

http://www.multichannel.com/news/next-tv/charter-worldbox-deployments-are-underway/393022

So I see future TiVo boxes containing the necessary software to work with both Comcast and Charter without a CableCard. (In Comcast's case, and perhaps in Charter's, this may mean accessing all TV channels via IP, not QAM, but this appears to be where the industry is moving.) Once Charter gobbles up TWC and BrightHouse, Charter plus Comcast will account for, what, close to 50% of all US cable TV subscribers? Smaller cable MSOs will license either Comcast's or Charter's software security and hopefully open their gates to TiVo too (if for no other reason than to keep the FCC at bay). Until they do, they will continue to just use CableCards. Heck, maybe we'll even see AT&T Uverse (which is IP-based TV) adopt one of these solutions (or develop their own) and extend it to TiVo.

This route wouldn't necessarily be an open standard. Who knows whether the MSOs would allow players besides TiVo to use their downloadable security and access their service. But right now, this looks like the surest path forward for retail TiVo units that access cable TV.


----------



## Bigg

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I'm just pointing out some of the absurdity here where, on one hand, we can just use a login/password to access content our MSO subscriptions pay for, while on the other hand, we need this $4/mo cablecard and all its problems on our Tivo.


That's not a valid comparison. Those apps only give you a small subset of the content available on linear cable, and a small subset of the functionality, i.e. DVR.

As long as linear pay-TV exists, which it will in some form for a very, very long tim, we need a replacement for CableCard that WORKS.


----------



## Dan203

NashGuy said:


> Apologies if this has already been brought up (I've not read this entire thread). While it's possible that there will be an FCC-mandated provider-agnostic successor to CableCard, I tend to think we'll see what amounts to its successor unfold gradually through the marketplace. Both Comcast and Charter are working on their own downloadable security solutions for their next-gen set-top boxes that do not depend on CableCard technology. (I think Comcast may already be using such in its X1 boxes.) And both MSOs are said to be in talks with TiVo to allow TiVo boxes to access their TV services using these new software-based solutions. Comcast has even said it will license the tech to other cable TV providers.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/news/tv-apps/comcast-tivo-working-non-cablecard-approach/375989
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/news/next-tv/charter-worldbox-deployments-are-underway/393022
> 
> So I see future TiVo boxes containing the necessary software to work with both Comcast and Charter without a CableCard. (In Comcast's case, and perhaps in Charter's, this may mean accessing all TV channels via IP, not QAM, but this appears to be where the industry is moving.) Once Charter gobbles up TWC and BrightHouse, Charter plus Comcast will account for, what, close to 50% of all US cable TV subscribers? Smaller cable MSOs will license either Comcast's or Charter's software security and hopefully open their gates to TiVo too (if for no other reason than to keep the FCC at bay). Until they do, they will continue to just use CableCards. Heck, maybe we'll even see AT&T Uverse (which is IP-based TV) adopt one of these solutions (or adopt their own) and extend it to TiVo.
> 
> This route wouldn't necessarily be an open standard. Who knows whether the MSOs would allow players besides TiVo to use their downloadable security and access their service. But right now, this looks like the surest path forward for retail TiVo units that access cable TV.


I don't like these approaches for two reasons....

1) Replacing the CableCARD with some sort of downloadable security doesn't negate the fact that TiVo still doesn't have the hardware needed to do SDV and would still require a tuning adapter or to use the internet like Comcast VOD does. Both of which are prone to failure.

2) Having TiVo use some special version that's even more exclusive then CableCARD is just going to create a bigger support nightmare. Now these cable company CSRs are going to be confused about which TiVos need CableCARDs and which can use the downloadable thing.

3) It still ties you to cable. One of the best things about the gateway approach is it makes it so the user can switch MSOs without having to replace all their owned equipment.


----------



## NashGuy

Dan203 said:


> I don't like these approaches for two reasons....
> 
> 1) Replacing the CableCARD with some sort of downloadable security doesn't negate the fact that TiVo still doesn't have the hardware needed to do SDV and would still require a tuning adapter or to use the internet like Comcast VOD does. Both of which are prone to failure.
> 
> 2) Having TiVo use some special version that's even more exclusive then CableCARD is just going to create a bigger support nightmare. Now these cable company CSRs are going to be confused about which TiVos need CableCARDs and which can use the downloadable thing.
> 
> 3) It still ties you to cable. One of the best things about the gateway approach is it makes it so the user can switch MSOs without having to replace all their owned equipment.


Yeah, I'm not saying my speculation is the best solution for consumers, just that I tend to think it's most likely given recent developments. But who knows? I do think it's a good thing that TiVo isn't waiting around for the FCC to mandate a successor to CableCard but instead they are actively working with the largest MSOs to come up with better solutions on a case-by-case basis, sort of how they worked with Comcast and Cox to implement VOD solutions. Having to install and pair CableCards is an obvious pain-point for consumers and a reason NOT to use a TiVo.

As for your point 2 above, well, hopefully the software-based security would be designed well enough that it would just work when the necessary cables are attached to a TiVo without the need to get a cable support rep involved. As for point 3, yeah, this wouldn't allow TiVos to be used with satellite TV.


----------



## ajwees41

Dan203 said:


> I don't like these approaches for two reasons....
> 
> 1) Replacing the CableCARD with some sort of downloadable security doesn't negate the fact that TiVo still doesn't have the hardware needed to do SDV and would still require a tuning adapter or to use the internet like Comcast VOD does. Both of which are prone to failure.
> 
> 2) Having TiVo use some special version that's even more exclusive then CableCARD is just going to create a bigger support nightmare. Now these cable company CSRs are going to be confused about which TiVos need CableCARDs and which can use the downloadable thing.
> 
> 3) It still ties you to cable. One of the best things about the gateway approach is it makes it so the user can switch MSOs without having to replace all their owned equipment.


TiVo already has the Sdv software built into the latest software the cable companies just need to use it.

http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/tivo-crafts-embedded-switched-digital-video-tech/376007


----------



## Dan203

ajwees41 said:


> TiVo already has the Sdv software built into the latest software the cable companies just need to use it.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/tivo-crafts-embedded-switched-digital-video-tech/376007


But that uses the internet connection, so if your internet goes down then your SDV channel changes fail. While you may think that most people with cable have cable internet, and if one goes down the other goes down too, but they aren't necessarily directly linked. I've lost internet many times while my cable continues to function.

Honestly I'm not sure how using an internet proxy to do SDV is really any better then using a tuning adapter. I guess it's one less split in the cable and one less thing sucking power, but functionally they're going to be similarly prone to error. In fact the internet one might be worse.


----------



## ej42137

Dan203 said:


> But that uses the internet connection, so if your internet goes down then your SDV channel changes fail. While you may think that most people with cable have cable internet, and if one goes down the other goes down too, but they aren't necessarily directly linked. I've lost internet many times while my cable continues to function.
> 
> Honestly I'm not sure how using an internet proxy to do SDV is really any better then using a tuning adapter. I guess it's one less split in the cable and one less thing sucking power, but functionally they're going to be similarly prone to error. In fact the internet one might be worse.


The advantage would be one less barrier to entry. These days TWC seems to get CableCards working fairly easily; but Tuning Adapters not so much. The last time I got a new box the CableCard worked the same day with only two calls to customer service; the Tuning Adapter was blinking at me for two weeks before I got a CSR on the phone who knew how to send the correct reset command. Getting both CableCards and Tuning Adapters working is enough to cause a lot of people to give up and return the cable company's trouble-free box.

You have a good point about the Internet, though. At my house it goes down way more often than the video cable feed. I wonder if the TiVo SDV solution depends upon IP communication through the Ethernet connection or the cable connection?


----------



## DCIFRTHS

Dan203 said:


> Cloud DVRs are probably where we are heading long term. But if cable were to eliminate QAM and convert their entire system to DOCSIS 3.1 they could get about 8Gbps from an 800mhz system. That's per node. *Even at the high end most nodes sevice 125 homes max.* So that's 64Mbps, per home, guaranteed...


I live in a Cablevision area, and I would say that they are running at least 250 homes per node. In my area it's easy to count because there a re a lot of buildings, and not so many nodes...
Before FiOS hit the area, Cablevision speeds were very inconsistent, and customer service sucked - but I digress...



Dan203 said:


> More like a tree, but the connection to your individual node is usually 100% fiber, which has virtually unlimited bandwidth, so there is no real limitation on bandwidth until you hit the node.


Even though it's all fiber to the node, the node has to have the electronics to handle the light. I know that Cablevision used to call it "splitting" a node when they ran another fiber feed to it. Unfortunately, the node had to really be running at a high capacity, and even then it wasn't guaranteed that Cablevision would do it. Then came SDV... That's when FiOS hit, and I left cable. Not sure what the policy is now. Anyone know of how Cablevision currently handles this?


----------



## Bigg

ej42137 said:


> I wonder if the TiVo SDV solution depends upon IP communication through the Ethernet connection or the cable connection?


It would have to go through Ethernet, as unlike modern cable boxes like XFinity X1, Tivo does not have DOCSIS modem built in.



DCIFRTHS said:


> Before FiOS it the area, speeds were very inconsistent, and customer service sucked - but I digress...


So is it better now? I wonder how much Cablevision improved, and how much Verizon sucked off a lot of the high-bandwidth customers and just left less congestion on Cablevision's network?


----------



## slice1900

First of all, who cares if it is cheaper for YOU? Anyone using a Tivo is in a tiny minority in a world where 99% of people are using cable/satellite company set tops. Having only one box they supply is going to make things cheaper for most, especially once TVs that could be a DLNA client start coming out so you don't need ANY box for those (to support older TVs you'd buy some sort of USB stick sized device which due to competition and huge production volumes would be maybe $30-$40 one time cost - i.e. similar to a Chromecast)

And even those with Tivos would probably come out ahead in the long run. Today you have to buy Minis from Tivo for each TV, at a massive $150/ea. With this new standard you wouldn't, either your TV would have that capability built in or you'd buy that $30-$40 device.

Second, think of it as trading the cable card for a small cable/satellite company owned gateway box. So yeah, if you have a Tivo where you need one box today you'll need two tomorrow with the future Tivo model that could talk to the gateway and present the Tivo UI (if we're lucky and they don't succeed in forcing the cable company UI on everything) Guess what, Tivo owners aren't numerous enough for them to care that we add a box when everyone else has few boxes. Consider ourselves lucky if they take our needs into account AT ALL given how few of us there are!

Finally, this transition will take place over some years. Cable companies aren't going to obsolete cable cards next year, most still use MPEG2 and many are still broadcasting some analog channels! It takes years for them to reach a point where they can't support cable cards any longer, so you can probably keep using your Tivo with its cable card past 2020 in many cases. Every set top box they've delivered to customers in the past decade or so has a cable card inside it, and they will need to replace every single one before they can take that step. That won't happen overnight.


----------



## DCIFRTHS

Bigg said:


> So is it better now? I wonder how much Cablevision improved, and how much Verizon sucked off a lot of the high-bandwidth customers and just left less congestion on Cablevision's network?


I am still on Verizon - never looked back. I believe that I read that Tuning Adapters are no longer necessary with Cablevision, so maybe the Verizon competition did relieve Cablevision of "over provisioning" their nodes.


----------



## trip1eX

slice1900 said:


> First of all, who cares if it is cheaper for YOU? Anyone using a Tivo is in a tiny minority in a world where 99% of people are using cable/satellite company set tops. Having only one box they supply is going to make things cheaper for most, especially once TVs that could be a DLNA client start coming out so you don't need ANY box for those (to support older TVs you'd buy some sort of USB stick sized device which due to competition and huge production volumes would be maybe $30-$40 one time cost - i.e. similar to a Chromecast)
> 
> And even those with Tivos would probably come out ahead in the long run. Today you have to buy Minis from Tivo for each TV, at a massive $150/ea. With this new standard you wouldn't, either your TV would have that capability built in or you'd buy that $30-$40 device.
> 
> Second, think of it as trading the cable card for a small cable/satellite company owned gateway box. So yeah, if you have a Tivo where you need one box today you'll need two tomorrow with the future Tivo model that could talk to the gateway and present the Tivo UI (if we're lucky and they don't succeed in forcing the cable company UI on everything) Guess what, Tivo owners aren't numerous enough for them to care that we add a box when everyone else has few boxes. Consider ourselves lucky if they take our needs into account AT ALL given how few of us there are!
> 
> Finally, this transition will take place over some years. Cable companies aren't going to obsolete cable cards next year, most still use MPEG2 and many are still broadcasting some analog channels! It takes years for them to reach a point where they can't support cable cards any longer, so you can probably keep using your Tivo with its cable card past 2020 in many cases. Every set top box they've delivered to customers in the past decade or so has a cable card inside it, and they will need to replace every single one before they can take that step. That won't happen overnight.


Why even have a gateway at all. Why not just stream directly to the customer tv or cheap streaming box? Yeah streaming isn't quite ready to take over now, but by the time these gateways would be deployed to all customers???


----------



## lessd

trip1eX said:


> Why even have a gateway at all. Why not just stream directly to the customer tv or cheap streaming box? Yeah streaming isn't quite ready to take over now, but by the time these gateways would be deployed to all customers???


Streaming is no substitute for watching TV on a DVR, it works OK with sights like Netflix as they have no Ads, but if streaming is like VOD for the networks it would be bad news. Even with Netflix you may not get to a movie you want to watch before it been taken away, will not happen if you are using a DVR. In a perfect world they would let you record streams, but I don't think that will ever happen. If all your TV was streaming than the TiVo DVR would not be needed, unless you were able to record such streaming. With my family watching all type of stuff I would need 8 or more streams at one time (assuming they could be recorded), now I could (if I had enough TiVos) record about 900 channels at the same time. With padding and many sports on at the same time, and not have a limit makes things easy, yes my limit is 18 channels at the same time, but I don't think we ever get above 8 to 9 at the same time across three Roamios and could work with only two Roamios if the Mini did not have a 4 hour time out.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Why even have a gateway at all. Why not just stream directly to the customer tv or cheap streaming box? Yeah streaming isn't quite ready to take over now, but by the time these gateways would be deployed to all customers???


Cable could put the "gateway" in the cloud if they wanted. Since they have a direct link to the consumer this is something they could easily do when/if they move to a pure IPTV system. With QAM they need a gateway.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> Why even have a gateway at all. Why not just stream directly to the customer tv or cheap streaming box? Yeah streaming isn't quite ready to take over now, but by the time these gateways would be deployed to all customers???


Looks like CBS may agree with you. Seems they are planning a Star Trek reboot and it may end up available via CBS all access ONLY: http://www.zdnet.com/article/new-st...=nl.e589&s_cid=e589&ttag=e589&ftag=TREc64629f or http://www.cnet.com/news/star-trek-...090e536&bhid=21384817434472324605983066965727 or http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/02/star-trek-back-in-2017/

We already have Netflix & Amazon producing content only available through their services, if more content producers go this route the middlemen (content rebroadcasters like cable, sat., & local OTA stations) may start to be squeezed out of the picture.

Will be interesting to see where all this ends up in 10-20 years - hope I am still around .


----------



## Bigg

DCIFRTHS said:


> I am still on Verizon - never looked back. I believe that I read that Tuning Adapters are no longer necessary with Cablevision, so maybe the Verizon competition did relieve Cablevision of "over provisioning" their nodes.


I think I read they are only using them for sports and international packages. Did they nuke analog in the meantime? That would free up a LOT of bandwidth.



lessd said:


> With padding and many sports on at the same time, and not have a limit makes things easy, yes my limit is 18 channels at the same time, but I don't think we ever get above 8 to 9 at the same time across three Roamios and could work with only two Roamios if the Mini did not have a 4 hour time out.


Why do you need a constant output for Live TV? Even if you're watching the most ridiculously long sporting event, you could always just hit the acknowledgement that you're still watching.


----------



## lessd

Bigg said:


> I think I read they are only using them for sports and international packages. Did they nuke analog in the meantime? That would free up a LOT of bandwidth.
> 
> Why do you need a constant output for Live TV? Even if you're watching the most ridiculously long sporting event, you could always just hit the acknowledgement that you're still watching.


Live TV and TV that you want to record is the same, if you can't watch the program live, than you can't record it, we record all programs, never watch live, except when going from one recording to another or setting things up on the TiVo.


----------



## Dan203

Obviously in extreme use cases the gateway approach is not going to be ideal. But for the vast majority of people 6 tuners is plenty, and using a single gateway to feed multiple TVs without having to rent a box for each one is going to save them money. People like us will likely have to rent more then one gateway so it's going to be a bit more expensive month to month, but the TiVos themselves should be cheaper since the hardware will be simpler, so that should help offset it a bit.


----------



## lpwcomp

lessd said:


> Live TV and TV that you want to record is the same, if you can't watch the program live, than you can't record it, we record all programs, never watch live, except when going from one recording to another or setting things up on the TiVo.


I think he was referring to your complaint about the Mini timeout. I surmise that you may be complaining that it is too _*long*_, thus tying up a tuner.


----------



## lessd

lpwcomp said:


> I think he was referring to your complaint about the Mini timeout. I surmise that you may be complaining that it is too _*long*_, thus tying up a tuner.


No too short for use in the bedroom as my wife likes the TV on all night, Mini will not work for that. We just push the TiVo button when we are finish using the Mini, so tuners are not used up.


----------



## lpwcomp

lessd said:


> No too short for use in the bedroom as my wife likes the TV on all night, Mini will not work for that. We just push the TiVo button when we are finish using the Mini, so tuners are not used up.


Ah, gotcha.

If you have a computer that is always on, you could run a "Keep the Mini alive" script.


----------



## trip1eX

lessd said:


> Streaming is no substitute for watching TV on a DVR, it works OK with sights like Netflix as they have no Ads, but if streaming is like VOD for the networks it would be bad news. Even with Netflix you may not get to a movie you want to watch before it been taken away, will not happen if you are using a DVR. In a perfect world they would let you record streams, but I don't think that will ever happen. If all your TV was streaming than the TiVo DVR would not be needed, unless you were able to record such streaming. With my family watching all type of stuff I would need 8 or more streams at one time (assuming they could be recorded), now I could (if I had enough TiVos) record about 900 channels at the same time. With padding and many sports on at the same time, and not have a limit makes things easy, yes my limit is 18 channels at the same time, but I don't think we ever get above 8 to 9 at the same time across three Roamios and could work with only two Roamios if the Mini did not have a 4 hour time out.


That's the thing. You don't record streams. You request them on-demand.

The solution to skipping commercials is to offer a commercial free option like Hulu does.

They could always let you skip commercials the old fashioned way I suppose. Or in new ways like letting you skip a commercial after 5 seconds ala YouTube. (Or) they could make you watch commercials only before the shows begins. ...

Losing direct control over content is one price you pay for this model I guess. But for every old show on NEtflix not watched because it was taken away before you could get to it, there are 10x the old shows that are watched which you probably would never have experienced if not for this on-demand streaming model. Or so it seems to me.


----------



## jlb

atmuscarella said:


> Looks like CBS may agree with you. Seems they are planning a Star Trek reboot and it may end up available via CBS all access ONLY......


This will be interesting to see what happens. They are banking on Star Trek fans buying All Access to get this. I will NOT.

I have all the prior stuff avail to me on Netflix.

If reviews come out that this is a can't miss series, then I'll wait for availability in other legal forms (such as DVD/BR).

I just can't see this new series being something that really worked for me like TOS or TNG.


----------



## Bigg

lessd said:


> Live TV and TV that you want to record is the same, if you can't watch the program live, than you can't record it, we record all programs, never watch live, except when going from one recording to another or setting things up on the TiVo.


But if you're recording it, then the time-out on the Mini is irrelevant.



lessd said:


> No too short for use in the bedroom as my wife likes the TV on all night, Mini will not work for that. We just push the TiVo button when we are finish using the Mini, so tuners are not used up.


Just turn the TV off! There is no way that is healthy having the TV on while sleeping!


----------



## atmuscarella

jlb said:


> This will be interesting to see what happens. They are banking on Star Trek fans buying All Access to get this. I will NOT.
> 
> I have all the prior stuff avail to me on Netflix.
> 
> If reviews come out that this is a can't miss series, then I'll wait for availability in other legal forms (such as DVD/BR).
> 
> I just can't see this new series being something that really worked for me like TOS or TNG.


Well I might sub for 1 month after the season to watch all the episodes. One of the article says they will tease with 1-2 episodes being broadcast on CBS stations. 2017 is a way off so it will be interesting to see what actually happens. I really hope "TV" doesn't become fractured into lots of on demand streaming services.


----------



## lpwcomp

Bigg said:


> Just turn the TV off! There is no way that is healthy having the TV on while sleeping!


----------



## Dan203

atmuscarella said:


> Well I might sub for 1 month after the season to watch all the episodes. One of the article says they will tease with 1-2 episodes being broadcast on CBS stations. 2017 is a way off so it will be interesting to see what actually happens. I really hope "TV" doesn't become fractured into lots of on demand streaming services.


Something else I read suggested that the CBS service has rolling availability of first run shows. So they only have the last 3-4 episodes available at any time. So subbing for a month to binge on the whole show wont be an option.


----------



## lessd

Bigg said:


> Just turn the TV off! There is no way that is healthy having the TV on while sleeping!


You can tell my wife !!


----------



## lessd

Bigg said:


> But if you're recording it, then the time-out on the Mini is irrelevant.


I was talking about using the Mini in the bedroom all night, can't be done with ease as it goes off in 4 hours.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> I was talking about using the Mini in the bedroom all night, can't be done with ease as it goes off in 4 hours.


Is this true only when watching live TV? Or does it also apply if you were watching a recording > 4 hours long?


----------



## atmuscarella

jlb said:


> This will be interesting to see what happens. They are banking on Star Trek fans buying All Access to get this. I will NOT.
> 
> I have all the prior stuff avail to me on Netflix.
> 
> If reviews come out that this is a can't miss series, then I'll wait for availability in other legal forms (such as DVD/BR).
> 
> I just can't see this new series being something that really worked for me like TOS or TNG.





atmuscarella said:


> Well I might sub for 1 month after the season to watch all the episodes. One of the article says they will tease with 1-2 episodes being broadcast on CBS stations. 2017 is a way off so it will be interesting to see what actually happens. I really hope "TV" doesn't become fractured into lots of on demand streaming services.





Dan203 said:


> Something else I read suggested that the CBS service has rolling availability of first run shows. So they only have the last 3-4 episodes available at any time. So subbing for a month to binge on the whole show wont be an option.


Looks like others don't like this idea of having to sub to tons of streaming services to watch TV: http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/03/im-not-paying-cbs-to-watch-star-trek-online/

I don't know how old Kris Naudus is, but she doesn't look that old so I find it telling that the resistance to this isn't just an older guy thing.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> Is this true only when watching live TV? Or does it also apply if you were watching a recording > 4 hours long?


Yes, unless you use the remote


----------



## DCIFRTHS

Bigg said:


> I think I read they are only using them for sports and international packages. Did they nuke analog in the meantime? That would free up a LOT of bandwidth.


I honestly don't know. Check this out though...

Cablevision sends me a letter about twice a week asking me back. One day a guy came to my door, and told me they are an all fiber network now, and I should switch back to them. Knowing that he was lying, asked him if they were going to run a fiber optic cable, from the street, directly into my unit. He replied: Yes. 

Kind of sad they have these guys patrolling the streets selling their service. They don't offer this to residential customers as far as I know...


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> Looks like others don't like this idea of having to sub to tons of streaming services to watch TV: http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/03/im-not-paying-cbs-to-watch-star-trek-online/
> 
> I don't know how old Kris Naudus is, but she doesn't look that old so I find it telling that the resistance to this isn't just an older guy thing.


The article is mostly "I don't like new Star Trek" and so I am not going to buy this service.

OF course, if the show turns out to be good then I would assume the person might very well change their mind.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> The article is mostly "I don't like new Star Trek" and so I am not going to buy this service.
> 
> OF course, if the show turns out to be good then I would assume the person might very well change their mind.


Yeah I got the same vibe. I do like new Star Trek, but I'm not going to pay $6/mo AND be forced to watch commercials for this show. :down:


----------



## aaronwt

Bigg said:


> But if you're recording it, then the time-out on the Mini is irrelevant.
> 
> Just turn the TV off! There is no way that is healthy having the TV on while sleeping!


How is that different than the radio or a streaming music service?


----------



## Dan203

I can understand why they would have a time limit on live TV, since they want to relinquish the tuner back to the host TiVo. But why would they cut off a recorded show? It has a finite end time anyway and if it's not borrowing a tuner then it has no real effect on the host TiVo.


----------



## Bigg

lessd said:


> You can tell my wife !!


Show her my post coming from a fellow Connecticutian. 



DCIFRTHS said:


> Cablevision sends me a letter about twice a week asking me back. One day a guy came to my door, and told me they are an all fiber network now, and I should switch back to them. Knowing that he was lying, asked him if they were going to run a fiber optic cable, from the street, directly into my unit. He replied: Yes.


Maybe they would put your own private cable node in your living room.  Yeah, not happening.

Frontier U-Verse has done the same thing, which is an even bolder lie, given how little bandwidth they have in the last mile. And the ironic part is that Comcast has fiber closer to a lot of houses here than U-Verse does. It's unfortunate that no one understands how this stuff works, since any decent wireline service these days is basically fiber with a hand-off to copper at some point within a mile or so of your STB/router/modem/gateway. It just matters how close, since FIOS benefits from being able to use Gigabit Ethernet directly to your router in some configurations.



aaronwt said:


> How is that different than the radio or a streaming music service?


Also a terrible idea to have on while sleeping.



Dan203 said:


> I can understand why they would have a time limit on live TV, since they want to relinquish the tuner back to the host TiVo. But why would they cut off a recorded show? It has a finite end time anyway and if it's not borrowing a tuner then it has no real effect on the host TiVo.


I kind of doubt that they would, but seriously, what TiVo user would not interact with a recorded show for more than 4 hours?!?


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> what TiVo user would not interact with a recorded show for more than 4 hours?!?


Someone who's asleep.


----------



## DCIFRTHS

Bigg said:


> It just matters how close, since FIOS benefits from being able to use Gigabit Ethernet directly to your router in some configurations.


This is exactly what I do, and I love it. No Actiontec router that gives Verizon EASY access to my network, and no guide data over MoCA. I'm very happy with he service


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> Someone who's asleep.


But then they would likely be on live TV. And either way, it's still a horrible idea to have the TV on while sleeping!



DCIFRTHS said:


> This is exactly what I do, and I love it. No Actiontec router that gives Verizon EASY access to my network, and no guide data over MoCA. I'm very happy with he service


Quite true. I was thinking Ethernet with their router, but yes, it's nice to have the option to use your own gear like you can with cable.


----------



## lessd

Bigg said:


> But then they would likely be on live TV. And either way, it's still a horrible idea to have the TV on while sleeping!


What facts do you have about it being a horrible idea to have the TV on while sleeping, most people I know do that, and have no problems.


----------



## tarheelblue32

lessd said:


> What facts do you have about it being a horrible idea to have the TV on while sleeping, most people I know do that, and have no problems.


The backlights on an LCD panel will dim over time with use. The more time they are on the faster they will dim. You are wearing them out faster by leaving the TV on when you aren't even watching it.


----------



## HarperVision

*NCTA, pay-TV lawyers meet with FCC, try to shoot down tech industry's AllVid push*



> *NCTA, pay-TV lawyers meet with FCC, try to shoot down tech industry's AllVid push*
> November 6, 2015 | By Daniel Frankel
> 
> Lawyers for the NCTA and every major pay-TV company met with FCC commissioners earlier this week in an attempt to block supporters of the AllVid technology for set-top boxes.
> 
> The "burdens" imposed by AllVid "would handicap MVPDs, particularly small MVPDs that lack the necessary resources to reconfigure their networks and deploy new adapters required by the new AllVid proposal, but would not apply to OVDs or retail device manufacturers," said the National Cable Telecommunications Association, in a memo to FCC Secretary Marlene Dortch, recounting Tuesday's meeting.
> 
> From Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) to Charter Communications (NASDAQ: CHTR) to AT&T/DirecTV (NYSE: T) to Bright House Networks, counsel for every major pay-TV operator, save for Verizon (NYSE: VZ) and Cablevision (NYSE: CVC), was represented in the meeting. Reps from CableLabs, the American Cable Association, the Motion Picture Association of America, Arris, Cisco and EchoStar were also present.
> 
> AllVid is one of two tech proposals rendered over the summer by the FCC's Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC), a committee set up to find a new technology that would enable retail set-top devices to work in the pay-TV ecosystem.
> 
> Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), TiVo and other technology/consumer electronics companies have thrown their support behind AllVid. This technology would employ a kind of bridge device that would securely decode pay-TV signals and render them usable on set-tops consumers purchase at retail rather than those they could lease from their cable, satellite or telco provider.
> 
> The pay-TV industry has been stridently opposed to AllVid since DSTAC proposed it as a possible solution to the retail set-top issue in late August.
> 
> In its filing with the FCC, the NCTA outlined a range of concerns it has with AllVid. The group specifically pointed to the dangers of relying on "a single, vulnerable security solution that is insufficient for today's consumer offerings."
> 
> Most of all, the NCTA objects to the regulatory aspect of AllVid, noting that it would "mandate a new government-designed intermediary device in the home that MVPDs must provide for the consumer to use any new retail device, locking consumers into more (not fewer) boxes with their associated lease payments and higher energy consumption."
> 
> Next to AllVid, DSTAC also proposed an "app-based" technology solution for retail set-tops based on HTML5. The cable industry has viewed this proposal more favorably, but counters that it already provides such an app-based solution through TV Everywhere. The NCTA has argued that the pay-TV industry's multi-screen apps already open the door for smartphones, tablets, streaming devices and notebooks to enter the pay-TV ecosystem.
> 
> For their part, the technology companies backing AllVid argue that the pay-TV multiscreen apps that exist today are primitive and do not address the potential for better user experiences.
> 
> DSTAC has already received public comments on its proposals. It has set a reply deadline for next week.


----------



## Dan203

These guys are so full of sh*t! I agree that AllVid reaches a bit too far, with it's whole service discovery protocol, but a hybrid solution that uses a gateway for linear TV and an open HTML5 based apps platform for extended service isn't really to far beyond the hardware currently in use for STBs. And it would only result in "more boxes" and "higher energy consumption" in some situations. In most households it would reduce the number of boxes and reduce energy consumption by eliminating the need for a STB/DTA at every TV. If a single gateway could feed 6 TVs which have built in support, or a small streaming stick, it would reduce the number of boxes and power consumption significantly. For people like us, who use DVRs, it would result in maybe more boxes but not necessarily a lot. I mean what if a single TiVo could record from 12 tuners instead of 4-6 because they were remote tuners inside the gateway instead of being inside the TiVo iteself? Would you really need multiple TiVos? So you might be able to trade 2 TiVos for a single TiVo and 2 gateway devices. (assuming the gateway was limited to 6 tuners) So only one more box. And if they moved the gateway up to the "cloud" instead then you'd actually have less boxes.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> These guys are so full of sh*t! I agree that AllVid reaches a bit too far, with it's whole service discovery protocol, but a hybrid solution that uses a gateway for linear TV and an open HTML5 based apps platform for extended service isn't really to far beyond the hardware currently in use for STBs. And it would only result in "more boxes" and "higher energy consumption" in some situations. In most households it would reduce the number of boxes and reduce energy consumption by eliminating the need for a STB/DTA at every TV. If a single gateway could feed 6 TVs which have built in support, or a small streaming stick, it would reduce the number of boxes and power consumption significantly. For people like us, who use DVRs, it would result in maybe more boxes but not necessarily a lot. I mean what if a single TiVo could record from 12 tuners instead of 4-6 because they were remote tuners inside the gateway instead of being inside the TiVo iteself? Would you really need multiple TiVos? So you might be able to trade 2 TiVos for a single TiVo and 2 gateway devices. (assuming the gateway was limited to 6 tuners) So only one more box. And if they moved the gateway up to the "cloud" instead then you'd actually have less boxes.


As I've said previously too, if you already use their internet services you have a modem, so why couldn't they integrate the gateway with AllVid and your high speed internet all into one unit, therefore swapping out one box rather than adding another.


----------



## lessd

tarheelblue32 said:


> The backlights on an LCD panel will dim over time with use. The more time they are on the faster they will dim. You are wearing them out faster by leaving the TV on when you aren't even watching it.


I agree, but a new HDTV is much less expensive than a devorce, and who cares if the picture get dim as it the sound my wife wants.


----------



## slowbiscuit

HarperVision said:


> As I've said previously too, if you already use their internet services you have a modem, so why couldn't they integrate the gateway with AllVid and your high speed internet all into one unit, therefore swapping out one box rather than adding another.


Because as I said before, there are many modems out there and the MSO's don't own or maintain the firmware, they just certify, deploy and configure it. Sounds good but not remotely feasible, in other words.

With the heavy opposition by the big money players here I see that AllVid will once again be dead in the water. The FCC is not going to back consumer and CE interests here (based on past history when told to pound sand).


----------



## Bigg

lessd said:


> What facts do you have about it being a horrible idea to have the TV on while sleeping, most people I know do that, and have no problems.


You're not going to get as good a quality of sleep with the TV on. And light from screens isn't good for falling asleep either.



tarheelblue32 said:


> The backlights on an LCD panel will dim over time with use. The more time they are on the faster they will dim. You are wearing them out faster by leaving the TV on when you aren't even watching it.


I was thinking about the people, not the TV, but that's also true! And it's a waste of power, especially in the summer.



Dan203 said:


> These guys are so full of sh*t! I agree that AllVid reaches a bit too far, with it's whole service discovery protocol, but a hybrid solution that uses a gateway for linear TV and an open HTML5 based apps platform for extended service isn't really to far beyond the hardware currently in use for STBs.


Yeah, it's not that hard. Small MSOs are monopolies, and part of the price of being a monopoly is being heavily regulated. The competitive providers like DirecTV and DISH are huge. And I'm sure that Arris would come up with a ready to roll system for small MSOs to comply with the mandate, while others, like Comcast, Cox, Charter, etc, will want to gin up their own custom solutions, which as long as they are spec compliant, would be fine.

Why are they so against this? If they could all of the sudden stop rolling out boxes for Smart TVs, like DirecTV is already doing with RVU, that just drops the costs for them, and as DirecTV has proved, they can still charge the monthly outlet fees regardless. And then give us direct access to the streams, and we'll be happy.



slowbiscuit said:


> Because as I said before, there are many modems out there and the MSO's don't own or maintain the firmware, they just certify, deploy and configure it. Sounds good but not remotely feasible, in other words.


Comcast has some custom gear on their router/gateway contraptions for their VOIP and Wifi services. I don't see why the large MSOs couldn't make a combo device. The gateway device would have 8 or 12 QAM tuners, a couple TB hard drive, MoCA 2.0, and a D3.1 modem anyway, so all you'd be adding is Wifi, a couple extra gigabit jacks, and the VOIP jacks. If it's a headless gateway, it doesn't matter where in the home it is placed, so it could just replace the existing router contraptions that are placed mostly based on Wifi signal and phone line locations.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of such a big single point of failure, but for most people, it would be fine. I like having a separate modem, router, and DVR, but most people would just assume have less wiring going every which way.


----------



## tarheelblue32

lessd said:


> I agree, but a new HDTV is much less expensive than a *devorce*, and who cares if the picture get dim as it the sound my wife wants.


----------



## wco81

Those cable and satellite DVRs and set tops must bring good lease revenues.


----------



## tarheelblue32

wco81 said:


> Those cable and satellite DVRs and set tops must bring good lease revenues.


Oh they do. The FCC should issue a regulation that any lease fees for set-top boxes have to be revenue neutral. Having no profit allowed on equipment rental fees would break one of the main incentive of MSOs to prefer their own equipment over third-party equipment.


----------



## HarperVision

slowbiscuit said:


> Because as I said before, there are many modems out there and the MSO's don't own or maintain the firmware, they just certify, deploy and configure it. Sounds good but not remotely feasible, in other words. With the heavy opposition by the big money players here I see that AllVid will once again be dead in the water. The FCC is not going to back consumer and CE interests here (based on past history when told to pound sand).





Bigg said:


> ...........Comcast has some custom gear on their router/gateway contraptions for their VOIP and Wifi services. I don't see why the large MSOs couldn't make a combo device. The gateway device would have 8 or 12 QAM tuners, a couple TB hard drive, MoCA 2.0, and a D3.1 modem anyway, so all you'd be adding is Wifi, a couple extra gigabit jacks, and the VOIP jacks. If it's a headless gateway, it doesn't matter where in the home it is placed, so it could just replace the existing router contraptions that are placed mostly based on Wifi signal and phone line locations. I'm not thrilled with the idea of such a big single point of failure, but for most people, it would be fine. I like having a separate modem, router, and DVR, but most people would just assume have less wiring going every which way.


OMG, I actually agree with Bigg! 

100% proof the end is near.


----------



## Bigg

HarperVision said:


> OMG, I actually agree with Bigg!
> 
> 100% proof the end is near.


Yup!


----------



## slowbiscuit

Agree that Comcast et al could use their controlled modems to add AllVid, but they'd need to work with Arris and Cisco for that. The point I was trying to make is that this is probably going to be all new hardware no matter what and the MSOs don't want anything to do with that. They can't add this to existing consumer modems nor can they do 6-tuner gateways on HSI modems with the hardware they have out there (the QAM channels are already in use for HSI).

Going IP upstream gets around the tuner issues however.


----------



## lessd

An article from the LA Times, FYI

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-set-top-box-future-20151109-story.html


----------



## Dan203

Lets hope the FCC makes the right choice here and doesn't listen to the MSO lobbies who are just trying to protect their bottom line.


----------



## Bigg

slowbiscuit said:


> Agree that Comcast et al could use their controlled modems to add AllVid, but they'd need to work with Arris and Cisco for that.


I'm not sure about the others, but Comcast designs it's own equipment, and then has third party manufacturers actually make them. X1 is custom software running on custom hardware. I'm guessing the chips, power supply, and tuners are off the shelf stuff, but the motherboard and case are custom, with a stock hard drive thrown in. They could design their own gateway.



> The point I was trying to make is that this is probably going to be all new hardware no matter what and the MSOs don't want anything to do with that. They can't add this to existing consumer modems nor can they do 6-tuner gateways on HSI modems with the hardware they have out there (the QAM channels are already in use for HSI).


There are under 1M customers with TiVos in the US, and it's not an all at once transition. If this really takes off for using their own GUI on compatible TVs, that could be quite a bit of equipment, but it wouldn't all happen overnight. And it's possible that some of the newer stuff, like X1, could be updated in software to be compliant with the mandate, at least for folks who want to use the MSO's DVR service.

There's also nothing saying that they HAVE to combine everything into one box. An add-on device like SiliconDust's HDHR Prime series would be fine too, but knowing the MSOs, they would want to combine everything together. It would actually work quite nicely for an X1-like system, as they could put the whole DVR/gateway into the modem/router/MoCA box, and then just roll out IP-only boxes that don't have their own tuners in them.



> Going IP upstream gets around the tuner issues however.


That's going to take years and years. A hybrid QAM/IP solution is going to around for quite some time.


----------



## wco81

I think there's a good chance we're going to end up with the app-centric model, where people buy Rokus and Apple TVs.

Especially if Apple manages to get a deal for sports channels on their box, accelerating the cord cutting.


----------



## lessd

wco81 said:


> I think there's a good chance we're going to end up with the app-centric model, where people buy Rokus and Apple TVs.
> 
> Especially if Apple manages to get a deal for sports channels on their box, accelerating the cord cutting.


If there is no way to record Apple TV and your not home for a sport program you want to see, are you then screwed ?? Could there ever be a way to record from Rokus and or Apple TV ??


----------



## wco81

Well I never record sports but I would imagine it would be on demand so people could at least watch later like some amount of time after it completed.


----------



## Dan203

The problem with the whole live or VOD approach, which is what the MSOs want, is that with VOD they can force you to watch commercials. Are you OK with everything you watching having non-fastforwardable commercials in them? I'm not! If it comes to that I will stop watching network TV and only watch what's available on Netflix or similar commercial free services. The networks need to find other ways to make money, rather then trying to hold on to their old business model via technological blockades.


----------



## wco81

Yeah but when you watch live sports, you get commercials anyways.

Now, maybe a lot of people watch sports as a recording or say 30 minutes after it's started so they can skip commercials?

I just channel surf during commercials of sports games or just check out my iPad or something.

You're right though if I was paying for say FX Now (a theoretical streaming-only service), I wouldn't want to not be able to skip commercials.


----------



## lpwcomp

wco81 said:


> I just channel surf during commercials of sports games or just check out my iPad or something.


The former is a lot more difficult when it's a stream. The latter is a giant step _*backwards*_ to the days when the water pressure would drop during commercials.


----------



## DCIFRTHS

Bad news. Roku is supporting apps for Time Warner Cable.

Not sure if this has been posted. Sorry if it already has been.

EDIT: There's no way to delete a thread??? I started a new thread in case the discussion warranted it. I decided to delete it, and keep the discussion here... except I don't see the option of deleting a thread.

Mods: Please decide what's best, and delete the new thread if that's a better solution.


----------



## atmuscarella

DCIFRTHS said:


> Bad news. Roku is supporting apps for Time Warner Cable.
> 
> Not sure if this has been posted. Sorry if it already has been.
> 
> EDIT: There's no way to delete a thread??? I started a new thread in case the discussion warranted it. I decided to delete it, and keep the discussion here... except I don't see the option of deleting a thread.
> 
> Mods: Please decide what's best, and delete the new thread if that's a better solution.





DCIFRTHS said:


> Seems like Roku is looking to be the next STB in your home, as it joins forces with Time Warner Cable.
> 
> The dawn of apps, instead of a more open solution, to replace your STB.


The TWC Roku app isn't new, what is new is that TWC is now looking at offering a IP subscription service via the Roku app that doesn't require a normal TWC cable subscription (in the past you had to have a TWC cable sub to use the Roku app). I would not find this acceptable to having a DVR. Now if they want to provide an app to TiVo that allows me to record the streams, I might be more interesting.


----------



## Dan203

atmuscarella said:


> Now if they want to provide an app to TiVo that allows me to record the streams, I might be more interesting.


That is precisely what they are trying to avoid. They want you to watch TV live or via VOD where they can disable FF during the commercials. They also want to force you to look at the ads in their guide and be able to push you toward their PPV options rather then to 3rd party options like Amazon or Vudu. They want total control so they can force you to watch TV in a way that guarantees they maintain their bottom line. Offering their service via apps, rather then leased boxes, is a feeble attempt to placate the FCC and draw back customers who have "cut the cord".


----------



## aaronwt

Dan203 said:


> That is precisely what they are trying to avoid. They want you to watch TV live or via VOD where they can disable FF during the commercials. They also want to force you to look at the ads in their guide and be able to push you toward their PPV options rather then to 3rd party options like Amazon or Vudu. They want total control so they can force you to watch TV in a way that guarantees they maintain their bottom line. Offering their service via apps, rather then leased boxes, is a feeble attempt to placate the FCC and draw back customers who have "cut the cord".


If the providers go that route then they would force me to cancel cable TV. I would rather watch no TV than be forced to watch commercials.


----------



## Dan203

aaronwt said:


> If the providers go that route then they would force me to cancel cable TV. I would rather watch no TV than be forced to watch commercials.


I agree. If that's were it ends up I'm out. I'll have Amazon and Netflix and I'll deal with watching things a few season behind, or not at all.


----------



## CharlesH

Dan203 said:


> I agree. If that's were it ends up I'm out. I'll have Amazon and Netflix and I'll deal with watching things a few season behind, or not at all.


Perhaps the cable companies have run the numbers, and are perfectly willing to lose the "TV Your Way" fanatics and make their $$$ off of the majority who will accept THEIR way.


----------



## Bigg

lessd said:


> If there is no way to record Apple TV and your not home for a sport program you want to see, are you then screwed ?? Could there ever be a way to record from Rokus and or Apple TV ??


DVRs aren't going to go away, but it's a matter of whether we can use third-party DVR devices with cable, and eventually satellite and IPTV services.



Dan203 said:


> The problem with the whole live or VOD approach, which is what the MSOs want, is that with VOD they can force you to watch commercials. Are you OK with everything you watching having non-fastforwardable commercials in them? I'm not! If it comes to that I will stop watching network TV and only watch what's available on Netflix or similar commercial free services. The networks need to find other ways to make money, rather then trying to hold on to their old business model via technological blockades.


And a lot of stuff isn't even available on VOD.


----------



## Dan203

I'm still hoping that TiVo is investigating releasing their own Playstation Vue style system that integrates a cloud DVR with a TiVo OTA so that we can record locals OTA and record "cable" channels to the cloud DVR which is then integrated into OnePass as if it were a local recording. 

A system like that, priced appropriately, would get me to "cut the cord" and give cable the middle finger.


----------



## slowbiscuit

wco81 said:


> Yeah but when you watch live sports, you get commercials anyways.
> 
> Now, maybe a lot of people watch sports as a recording or say 30 minutes after it's started so they can skip commercials?


That is exactly how I watch all sports, because I refuse to submit to commercials now matter what programming they're on. I'll either chase watch a game/event or switch between games like college football where there's plenty to pick from every Saturday.

There are some seriously bad issues with the app/streaming model, all because a lot of control is taken away from us. Not only in forced commercial watching but also in content availability, plus now we have virtual HSI monopolies like Comcast getting away with data caps in ever increasing numbers of cities while the FCC looks the other way. So streaming gets real expensive real quick.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> I'm still hoping that TiVo is investigating releasing their own Playstation Vue style system that integrates a cloud DVR with a TiVo OTA so that we can record locals OTA and record "cable" channels to the cloud DVR which is then integrated into OnePass as if it were a local recording. A system like that, priced appropriately, would get me to "cut the cord" and give cable the middle finger.


Ditto!


----------



## wco81

Cloud DVR?

How much will TiVo charge for storage space?


----------



## Dan203

wco81 said:


> Cloud DVR?
> 
> How much will TiVo charge for storage space?


I assume prices would be similar to PlayStation Vue. Although since they wouldn't need to pay for locals they might be able to make it a bit cheaper.


----------



## snerd

wco81 said:


> Cloud DVR?
> 
> How much will TiVo charge for storage space?


Not sure, but Lifetime/All-In will likely jump to $1200.


----------



## Bigg

snerd said:


> Not sure, but Lifetime/All-In will likely jump to $1200.


Since there would have to be a subscription to the content, that makes no sense.


----------



## snerd

Bigg said:


> Since there would have to be a subscription to the content, that makes no sense.


It was a joke. Jokes don't have to make sense.


----------



## Bigg

snerd said:


> It was a joke. Jokes don't have to make sense.


Well, it's a crappy joke then.


----------



## aaronwt

But probably spot on. All in increases to that or an extra monthly charge for cloud storage costs $10.


----------



## HarperVision

Bigg said:


> Well, it's a crappy joke then.


Yeah, to those people where it flies right over their heads. 

I got it and thought it was funny, FWIW.


----------



## Bigg

aaronwt said:


> But probably spot on. All in increases to that or an extra monthly charge for cloud storage costs $10.


Presumably the content subscription would bundle the TiVo service/guide data for that and OTA. So for, say, $30/mo, you'd get something equivalent to SlingTV plus an OTA TiVo. That actually wouldn't be a bad deal, especially if they added support for HBO Now. 100 hours of cloud storage would be good, maybe with an option for an additional 100 hours for $5/mo or something. And that wouldn't take that much storage space on their end, as their streaming would be H.264.


----------



## DCIFRTHS

Dan203 said:


> I'm still hoping that TiVo is investigating releasing their own Playstation Vue style system that integrates a cloud DVR with a TiVo OTA so that we can record locals OTA and record "cable" channels to the cloud DVR which is then integrated into OnePass as if it were a local recording.
> 
> A system like that, priced appropriately, would get me to "cut the cord" and give cable the middle finger.


I never used to feel that way, but I now believe this would be a great solution. I'd like to see it happen. If they do cloud storage, I just hope that TiVo does it right, and there aren't any "bandwidth" issues.


----------



## Dan203

That's my one reserve. If they don't do it right it could be a disaster.


----------



## HarperVision

*ACA joins NCTA in seeking to shoot down FCC's AllVid proposal*



> *ACA joins NCTA in seeking to shoot down FCC's AllVid proposal*
> November 12, 2015 | By Daniel Frankel
> 
> The American Cable Association joined the NCTA in urging the FCC to abandon a controversial proposal for integrating AllVid pay-TV security tech to support set-tops sold at retail stores.
> 
> ACA President and CEO Matthew Polka called the FCC's AllVid proposal "ill-advised and unnecessary," mirroring rhetoric made by the National Cable Telecommunications Association in its reply comments to the agency.
> 
> AllVid is one of several integrated security proposals made over the summer by the FCC's Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC). This committee was set up by a mandate from Congress to look for new technologies that could enable set-tops made by consumer electronics companies to be sold at retail stores and integrated into the pay-TV ecosystem.
> 
> AllVid would require the development of an intermediary device that would be placed somewhere on an operator's network. It would decode the secure signals of operators, allowing consumers to use a device other than a set-top they lease from their cable operator to access their operator's video service.
> 
> AllVid, Polka said, "cannot be implemented with existing technology and requires the development of dozens of new standards and protocols, would place undue burdens on MVPDs by imposing onerous mandates that would not only require significant effort to implement technically, but also wreak havoc on MVPDs' ability to meet their existing legal and regulatory obligations."
> 
> Companies including Google and TiVo support the AllVid approach.
> 
> Like the NCTA, Polka is advocating the deployment of an app-based solution -- also proposed by the DSTAC -- that would cover a broad range of devices. This solution, he said, is already being realized through the proliferation of multiscreen apps from operators and programmers.
> 
> "It allows MVPDs to evolve and innovate at their own pace and in response to consumer demand, rather than requiring the rapid re-architecture of networks that would be devastating for smaller, less-sophisticated MVPDs," Polka said of the apps-based approach.
> 
> The ACA's reply comments come as powerful Congressional forces coalesce to push the FCC to adopt one of its DSTAC proposals.
> 
> Earlier this week, it was revealed that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has joined the Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to champion retail competition for pay-TV set-tops.
> 
> Their most recent letter to the FCC on the topic also included signatures from Sens. Al Franken, Ron Wyden, Cory Booker, Maria Cantwell and Elizabeth Warren.
> 
> For more:
> - read this ACA announcement


----------



## wco81

Thing is, if the FCC tried to push AllVid, GOP House will probably go after the FCC as they have for the net neutrality ruling.

I wonder if Google cares enough to lobby (i.e. bribe) Congress on this. Tito probably cares but doesn't have the money.

Meanwhile the telecoms and probably the big cable companies have several GOP congressmen on their payroll, who try to fight things like net neutrality or municipal broadband.


----------



## Dan203

HarperVision said:


> *ACA joins NCTA in seeking to shoot down FCC's AllVid proposal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ACA joins NCTA in seeking to shoot down FCC's AllVid proposal*
> November 12, 2015 | By Daniel Frankel
> 
> The American Cable Association joined the NCTA in urging the FCC to abandon a controversial proposal for integrating AllVid pay-TV security tech to support set-tops sold at retail stores.
> 
> ACA President and CEO Matthew Polka called the FCC's AllVid proposal "ill-advised and unnecessary," mirroring rhetoric made by the National Cable Telecommunications Association in its reply comments to the agency.
> 
> AllVid is one of several integrated security proposals made over the summer by the FCC's Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC). This committee was set up by a mandate from Congress to look for new technologies that could enable set-tops made by consumer electronics companies to be sold at retail stores and integrated into the pay-TV ecosystem.
> 
> AllVid would require the development of an intermediary device that would be placed somewhere on an operator's network. It would decode the secure signals of operators, allowing consumers to use a device other than a set-top they lease from their cable operator to access their operator's video service.
> 
> AllVid, Polka said, "cannot be implemented with existing technology and requires the development of dozens of new standards and protocols, would place undue burdens on MVPDs by imposing onerous mandates that would not only require significant effort to implement technically, but also wreak havoc on MVPDs' ability to meet their existing legal and regulatory obligations."
> 
> Companies including Google and TiVo support the AllVid approach.
> 
> Like the NCTA, Polka is advocating the deployment of an app-based solution -- also proposed by the DSTAC -- that would cover a broad range of devices. This solution, he said, is already being realized through the proliferation of multiscreen apps from operators and programmers.
> 
> "It allows MVPDs to evolve and innovate at their own pace and in response to consumer demand, rather than *requiring the rapid re-architecture of networks that would be devastating for smaller, less-sophisticated MVPDs*," Polka said of the apps-based approach.
> 
> The ACA's reply comments come as powerful Congressional forces coalesce to push the FCC to adopt one of its DSTAC proposals.
> 
> Earlier this week, it was revealed that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has joined the Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to champion retail competition for pay-TV set-tops.
> 
> Their most recent letter to the FCC on the topic also included signatures from Sens. Al Franken, Ron Wyden, Cory Booker, Maria Cantwell and Elizabeth Warren.
> 
> For more:
> - read this ACA announcement
Click to expand...

That part is total BS! The whole point of AllVid is to use a gateway device to convert from whatever technology their network is already using into the open standard. It wouldn't require any "re-architecture" at all. It would require a hardware device to be designed, but that's it, and the hardware we're talking about isn't much different then existing STBs.

These guys are just straight up lying about the complexity in an effort to muddy the waters and make the FCC think that it's a big technological hurdle when it's really not. What they really don't like about it is that it actually gives consumers choices. They can choose to buy TVs or inexpensive streaming stick devices instead of leasing their STBs and if their provider pisses them off they can choose to switch to another without much hassle. The actual technology we're talking about here would actually be good for them long term, as it would allow them to drastically change their delivery technology without having to replace millions of STBs. In fact DirecTV is already doing something like this with their RVU technology. But that's proprietary and still locks people to their service, so they're OK with it.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan, you should lead a campaign to petition the FCC to give them the truth about this then.


----------



## Dan203

HarperVision said:


> Dan, you should lead a campaign to petition the FCC to give them the truth about this then.


There are people much more qualified then me to do this. Hopefully companies like TiVo and Google band together and do the same kind of lobbying that the MSOs are doing.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> That part is total BS! The whole point of AllVid is to use a gateway device to convert from whatever technology their network is already using into the open standard. It wouldn't require any "re-architecture" at all. It would require a hardware device to be designed, but that's it, and the hardware we're talking about isn't much different then existing STBs.


Yup. And we can pretty much guarantee that Arris will come out with something that MSOs can just drop in place anyway. It might be more work for D* and E*, but they are big enough to handle the engineering required to get it working on their system.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> There are people much more qualified then me to do this. Hopefully companies like TiVo and Google band together and do the same kind of lobbying that the MSOs are doing.


I mean from a grass roots, everyday Joe Sixpack point of view. Maybe we should do a Change.org type of petition?


----------



## slowbiscuit

Dan203 said:


> These guys are just straight up lying about the complexity in an effort to muddy the waters and make the FCC think that it's a big technological hurdle when it's really not. What they really don't like about it is that it actually gives consumers choices. They can choose to buy TVs or inexpensive streaming stick devices instead of leasing their STBs and if their provider pisses them off they can choose to switch to another without much hassle. The actual technology we're talking about here would actually be good for them long term, as it would allow them to drastically change their delivery technology without having to replace millions of STBs. In fact DirecTV is already doing something like this with their RVU technology. But that's proprietary and still locks people to their service, so they're OK with it.


Well to be honest they're also complaining about having to deploy yet another hardware solution that only a small minority of subs will take advantage of. We all know it's worth it just to open up access but beyond the control issue all the MSOs see is more money being spent on tech that they'll have to support for a fraction of their subs.

The vast majority of subs don't care one whit about open access, they just pay whatever cable says they need for their TVs. Perhaps AllVid will change that but I highly doubt it UNLESS it's applied to all MSOs equally and people see that they can easily move between providers. But I think that's a pipe dream, frankly, and it will be tied up in courts for years.


----------



## Dan203

MSOs could use it for their own equipment. It would be cheaper for them then multiple STBs and is kind of the direction we're heading anyway with multiroom DVRs.


----------



## trip1eX

slowbiscuit said:


> Well to be honest they're also complaining about having to deploy yet another hardware solution that only a small minority of subs will take advantage of. We all know it's worth it just to open up access but beyond the control issue all the MSOs see is more money being spent on tech that they'll have to support for a fraction of their subs.


Yep it's a massive change for cable companies irregardless. If they have to put a gateway somewhere else in the home besides next to the tv then they need a power outlet somewhere else in the customer's home. That is easy on paper, but a nightmare in the real world.

And a 6 tuner gateway would be overkill for tons of customers. If you live in small apt and just rented a regular set box for your tv then your costs would go up if a 6 tuner gateway was forced upon you.



slowbiscuit said:


> The vast majority of subs don't care one whit about open access, they just pay whatever cable says they need for their TVs. Perhaps AllVid will change that but I highly doubt it UNLESS it's applied to all MSOs equally and people see that they can easily move between providers. But I think that's a pipe dream, frankly, and it will be tied up in courts for years.


Exactly. And by that time streaming will be that much stronger of an option.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Yep it's a massive change for cable companies irregardless. If they have to put a gateway somewhere else in the home besides next to the tv then they need a power outlet somewhere else in the customer's home. That is easy on paper, but a nightmare in the real world.


First off "irregardless" is not a word, it's just regardless.

Second who says it can't be next to the TV? The beauty of a system like this is it can be anywhere it's convenient. If next to the TV is the most convenient location then it can go there. If putting it in a closet next to a network hub is more convenient then that works too.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> First off "irregardless" is not a word, it's just regardless. Second who says it can't be next to the TV? The beauty of a system like this is it can be anywhere it's convenient. If next to the TV is the most convenient location then it can go there. If putting it in a closet next to a network hub is more convenient then that works too.


They could also offer a gateway that does have AV outputs for those that only use one TV or need to put it by one, as well as the headless gateway for those like us.


----------



## Dan203

Exactly. Or they could put the gateway at the headend and have no hardware in the home at all.


----------



## lessd

Is not the key to be able to sell a HDTV that can get guide data and all the stations without adding any other hardware, (inside the TV like a cable card or any cable co box) you would just register your new HDTV (or TiVo) with the MSO and you would have all the stations your paying for.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Second who says it can't be next to the TV? The beauty of a system like this is it can be anywhere it's convenient. If next to the TV is the most convenient location then it can go there. If putting it in a closet next to a network hub is more convenient then that works too.


Yep wouldn't have to be in the basement I suppose. It could be next to your tv like a set top box.

Still you're looking at overkill for a huge number of customers.

And knowing how long stuff like this takes to see the light of day when entrenched companies and the government are involved, it seems like the whole paradigm of how we watch tv would change by the time any of this would happen. On-demand streaming would be much more of a thing.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> First off "irregardless" is not a word, it's just regardless.


Not quite. It is a word.


----------



## HarperVision

I'm not sure I like Bernie, but I like this.

*Bernie Sanders joins Congressional battle against '$20 billion' pay-TV set-top market*



> *Bernie Sanders joins Congressional battle against '$20 billion' pay-TV set-top market*
> November 10, 2015 | By Daniel Frankel
> 
> Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has joined the Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to champion retail competition for pay-TV set-tops.
> 
> Sanders' name was added to a letter sent Monday to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, with the lawmakers continuing to condemn what they say are $232 in annual set-top licensing fees paid by the average pay-TV consumer.
> 
> "According to information received from the top 10 multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs)," the letter said, "these providers annually charge consumers nearly $20 billion in rental fees for set-top boxes."
> 
> The rhetoric isn't new -- Markey and Blumenthal have been messaging the same dollar figures since July, when they published findings based on query responses from top pay-TV operators.
> 
> With operators like Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) citing "competitive sensitivity," those responses weren't always replete with information. But staffs for Blumenthal and Markey somehow pieced together a $20 billion aggregate revenue figure based on the information they did have.
> 
> There doesn't appear to be any effort to determine the total capital expenditure cost incurred by operators to obtain these set-tops. Neal Goldberg, general counsel for cable-industry lobbying org the National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCTA) told FierceCable in September that his group was reluctant to engage the lawmakers a "war with numbers," given that there were only two U.S. Senators -- Markey and Blumenthal -- griping about the set-top issue.
> 
> But Sanders' inclusion is an indicator that the movement is growing.
> 
> And the letter was also signed by Sens. Al Franken, Ron Wyden, Cory Booker, Maria Cantwell and Elizabeth Warren.
> 
> For its part, the NCTA continues to focus its attention on the FCC's Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC), which was set up to find a new technology that would enable set-tops sold at retail by consumer electronics companies to function in the pay-TV ecosystem.
> 
> Issuing reply comments to DSTAC proposals Tuesday, the NCTA continues to oppose one specific proposed solution, AllVid, which would use an intermediary device to decode pay-TV signals to work with retail devices. The NCTA re-stated its position that TV Everywhere apps currently supplied by pay-TV operators and programming partners already do the job of including retail devices in the pay-TV sphere.
> 
> *"Contrary to misinformation advanced by AllVid proponents, apps provide a recordable output, add download-to-go for mobile devices and provide recordability via cloud-based DVRs," the NCTA said. "Apps even map a path for eliminating the set-top box (and set-top box rentals) altogether."*
> 
> For more:
> - read this letter to the FCC from Sen. Edward Markey


Does anyone know an app that has a "recordable output"?


----------



## tarheelblue32

HarperVision said:


> Does anyone know an app that has a "recordable output"?


I think I remember back in one of the DSTAC meetings someone asked that question and I think someone else on the committee gave them one example of an app that had a recordable output, but I think they said that the recordings could only be accessed from the same app that recorded them. I don't remember what the specific app was.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> Is not the key to be able to sell a HDTV that can get guide data and all the stations without adding any other hardware, (inside the TV like a cable card or any cable co box) you would just register your new HDTV (or TiVo) with the MSO and you would have all the stations your paying for.


You wouldn't need to register your device with the MSO. They would use an open standard, like DLNA DTCP-IP, so any device certified by the standard would be able to access the gateway. That's part of why this system is so appealing. Ince the gateway is up and running you'd never have to deal with the MSO again if you need to add or replace a receiving device.


----------



## wco81

Is there any indication that they'll pull the switch on CableCard once the mandate expires?


----------



## slowbiscuit

HarperVision said:


> Does anyone know an app that has a "recordable output"?


Nope, that's an utter fabrication or at the least a gross overstatement of the miniscule number of apps that allow this.

Typical MSO tactics.


----------



## Dan203

wco81 said:


> Is there any indication that they'll pull the switch on CableCard once the mandate expires?


The mandate is not expiring. The integration ban is expiring. The law that requires them to provide CableCARDs for 3rd party devices is still in place.


----------



## wco81

I don't think a third party market for set tops will ever materialize, unless they're priced like Apple TV or Roku.

And we all know third party DVRs will be very expensive and most people won't spend hundreds or over a thousand upfront when ey can lease from the provider.

Not enough people will be aware or care about this to make a difference.


----------



## Dan203

wco81 said:


> I don't think a third party market for set tops will ever materialize, unless they're priced like Apple TV or Roku.
> 
> And we all know third party DVRs will be very expensive and most people won't spend hundreds or over a thousand upfront when ey can lease from the provider.
> 
> Not enough people will be aware or care about this to make a difference.


You're probably right about DVRs. But if they go the gateway route then it'll be much easier for people to buy TVs with the finctionality built in which will save them the cost of renting boxes for secondary TVs. For most people a system like this would save them a lot of money.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> You're probably right about DVRs. But if they go the gateway route then it'll be much easier for people to buy TVs with the finctionality built in which will save them the cost of renting boxes for secondary TVs. For most people a system like this would save them a lot of money.


But wouldn't the cable company still charge per connected set, like DirecTV does with RVU?


----------



## Dan203

I guess they could. But with an open protocol how would they know? A gateway with 6 tuners could be used by a single DVR or 6 different TVs. How could they tell? I assumed they'd just have to charge a flat rate for the gateway and be good with that.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> I guess they could. But with an open protocol how would they know? A gateway with 6 tuners could be used by a single DVR or 6 different TVs. How could they tell? I assumed they'd just have to charge a flat rate for the gateway and be good with that.


They could, via s/w, limit the number of simultaneous connections. They could also limit the number of simultaneous "tuners" in operation.


----------



## Diana Collins

trip1eX said:


> Not quite. It is a word.


Only to the same extent "ain't" is a word. It is used in colloquial speech but is considered improper or non-standard English.

From Mirriam-Webster:



> Definition of IRREGARDLESS
> 
> nonstandard
> : regardless
> 
> Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS
> 
> Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that there is no such word. There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Diana Collins said:


> Only to the same extent "ain't" is a word. It is used in colloquial speech but is considered improper or non-standard English.
> 
> From Mirriam-Webster:


So just how do you prefer to form the contraction of "am not"? I think there technically is "amn't" in some older regional English dialects, but that doesn't sound very good to me. The "M" and "N" kind of melt in your mouth. Though I think sometimes the "M" is silent in "amn't" so it's pronounced like "ant", which is probably where we got "ain't" from in the first place.

And who exactly gets to decide that "ain't" isn't proper English? I'm not claiming that it is, merely that it does seem strange that we don't have a standard English contraction for "am not".

Finish this series:

She is smart, isn't she?
They are smart, aren't they?
He is smart, isn't he?
I am smart, ...


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> I guess they could. But with an open protocol how would they know? A gateway with 6 tuners could be used by a single DVR or 6 different TVs. How could they tell? I assumed they'd just have to charge a flat rate for the gateway and be good with that.


It would have to be written into the protocol, like in RVU, which I presume the MSOs would push for in making the standards.


----------



## Dan203

tarheelblue32 said:


> Finish this series:
> 
> She is smart, isn't she?
> They are smart, aren't they?
> He is smart, isn't he?
> I am smart, ...


aren't I.

Even so ain't and irregardless are not the same. Ain't is a recognized contraction of am not. Irregardless is a nonstandard mashup of regardless and irrespective. Irregardless is not a real word. People use it, incorrectly, all the time so they've added it to some dictionaries but it's always listed as "nonstandard" whereas ain't is listed as "informal".


----------



## ej42137

"Ain't" is an old word with a long history, used unironically by Shakespeare, that was deemed unacceptable only fairly recently. If you use it in written communication readers will probably assume you are doing it with intent to make a point.

Irregardless is word recently coined out of a confusion of "irregard" and "regardless" that, to be consistent with the meaning of its suffix and prefix, would mean "with regard", the opposite of the way it is intended. It may be considered a word by some, but using it places you among those confusing "your" with "you're" and believe "comprise" and "composed of" mean the same thing.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> aren't I.


You do realize that saying "I am smart, aren't I" is grammatically incorrect. It's the equivalent of saying "I are not smart". Using "ain't" in that situation is actually the grammatically correct contraction, but people have it drilled into their heads from childhood to never, ever use "ain't" under any circumstances, and so they wind up erring on the side of being grammatically incorrect and using "aren't" rather than using "ain't" even when it would be more grammatically correct. It's really just a taboo against using the word and it really makes no grammatical sense whatsoever.


----------



## unitron

Unless you're talking about Irregardless Café, don't use irregardless.


Or we'll wind up with another one of those flammable/inflammable confusions.


----------



## lpwcomp

tarheelblue32 said:


> You do realize that saying "I am smart, aren't I" is grammatically incorrect. It's the equivalent of saying "I are not smart".


You do realize that is patent nonsense, don't you? It's the equivalent of saying "I am smart, am I not?" while avoiding using the unacceptable contraction "ain't". By the way, since the sentence I quoted was an interrogative, it should have been terminated with a question mark rather than a period (there's an implied "don't you" or "do you not" at the end).


----------



## Diana Collins

Now you know why immigrants find English so difficult to learn. There are few rules that don't have at least one or two exceptions, and native speakers don't agree on syntax.


----------



## tarheelblue32

lpwcomp said:


> You do realize that is patent nonsense, don't you? It's the equivalent of saying "I am smart, am I not?" while avoiding using the unacceptable contraction "ain't".


Um, no. "Aren't" is the contraction for "are not", so it would be saying "I am smart, are I not?" Any way you slice it, you are using "are" with "I" alone, which is grammatically incorrect in English. The only time you can use an "are" with an "I" in English is if you are using it in combination with another subject like "Mary and I are..." because then the combination of the two subjects acts like "we".


----------



## lpwcomp

tarheelblue32 said:


> Um, no. "Aren't" is the contraction for "are not", so it would be saying "I am smart, are I not?" Any way you slice it, you are using "are" with "I" alone, which is grammatically incorrect in English. The only time you can use an "are" with an "I" in English is if you are using it in combination with another subject like "Mary and I are..." because then the combination of the two subjects acts like "we".


You changed the argument. By your original reasoning,."ain't" would be equally wrong since it is a contraction of "am not" and so would give be as if you said "I am not smart". According to your current analysis, there _*is*_ no acceptable contraction that can be used for the phrase "am I not".

One of the problems(?) with "ain't" is that it is generally used as more than just a contraction of "am not". It is also used instead of "aren't and "isn't".


----------



## DCIFRTHS

Diana Collins said:


> Only to the same extent "ain't" is a word. It is used in colloquial speech but is considered improper or non-standard English.
> 
> From Mirriam-Webster:


In a word: Slang


----------



## brewman

Can't  say that I've ever seen a thread run further off topic than this one. Typically, off topic posts in this forum are at least still technology related.


----------



## Bigg

Diana Collins said:


> Now you know why immigrants find English so difficult to learn. There are few rules that don't have at least one or two exceptions, and native speakers don't agree on syntax.


Then add in weird differences between proper British English, Australian English, and American English, which is basically one written language, but spoken a bit differently in different parts of the US. It's a nightmare. Then again Spanish and French have the same problems, they aren't one single language either.


----------



## JoeKustra

brewman said:


> Can't  say that I've ever seen a thread run further off topic than this one. Typically, off topic posts in this forum are at least still technology related.


You must be very young.


----------



## HarperVision

brewman said:


> Can't  say that I've ever seen a thread run further off topic than this one. Typically, off topic posts in this forum are at least still technology related.


You must've missed some of my political and religious rants then!


----------



## lessd

Back to cable cards please, I am not looking for English lessons.


----------



## HarperVision

lessd said:


> Back to cable cards please, *I not looking for English lessons.*


Well that doesn't bode well for your statement. 

I agree though, back to the topic at hand.


----------



## trip1eX

Diana Collins said:


> Only to the same extent "ain't" is a word. It is used in colloquial speech but is considered improper or non-standard English.
> 
> From Mirriam-Webster:


Yep.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> Back to cable cards please, I am not looking for English lessons.


Yeah, sorry my bad. Should have known that wouldn't lead anywhere good.


----------



## innocentfreak

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001321260

They posted the letter from the Senators urging the FCC to take action along with the FCC reply.


----------



## Dan203

I love this part....



> The record reflects two conflicting views: consumer electronic manufacturers and public interest groups generally advocate that we adopt new rules to ensure a competitive marketplace for retail set-top boxes, and cable and satellite commenters maintain that the marketplace is functioning well and that no new rules are necessary


Gee which of those two groups has a financial interest in saying that things are just fine the way they are?


----------



## HarperVision

....And the misinformation continues!



> *Congressional Black Caucus calls FCC's AllVid proposal 'disastrous'*
> December 3, 2015 | By Daniel Frankel
> 
> The cable industry has support from the Congressional Black Caucus in its efforts to shoot down the FCC's AllVid integrated security proposal.
> 
> "AllVid will cause irreparable harm to independent and minority programmers by allowing third parties to strip programming from visible channel placements and relegate it to the bottom of the pile," said Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, writing to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on behalf of the 21 Congressional Black Caucus members. "These merchants would also be allowed to sell intrusive advertising without sharing any revenue with programmers, cutting off the needed revenue to continue producing quality content."
> 
> AllVid was one of two proposals rendered by the FCC's Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC), which was set up to find a new way to secure set-tops purchased by customers at retail to work in the pay-TV ecosystem.
> 
> Led by the National Cable Telecommunications Association, the cable industry has staunchly resisted the scheme, which would place a piece of not-yet-developed decoding hardware somewhere on the operator network, allowing retail set-tops to receive and play back pay-TV signals.
> 
> Clarke's letter points out many of the cable industry's concerns -- that AllVid would require customers to purchase and power additional equipment.
> 
> "And even worse, while requiring consumers to rent more equipment it would eliminate consumer protections concerning privacy, emergency alerts, children's programming and more. Consumers would pay more and be protected less," Clarke said.
> 
> In a press release highlighting Clarke's letter, the Black Caucus said AllVid would be a "disaster for consumers."
> 
> AllVid is one of several proposals rendered recently by DSTAC in an effort to spur the market for consumer electronics devices that can work in the pay-TV ecosystem. Pay-TV operators say their TV Everywhere apps have already achieved this goal. But the consumer electronics industry, led by companies including TiVo, said these apps fall short of delivering customers a rich TV navigation experience.
> 
> For more:
> - read this release


I'm not sure what they're talking about with the ad revenue and stuff? I thought all that AllVid did was strip out the GUI and menu type stuff but leaves the raw video, *INCLUDING COMMERCIALS*, etc. in the stream from the broadcaster, MSO, etc.? Is this not true? That's not how they make it sound to me.

They also keep talking about having to add a box, but I just don't see it if the client has a modem/gateway already from their MSO. It seems this would just replace that, no? I know we've talked about this before, but the brainwashing of these groups seems to really working and TiVo and the others really needs to step it up to prove these things about AllVid just aren't true (at least what I think I know about it).

Dan, any way you can assist, being a moderator here? Maybe we can get some sort of grass roots thing going here to lobby against this? Change.Org?


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> I love this part....
> 
> Gee which of those two groups has a financial interest in saying that things are just fine the way they are?


Yeah, that is sort of funny, but it's interesting to see this fight because it's not a moneyed interest against the people, it's one moneyed interest against another, with the people clearly on the side of the CE manufacturers.


----------



## slowbiscuit

WTH is the black caucus talking about? Renting more equipment? How does that jive with all their constituents being forced to rent STBs today when AllVid would remove the need to do that? And AllVid has nothing to do with 'consumer protections concerning privacy, emergency alerts, children's programming and more'. This stuff is already protected with other regs.

I have no idea what the point of this letter is except as FUD from being bought off by the cableCos (what I suspect is happening here).


----------



## Dan203

That's such BS! The "ads" the MSOs are worried about being stripped are the ones they place in their guide and the way their search feature pushes people toward their own VOD offerings. There is nothing AllVid would change compared to CableCARD that would make it easier for device makers to replace or remove commercials in the actual content. 

The MSOs have either lobbied these guys with misinformation or they simply misunderstood the information they were given.

I tried to write to Representative Clarke, but since I'm not in her district her website wont allow it. :down: I could write to my own congressman, but since he's a very pro-business Republican I doubt he'd care.


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> Yeah, that is sort of funny, but it's interesting to see this fight because it's not a moneyed interest against the people, it's one moneyed interest against another, with the people clearly on the side of the CE manufacturers.


You're right that there are financial gains to be had on both sides, but one side clearly favors consumers and promotes the free market while the other just wants things to stay locked down so they can continue to pad their bottom line.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> That's such BS! The "ads" the MSOs are worried about being stripped are the ones they place in their guide and the way their search feature pushes people toward their own VOD offerings. There is nothing AllVid would change compared to CableCARD that would make it easier for device makers to replace or remove commercials in the actual content.
> 
> The MSOs have either lobbied these guys with misinformation or they simply misunderstood the information they were given.
> 
> I tried to write to Representative Clarke, but since I'm not in her district her website wont allow it. :down: I could write to my own congressman,* but since he's a very pro-business Republican I doubt he'd care.*


I am, and I care!


----------



## tarheelblue32

The Congressional Black Caucus has either been bribed or duped. Corruption or incompetence, take your pick.


----------



## BobCamp1

Dan203 said:


> That's such BS! The "ads" the MSOs are worried about being stripped are the ones they place in their guide and the way their search feature pushes people toward their own VOD offerings. There is nothing AllVid would change compared to CableCARD that would make it easier for device makers to replace or remove commercials in the actual content.


That's not BS. The ads are *everywhere*. They're on the main menu, they're hidden as a channel, they're on the VoD screen, and they're clearly on the home page of the box. On the VoD/PPV screen, there are suggested movies and fights to watch. On a Tivo, they're even on the status bar when you pause!

This is all about ad revenue, and he who controls the box controls the revenue.


----------



## BobCamp1

Dan203 said:


> You're right that there are financial gains to be had on both sides, but one side clearly favors consumers and promotes the free market while the other just wants things to stay locked down so they can continue to pad their bottom line.


Is the side that promotes the free market the same side that sues any DVR or smartphone manufacturer out of that same market when their company name doesn't rhyme with "Devo"?

Neither side wants a free market. They want it all to themselves. The "free market" from what I can tell consists of Tivo, Amazon (who already has Fire TV), and Google. Maybe Sony and Microsoft from a gaming console perspective. That's not a free market, you're already starting with an oligopoly and the standard hasn't even been developed yet.

I don't see any real consumer demand, and I don't see a lot of manufacturers clamoring to build the devices.


----------



## Diana Collins

If there were a viable market for 3rd party STBs you would see people like Arris sell boxes at retail. It is a chicken and egg sort of issue. As long as one party controls the gateway, no one else wants to enter the market.


----------



## HarperVision

Diana Collins said:


> If there were a viable market for 3rd party STBs you would see people like Arris sell boxes at retail. It is a chicken and egg sort of issue. As long as one party controls the gateway, no one else wants to enter the market.


Nail hit squarely and firmly on the head!


----------



## Dan203

BobCamp1 said:


> That's not BS. The ads are *everywhere*. They're on the main menu, they're hidden as a channel, they're on the VoD screen, and they're clearly on the home page of the box. On the VoD/PPV screen, there are suggested movies and fights to watch. On a Tivo, they're even on the status bar when you pause!
> 
> This is all about ad revenue, and he who controls the box controls the revenue.


Yes but if you read the letter they claim that 3rd party devices will be able to replace the ads in the content and specifically mention that it will take revenue away from the content providers and limit their ability to fund future content. That's the part that's BS. The MSOs want control over the UI because they want to put in the ads you mentioned, they don't care about the ads in the content at all.


----------



## Dan203

Diana Collins said:


> If there were a viable market for 3rd party STBs you would see people like Arris sell boxes at retail. It is a chicken and egg sort of issue. As long as one party controls the gateway, no one else wants to enter the market.


Exactly. There are a dozen software developers and small DVR makers that make DVRs for OTA, I'm sure they would all love to make cable compatible devices/software. There are also some who use to make DVR software, like SnapStream, that would love to get back into the market. (I've talked to them personally) The reason it s currently only TiVo and MCE is because the hurdles involved to make a 3rd party DVR are excessive and consumer demand is low because the process of setting up a CableCARD is a huge PITA.


----------



## Bigg

The other barrier to entry currently for 3rd party DVRs is that CableCard doesn't apply to DBS, and thus probably half or more of the high-end, tech-savvy customers are locked up on DirecTV.


----------



## CharlesH

Is the cable industry position essentially that anyone should be able to manufacture a set-top box, but they will be indistinguishable to the user since they will all be running the cableco's app?


----------



## CharlesH

tarheelblue32 said:


> The Congressional Black Caucus has either been bribed or duped. Corruption or incompetence, take your pick.


I think the term is "astroturfing": an artificial "grass roots" campaign.


----------



## Dan203

CharlesH said:


> Is the cable industry position essentially that anyone should be able to manufacturer a set-top box, but they will be indistinguishable to the user since they will all be running the cableco's app?


Essentially yes. They want full control over the "user experience", which is crap because it does not allow manufacturers to distinguish themselves in any way.

AllVid wants to separate all the various services into some sort of standard that 3rd parties can wrap their own UI around.

I think they should use a sort of hybrid approach where they use the gateway to do two things... 1) Allow 3rd party devices to request a linear stream that they can do whatever they want with, just like CableCARD works now. 2) Host an HTML5 based app that any device can access which presents all of the MSOs other services. That would give us some of the flexibility of AllVid while simplifying the standard and giving the MSOs a bit of what they want.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> Essentially yes. They want full control over the "user experience", which is crap because it does not allow manufacturers to distinguish themselves in any way.
> 
> AllVid wants to separate all the various services into some sort of standard that 3rd parties can wrap their own UI around.
> 
> I think they should use a sort of hybrid approach where they use the gateway to do two things... 1) Allow 3rd party devices to request a linear stream that they can do whatever they want with, just like CableCARD works now. 2) Host an HTML5 based app that any device can access which presents all of the MSOs other services. That would give us some of the flexibility of AllVid while simplifying the standard and giving the MSOs a bit of what they want.


That makes sense. As we have seen with TiVo, the MSO's VOD experience is far better than a third party experience, but at the same time, we need direct access to linear content for DVR functionality.


----------



## innocentfreak

Bigg said:


> That makes sense. As we have seen with TiVo, the *MSO's VOD experience is far better than a third party experience*, but at the same time, we need direct access to linear content for DVR functionality.


Care to explain? Since I have FiOS, I don't have access to VOD, but the few times I have seen it on a FiOS DVR the UI was horrible enough I doubt I would ever touch VOD.

I would much rather have a TiVo UI presenting and controlling VOD playback rather than using an app that doesn't consistently use the buttons as TiVo does.


----------



## shwru980r

BobCamp1 said:


> I don't see any real consumer demand.


Tivo has lost millions of retail subscribers since 2007, because of cable cards and being shut out of the retail satellite TV market. I think the demand would return if you didn't need a cable card or could even hook a new Tivo up to satellite TV. The retail Tivo DVRs have improved significantly over the years and there is no reason for customers to abandon them other than the new physical barriers.


----------



## Bigg

innocentfreak said:


> Care to explain? Since I have FiOS, I don't have access to VOD, but the few times I have seen it on a FiOS DVR the UI was horrible enough I doubt I would ever touch VOD.
> 
> I would much rather have a TiVo UI presenting and controlling VOD playback rather than using an app that doesn't consistently use the buttons as TiVo does.


I'm comparing XoD (Xfinity VOD) on a TiVo Premiere/Mini combo compared to an X1, which I have literally side by side on the same TV. The TiVo XoD is really ugly and kludgy compared to X1. Half the time TiVo doesn't even work. That being said, since I have TiVo, I don't really need XoD, so I'd much rather have the TiVo than the good XoD experience.

All VOD systems are pretty locked down, and they don't have true FF/RW, if they have any FF at all, so they don't really behave like TiVo, although to your point, the button layouts aren't as bizarre as you'd find for Amazon/Netflix on TiVo.



shwru980r said:


> Tivo has lost millions of retail subscribers since 2007, because of cable cards and being shut out of the retail satellite TV market. I think the demand would return if you didn't need a cable card or could even hook a new Tivo up to satellite TV. The retail Tivo DVRs have improved significantly over the years and there is no reason for customers to abandon them other than the new physical barriers.


YES! DirecTV is the big problem for TiVo. A lot of the customers who would buy TiVos are on DirecTV because their CONUS/Regional service is absolutely superior to any cable or telco TV option except FIOS (which might be a tie), and their LiLs, excepting the lack of subchannels and PEG programming, are often also superior.


----------



## HarperVision

Bigg said:


> ......... YES! DirecTV is the big problem for TiVo. A lot of the customers who would buy TiVos are on DirecTV because their CONUS/Regional service is absolutely superior to any cable or telco TV option except FIOS (which might be a tie), and their LiLs, excepting the lack of subchannels and PEG programming, are often also superior.


It's not just CONUS (Continental US), it's superior here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean too!

I'm so torn right now between returning fully to directv or continuing with this hybrid of both.


----------



## Johncv

HarperVision said:


> It's not just CONUS (Continental US), it's superior here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean too!
> 
> I'm so torn right now between returning fully to DirecTV or continuing with this hybrid of both.


DirecTV is now AT&T, in fact, AT&T just announced they are dropping the DirecTV name and changing everything to AT&T Entertainment. Time will tell how badly they f**k everything up and how high they raise the price.


----------



## Bigg

HarperVision said:


> It's not just CONUS (Continental US), it's superior here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean too!
> 
> I'm so torn right now between returning fully to directv or continuing with this hybrid of both.


Well, technically, you have to have a larger dish to get signals in HI and AK... But yeah, it is available out there. My uncle in AK has it with MLB EI. It's a pretty sweet setup with the 1.2m dish.


----------



## HarperVision

Bigg said:


> Well, technically, you have to have a larger dish to get signals in HI and AK... But yeah, it is available out there. My uncle in AK has it with MLB EI. It's a pretty sweet setup with the 1.2m dish.


Yes, same setup here. 

It's mainly due to the angle we are at compared to the satellites and the spread between them from out here.


----------



## trip1eX

Bigg said:


> I'm comparing XoD (Xfinity VOD) on a TiVo Premiere/Mini combo compared to an X1, which I have literally side by side on the same TV. The TiVo XoD is really ugly and kludgy compared to X1. Half the time TiVo doesn't even work. That being said, since I have TiVo, I don't really need XoD, so I'd much rather have the TiVo than the good XoD experience.
> 
> All VOD systems are pretty locked down, and they don't have true FF/RW, if they have any FF at all, so they don't really behave like TiVo, although to your point, the button layouts aren't as bizarre as you'd find for Amazon/Netflix on TiVo.


X1 also looks like it does what Tivo does with Netflix etc and gives you option to stream a show from its VoD service right from the recorded show folder.


----------



## nleavitt

So it's after Dec 4, 2015. Did anything actually change with the laws regarding Cablecards? I'm confused.


----------



## Dan203

The law change was that they removed the integration ban, which means that they no longer have to use CableCARDs in their own equipment. They are still required to provide them for 3rd party equipment until a downloadable replacement is agreed upon.


----------



## Bigg

trip1eX said:


> X1 also looks like it does what Tivo does with Netflix etc and gives you option to stream a show from its VoD service right from the recorded show folder.


Yeah, I'm not too sure about that, as I don't use it as a DVR. I have TiVo for that.


----------



## nleavitt

Dan203 said:


> The law change was that they removed the integration ban, which means that they no longer have to use CableCARDs in their own equipment. They are still required to provide them for 3rd party equipment until a downloadable replacement is agreed upon.


Great! so who cares about their own boxes? What does that matter or affect? Do whatever they want, as long as they provide cablecards for our Tivos.


----------



## CharlesH

nleavitt said:


> Great! so who cares about their own boxes? What does that matter or affect? Do whatever they want, as long as they provide cablecards for our Tivos.


The idea was to improve their support of cable cards by forcing them to "eat their own dog food". But they just pre-installed and activated the cards in their own devices, leaving support for third-party devices (like TiVo) to fend for itself. Also, their devices could have upstream communication, so VoD and PPV and SDV could work just fine on their boxes. In the end, forcing them to put cable cards in their own boxes didn't accomplish anything, so they dropped the requirement.


----------



## BobCamp1

shwru980r said:


> Tivo has lost millions of retail subscribers since 2007, because of cable cards and being shut out of the retail satellite TV market. I think the demand would return if you didn't need a cable card or could even hook a new Tivo up to satellite TV. The retail Tivo DVRs have improved significantly over the years and there is no reason for customers to abandon them other than the new physical barriers.


Tivo wasn't shut out of DirecTV. There were and are DirecTivos.

They were shut out of Dish. The lawsuit didn't help.


----------



## BobCamp1

Dan203 said:


> Exactly. There are a dozen software developers and small DVR makers that make DVRs for OTA, I'm sure they would all love to make cable compatible devices/software. There are also some who use to make DVR software, like SnapStream, that would love to get back into the market. (I've talked to them personally) The reason it s currently only TiVo and MCE is because the hurdles involved to make a 3rd party DVR are excessive and consumer demand is low because the process of setting up a CableCARD is a huge PITA.


The hurdles are excessive but the MSOs are just one of them. Tivo and the other big players like Amazon and Google are part of the problem. I see them crowding out the rest of the market due to their existing market presence, deep pockets, and their IPR. I'd include Apple too, but they already realize it's not worth the effort (and that's a red flag, in case you didn't see it.)

And those smaller DVRs are horrible, and I bet (except for you) nobody can name a single one of them off the top of their head. The OTA models don't have to deal with the MSOs at all, and they're still failing because they're still trying to overcome all those other hurdles. It's possible that it's not a money-making business no matter what you replace the CableCard with. The MSOs and huge companies can afford to develop the boxes and rent them without much of a profit, while the smaller third-party players can't afford to do that.

Not to mention that the future is not in TVs, but in apps and tablets. I can already stream linear content to my devices and I don't need a special box to do it. I did it today when the DVR failed because of the President's Sunday night speech. I had both VoD and the FOX website available to view the full episode legally at no additional cost. My MSO also had an app for that. What is this future magical box supposed to do that I can't already do?

Setting up a CableCard is a huge PITA. So you want to replace it with something that's MORE complicated and MORE expensive while forcing MORE MSOs to get involved? And you expect it to be MORE successful?


----------



## Dan203

BobCamp1 said:


> Setting up a CableCard is a huge PITA. So you want to replace it with something that's MORE complicated and MORE expensive while forcing MORE MSOs to get involved? And you expect it to be MORE successful?


I fail to see how it's more complicated. The gateway approach takes away the whole authorization portion of CableCARDs. Because the gateway is owned by the MSO it should be no different to setup then one of their own STBs. And adding a device would be as simple as plugging it in to you local network. You wouldn't need to call and get it authorized because it would use open standard to find the gateway automatically and stream from it without any specific authorization.


----------



## innocentfreak

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001324327

Great reply by TiVo.


----------



## HarperVision

innocentfreak said:


> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001324327 Great reply by TiVo.


 Bravo TiVo! This is exactly why I want TiVo to just team up with SlingTV or PS Vue and offer their OTT "cable TV" services in conjunction with their OTA abilities and then they can just give these MSOs the high, hard middle finger!!! They shouldn't have to deal with these morons! 

PS - of course we will all still have to deal with them for their internet, which they'll price gouge on and throw in data caps, especially if you don't have their crappy TV signals. More and more I'm ready to go back to DirecTV, if for nothing more than their vastly superior image quality. Sorry TiVo, not really your fault as I'm sure you already know based on that letter.


----------



## shwru980r

BobCamp1 said:


> Tivo wasn't shut out of DirecTV. There were and are DirecTivos.
> 
> They were shut out of Dish. The lawsuit didn't help.


I was referring to retail DVRs. The direct tv Tivo is not a retail product.


----------



## Dan203

HarperVision said:


> Bravo TiVo! This is exactly why I want TiVo to just team up with SlingTV or PS Vue and offer their OTT "cable TV" services in conjunction with their OTA abilities and then they can just give these MSOs the high, hard middle finger!!! They shouldn't have to deal with these morons!
> 
> PS - of course we will all still have to deal with them for their internet, which they'll price gouge on and throw in data caps, especially if you don't have their crappy TV signals. More and more I'm ready to go back to DirecTV, if for nothing more than their vastly superior image quality. Sorry TiVo, not really your fault as I'm sure you already know based on that letter.


If something like AllVid comes to pass then you'll be able to switch to DirecTV and keep your TiVo, or SlingTV, or Playstation Vue, etc.... Because of the gateway approach you'd be able to use the same owned equipment with any video service you choose.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> If something like AllVid comes to pass then you'll be able to switch to DirecTV and keep your TiVo, or SlingTV, or Playstation Vue, etc.... Because of the gateway approach you'd be able to use the same owned equipment with any video service you choose.


Yep, we can dream can't we.


----------



## Dan203

That's my dream. 5 years ago when they purposed AllVid the prospect seemed unlikely because the technology didn't exist. But today with DLNA CVP-2 and MoCa they could make this happen today with very little effort. They're just being whinny b*tches about it because they don't want the competition.


----------



## lpwcomp

It's not the end of the horse that produces a "whinny" that they resemble.


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> It's not the end of the horse that produces a "whinny" that they resemble.


----------



## slowbiscuit

innocentfreak said:


> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001324327
> 
> Great reply by TiVo.


Wow, looks like the gloves have come off now, indeed this was a great reply. Directly addresses all the stupidity and FUD in the Black Caucus letter too. I have a feeling that that one really touched a nerve at Tivo when they saw that the MSOs are buying off groups to astroturf for them to the FCC now.

And even better, they threw in the Comcast et al attempts to impose data caps to restrict cord cutting as an example of how cable just wants to fleece captive customers at every turn.

Perfect response!


----------



## Dan203

Seemed a little defensive to me, but better then the crap the cable industry groups have been spewing.


----------



## HarperVision

The next shot is fired in the battle......

Is this true Dan, or others more familiar with the tech of AllVid than I?



> *NCTA takes aim at Public Knowledge's cloud-based AllVid proposal*
> Monday, December 14, 2015 | By Daniel Frankel
> 
> In an ongoing battle of ex parte filings with the FCC, the National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has taken aim at a Dec. 3 proposal submitted by Public Knowledge for a cloud-based version of AllVid.
> 
> Public Knowledge's proposal called for a cloud-based version of the technology standard, which would not require a device to be placed in residential homes. In its response to the FCC delivered Monday, the NCTA attempted to label this approach as infeasible.
> 
> "Public Knowledge suggests that consumers can merely rely on their DOCSIS modem to access MVPD service on their AllVid-compatible retail devices," the NCTA said. "As a threshold matter, such an approach would only apply to cable operators that use DOCSIS, rather than applying to all MVPDs. Furthermore, implementing such an approach would require massive changes in the MVPD's network architecture."
> 
> AllVid is one of several proposals put forth by the FCC's Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC), which was set up to find a new technology that would enable retail set-top devices to work in the pay-TV ecosystem.
> 
> Led by the NCTA, the cable industry is lobbying hard against the adoption of AllVid, which would place some sort of yet-to-be-developed, government-mandated device in between the cable headend and a retail set-top. The device would essentially decode the encrypted cable signal for the retail device.
> 
> "MVPDs would have to create a second (rather than a 'virtual') headend to deliver AllVid-compatible video, and divert bandwidth to accommodate this duplicate video traffic. Such an outcome would conflict with the very conclusion that AllVid proponents  and others  told the FCC by consensus in the final DSTAC Report: 'It should not be necessary to disturb the potentially multiple present and future security and other network technology choices made by cable, DBS and IPTV systems'; and 'It is not reasonable to expect that all operators will re-architect their networks in order to converge on a common solution.' "
> 
> The NCTA added: "Public Knowledge claims that AllVid would not be a technology mandate because it would not require 'any specific hardware.' In fact, each version of the ever-changing AllVid proposal calls for FCC rules that would define requirements for MVPDs to modify their networks and/or deploy new in-home boxes to deliver unbundled access to the piece parts of their service from which CE and tech companies could create their own service offering."


----------



## GoodSpike

Not worth a new thread, so I'll post it here. 

I switched from an HD Homerun to a Tivo Bolt, and everything worked but HBO channels. My first call to Comcast tech support was a disaster, with the woman not knowing anything at all about Cablecard. Fortunately I got disconnected when she tried to transfer me (I think it was to the wrong place), and the next guy understood the issue and transferred me quickly to someone who did know what to do. Night and day experience.


----------



## tarheelblue32

GoodSpike said:


> Not worth a new thread, so I'll post it here.
> 
> I switched from an HD Homerun to a Tivo Bolt, and everything worked but HBO channels. My first call to Comcast tech support was a disaster, with the woman not knowing anything at all about Cablecard. Fortunately I got disconnected when she tried to transfer me (I think it was to the wrong place), and the next guy understood the issue and transferred me quickly to someone who did know what to do. Night and day experience.


You should never call the main Comcast support line for CableCard support. You should only be calling the Comcast CableCard hotline. You're lucky you got someone that knew how to transfer you to the CableCard people.


----------



## Dan203

HarperVision said:


> The next shot is fired in the battle......
> 
> Is this true Dan, or others more familiar with the tech of AllVid than I?


It's true. Unless they switch to an all IP system having a virtual head end in the "cloud" would not be possible. Plus, as they point out, that would only work for cable companies, not for DSS or providers using other technology.

It would really need a physical device, with physical tuners, to fit into the existing architecture. Although there is nothing preventing them from combining that with the DOCSIS modem. Like they do with the phone stuff in modern modems. So you wouldn't necessarily need an extra box, just to replace your existing one with a new box.

Plus even if it were a separate box who cares? If it allowed you to eliminate the box you currently need at every single TV then there would still be a net loss in the number of boxes you'd need. In some extreme cases, like those of us with multiple TiVos and Minis it might result in more boxes but we're the minority. For most people it would reduce the number of boxes they needed, and should greatly reduce the amount they pay for leased equipment.


----------



## randian

Dan203 said:


> For most people it would reduce the number of boxes they needed, and should greatly reduce the amount they pay for leased equipment.


Since that leased equipment is a major source of profit for the cablecos they would naturally oppose that state of affairs.


----------



## Dan203

randian said:


> Since that leased equipment is a major source of profit for the cablecos they would naturally oppose that state of affairs.


Exactly! But they're trying to convince the FCC that it will be financial burden on the user to implement an AllVid style system. When in reality it would save most people money and the only one financially impacted would be them.


----------



## lessd

randian said:


> Since that leased equipment is a major source of profit for the cablecos they would naturally oppose that state of affairs.


Is that really so as the MSO do give away in home service on their equipment, and upgrade/replace it without any extra charge. If all the equipment were customer owned (like cable TiVos) would the MSO have such a big loss. I am sure the MSO make money on their equipment but their business is the cable service with very good security, as they would have more loss (I think) with people stealing cable service if it was as easy as it was in the old analog days.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> It's true. Unless they switch to an all IP system having a virtual head end in the "cloud" would not be possible. Plus, as they point out, that would only work for cable companies, not for DSS or providers using other technology.
> 
> It would really need a physical device, with physical tuners, to fit into the existing architecture. Although there is nothing preventing them from combining that with the DOCSIS modem. Like they do with the phone stuff in modern modems. So you wouldn't necessarily need an extra box, just to replace your existing one with a new box.
> 
> Plus even if it were a separate box who cares? If it allowed you to eliminate the box you currently need at every single TV then there would still be a net loss in the number of boxes you'd need. In some extreme cases, like those of us with multiple TiVos and Minis it might result in more boxes but we're the minority. For most people it would reduce the number of boxes they needed, and should greatly reduce the amount they pay for leased equipment.


So the NCTA is right on that part from a technical perspective if the idea of that campaign was to _force_ them to use a virtual head end. But did that proposal really do that, or rather give the _option_ of a virtual head-end? It should be an option, so that if they are using IPTV in the future, they aren't forced to roll out an IP to IP box, which would be kind of silly unless it is needed to switch around encryption schemes or something.

For a number of providers who use TAs, it would still be net-neutral for TiVo users. Even for Comcast subscribers, another box or two isn't going to stop us!



lessd said:


> Is that really so as the MSO do give away in home service on their equipment, and upgrade/replace it without any extra charge. If all the equipment were customer owned (like cable TiVos) would the MSO have such a big loss. I am sure the MSO make money on their equipment but their business is the cable service with very good security, as they would have more loss (I think) with people stealing cable service if it was as easy as it was in the old analog days.


What will end up happening is what Comcast is doing now, which is to just bake the equipment costs into the plan, charge more for it, and then offer "FREE" DVRs and such.

Comcast seems to be baking the cost of their crappy Wifi router into some of their plans now.


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> So the NCTA is right on that part from a technical perspective if the idea of that campaign was to _force_ them to use a virtual head end. But did that proposal really do that, or rather give the _option_ of a virtual head-end? It should be an option, so that if they are using IPTV in the future, they aren't forced to roll out an IP to IP box, which would be kind of silly unless it is needed to switch around encryption schemes or something.


The proposal was called "virtual head end" but the details describe the MSOs using either a gateway box or a cloud based solution to feed an IP signal to retail devices. It did not require them to use a cloud based solution like the NCTA's letter is suggesting. The cloud based solution was simply to illustrate that a box was not required if the MSOs technology allowed for a direct IP feed in the standard format. Which was mainly in response to the fact that the MSOs kept touting how apps didn't need an extra box to function.

It's all just double speak to throw the FCC off and make them think it's more complicated then it really is.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> The proposal was called "virtual head end" but the details describe the MSOs using either a gateway box or a cloud based solution to feed an IP signal to retail devices. It did not require them to use a cloud based solution like the NCTA's letter is suggesting. The cloud based solution was simply to illustrate that a box was not required if the MSOs technology allowed for a direct IP feed in the standard format. Which was mainly in response to the fact that the MSOs kept touting how apps didn't need an extra box to function.
> 
> It's all just double speak to throw the FCC off and make them think it's more complicated then it really is.


So basically the NCTA is full of ****? The cable providers can easily make QAM/IP to IP gateways, and Verizon can do the virtual headend thing with FIOS or go the gateway route if they want to add unnecessary hardware.

Oh, I see. Yeah, the whole Roku apps are a replacement for CableCard is ridiculous. Unless they get rid of their own cable boxes and just roll out Roku! That would still be terrible though, as you'd have no local DVR.


----------



## Dan203

The funny thing is that gateway systems like this are already in play on some systems. Uverse uses a gateway to feed 4 IP streams from your internet connection to boxes around the house. And DirecTV's RVU system works almost exactly how I'd envision this system to work, just using a closed protocol.


----------



## slowbiscuit

There's no technical reason why any provider (cable or sat) can't do AllVid 'in the cloud'. They just have to have the IP bandwidth to the customer to be able to do it (for cable) and the server infrastructure for sat, assuming that you'll sub to cable or fiber for HSI. And it's essentially what all the app-based stuff does now anyway.

But the problem is, as always, they want to force you to use their apps not some third-party UI that's out of their control. And they really don't want to give up that STB rental/lease money. And the data cap regime means that sat is at a serious disadvantage if everything flows over HSI.


----------



## HarperVision

Now AT&T (DirecTV, U-Verse) is in on the AllVid pounding............



> *AT&T to FCC: AllVid would destroy carefully orchestrated channel placement agreements*
> 
> Friday, January 15, 2016 | By Daniel Frankel
> 
> AT&T (NYSE: T) told the FCC that backers of the controversial AllVid video technology standard have no intention of maintaining carefully orchestrated agreements worked out between pay-TV operators and programmers as to which channels go where on user interface grids.
> 
> "Such agreements," AT&T said in an ex parte filing that followed a face-to-face meeting with FCC officials earlier this week, "can include terms that require MPVDs to put the programmer's news channel in the same neighborhood with other news channels, or keep all the programmer's branded channels together."
> 
> "These are not standardized terms," AT&T added. "Each programming agreement is negotiated business-to-business and is often updated and expanded every few years to address new products, new usages, new content security threats, and new devices."
> 
> AllVid's advocates, the U-verse and DirecTV operator noted, "have proclaimed that they have no intention to be bound by the foregoing programming agreements. As a result, if the commission were to adopt some form of AllVid and AllVid advocates then followed through on their proclamations, the extraordinary vitality of today's video ecosystem would be threatened."
> 
> AllVid is one of several proposals put forth by the FCC's Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (DSTAC), which was set up amid Congressional mandate last year to find a new technology that would enable retail set-top devices to work in the pay-TV ecosystem.
> 
> Led by the NCTA, the cable industry is lobbying hard against the adoption of AllVid, which would place some sort of yet-to-be-developed, government-mandated device in between the cable headend and a retail set-top. The device would essentially decode the encrypted cable signal for the retail device.
> 
> For more:
> - read this AT&T ex parte filing


----------



## tim1724

Wow. They're really grasping at straws for things to complain about.


----------



## randian

They're seriously complaining AllVid doesn't allow them to control the UI of third-party devices, and that this control is necessary for "extraordinary vitality"? I hope the FCC isn't dumb enough to buy this line of BS.


----------



## Dan203

What? They can still control the channel numbers with AllVid. Just like with CableCARD they could provid a map as to which channel equals which number. 3rd parties wouldn't have to adhere to it, but most (all?) would just for a consistent user experience. 

This all seems like BS arguments because they want to retain control over the UI.


----------



## trip1eX

Come on. The channels are carefully placed so the user can't find them. We all know that.


----------



## slowbiscuit

So how the hell did Tivo get to put channels wherever they want on the grid?? (You can sort channels by name if you want, and remove any that you don't.) These morons completely fail to understand that THEY DON'T CONTROL THIRD-PARTY UIs. I'll bet Tivo will respond that they've already lost that argument because there never was anything they could do about it.

Today, or ever.


----------



## randian

slowbiscuit said:


> These morons completely fail to understand that THEY DON'T CONTROL THIRD-PARTY UIs.


Yes, but they want to, primarily (in my opinion) to eliminate said third parties. If the third party can't distinguish itself through superior usability there's little reason not to buy the more convenient cable company product.


----------



## BobCamp1

slowbiscuit said:


> So how the hell did Tivo get to put channels wherever they want on the grid?? (You can sort channels by name if you want, and remove any that you don't.) These morons completely fail to understand that THEY DON'T CONTROL THIRD-PARTY UIs. I'll bet Tivo will respond that they've already lost that argument because there never was anything they could do about it.
> 
> Today, or ever.


The reason it's not a problem today is that Tivos aren't popular. Technically, the MSOs could be violating their carriage agreements with the content providers by allowing Tivos to rearrange the channel order. If Tivos ever did become popular, this would actually become a problem as sad as that is. But so few devices are violating it I think everybody is just letting it slide for now.

Of course third-party UIs are controlled. Money controls everything. MSOs get paid by the content providers to put certain channels among other channels. The funds may not be given separately -- it can just be part of the negotiation. I have no idea how much money that is, but if that goes away then cable prices would increase to compensate for the lost revenue. Or you could recover that loss by adjusting the Allvid box rental fee.


----------



## Dan203

And this brings up another reason why the hybrid solution I purposed would be ideal. With the gateway device that can serve up both raw channels, just like CableCARDs, and a RUI app the majority of low cost devices would be using the RUI which is controlled by the MSO. They could design the RUI to look exactly like their own box UI and put the channels wherever they wanted and the majority of devices would use it as-is. Only advanced devices, like TiVo, would use their own UIs to access the raw channels. And like now I suspect those types of devices would be relatively rare.


----------



## tarheelblue32

BobCamp1 said:


> The reason it's not a problem today is that Tivos aren't popular. Technically, the MSOs could be violating their carriage agreements with the content providers by allowing Tivos to rearrange the channel order. If they ever did become popular, this would actually become a problem as sad as that is. But so few devices are violating it I think everybody is just letting it slide for now.


I don't really see how an MSO would be in violation of a carriage agreement if a 3rd-party devices alter the channel lineup. The MSO can only be contractually bound to what it has control over, which is its own leased set-top boxes, its own apps, and the channel map it sends to the CableCard. Anything a 3rd-party CableCard device does with the streams after that point is beyond the scope of any contractual agreements an MSO can make with a content provider.


----------



## randian

If the MSOs actually cared about this they'd order CableLabs to decertify any device with the ability to rearrange or filter channels. TiVo would scream bloody murder but I doubt the FCC would intervene.


----------



## jkovach

Let's come out with a DVR that renumbers the channels in hex.


----------



## snerd

jkovach said:


> Let's come out with a DVR that renumbers the channels in hex.


Why not allow the user to choose the base for channel numbering?


----------



## jlb

or renumber using only the Lost numbers!!!! 4 8 15 16 23 42


----------



## BobCamp1

randian said:


> If the MSOs actually cared about this they'd order CableLabs to decertify any device with the ability to rearrange or filter channels. TiVo would scream bloody murder but I doubt the FCC would intervene.


I think that might happen here. Not for CableCard, since that horse has already left the barn. But there isn't any reason why the AllVid standard couldn't have that requirement in it. Even if Tivo objects, the MSOs can use this to negotiate something else in or out. At a minimum, it's a warning that the rates will go up if the MSOs are forced to implement a new standard.

Subsidized cell phones have their GUIs approved by the carrier before they are sold. The carrier always makes modifications to the GUI and to the apps that are preinstalled on the phone. The phones are also tested to see if they exceed the open standards before they are allowed in. There's no standard at work here, in fact this practice exists in spite of the open standards. But money trumps all. The actual customer for cell phone mfrs isn't the end consumer, it's the carriers. And Tivo has to remember that their most important customer is CableLabs.

(Yes, unlocked phones exist, but they are generally less attractive than the subsidized phones.)


----------



## Dan203

BobCamp1 said:


> (Yes, unlocked phones exist, but they are generally less attractive than the subsidized phones.)


Unless MSOs plan to subsidize retail devices then there is no correlation here.

This is more like the home telephone. At one time AT&T only allowed leased phones to be connected to their network. Then the government stepped in and said they had to allow retail equipment which ultimately led to inventions like the answering machine and the modem, which in turn led to the general availability of the internet. I'm sure AT&T had all sorts of stupid excuses as to why allowing retail phones would ruin their business, luckily the givernment didn't listen to them.


----------



## lpwcomp

From exactly where are you getting the idea that the GUI for a locked phone is under the total control of the carrier?


----------



## tarheelblue32

BobCamp1 said:


> (Yes, unlocked phones exist, but they are generally less attractive than the subsidized phones.)


Cell phone subsidies are on the way out. Most people will be paying full price for their cell phones in the near future.


----------



## Dan203

tarheelblue32 said:


> Cell phone subsidies are on the way out. Most people will be paying full price for their cell phones in the near future.


Or at the very least have the 0% financing plans like AT&T Next.


----------



## trip1eX

tarheelblue32 said:


> Cell phone subsidies are on the way out. Most people will be paying full price for their cell phones in the near future.


They always did pay full price. They just didn't realize it.


----------



## GoodSpike

Dan203 said:


> Or at the very least have the 0% financing plans like AT&T Next.


I think Next is more than a 0% plan. I think everyone will sell you a phone on a monthly payment without interest, but Apple started those trade-in plans, and others followed suit. I think Next may be a trade-in plan judging by the name (I'm not an AT&T customer).


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

tarheelblue32 said:


> I don't really see how an MSO would be in violation of a carriage agreement if a 3rd-party devices alter the channel lineup. The MSO can only be contractually bound to what it has control over, which is its own leased set-top boxes, its own apps, and the channel map it sends to the CableCard. Anything a 3rd-party CableCard device does with the streams after that point is beyond the scope of any contractual agreements an MSO can make with a content provider.


AT&T filed comments with the FCC just last week stating the the new technology for whole home distributions / AllVid Gateway would violate their Agreements with Channels as to placement.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/at...chestrated-channel-placement-agree/2016-01-15


----------



## randian

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> AT&T filed comments with the FCC just last week stating the the new technology for whole home distributions / AllVid Gateway would violate their Agreements with Channels as to placement.


So they say. I suspect they misrepresent the true situation.


----------



## tarheelblue32

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> AT&T filed comments with the FCC just last week stating the the new technology for whole home distributions / AllVid Gateway would violate their Agreements with Channels as to placement.
> 
> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/at...chestrated-channel-placement-agree/2016-01-15


I know they did. I am questioning their veracity.


----------



## BobCamp1

lpwcomp said:


> From exactly where are you getting the idea that the GUI for a locked phone is under the total control of the carrier?


From having worked at a cell phone company for 8 years.

In Japan, it is under 100% control. In the U.S., it's around 30% and thankfully dropping. But the carrier definitely approves the cell phone after they (and we) test it according to the specifications they provide. Unless you're Apple -- I'm guessing control is only around 10% or less since they are in such demand they can push back.

Verizon Wireless has the best coverage because they insist on only allowing cell phones that exceed the sensitivity requirements for all the standards, not because they have more towers.

Of course, with each carrier using different frequencies and standards, the baseband hardware is going to be different. Sometimes a carrier would want to tweak the baseband firmware to reduce problems with their network. Those baseband differences find there way up into the GUI. But there are other apps and features that the carrier will request/demand be put in for them.

My point is that many cell phones are second"ish"-party products, not third-party products as everybody thinks they are. To say that the carrier or MSO can't have any input into a "third-party" design is incorrect. They will find a way to influence the design.


----------



## BobCamp1

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> AT&T filed comments with the FCC just last week stating the the new technology for whole home distributions / AllVid Gateway would violate their Agreements with Channels as to placement.
> 
> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/at...chestrated-channel-placement-agree/2016-01-15


And DirecTV will also have that problem and may file a complaint. Why are CNN and HLN in the early 200's when all the other news channels are in the 350's? Why is ESPN at 206, and why are all of their channels (even the ones nobody watches) the first sports channels in the sports lineup? Do you think those are coincidences?

All MSOs will have the same problem. They've been doing this for decades. It's not an impossible solution by any means, in fact there are several options available. The MSOs are just laying groundwork for substantially raising rates to support AllVid. Note the rate increases may more than cover the lost revenue -- but if you give an MSO an excuse to raise rates ,they'll do it. They're not in the business to provide you with content. Their primary focus is making as much money as they possibly can.


----------



## slowbiscuit

BobCamp1 said:


> (Yes, unlocked phones exist, but they are generally less attractive than the subsidized phones.)


My Android reference Nexus phones would beg to differ with you. And as others have posted, the old contract/subsidy system is on the way out so your analogy is a rather poor one. Not to mention that we've already been down this road with tru2way which went nowhere with the CE crowd when the MSOs said you had to run their UI in a sandbox. Ain't no way that's going to happen with AllVid, under the slight chance that it ever sees the light of day.

To repeat: The MSOs will not have control over third-party UIs. Could they have control over VOD presentation? Sure, just like they do today. But not linear channels, the ship has already sailed and Tivo et al are not going to let them control how the guide looks. Channel numbering is not the issue here btw.


----------



## TonyD79

BobCamp1 said:


> And DirecTV will also have that problem and may file a complaint. Why are CNN and HLN in the early 200's when all the other news channels are in the 350's? Why is ESPN at 206, and why are all of their channels (even the ones nobody watches) the first sports channels in the sports lineup? Do you think those are coincidences? All MSOs will have the same problem. They've been doing this for decades. It's not an impossible solution by any means, in fact there are several options available. The MSOs are just laying groundwork for substantially raising rates to support AllVid. Note the rate increases may more than cover the lost revenue -- but if you give an MSO an excuse to raise rates ,they'll do it. They're not in the business to provide you with content. Their primary focus is making as much money as they possibly can.


Directv is AT&T.


----------



## lpwcomp

Other than the logo and startup sound when I reboot, the only thing on my phone that identifies the carrier is the "Cricket" at the bottom of the lock screen. There are some features that have been disabled, the main one being the ability to tether.

Of exactly what does that "30% of the GUI" consist? AFAICT, it's the phone manufacturer and the O/S provider that control it. In Apple's case, they are one and the same. Not so much with Android or Windows phones.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

BobCamp1 said:


> Why are CNN and HLN in the early 200's when all the other news channels are in the 350's? Why is ESPN at 206, and why are all of their channels (even the ones nobody watches) the first sports channels in the sports lineup? Do you think those are coincidences?


I know why they are there. They have agreements with the MVPD.

That is why I posted the link that AT&T had an issue with AllVid.

You might want to direct the remark to Randian who suggested it was BS.


----------



## randian

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You might want to direct the remark to Randian who suggested it was BS.


It is BS. I don't doubt AT&T has an obligation to put channels in certain places in its listed channel lineup. I just don't believe that AT&T has an obligation (rather than a control freak motivated desire) to compel third party devices to show channels a certain way.

The reason I think AT&T are lying is all third party devices display lineups as listed by the cableco. I can't reorder my channels alphabetically on my TiVo, for example. Since this is so, why is AT&T complaining about how third party devices show lineups? Obviously this has nothing to do with lineups, that's just the excuse to squash AllVid and third party devices generally.

Indeed even channel filtering (omitting channels you don't watch for example, and I have many) would be forbidden by AT&T's claimed reading of their contracts. They are naturally not forthcoming as to the actual terms of their contracts.


----------



## TonyD79

My TiVo can show channels alphabetically.


----------



## Dan203

randian said:


> It is BS. I don't doubt AT&T has an obligation to put channels in certain places in its listed channel lineup. I just don't believe that AT&T has an obligation (rather than a control freak motivated desire) to compel third party devices to show channels a certain way.


Even if they've made some such agreements they can't guarantee those agreements will extend to 3rd party devices. It's a red haring. They're just trying to throw a bunch of crap at the FCC so they think it's a bad idea. When in reality they just want to get rid of 3rd party devices altogether or worst case ensure an apps based model where they have complete control over the UI and features available to the user.

Hopefully the FCC isn't stupid and realizes that a replacement for CableCARD needs to have at least as much functionality as CableCARD. So at the very, very, least it should have a way to tune all available linear channels. If they can't agree on a way to allow access to features like VOD then so be it. We have better options now anyway. But it needs to have at least the same basic functionality as CableCARD or it's not a replacement like congress instructed.


----------



## lpwcomp

randian said:


> I can't reorder my channels alphabetically on my TiVo, for example.


I assume you mean that you can't change the channel numbers since you can most certainly change the order in which they are displayed in the guide.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> It's a red haring.


<pedantic mode>should be "herring"</pedantic mode>


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> <pedantic mode>should be "herring"</pedantic mode>


Doh! I knew that didn't look right but it passed spell check so I figured it was OK.


----------



## GoodSpike

TonyD79 said:


> My TiVo can show channels alphabetically.


You read my mind. And I don't think Tivo is unique in that regard.


----------



## BobCamp1

TonyD79 said:


> Directv is AT&T.


Ugh! I keep forgetting that. Anyway, the old DirecTV forums used to talk about how channel positions in the guide were bought. It is well known.


----------



## BobCamp1

randian said:


> It is BS. I don't doubt AT&T has an obligation to put channels in certain places in its listed channel lineup. I just don't believe that AT&T has an obligation (rather than a control freak motivated desire) to compel third party devices to show channels a certain way.


AT&T/DirecTV guarantees that a certain very large percentage of boxes by default will show the channels in a certain way. They allow DirecTivos, but their functionality was approved by DirecTV and those numbers are tiny anyway. I'm sure AT&T can guarantee that 99.99% of their boxes will show the channels in a certain order by default, since there are essentially no third-party boxes on their service today. They can even peek to see which boxes have been set by the user to sort alphabetically, and use those numbers during negotiations.

For DirecTV/AT&T, the concept of allowing third-party boxes onto their service is new. Not having these third-party boxes gave them advantages in several areas in contract negotiation, this being one of them. Monitoring viewing habits is another I'm sure, since Tivo does that too.

So when AT&T charges $30/month rental for their AllVid DBS solution, and the FCC wonders why it's so expensive, AT&T will simply point back to this notice as one of the reasons. They're making up for lost revenue. And then some.

The whole thing is silly because you CAN sort the channels alphabetically on a DirecTV box. But nobody I know is doing that.


----------



## TonyD79

BobCamp1 said:


> Ugh! I keep forgetting that. Anyway, the old DirecTV forums used to talk about how channel positions in the guide were bought. It is well known.


It was actually confirmed by a DirecTV employee a couple of years ago.


----------



## TonyD79

BobCamp1 said:


> The whole thing is silly because you CAN sort the channels alphabetically on a DirecTV box. But nobody I know is doing that.


I think that is only old boxes.


----------



## lpwcomp

Whether or not the MSOs have made channel placement deals with the providers isn't really relevant. The part that is a lie is that it is necessary for them to be able to do this and that it benefits the consumer.


----------



## Diana Collins

This MIGHT have been a legit argument back in the early days of cable, where advertising was still done by channel number, but when every single DMA has at least 3 different providers (and many have five or six) all of which use different channel numbers and placements, the value of such agreements is becoming questionable.

What really is the point of having CNN (say) at 201 on DirecTV when it is at 100 (SD) or 600 (HD) on FiOS and 25 (SD) or 725 (HD) on Cablevision? Do the channels really think that where they are located in the guide effects viewership? All that really matters is that the numbers don't change, so that a viewer who thinks of CNN as "channel 25" can always find it there. Whether the list is ordered numerically or alphabetically is, IMHO, totally irrelevant. I know of no system that allows for changing channel numbers.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> Whether or not the MSOs have made channel placement deals with the providers isn't really relevant. The part that is a lie is that it is necessary for them to be able to do this and that it benefits the consumer.


If it reduces your bill, it is a consumer benefit.

0.01% who want to assign channels vs 99.99% that want the lower bill


----------



## innocentfreak

Fuse.TV's reply really confused me.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001380884


----------



## ej42137

innocentfreak said:


> Fuse.TV's reply really confused me.
> 
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001380884


What I hear him saying is that he is unhappy because he will no longer be able to foist unwanted garbage content on cable companies, content will have to stand or fall on its own merits. Is your confusion due to his apparently testifying against his own interest, making the opposition's case for them?


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If it reduces your bill, it is a consumer benefit.
> 
> 0.01% who want to assign channels vs 99.99% that want the lower bill


If you think it reduces your bill, you are delusional.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> If you think it reduces your bill, you are delusional.


I didn't say by how much!


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I didn't say by how much!


Neither did I. $0.00 would be the correct amount.


----------



## BobCamp1

Diana Collins said:


> What really is the point of having CNN (say) at 201 on DirecTV when it is at 100 (SD) or 600 (HD) on FiOS and 25 (SD) or 725 (HD) on Cablevision? Do the channels really think that where they are located in the guide effects viewership?


It's not the absolute number, it's the relative number within that MSO.

It's simple product placement. How much do MSOs get paid? I don't know. Product placement is everywhere though, and movies make quite a bit of money with it.

People do still channel surf. When you have DirecTV, you learn to go to channel 200 to get to the beginning of the basic cable channel list. So content providers pay money to be channel 200 or at least on the same page in the guide.

Also, MSOs like to group all the news channels together, all the sports channels together, all the family channels together, etc. People know for example that with FIOS, sports starts at 570, news starts at 600, etc. So content providers pay money to be first on that list or at least on the same guide page with it.


----------



## BobCamp1

innocentfreak said:


> Fuse.TV's reply really confused me.
> 
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001380884


Interesting that channel placement was their second bullet on why the Google/Tivo coalition's proposal is a bad thing.


----------



## innocentfreak

Meanwhile I have FiOS and couldn't tell you where Fuse is in the channel lineup.


----------



## Dan203

Meanwhile I have TiVo and couldn't care less where Fuse is in the lineup.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> Neither did I. $0.00 would be the correct amount.


You are speculating. I prefer facts, which show there is an exchange for the placement, according to filed documents by the Companies to the Government.


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You are speculating. I prefer facts, which show there is an exchange for the placement, according to filed documents by the Companies to the Government.


The cable cos will charge whatever the market will bear. Any money they get from providers for channel placement goes straight to their bottom lines. No one sells channels to consumers on an ala carte basis.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> The cable cos will charge whatever the market will bear. Any money they get from providers for channel placement goes straight to their bottom lines. No one sells channels to consumers on an ala carte basis.


Correct. No one sells a la carte, though 70% of Verizon FiOS TV Revenue is the skinny bundle.

In fact I never said anything about a la carte.

It makes no difference a la carte or bundled, bottom line if it drops the price any amount, that is an amount you are not charged.


----------



## randian

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> It makes no difference a la carte or bundled, bottom line if it drops the price any amount, that is an amount you are not charged.


The point is that costs and prices are only loosely related. Anybody who believes that prices will go down just because costs have is delusional. Case in point, Congress. They capped debit interchange fees, which was great for retailers but screwed consumers because the banks started charging fees for formerly free checking accounts.


----------



## ej42137

randian said:


> The point is that costs and prices are only loosely related. Anybody who believes that prices will go down just because costs have is delusional. Case in point, Congress. They capped debit interchange fees, which was great for retailers but screwed consumers because the banks started charging fees for formerly free checking accounts.


Your example seems to exactly contradict your point, if you're suggesting that uncapped debit interchange fees would have resulted in checking accounts remaining free.


----------



## randian

ej42137 said:


> Your example seems to exactly contradict your point, if you're suggesting that uncapped debit interchange fees would have resulted in checking accounts remaining free.


Congress was assuming that reduced debit interchange fees would reduce retail prices. It didn't, retailers just pocketed that extra bit of cash. Higher bank fees was the easily foreseeable (to anybody but a Congressman) side effect.


----------



## DCIFRTHS

Wow! FCC Goes to War on Set Top Boxes


----------



## foghorn2

The Black Congressional CockA$$ has become the establishment and should stay out of all this. After all most of their main supporters use "long a$$ wire".


----------



## tarheelblue32

The FCC/Wheeler better push this new AllVid proposal through fast before the next administration takes over next year. Even assuming he does manage to get it through, there is a good possibility that the next administration will just overturn it anyway. But hey, at least we have a little hope.


----------



## Dan203

Even if they mandate an AllVid style standard the MSOs will drag their feet for years before it's actually ratified and put in to use. It took more then a decade for CableCARD to go from mandate to an actual standard that we could use. And even thwn they made it so difficult to install and setup that people were deterred from using it anyway. 

While this is encouraging I'm not sure how much of an impact it will really have.


----------



## wco81

Or there will be lawsuits, like there is with the net neutrality mandate, from Republicans bringing suits as well as drafting legislation which takes away the power of the FCC to issue such mandates.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

As virtually no MVPD charges over $15 for a DVR lease, I really do not see how much impact it would have for TiVo. How many really want to pay $300+ and then pay $15 a month for Guide Data?

DirecTV and Dish do not charge that much a month (what is it $6) after one pays several hundred for a DVR.

Choice is nice. The impact to TiVo?

Not much I would guess.


----------



## Dan203

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/wheeler-sets-new-course-set-tops/147304
> 
> The ban on integrated set-tops sunset Dec. 4.
> 
> The FCC back in 1998 mandated that cable operators use a separate piece of hardware-a CableCARD-to separate the surfing and security functions in set-tops as a way to promote a competitive retail market in the boxes. *That mandate failed to achieve the goal and was sunset in the STELAR satellite compulsory license reauthorization bill that passed last year.*
> 
> Was this known....and I just missed it? (Im not going to read through 38 pages of posts to find out)


That has no impact on this discussion. We've known that for a year and it does not effect the availability of CableCARDs for retail devices.

Getting rid of the intagration ban has no effect on the current system as it never worked as intended. The idea was that by making them use CableCARDs in their own devices the setup process for a leased box and a retail device would be the same, so the consumer would have no extra burden from getting a CableCARD vs a leased box. But the MSOs never allowed it to work that way. They preauthoruzed the cards in their own boxes and treated retail cards completely differently in their systems. Also because leased boxes had two way communication capabilities and retail devices do not, they were able to use that to diagnose their own boxes remotely while typically throwing up their hands and forcing a tech visit if there was a priblem with a retail device. Since the integration ban did not achieve the desired effect there is really no effect on retail customers by removing it.


----------



## innocentfreak

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As virtually no MVPD charges over $15 for a DVR lease, I really do not see how much impact it would have for TiVo. How many really want to pay $300+ and then pay $15 a month for Guide Data?
> 
> DirecTV and Dish do not charge that much a month (what is it $6) after one pays several hundred for a DVR.
> 
> Choice is nice. The impact to TiVo?
> 
> Not much I would guess.


FiOS charges $15.99 for their basic DVR. The Quantum costs more.

http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/verizons-mammoth-new-fios-dvr-aimed-at-absurdly-small-group-of-tv-addicts-1201151332/


----------



## atmuscarella

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As virtually no MVPD charges over $15 for a DVR lease, I really do not see how much impact it would have for TiVo. How many really want to pay $300+ and then pay $15 a month for Guide Data?
> 
> DirecTV and Dish do not charge that much a month (what is it $6) after one pays several hundred for a DVR.
> 
> Choice is nice. The impact to TiVo?
> 
> Not much I would guess.


I guess TWC doesn't count. Old style dual tuner DVR outside of a package deal is $24.75/mo & a normal STB is $11.75 Of course most people will get one at a reduced cost with almost all packages.

http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/plans-packages/tv/equipment.html


----------



## 7thton

http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/27/10840722/fcc-cable-box-rulemaking-proposal

The FCC wants to totally overhaul how cable boxes work

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler just introduced a proposal that will greatly increase the choices consumers have for cable set-top boxes if it passes. The proposed framework introduces measures that would eventually allow cable and satellite customers to use whatever set-top box they want, as opposed to having to rent one directly from their provider.

In the set-top box market, you should have options that #competition provides. Lets let innovators create & then let #consumers choose.

 Tom Wheeler (@TomWheelerFCC) January 27, 2016
Tech companies and cable companies have gone back and forth on how to authenticate cable and satellite services for years, and the cable companies have basically won: although the CableCard standard exists, it's barely used and was virtually given up last year. Now the FCC wants to create a new standard that would let basically any device in your home access video programming over cable, and it's going to be an uphill fight.

This is going to be an uphill fight

Allowing more choice in cable boxes is great but the cable companies actually have a strong counter-argument: they've been making apps for all kinds of devices that let consumers access their TV services, like Comcast's X1 app. Those apps aren't the best, however, and not every cable company offers them, particularly smaller systems. And companies like Google and Apple would love to build new kinds of integrated TV experiences, but haven't been able to offer actual television on any of their devices yet.

It's instructive to look back at CableCard to see how this played out in the past. That plan, initiated in 2007, attempted to do exactly what this proposal desires  democratize set-top boxes and make it so third parties could offer seamless cable access on their platforms through the use of a standardized CableCard. Ultimately, that endeavor failed because the cable companies controlled the platform and made it extremely difficult to use and it was eventually scrapped. The FCC's new plan is an attempt to open the cable platforms up once again.

This would be a huge win for tech companies that have struggled to get TV deals

Opening things up would also be a huge boon to big tech companies, almost all of which have tried and failed to reach a deal with cable companies in the past few years. Microsoft's Xbox One is essentially a hack on set-top boxes with a mix of IR blasters and UI built on top of them. Apple has struggled to create an integrated solution for its Apple TV and tried to directly appeal to programmers after talks with Comcast broke down, then settled on an app-based model. Google had to go and create its own broadband network with Google Fiber after its Google TV project failed. But even with Netflix, Hulu, apps, and makeshift solutions, tech companies want the cable channels, and the cable companies are holding the cards.

If the FCC's new cable ruling passes, the tech companies would get what they've wanted: a stronger foothold into consumers homes, which would then allow them to share their apps, gather data on users, and, perhaps most lucratively of all, control the interface on which channels are displayed. Naturally, the cable companies arent thrilled with the rumored FCC proposal, especially given that these box rentals generate billions of dollars in revenue. So in response, more than 40 telecom, media, and other groups plan to create a coalition to oppose the plan, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The cable companies desperately want to retain control of the interface

The coalitions argument centers on the idea that a change in cable boxes could completely alter the already built system of channel positioning; some programmers pay to have their channels prominently displayed, as well as to advertise their programs. The cable companies want to retain control of the channel interface  a prime advertising hub  and counter that technology companies can simply integrate telecom companies apps into their devices. The coalition also says tech companies could gain access to consumers viewing habit data and use it to unfairly advertise against the programming.

Still, cable box rentals could be costing customers between $6 billion and $14 billion in overcharges, according to the Consumer Federation of America. Democratizing the industry would likely force cable companies to lower their box prices in order to entice customers to stay with their traditional offerings, which is precisely what the FCC wants.


----------



## 7thton

Here is the WSJ article mentioned in The Verge article. It is behind a paywall, so I figured I'd help out...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-to-...es-1453857234?mod=WSJ_TechWSJD_moreTopStories

FCC to Propose Overhauling Rules on Set-Top Boxes

By
John D. McKinnon
Jan. 26, 2016 8:13 p.m. ET

Federal regulators soon are expected to propose overhauling rules for television set-top boxes, a move aimed at lowering bills for cable viewers and providing more access to Internet-based programming.

The proposal by Tom Wheeler, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, likely would involve giving cable and satellite customers more choice in whether to use their service provider's set-top box and cable app, or instead choose competing devices and apps, according to consumer advocates pushing for the change.

That could open more of the market to alternative set-top-box providers, such as TiVo Inc. and Alphabet Inc. 's Google unit.

Pay-TV customers now generally rent devices from their service providers, often at prices that consumer advocates regard as inflated. Critics also say those set-top boxes tend to favor content from the cable company that provides them.

The service providers are planning to resist the initiative, warning of government overreach. More than 40 telecommunications, media and other groups are expected to announce a coalition as soon as Wednesday to oppose Mr. Wheeler's anticipated plan.

Cable and media companies, which face a potential loss of billions of dollars in rental fees for set-top boxes, are concerned that a plan to open up that market could disrupt their business.

At a minimum, they say, it could upend the way the channel positioning they have carefully negotiated, providing certain programmers premium spots in their lineup in exchange for higher payments.

They also warn that tech companies could gain unfair access to valuable consumer data-such as which channels they watch and when-and sell their own ads against the programming. Cable companies say they operate under stricter privacy standards.

Given the opposition, Mr. Wheeler's plan faces a tight timetable if it is to be enacted by the end of the year, before an expected change of leadership at the FCC as a new president takes office.

For years, consumer advocates have complained that the market for set-top devices has been effectively controlled by the cable companies, despite congressional efforts to boost competition.

Customers could be overpaying for these devices by $6 billion to $14 billion a year, according to the Consumer Federation of America. Critics say that other technologies have plummeted in price while cable-box rental fees have soared. They say the current system, in some cases, has limited customers' access to emerging Internet media, stifling alternative programming.

Some minority-oriented companies have been particularly outspoken. In a recent opinion piece in the Hill newspaper, Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson urged the FCC to make changes that would give viewers more access to alternatives.

"If you have a good program idea, some financing, and access to the Internet, you can find your audience," wrote Mr. Johnson, chairman of RLJ Entertainment Inc. "But your audience can find you only if they have a modem or a set-top box or software that lets them know you are there and gives them access to your programs unconstrained by the network gatekeeper."

Access now varies considerably, depending on the pay-TV provider, experts say. And some cable companies say they are eager to get out of the set-top-box business.

Still, "the fact remains that you're in a walled garden controlled by the cable company," said John Bergmayer, a senior attorney at Public Knowledge, a consumer group.

Those pushing for the change are getting support from some big names in the technology sector. Google, in a recent FCC filing, said the agency "should commence a rule making quickly to unleash competition in the retail navigation-device market."

"We see great consumer benefits in choice, including lower cost [and] increasing desirability of cable service," said Matt Zinn, TiVo's senior vice president and general counsel, in an interview Tuesday.

But foes of the FCC plan have drawn support from more than two dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who argue that the overhaul could raise costs and complexity, requiring some customers to acquire another device. Unlike RLJ's Mr. Johnson, they worry that with a more wide-open system, minority programming could be relegated to "the bottom of the pile," as they wrote in December to the FCC.

Pay-TV industry officials said the plan would be more far-reaching than it seemed.

"They say it's just a box, [but] it's allowing another company to build an entirely different offering" in addition to the traditional cable service, said Michael Powell, a former FCC chairman and now president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

He said that the FCC's approach also might focus too much on devices in an age when apps are increasingly important.

The issue could be one of the most significant policy debates of Mr. Wheeler's final year in office.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Dan203 said:


> That has no impact on this discussion. We've known that for a year and it does not effect the availability of CableCARDs for retail devices.
> 
> Getting rid of the intagration ban has no effect on the current system as it never worked as intended. The idea was that by making them use CableCARDs in their own devices the setup process for a leased box and a retail device would be the same, so the consumer would have no extra burden from getting a CableCARD vs a leased box. But the MSOs never allowed it to work that way. They preauthoruzed the cards in their own boxes and treated retail cards completely differently in their systems. Also because leased boxes had two way communication capabilities and retail devices do not, they were able to use that to diagnose their own boxes remotely while typically throwing up their hands and forcing a tech visit if there was a priblem with a retail device. Since the integration ban did not achieve the desired effect there is really no effect on retail customers by removing it.


Doesn't it mean that the cable companies no longer have to supply retail cards, if the law has been sunset?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

atmuscarella said:


> I guess TWC doesn't count. Old style dual tuner DVR outside of a package deal is $24.75/mo & a normal STB is $11.75 Of course most people will get one at a reduced cost with almost all packages.
> 
> http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/plans-packages/tv/equipment.html


Wow....TWC sure has gone up in a few years!

I never paid anything close to that!


----------



## tarheelblue32

atmuscarella said:


> I guess TWC doesn't count. Old style dual tuner DVR outside of a package deal is $24.75/mo & a normal STB is $11.75 Of course most people will get one at a reduced cost with almost all packages.
> 
> http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/plans-packages/tv/equipment.html





SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Wow....TWC sure has gone up in a few years!
> 
> I never paid anything close to that!


And TWC's whole-home DVR (which I think only has 4 tuners) is $31.74/month plus tax. Getting a Roamio and Minis is a no-brainer if you are paying full sticker price for TWC's outrageous equipment rental fees. This is actually what pushed me to TiVo 2 years ago. I honestly didn't even know about TiVo, but seeing TWC's huge rental fees on my bill every month got me to research options and I found TiVo.


----------



## sbiller

FCC Letter posted here --> http://investordiscussionboard.com/boards/tivo/fcc-chairman-proposal-unlock-set-top-box-creating-choice-innovation


----------



## randian

FCC didn't do anything about the cable companies passive-aggressive torpedoing of cablecards, so why would they do anything when the same happens to AllVid?


----------



## sbiller

randian said:


> FCC didn't do anything about the cable companies passive-aggressive torpedoing of cablecards, so why would they do anything when the same happens to AllVid?


Enforcement is always a challenge.


----------



## randian

sbiller said:


> Enforcement is always a challenge.


I see little evidence the FCC actually bothered to challenge them in any substantive way. Challenges are easy to fail if you are determined to.


----------



## wco81

Being able to use the same box on cable and satellite will make it easier to switch back and forth, get promotional prices on programming.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

wco81 said:


> Being able to use the same box on cable and satellite will make it easier to switch back and forth, get promotional prices on programming.


That's if someone owned the box.

DirecTV and Dish charge large upfront for boxes and they are leases (or atleast I *believe* Dish is still a lease...I know DirecTV is).


----------



## Dan203

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Doesn't it mean that the cable companies no longer have to supply retail cards, if the law has been sunset?


No. They are still required to supply CableCARDs for retail devices. They're just no longer required to use them in their own boxes. The only part of the law that is being sunset is the "integration ban" portion. The rest still applies.


----------



## Johncv

This is from Ars Technica:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/in-blow-to-cable-lobby-fcc-wants-tv-to-be-available-on-any-device/

Let assume that this will pass and be upheld by the courts, how will this effect TiVo?


----------



## zalusky

Johncv said:


> This is from Ars Technica:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/in-blow-to-cable-lobby-fcc-wants-tv-to-be-available-on-any-device/
> 
> Let assume that this will pass and be upheld by the courts, how will this effect TiVo?


I think Tivo is substantially at risk because of increased competition. The big guys can finally get in without having to suck up to cable/sat. Who knows maybe Apple was lobbying behind this since they lost out trying to stream the content people directly. However with this they can plug directly into Cable/Sat content and then offer their value add.

Tivo does not have the capital, installed base, or the marketing to compete against the big guys.


----------



## Dan203

I agree that it could be a threat to TiVo long term. They'll start off with a lead in terms of experience, but they'll have to up their game to stay relevant. Provided it actually catches on. CableCARD promised a similar boon in 3rd party devices but ultimately TiVo was the only one left standing that still uses it. A combination of lack of interest and major setup issues contributed to that. If they can eliminate the setup issues and make it so the hardware is cheaper to make then this could be more successful. But it really comes down to implementation and execution. 

Personally I think the MSOs will do anything and everything they can to make it as inconvenient as possible, so I don't have high hopes for it turning out much better then CableCARD.


----------



## HerronScott

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As virtually no MVPD charges over $15 for a DVR lease,


With our Comcast franchise, it would be $19.95 per month ($10.00 DVR service plus $9.95 HD Technology Fee) although you would only have to pay the HD fee once if you had multiple Comcast DVR's or HD STB.

Scott


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As virtually no MVPD charges over $15 for a DVR lease


I guess the 3rd largest MVPD doesnt count to you?

Cox charges $28.49 per month for a 6 tuner dvr. The breakdown is $8.50 for equipment fee, $19.99 for "DVR Service".

Cox charges $20.49 per month for a 2 tuner dvr. The breakdown is $8.50 equipment fee, $12.99 for "DVR Service".

Cox charges $8.50 per month for each additional viewer equipment to connect to their DVR.

Cox charges $1.99 per month for cable card.

This is the Cleveland, Ohio area.

Tivo Roamio with LifeTime Subscription and with a few Minis pay for itself in close to 24 months even if you pay full retail price for them.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> I guess the 3rd largest MVPD doesnt count to you?
> 
> Cox charges $28.49 per month for a 6 tuner dvr. The breakdown is $8.50 for equipment fee, $19.99 for "DVR Service".
> 
> Cox charges $20.49 per month for a 2 tuner dvr. The breakdown is $8.50 equipment fee, $12.99 for "DVR Service".
> 
> Cox charges $8.50 per month for each additional viewer equipment to connect to their DVR.
> 
> Cox charges $1.99 per month for cable card.
> 
> This is the Cleveland, Ohio area.
> 
> Tivo Roamio with LifeTime Subscription and with a few Minis pay for itself in close to 24 months even if you pay full retail price for them.


I am clearly scratching my head as I have a FiOS DVR for $15 or $16 - up from the $12 I was paying up through mid last year.

The TWC DVR I had was $10 or $12 2 years ago.

So apparently DVRs have taken a major uptick in prices over the last 24 months.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Dan203 said:


> No. They are still required to supply CableCARDs for retail devices. They're just no longer required to use them in their own boxes. The only part of the law that is being sunset is the "integration ban" portion. The rest still applies.


If the law was sunset, how does that mean they are still required to issue CableCards (as I am fighting this battle right now with a major MVPD on an Enterprise Account).


----------



## JoeKustra

I might as well add some content:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-wants-more-choice-competition-232146152.html


----------



## tatergator1

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If the law was sunset, how does that mean they are still required to issue CableCards (as I am fighting this battle right now with a major MVPD on an Enterprise Account).


Only the "integration ban" was sunset. More specifically, the original CableCard law included a provision that banned direct integration of the security hardware in a cable box (hence, integration ban). It forced providers to install a Cable Card in every new box. The thought was that forcing the provider to eat it's own dog food would result in robust and straightforward support of the cards in retail devices. Of course, that was a farce since the provider pre-paired all CableCards in cable boxes to alleviate the pain of manual validation for every install. The CableCard might as well have been integrated in the grand scheme of things, which was much of the argument behind removing the integration ban.

For reference, a quick synopsis of the requirements of current law, as well as citation to the actual CFR sections detailing CableCard law.
https://www.fcc.gov/media/cablecard-know-your-rights


----------



## slowbiscuit

Johncv said:


> This is from Ars Technica:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/in-blow-to-cable-lobby-fcc-wants-tv-to-be-available-on-any-device/


Heh I like this objection from the cableCos in that article:

_Cable companies also argued that open access to pay-TV content would let builders of third-party devices "rearrange, exile, or drop channels and overlay ads and drop apps and interactive elements that are parts of MVPD service."_

Tivo is already doing this today with a relatively closed Cablecard system, so there's nothing new or worse that would be done with AllVid.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Dan203 said:


> I agree that it could be a threat to TiVo long term. They'll start off with a lead in terms of experience, but they'll have to up their game to stay relevant. Provided it actually catches on. CableCARD promised a similar boon in 3rd party devices but ultimately TiVo was the only one left standing that still uses it. A combination of lack of interest and major setup issues contributed to that. If they can eliminate the setup issues and make it so the hardware is cheaper to make then this could be more successful. But it really comes down to implementation and execution.
> 
> Personally I think the MSOs will do anything and everything they can to make it as inconvenient as possible, so I don't have high hopes for it turning out much better then CableCARD.


It will definitely be a threat to Tivo once the patents start expiring in a couple of years, which will probably be the minimum before this proposal sees the light of day in the real world anyway.

This could be the competition that is so badly needed in this space. The main problem I've always had with Tivo is that they are very slow to deliver what many would consider to be mainstream applications of their tech (client apps that actually work well, for example). They have always needed other companies to push them to do better and it hasn't happened.

Agree that without FCC enforcement actions it will be another foot-dragging episode from all of the MVPDs. They will fight this proposal to the end.


----------



## Dan203

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If the law was sunset, how does that mean they are still required to issue CableCards (as I am fighting this battle right now with a major MVPD on an Enterprise Account).


The law wasn't sunset. They repealed a single provision from the law which stated that the cable companies had to use the same technology in their own boxes as was available to retail devices.

The intent of that provision was to level the playing field. However it never actually worked out so it's no big deal that it was repealed. Although the fact that it was repealed is a testiment to the lobbying power of the the cable industry.


----------



## Dan203

slowbiscuit said:


> Heh I like this objection from the cableCos in that article:
> 
> _Cable companies also argued that open access to pay-TV content would let builders of third-party devices "rearrange, exile, or drop channels and overlay ads and drop apps and interactive elements that are parts of MVPD service."_
> 
> Tivo is already doing this today with a relatively closed Cablecard system, so there's nothing new or worse that would be done with AllVid.


They're scared that this new purposal will actually make it so companies other then TiVo actually use it. They're OK with a million or so subscribers having TiVos when they have 100 million that still use their equipment. If this catches on then it could blow up their leasing business as well as the kickbacks they get for advertising, channel placement, VOD upsell, etc... That's what they're worried about. They're just hiding behind some vague statements that try to make it sound like it's gping to be harmful to consumers and/or content providers.


----------



## TonyD79

How much of this does TiVo do? They can sort channels alphabetically but they can't block them. The overlays (if I understand this right) are basically ad data added to the video from the source or prompts to watch more programming. I don't think they are talking about what TiVo does.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Dan203 said:


> The law wasn't sunset. They repealed a single provision from the law which stated that the cable companies had to use the same technology in their own boxes as was available to retail devices.
> 
> The intent of that provision was to level the playing field. However it never actually worked out so it's no big deal that it was repealed. Although the fact that it was repealed is a testiment to the lobbying power of the the cable industry.


Its interesting that the fight I am having with a cableco - and they are still claiming that since the offer cablecards to residential accounts they are not violating any laws not offering cablecards to Business Accounts.

I do not see anything in the 2011 R&R that makes any difference between residential and business accounts.

For them to say they are not violating any FCC rules makes it sound like the sunset had to apply to all customers.


----------



## BobCamp1

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I am clearly scratching my head as I have a FiOS DVR for $15 or $16 - up from the $12 I was paying up through mid last year.
> 
> The TWC DVR I had was $10 or $12 2 years ago.
> 
> So apparently DVRs have taken a major uptick in prices over the last 24 months.


MVPDs hide service costs in equipment costs and vice versa. The content providers are dramatically increasing their prices. That gets transferred to your bill in one way or another.

Plus, most DVRs today are whole home DVRs that have 5-8 tuners. Not the simple 2-tuner variety.


----------



## BobCamp1

Dan203 said:


> They're scared that this new purposal will actually make it so companies other then TiVo actually use it. They're OK with a million or so subscribers having TiVos when they have 100 million that still use their equipment. If this catches on then it could blow up their leasing business as well as the kickbacks they get for advertising, channel placement, VOD upsell, etc... That's what they're worried about. They're just hiding behind some vague statements that try to make it sound like it's gping to be harmful to consumers and/or content providers.


I think the AllVid box rental fee will be between $15 and $20, making it cost-prohibitive to use a third-party box. (I also think CableCard prices are actually around $10/month, but it's just hidden in other places in the bill).

And when the FCC says, "Why so expensive?", the MVPDs will just restate all the things they've complained about so far, along with all the other things they have yet to complain about. They will also show the FCC the actual cost of forcing them into spending millions of dollars on R&D they didn't want to do and producing and supporting boxes they didn't want to make.

And even if the MVPDs relent and lower the price of the AllVid box rental, they'll just raise the price of the service by that amount or more since the FCC is prohibited from regulating that. That's why some odd groups, such as the Black Caucus Members, are against it. They realize that the current pricing scheme is a hornet's nest and the FCC shouldn't be kicking it.


----------



## BobCamp1

TonyD79 said:


> How much of this does TiVo do? They can sort channels alphabetically but they can't block them. The overlays (if I understand this right) are basically ad data added to the video from the source or prompts to watch more programming. I don't think they are talking about what TiVo does.


Tivo has the "channels I receive" option, which blocks them from appearing anywhere. And worse, the end user can customize it. Of course, today nobody cares what those 1% are doing with their boxes, so they can get away with anything.

DirecTV also had a "channels I receive" option, but it wasn't customizable and it never worked. There were certain channels that always poked through whether or not you actually received them. I always thought that was intentional and was either part of the carriage agreement with that channel or a slick way to get people to upgrade their service.

Most DVRs have a favorites button, but I'm guessing that most people only put a few channels on that.

With MSO-provided DVRs, whenever you tune to a channel you don't get there is always a pop-up window where you can simply push a button on the remote and order that channel. Will AllVid devices do that too?


----------



## tarheelblue32

BobCamp1 said:


> And even if the MVPDs relent and lower the price of the AllVid box rental, they'll just raise the price of the service by that amount or more since the FCC is prohibited from regulating that. That's why some odd groups, such as the Black Caucus Members, are against it. They realize that the current pricing scheme is a hornet's nest and the FCC shouldn't be kicking it.


The Black Caucus is against it for the same reason any other politicians are against it, because they have been bought off by the cable and satellite companies to oppose it.


----------



## Dan203

BobCamp1 said:


> I think the AllVid box rental fee will be between $15 and $20, making it cost-prohibitive to use a third-party box. (I also think CableCard prices are actually around $10/month, but it's just hidden in other places in the bill).
> 
> And when the FCC says, "Why so expensive?", the MVPDs will just restate all the things they've complained about so far, along with all the other things they have yet to complain about. They will also show the FCC the actual cost of forcing them into spending millions of dollars on R&D they didn't want to do and producing and supporting boxes they didn't want to make.
> 
> And even if the MVPDs relent and lower the price of the AllVid box rental, they'll just raise the price of the service by that amount or more since the FCC is prohibited from regulating that. That's why some odd groups, such as the Black Caucus Members, are against it. They realize that the current pricing scheme is a hornet's nest and the FCC shouldn't be kicking it.


That's where competition comes into play. Right now they have a functional monopoly so they can get away with charging whatever they want. If a consumer can buy a single box that can easily be switched between services using very different technology, like cable, DSS and Uverse then it creates competition where there really wasn't any before. Right now I have the option of all 3 of those services, but my expensive TiVos wont work with anything but cable. So if I want to switch I'd have to lease equipment from the new provider and learn a whole new UI and set of features. But if they could simply replace a gateway and I could continue using my TiVos that would be a much easier decision. In fact if that were available today I'd seriously consider switching to DirecTV and AT&T Uverse for my internet. DirecTV has more HD channels and Uverse offers faster speeds then cable.

By having these different services truly compete I think we'll actually see lower prices long term. Or at least a slower increase in prices.


----------



## Dan203

tarheelblue32 said:


> The Black Caucus is against it for the same reason any other politicians are against it, because they have been bought off by the cable and satellite companies to oppose it.


Or manipulated in to believing the cable lobby's BS arguments about why the "apps platform" is fine.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

BobCamp1 said:


> MVPDs hide service costs in equipment costs and vice versa. The content providers are dramatically increasing their prices. That gets transferred to your bill in one way or another.
> 
> Plus, most DVRs today are whole home DVRs that have 5-8 tuners. Not the simple 2-tuner variety.


the content provider costs for basic services (non premiums, NFL ST, MLB EI, NBA, NHL, HBO, SHOWTIME, EPIX, STARZ, VOD, PPV ETC) has remained pretty steady of your current bill - 25% for cable companies and 33% for DBS, excluding Equipment costs. When the premiums are added in, it comes to just over 40% in Programming Costs, according to their SEC Q and K filings.


----------



## TonyD79

BobCamp1 said:


> Tivo has the "channels I receive" option, which blocks them from appearing anywhere. And worse, the end user can customize it. Of course, today nobody cares what those 1% are doing with their boxes, so they can get away with anything. DirecTV also had a "channels I receive" option, but it wasn't customizable and it never worked. There were certain channels that always poked through whether or not you actually received them. I always thought that was intentional and was either part of the carriage agreement with that channel or a slick way to get people to upgrade their service. Most DVRs have a favorites button, but I'm guessing that most people only put a few channels on that. With MSO-provided DVRs, whenever you tune to a channel you don't get there is always a pop-up window where you can simply push a button on the remote and order that channel. Will AllVid devices do that too?


They show up in the ALL guide. All you are doing is filtering searches. Other dvrs do that.


----------



## lpwcomp

Seems to me that, since the MSOs are claiming that Allvid would increase consumer prices, these hearings might be a good place to ask Comcast to justify their current $9.95/mo (net $7.45 for TiVo users) Additional Digital Outlet fee.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> Seems to me that, since the MSOs are claiming that Allvid would increase consumer prices, these hearings might be a good place to ask Comcast to justify their current $9.95/mo (net $7.45 for TiVo users) Additional Digital Outlet fee.


In the last hour, a major cableco wanted to charge me $97 a month to use 1 cablecard on a commercial account.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> That's where competition comes into play. Right now they have a functional monopoly so they can get away with charging whatever they want. If a consumer can buy a single box that can easily be switched between services using very different technology, like cable, DSS and Uverse then it creates competition where there really wasn't any before. Right now I have the option of all 3 of those services, but my expensive TiVos wont work with anything but cable. So if I want to switch I'd have to lease equipment from the new provider and learn a whole new UI and set of features. But if they could simply replace a gateway and I could continue using my TiVos that would be a much easier decision. In fact if that were available today I'd seriously consider switching to DirecTV and AT&T Uverse for my internet. DirecTV has more HD channels and Uverse offers faster speeds then cable.
> 
> By having these different services truly compete I think we'll actually see lower prices long term. Or at least a slower increase in prices.


I'm not sure how one can have a choice of these 3 services and really 4 services assuming DISH would also be a choice and make a case that these providers can charge whatever they want.


----------



## trip1eX

BobCamp1 said:


> I think the AllVid box rental fee will be between $15 and $20, making it cost-prohibitive to use a third-party box. (I also think CableCard prices are actually around $10/month, but it's just hidden in other places in the bill).
> 
> And when the FCC says, "Why so expensive?", the MVPDs will just restate all the things they've complained about so far, along with all the other things they have yet to complain about. They will also show the FCC the actual cost of forcing them into spending millions of dollars on R&D they didn't want to do and producing and supporting boxes they didn't want to make.
> 
> And even if the MVPDs relent and lower the price of the AllVid box rental, they'll just raise the price of the service by that amount or more since the FCC is prohibited from regulating that. That's why some odd groups, such as the Black Caucus Members, are against it. They realize that the current pricing scheme is a hornet's nest and the FCC shouldn't be kicking it.


Yep. It's not going to be the automatic miraculous price decrease that some think. And there is still lots of room for shenanigans by the service providers.

You would get innovation in the user experience though. All these little refinements that Tivo could do but doesn't do for one reason or another, like those posted in the Suggestions forum, would all be done.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> I'm not sure how one can have a choice of these 3 services and really 4 services assuming DISH would also be a choice and make a case that these providers can charge whatever they want.


Because right now they have people equipment locked. Switching from cable to DSS can be both expensive, due to upfront fees, and confusing due to having to learn a whole new device.

If you could purchase a single device that could be transported between services I think it would open up the market more and provide real competition.

Also I'm not sure DirecTV and Uverse are really different services now, so 3 is probably still accurate.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> Yep. It's not going to be the automatic miraculous price decrease that some think. And there is still lots of room for shenanigans by the service providers.


Yep, just like people think they will save money with a la carte, which will only end up giving them about 10 channels for the price they currently get several hundred.

And if equipment costs are really going towards "other" costs as has been asserted above, that just means they will jack up prices for the base packages.


----------



## Dan203

The key to this standard working is interoperability of retail devices between different service providers. If the standard they settle on requires CE companies to develop and maintain different boxes for each service then it's probably not going to end up much better then CableCARD. If they use a gateway system which the retail devices can access via open IP protocols then I think it will have an impact. The MSOs themselves will likely transition over to the same system eventually since it reduces their own hardware costs if they can just piggyback a low cost "streaming stick" type device off of the gateway and still charge the customer $5/mo to rent it. (some people will always rent, no matter how cheap retail devices get) In fact DirecTV already has a system kind of like this they call RVU.


----------



## Johncv

More info from Art Technica:

*Cable lobby is really mad about FCCs set-top box competition plan*

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/cable-lobby-is-really-mad-about-fccs-set-top-box-competition-plan/

*Tom Wheeler fires back at cable lobby, says cable box fees are too high*

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...cable-lobby-says-cable-box-fees-are-too-high/

Any place where we can sign a petition in support of Wheeler's plan?


----------



## Jonathan_S

BobCamp1 said:


> Tivo has the "channels I receive" option, which blocks them from appearing anywhere. And worse, the end user can customize it. Of course, today nobody cares what those 1% are doing with their boxes, so they can get away with anything.


The only annoyance is that by default TiVo puts 'new' channels into that list. Verizon FIOS seems to do a neverending stream of remove channel X, add channel X. Which causes multiple channel line-up change messages and causes the channel to worm its way back into the search results (and would worm back into the guide except I have that set to favorites; not 'I receive')

Still, "channels I receive" is the first thing I thought of when TonyD79 said TiVo can't block channels.


----------



## TonyD79

Jonathan_S said:


> The only annoyance is that by default TiVo puts 'new' channels into that list. Verizon FIOS seems to do a neverending stream of remove channel X, add channel X. Which causes multiple channel line-up change messages and causes the channel to worm its way back into the search results (and would worm back into the guide except I have that set to favorites; not 'I receive') Still, "channels I receive" is the first thing I thought of when TonyD79 said TiVo can't block channels.


What fios are you dealing with? They don't remove and add channels. I've been with them for five years and the channel additions have been organic.

And the older fios boxes have a filter on searches that does the same thing as TiVo


----------



## tarheelblue32

TiVo's ability to sort channels alphabetically isn't unique. The TWC Roku app has the exact same ability. You can either sort live channels alphabetically or by channel number. I don't know how TWC could possibly complain about a TiVo being able to do exactly what TWC's own streaming app can do.


----------



## CharlesH

Dan203 said:


> Or manipulated in to believing the cable lobby's BS arguments about why the "apps platform" is fine.


Getting organizations that support some social cause to shill for big corporations is a time honored tradition for big companies. Either make significant "donations" to make them sympathetic to the corporation's message, or snow the executives of the organization with a technical message that is out of the domain of expertise of the executives, but sounds very impressive and knowledgeable if you don't know what they are talking about.

It is a variation on the theme of "astoturfing": fake "grass roots" organizations, only better, since they are depending on the reputation of an established organization to make that organization's support of the corporation's cause more effective.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Because right now they have people equipment locked. Switching from cable to DSS can be both expensive, due to upfront fees, and confusing due to having to learn a whole new device.
> 
> If you could purchase a single device that could be transported between services I think it would open up the market more and provide real competition.
> 
> Also I'm not sure DirecTV and Uverse are really different services now, so 3 is probably still accurate.


Switching is not expensive at all. IT's almost always cheaper to switch providers because they offer new customers great deals. And there is little if any up front costs.

The same thing that keeps customers "locked in" - the equipment - also makes the companies have to offer better deals to steal customers from rivals.

Plus if you think customers are locked in once they get equipment and that discourages competition then what does that mean for a retail set top box market over the long run? A few winners will emerge and customers will be "locked-in."

I'd probably would agree with you that we'd save money if the customer didn't have to rent a gateway from the cable/satellite company. But the big box being talked about is going to cost alot more than a cablecard and then I think many folks will see a price increase and not a decrease.

If you just rent 1 set top box right now then I don't see your costs dropping at all.

For someone like me, who paid $800 for a Tivo roamio Plus and 2 Minis, it might have saved me money in the short term where maybe I could have paid only $400 for a similar system since the gateway would take the tuners out, but then I'd be renting a gateway for presumably alot more than what a cablecard costs. Even $10/month would be $6/mo than my cablecard cost and after 4 years that would be nearly $300 in extra rental costs. That's only $100 cheaper over 4 years or a whopping $2/mo savings.

I'm not optimistic we're going to see any big savings. We would see UI innovation though. But in that case I can't help but think that by the time this stuff sees the light of day, OTT VoD services will make the current way we time shift tv passe.


----------



## Dan203

For systems like mine that require a box in every room just to function it ads up fast. For example until recently my Sister had a cable box in every room of her house. That's 5 boxes at $7/mo each. I ended up giving her a Premiere and a couple minis so she could eliminate 3 of them, but she's still got the other two. That's a LOT of money for 5 rooms. Even if a gateway cost $15/mo it would save her $240/year. 

You're right that if you're a household that only needs 1 bkx then it would be more expensive. But in that case you could just forgo the gateway and get one box. Noone says you have to use a gateway or buy a retail device.


----------



## randian

At $15 a month just for the gateway, compared to the $20 an X1 costs, a TiVo looks expensive for saving just $5. They'd probably force you to rent one gateway per TiVo too.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

TonyD79 said:


> What fios are you dealing with? They don't remove and add channels. I've been with them for five years and the channel additions have been organic.
> 
> And the older fios boxes have a filter on searches that does the same thing as TiVo


I get deletion notices what seems like every 2-3 weeks.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

randian said:


> At $15 a month just for the gateway, compared to the $20 an X1 costs, a TiVo looks expensive for saving just $5. They'd probably force you to rent one gateway per TiVo too.


Out of curiosity, where did the $15 a month figure for the gateway come from?

I do not believe you need more than 1 Gateway - much like Comcast X1 - or the FiOS ONT - you only need 1.


----------



## atmuscarella

The reality I see is that when it comes to all of this is that the companies involved all believe competition and Government regulations/over-site is bad for their bottom line and will go to great lengths to prevent it. My guess is they are correct. 

For the most part the Government (mostly through the FCC) has decided it is better to try and cause some competition, while maintaining a fairly high level of regulatory over-site than to go with a full on highly regulated monopoly. If it weren't so easy for large companies to buy and control our political system I would have preferred the highly regulated monopoly route. But tech may at some point actually provide the ability for there to be significant competition which is the preferred route so hopefully going the way we are going ends up working out for the consumer and not just these large companies. 

I also think we can not longer really separate telecommunication, "TV", & Internet access when we look at solutions, they are all to intertwined at this point and we really need to look at solutions with all of them in mind. 

The FCC has identified having a competition in the access hardware as a key to having a competitive system and I agree. The Government made the same call when they forced the telephone industry to accept a competitive access hardware business model, which resulted in the telephone companies getting out of the hardware manufacturing & leasing business. 

The only way to have a truly competitive system is for all these companies (any company providing telecommunication, TV, or Internet access) to get out of the access hardware manufacturing & leasing business. And the only way that is going to happen is if the Government forces it. It is my compete belief that until these companies are forced out of the hardware access leasing business they will continue to play games that make owning your own hardware a hassle for the masses. 

If tomorrow the Government passed laws that said in 2 years any company selling access to telecommunication, TV, or the Internet had to do so via open standards and could no longer rent/sell access hardware to new customers we would have a functioning competitive access hardware business model in minutes.


----------



## Dan203

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Out of curiosity, where did the $15 a month figure for the gateway come from?
> 
> I do not believe you need more than 1 Gateway - much like Comcast X1 - or the FiOS ONT - you only need 1.


It really depends on how the system works. If the gateway contains actual QAM tuners then each one will likely be capped at 6, maybe 8, tuners max. So if we're talking about Roamio Plus/Pro TiVos then you would probably need multiple gateways. If cable adapts and shifts to pure IP delivery then it wouldn't need physical tuners so the gateway could serve up as many channels as bandwidth will allow. Sort of like how Uverse works but with more bandwidth so it wouldn't be capped at just 4 channels.

The FIOS ONT is not really a gateway. Verizon sends the main cable channels across the fiber using standard QAM modulation and a standard ~800Mhz frequency block. The ONT simply converts that from light to radio signals and sends it over the coax. It also handles converting the data portion of the fiber for internet and VOD, which does not use QAM or DOCSIS like cable, but the linear channels are essentially transmitted the same way as they are on cable.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> For systems like mine that require a box in every room just to function it ads up fast. For example until recently my Sister had a cable box in every room of her house. That's 5 boxes at $7/mo each. I ended up giving her a Premiere and a couple minis so she could eliminate 3 of them, but she's still got the other two. That's a LOT of money for 5 rooms. Even if a gateway cost $15/mo it would save her $240/year.
> 
> You're right that if you're a household that only needs 1 bkx then it would be more expensive. But in that case you could just forgo the gateway and get one box. Noone says you have to use a gateway or buy a retail device.


Except if you had 5 tvs you might need 2 gateways unless gateways came in more than 1 size. Also if a Gateway was $15/mo then it would likely be more expensive over 4 years for someone like myself who bought 2 Minis and a Roamio Plus for $800 and pays $4/mo for cablecard.

And in your comparison a set top box does have a tuner in it while a Mini does not. It's not quite apples to apples.

IF the cable co could still rent customers "set top boxes" and bypass their gateway then that would give them a leg up on the cost of solutions that required a gateway. They could just rent you dvr for nearly the same price as a gateway.

btw, it was news to me (at least) that Wheeler isn't proposing an All Vid solution. He wants a 1 box solution.


----------



## randian

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Out of curiosity, where did the $15 a month figure for the gateway come from?
> 
> I do not believe you need more than 1 Gateway - much like Comcast X1 - or the FiOS ONT - you only need 1.


Just using a number another poster was using. No basis in reality. Whether or not you need more than 1 gateway has nothing to do with what the cable company might demand you purchase.


----------



## Jonathan_S

TonyD79 said:


> What fios are you dealing with? They don't remove and add channels. I've been with them for five years and the channel additions have been organic.
> 
> And the older fios boxes have a filter on searches that does the same thing as TiVo


Verizon FIOS in Northern Virginia. I probably get _at least_ 3 channel line-up change notices a month. Sometimes showing a channel removed and added back with a slightly different name, sometimes removed one day and added back the next. 
None of them are for channels I actually care about, but they do churn some channels fairly regularly.


----------



## DrewTivo

lpwcomp said:


> The cable cos will charge whatever the market will bear. Any money they get from providers for channel placement goes straight to their bottom lines. No one sells channels to consumers on an ala carte basis.


Right. At best, any pay for placement benefits some consumers at the expense of others. It's the same as advertising - those costs get passed on to consumers one way or the other (whether through higher rights fees or otherwise).


----------



## DrewTivo

randian said:


> FCC didn't do anything about the cable companies passive-aggressive torpedoing of cablecards, so why would they do anything when the same happens to AllVid?


Before there wasn't much political pressure on the other side.

Now you'll have Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and a bunch of others pushing the FCC really hard. That will be more challenging for Verizon, Comcast, etc. to push back against.


----------



## DrewTivo

zalusky said:


> I think Tivo is substantially at risk because of increased competition. The big guys can finally get in without having to suck up to cable/sat. Who knows maybe Apple was lobbying behind this since they lost out trying to stream the content people directly. However with this they can plug directly into Cable/Sat content and then offer their value add.
> 
> Tivo does not have the capital, installed base, or the marketing to compete against the big guys.


Agree - while Tivo has a unique DVR product, if this goes through all of the various companies providing boxes (Roku, Amazon, Apple TV, etc) will add a cable TV feature.

That said, I think it could also significantly enhance the value of TiVo as a company - one of the box manufacturers will want to buy the tech and sell their box, adding storage (SSD/HDD), and basically provide their stuff plus Tivo.

Seems like the time is ripe for Apple to buy Tivo.


----------



## BobCamp1

trip1eX said:


> btw, it was news to me (at least) that Wheeler isn't proposing an All Vid solution. He wants a 1 box solution.


A one box solution is impractical if you want to include DirecTV and Dish. Why have the added expense of the hardware necessary to drive DBS in each box? Maybe one box is for cable and you buy a DBS add-on kit.


----------



## Dan203

Yeah he obviously doesn't understand the tech involved here if he really thinks they could do a "one box" solution that will work with all providers. Cable could do it without a dedicated gateway box, if they made major changes to how their linear programming was delivered, but most likely would need a gateway box in the short term. DSS would definitely need some sort of gateway device. Uverse already uses a gateway, so it wouldn't be a huge change to them, just a change in the technology the gateway uses to send the video over the local network. Fiber services like FIOS could go either way. They have the bandwidth to do a virtual gateway if they want, but that could be a major backend change for them so they might opt for a gateway box like cable short term.


----------



## BobCamp1

atmuscarella said:


> If tomorrow the Government passed laws that said in 2 years any company selling access to telecommunication, TV, or the Internet had to do so via open standards and could no longer rent/sell access hardware to new customers we would have a functioning competitive access hardware business model in minutes.


No we wouldn't. Tivo, AT&T, and Cisco would sue anybody developing a new DVR due to patent infringement. Not that everybody is jumping to make a product that's never been profitable in the past, is in a declining market, and uses a limited and obsolete standard.

And when the next big "open" standard comes out, companies will patent THAT, royalty fees will be paid, validation labs will be created, licensing fees will pop up, the market will still be unattractive, and we'll see limited competition all over again.


----------



## BobCamp1

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Out of curiosity, where did the $15 a month figure for the gateway come from?


It was me -- some random idiot. 

Seriously though, I pay $5/month for a CableCard. This gateway seems three times more complicated than a CableCard, so I guessed $15. It'll have SDV, two-way communication, cable modem hardware, VoD, maybe hardware to drive DBS, better encryption, plus all the other typical crap and feature creep.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

BobCamp1 said:


> It was me -- some random idiot.
> 
> Seriously though, I pay $5/month for a CableCard. This gateway seems three times more complicated than a CableCard, so I guessed $15. It'll have SDV, two-way communication, cable modem hardware, VoD, maybe hardware to drive DBS, better encryption, plus all the other typical crap and feature creep.


So those of us who pay $2 would only have a $6 gateway?

I dont see why everything wouldnt just be using open software standards such as IP/UDP and HTML5 video and drm aspects. I dont see why there has to be any hardware providedto make it work.


----------



## TonyD79

Jonathan_S said:


> Verizon FIOS in Northern Virginia. I probably get at least 3 channel line-up change notices a month. Sometimes showing a channel removed and added back with a slightly different name, sometimes removed one day and added back the next. None of them are for channels I actually care about, but they do churn some channels fairly regularly.


Are they the sub channels? There is a lot of churn especially right now in the DC subchannels. I only get some of those.


----------



## Dan203

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> I dont see why everything wouldnt just be using open software standards such as IP/UDP and HTML5 video and drm aspects. I dont see why there has to be any hardware providedto make it work.


There has to be some way to convert from the MSOs existing delivery and protection schemes to these open standards. To do that you need a gateway device that contains all the proprietary hardware needed to access the MSOs services and can then convert those services to open standards so that retail devices can access them. It would be sort of like how TiVos and Minis work. Think of the TiVo like the gateway and the Mini like the retail device. The gateway would have the tuners and all the authorization hardware and the retail device would simply borrow one of those tuners over the local network whenever you wanted to watch or record something. However unlike a TiVo the gateway would be owned and authorized by the MSO, just like a STB. So all the hassle of pairing the retail device to the MSOs network is gone. Once the gateway is running you'd be able to connect any certified retail device to it without any explicit authorization from your MSO. So if you want to add a new TV in an extra room you just plug it in, connect it to the gateway and you're good to go. No interaction with the MSO is required.


----------



## trip1eX

BobCamp1 said:


> A one box solution is impractical if you want to include DirecTV and Dish. Why have the added expense of the hardware necessary to drive DBS in each box? Maybe one box is for cable and you buy a DBS add-on kit.


You could have 2 models in a one box solution. One for satellite and 1 for cable. And you could have an add-on as you said. Some might want everything in 1 model as well.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

Dan203 said:


> There has to be some way to convert from the MSOs existing delivery and protection schemes to these open standards. To do that you need a gateway device that contains all the proprietary hardware needed to access the MSOs services and can then convert those services to open standards so that retail devices can access them. It would be sort of like how TiVos and Minis work. Think of the TiVo like the gateway and the Mini like the retail device. The gateway would have the tuners and all the authorization hardware and the retail device would simply borrow one of those tuners over the local network whenever you wanted to watch or record something. However unlike a TiVo the gateway would be owned and authorized by the MSO, just like a STB. So all the hassle of pairing the retail device to the MSOs network is gone. Once the gateway is running you'd be able to connect any certified retail device to it without any explicit authorization from your MSO. So if you want to add a new TV in an extra room you just plug it in, connect it to the gateway and you're good to go. No interaction with the MSO is required.


Right and I'm saying all that would be installed at the MSO office, in essence just turn all of them into Netflix and do streaming that way. Though I suppose in my scenario the gateway would just be a cable modem, per say.


----------



## lessd

From the above discussion, the old cable card is not looking so bad. Most people are just going to take whatever the cable co offers them to get the TV channels they want to pay for. I don't think cable delivery will ever be as simple as the telephone replacement was, and now land lines are dying fast, as people go the cell phones only.
CT is now offering a choice of generator co. that can save people money per month, at least $20 to $50 over the standard rate, only 20% of the people go for it, and it only requires you to sign up on line, billing is still from the main service provider.
Few people are going to purchase their own cable equipment when using the cable co.s equipment has an on sight warranty, one call and someone comes to your home and fixes or replaces and your back in business, without any additional cost. 
Having some type of box where your cable comes into your home and being able to purchase any HDTV that all you have to do is plug into the cable to watch would be good, but most people want a DVR, so unless your standard HDTV can also control a single cable co DVR mounted where the cable comes into your home (or TiVo/other 3rd pty. DVRs) like the Mini does, I not sure where this is going. If you going to need a box near each TV, as we do now, what the great gain with another system.


----------



## wco81

Is the reason there aren't more companies making DVRs and set top boxes because Cable Card certification is so painful?

Why would this new standard bring more players into the market?

The problem remains that most people will not pay hundreds up front for a DVR or set top when they can rent one from the cable company. Of course it's more costly in the long run but a lot of them may be unable or unwilling to spend hundreds up front.

Maybe if they can get a DVR with 1 TB and 4 tuners and all guide data service included for $400 or less, sales would be stronger. But Tivo isn't making gobs of money with their prices, which are much higher, either.

So who's going to dive into this market?

I don't think Cable Card is what's making third party hardware like Tivos so expensive. Even with the new tech, the boxes will have to be several hundred to make sense for the manufacturers.

Meanwhile, you have Roku and Apple TV boxes for about 1/5 to 1/3 the price. Maybe streaming OTT is ultimately the solution but of course the cable companies will fight that.


----------



## Jonathan_S

TonyD79 said:


> Are they the sub channels? There is a lot of churn especially right now in the DC subchannels. I only get some of those.


No they tend to be things like 4th tier cable channels, nothing related to the broadcast networks. Though verizon has IIRC renamed their test channel a few times. The shopping networks seemed to do it fairly often for a while, some of the music channels, I don't remember precisely. Just that I keep getting line-up change notices and they're always for channels I don't care about which I immediately removed from the 'I Receive' list again.


----------



## Dan203

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> Right and I'm saying all that would be installed at the MSO office, in essence just turn all of them into Netflix and do streaming that way. Though I suppose in my scenario the gateway would just be a cable modem, per say.


That sort of virtual gateway is possible with cable and fiber but not DSS. DSS would need a gateway box in your house to function properly.


----------



## Dan203

wco81 said:


> Is the reason there aren't more companies making DVRs and set top boxes because Cable Card certification is so painful?
> 
> Why would this new standard bring more players into the market?
> 
> The problem remains that most people will not pay hundreds up front for a DVR or set top when they can rent one from the cable company. Of course it's more costly in the long run but a lot of them may be unable or unwilling to spend hundreds up front.
> 
> Maybe if they can get a DVR with 1 TB and 4 tuners and all guide data service included for $400 or less, sales would be stronger. But Tivo isn't making gobs of money with their prices, which are much higher, either.
> 
> So who's going to dive into this market?
> 
> I don't think Cable Card is what's making third party hardware like Tivos so expensive. Even with the new tech, the boxes will have to be several hundred to make sense for the manufacturers.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have Roku and Apple TV boxes for about 1/5 to 1/3 the price. Maybe streaming OTT is ultimately the solution but of course the cable companies will fight that.


CableCARD has two issues...

1) It only applies to cable and the technology is not transplantable to DSS or other IP services like Uverse.

2) It's one way so it can never support advanced services like VOD. Even SDV requires sort of a kludge with the tuning adapter.

The real goal here is not to bring more players into the DVR market. The real goal is to eliminate the need for an STB in every room costing $5-7/mo by making it possible to have "cable ready" TVs again. If they go with a gateway style system it's likely to be more expensive for DVR users, not cheaper.


----------



## innocentfreak

There is also the issue that you have to go out and license the guide data.

Cable companies argue that the fees you pay for access to the guide data as part of your TV package only cover using their set top box. As a result every DVR has had to bring their own guide data which means you end up paying for it twice. 

At least based off this PDF, it sounds like guide data should be included in the access by third party devices.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Dan203 said:


> It really depends on how the system works. If the gateway contains actual QAM tuners then each one will likely be capped at 6, maybe 8, tuners max. So if we're talking about Roamio Plus/Pro TiVos then you would probably need multiple gateways. If cable adapts and shifts to pure IP delivery then it wouldn't need physical tuners so the gateway could serve up as many channels as bandwidth will allow. Sort of like how Uverse works but with more bandwidth so it wouldn't be capped at just 4 channels.
> 
> The FIOS ONT is not really a gateway. Verizon sends the main cable channels across the fiber using standard QAM modulation and a standard ~800Mhz frequency block. The ONT simply converts that from light to radio signals and sends it over the coax. It also handles converting the data portion of the fiber for internet and VOD, which does not use QAM or DOCSIS like cable, but the linear channels are essentially transmitted the same way as they are on cable.


The AllVid is specifically IP based, not QAM based.

I was simply using a FiOS ONT as an example of a piece of equipment that converts information prior to entering the house, in the FiOS ONT example, translating the 3 lightwave frequencies in nm to IP and QAM frequencies for use inside the house...which is similar to what a gateway would do - minus the QAM part.


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The AllVid is specifically IP based, not QAM based.


Only between the gateway and end devices.


----------



## wco81

Dan203 said:


> CableCARD has two issues...
> 
> 1) It only applies to cable and the technology is not transplantable to DSS or other IP services like Uverse.
> 
> 2) It's one way so it can never support advanced services like VOD. Even SDV requires sort of a kludge with the tuning adapter.
> 
> The real goal here is not to bring more players into the DVR market. The real goal is to eliminate the need for an STB in every room costing $5-7/mo by making it possible to have "cable ready" TVs again. If they go with a gateway style system it's likely to be more expensive for DVR users, not cheaper.


Well you had Google and others petitioning in favor of AllVid?

So presumably they're interested in making products, though probably not DVRs as you note.

Maybe the VOD features will be so good that people won't need DVRs but you just know they're only going to keep the last season of shows or no seasons at all, as the rights to those shows go to Hulu, Amazon, or Netflix.


----------



## Dan203

Yeah VOD is a terrible replacement for a DVR in my opinion. They have forced commercials and only keep the last 3 or so episodes. Although that's exactly why the MSOs want it to replace DVRs.


----------



## Dan203

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The AllVid is specifically IP based, not QAM based.
> 
> I was simply using a FiOS ONT as an example of a piece of equipment that converts information prior to entering the house, in the FiOS ONT example, translating the 3 lightwave frequencies in nm to IP and QAM frequencies for use inside the house...which is similar to what a gateway would do - minus the QAM part.


Yeah but the ONT is just converting light to radio frequencies. You couldn't do that with QAM to IP. You'd need a tuner and a way to request a specific channel. You couldn't just convert all channels.

The gateway device will be more like a STB. Just with multiple tuners and a software interface for borrowing one of those tuners via IP. (likely DLNA CVP-2) I guess they could still stick it on the side of your house, but it seems like more of an inside device.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

BobCamp1 said:


> It was me -- some random idiot.
> 
> Seriously though, I pay $5/month for a CableCard. This gateway seems three times more complicated than a CableCard, so I guessed $15. It'll have SDV, two-way communication, cable modem hardware, VoD, maybe hardware to drive DBS, better encryption, plus all the other typical crap and feature creep.


Brighthouse wants $95 for 1 cablecard on a project I am working on this week for some friends.

And technically, I guess as long as they supply the cablecard, they can charge whatever they want.

I think a gateway will go for a ton more than $15, if they even lease it.

I see a lot of outlay of funds in the AllVid Scenario that most will not be willing to pay - and if MSOs can charge whatever they want, as in the situation above (and why wouldnt they if they have to redo their entire tech)....I see something positive (like a la carte) which has the probability to go very negative (again, a la carte) very quickly and easily (Also my Health Insurance Costs which tripled in 3 years...along with my deductible - thanks Obama).


----------



## Dan203

My vision for the system, for most people, will be to have a single gateway which you lease from the MSO for <$20/mo. That can then feed 6+ "cable ready" TVs or TVs with cheap streaming stick type devices that cost $30-$50/ea. This is opposed to the current system which requires every TV to have it's own box which costs $5-7/mo each. If you have 4+ TVs then this system will be cheaper for you in the long run.

For us TiVo users it could get more expensive because we may need multiple gateways to service all of our recording needs. Although the TiVo hardware should be cheaper since it will no longer need tuners or any CableCARD hardware.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Dan203 said:


> My vision for the system, for most people, will be to have a single gateway which you lease from the MSO for <$20/mo. That can then feed 6+ "cable ready" TVs or TVs with cheap streaming stick type devices that cost $30-$50/ea. This is opposed to the current system which requires every TV to have it's own box which costs $5-7/mo each. If you have 4+ TVs then this system will be cheaper for you in the long run.
> 
> For us TiVo users it could get more expensive because we may need multiple gateways to service all of our recording needs. Although the TiVo hardware should be cheaper since it will no longer need tuners or any CableCARD hardware.


As TiVo is selling the OTA Roamios with 4 tuners and Lifetime Service on Amazon for $300, as I pointed out, this is $75 out the door for TiVo including the All In Service.

With that said, 4 (or 6) tuners cannot be adding that much cost to a TiVo, so I do not see where that savings will come from.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Yeah VOD is a terrible replacement for a DVR in my opinion. They have forced commercials and only keep the last 3 or so episodes. Although that's exactly why the MSOs want it to replace DVRs.


VoD can be whatever it wants to be.

We all know there are VoD services without commercials and that keep multiple seasons of episodes around.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> VoD can be whatever it wants to be.
> 
> We all know there are VoD services without commercials and that keep multiple seasons of episodes around.


With cable and telecoms, with their own video interests, in charge of the vast majority of internet connections in this country I'm not quite as optomistic as you are that OTT services without commercials are going to win out in the end. Netflix is hugely popular now, but wait until ISPs start charging metered pricing and exempting their own VOD services. Things will change quickly.


----------



## lessd

trip1eX said:


> VoD can be whatever it wants to be.
> 
> We all know there are VoD services without commercials and that keep multiple seasons of episodes around.


VOD control even without commercials is a pain compared to a DVR recording, slow response etc., Close caption are not on all VOD programs, and you will never know when your VOD service is going to remove a program unless you keep yourself up-to-date on what going to be taken off, with a DVR you have to remove the program when you want. I also don't know how you can tell when something new is coming on VOD like we can with most DVRs. 
To me VOD is only good for something that we missed by error or any special announcement that interrupts the program, IE: the killing Bin Laden, and paying for a newer movie. For me it is the only way I can see a 3D movie on my HDTV without purchasing the 3D BD disk.


----------



## tatergator1

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Brighthouse wants $95 for 1 cablecard on a project I am working on this week for some friends.
> 
> And technically, I guess as long as they supply the cablecard, they can charge whatever they want.
> 
> I think a gateway will go for a ton more than $15, if they even lease it.


$95 sounds like they're making you pay the full cost of the CableCard upfront. I sure hope they don't want a recurring monthly fee as well. Also the FCC does mention somewhere that the lease fee be "reasonable" for a CableCARD. If $95 is a one time charge, it's probably reasonable, otherwise, no way.

In terms of the gateway and leasing cost, I would guess most would charge at least $15 monthly. For me, that's a step backwards. AllVid is great for portability and plug-n-play, but I pay $5 per month for 2 CableCARDS which gets me 10 tuners. A gateway box presumably limits me to 6 tuners and is a big negative in terms of cost in my use case.


----------



## trip1eX

lessd said:


> VOD control even without commercials is a pain compared to a DVR recording, slow response etc.,
> 
> Close caption are not on all VOD programs, and you will never know when your VOD service is going to remove a program unless you keep yourself up-to-date on what going to be taken off, with a DVR you have to remove the program when you want. I also don't know how you can tell when something new is coming on VOD like we can with most DVRs.


None of this stopped 75 million people from signing up for Netflix.

I think you're looking at issues that are very minor issues to vast majority of the market. Issues that aren't static. They are dynamic and will only change for the better.

These pale in comparison (for the vast majority of the market) to the big net gains of VoD like much cheaper equipment and no need to schedule recordings or worry about missed recordings or conflicts or worry about storing recordings.

Close captioning has nothing to do with VoD either. Neither does letting customers know what is new and what is not.

Yes trick play in some respects is better on Tivo than on a service like Netflix because of the local hard drive. But streaming tech and network tech have only improved and continue to improve. I can skip back instantly on Netflix now to see what a character said if I miss something. I might even say that if you have to quickly scan a movie to find a scene you might be able to do it faster via the thumbnail trick play found in Netflix than on a Tivo. Also from what I've read about, the new Apple Tv and its remote, for example, lets you very quickly go to any point in time in a show via trackpad scrolling or almost instantly via voice command.

And last, if you don't have to skip commercials, then trick play is much less of a concern in my experience.

And yes you can't directly control what content the VoD provider lets you have access to. But does anyone here have access to HBO's entire back catalog of original programming on their Tivo? HBO Now (VoD) customers do. Plus these services have to keep customers entertained via programming to get their money. If they stop providing the customer with enough quality content to watch for the money then the customer goes away. That's how I look at your concern.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi

Not sure why everyone thinks the government mandating a particular standard is going to make everything better. One of the reasons we have the innovation that exists today is because people are looking for alternatives to cable or satellite and various companies have seized on that like Roku or Netflix, etc. Government standards stifle innovation by forcing companies to do things in a very specific way and leave less room for creativity.


----------



## tarheelblue32

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Not sure why everyone thinks the government mandating a particular standard is going to make everything better. One of the reasons we have the innovation that exists today is because people are looking for alternatives to cable or satellite and various companies have seized on that like Roku or Netflix, etc. Government standards stifle innovation by forcing companies to do things in a very specific way and leave less room for creativity.


Standards are not inherently stifling to innovation. Internet Protocol is a standard.


----------



## TonyD79

trip1eX said:


> None of this stopped 75 million people from signing up for Netflix. I think you're looking at issues that are very minor issues to vast majority of the market. Issues that aren't static. They are dynamic and will only change for the better. These pale in comparison (for the vast majority of the market) to the big net gains of VoD like much cheaper equipment and no need to schedule recordings or worry about missed recordings or conflicts or worry about storing recordings. Close captioning has nothing to do with VoD either. Neither does letting customers know what is new and what is not. Yes trick play in some respects is better on Tivo than on a service like Netflix because of the local hard drive. But streaming tech and network tech have only improved and continue to improve. I can skip back instantly on Netflix now to see what a character said if I miss something. I might even say that if you have to quickly scan a movie to find a scene you might be able to do it faster via the thumbnail trick play found in Netflix than on a Tivo. Also from what I've read about, the new Apple Tv and its remote, for example, lets you very quickly go to any point in time in a show via trackpad scrolling or almost instantly via voice command. And last, if you don't have to skip commercials, then trick play is much less of a concern in my experience. And yes you can't directly control what content the VoD provider lets you have access to. But does anyone here have access to HBO's entire back catalog of original programming on their Tivo? HBO Now (VoD) customers do. Plus these services have to keep customers entertained via programming to get their money. If they stop providing the customer with enough quality content to watch for the money then the customer goes away. That's how I look at your concern.


Netflix is NOT VoD. It is a streaming service of limited product for a relatively low price. It no longer has much newer programming as other services have taken away programming like movies from Starz! and the like. Yes, it has its own product but it should not be compared to VoD.


----------



## lessd

trip1eX said:


> None of this stopped 75 million people from signing up for Netflix.
> 
> I think you're looking at issues that are very minor issues to vast majority of the market. Issues that aren't static. They are dynamic and will only change for the better.
> 
> These pale in comparison (for the vast majority of the market) to the big net gains of VoD like much cheaper equipment and no need to schedule recordings or worry about missed recordings or conflicts or worry about storing recordings.
> 
> Close captioning has nothing to do with VoD either. Neither does letting customers know what is new and what is not.
> 
> Yes trick play in some respects is better on Tivo than on a service like Netflix because of the local hard drive. But streaming tech and network tech have only improved and continue to improve. I can skip back instantly on Netflix now to see what a character said if I miss something. I might even say that if you have to quickly scan a movie to find a scene you might be able to do it faster via the thumbnail trick play found in Netflix than on a Tivo. Also from what I've read about, the new Apple Tv and its remote, for example, lets you very quickly go to any point in time in a show via trackpad scrolling or almost instantly via voice command.
> 
> And last, if you don't have to skip commercials, then trick play is much less of a concern in my experience.
> 
> And yes you can't directly control what content the VoD provider lets you have access to. But does anyone here have access to HBO's entire back catalog of original programming on their Tivo? HBO Now (VoD) customers do. Plus these services have to keep customers entertained via programming to get their money. If they stop providing the customer with enough quality content to watch for the money then the customer goes away. That's how I look at your concern.


Unfortunately for me your most likely more correct than I am. I do have Netflix and it is way better than my Comcast VOD, but I like the idea of TiVos having _my shows_, so I am not searching for what I want, I just scroll to the recording I want to watch, much easier than setting up my Netflix movie list.


----------



## Johncv

Dan203 said:


> Yeah VOD is a terrible replacement for a DVR in my opinion. They have forced commercials and only keep the last 3 or so episodes. Although that's exactly why the MSOs want it to replace DVRs.


The government would like to do away with all set-top boxes and DVR because they are power vampires.


----------



## lessd

Johncv said:


> The government would like to do away with all set-top boxes and DVR because they are power vampires.


Good point as the Roamio in power saving mode goes to about 15 watts, in full operation is only about 25 watts, the Mini is less that 20 watts, the old Series 2 was about 50 watts, and that was for a single tuner, at one time I had 7 Series 2 units running 24/7, that 350 watts, now I am down to less than 100 watts of TiVo power, so I have gone from 50 watts/tuner to 6 watts per tuner. Never heard the FCC concerned with power use.


----------



## Dan203

Johncv said:


> The government would like to do away with all set-top boxes and DVR because they are power vampires.


And the servers running the "cloud" and all the switches that make up the internet aren't? I bet if you could mesure end to end all the power used to deliver a video on demand and play a video from the HDD of a DVR they wouldn't be that different.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Dan203 said:


> Netflix is hugely popular now, but wait until ISPs start charging metered pricing and exempting their own VOD services. Things will change quickly.


And Netflix is losing money each month as well.



trip1eX said:


> None of this stopped 75 million people from signing up for Netflix. [/QUOTE
> 
> Let's see how high the price goes, commercials get added and ISP caps change that as Netflix Programming costs are only going up and higher than HBO, Showtime, Epix, Starz AND Amazon, COMBINED.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

tatergator1 said:


> $95 sounds like they're making you pay the full cost of the cablecard upfront. I sure hope they don't want a recurring monthly fee as well. Also the fcc does mention somewhere that the lease fee be "reasonable" for a cablecard. If $95 is a one time charge, it's probably reasonable, otherwise, no way.
> 
> In terms of the gateway and leasing cost, i would guess most would charge at least $15 monthly. For me, that's a step backwards. Allvid is great for portability and plug-n-play, but i pay $5 per month for 2 cablecards which gets me 10 tuners. A gateway box presumably limits me to 6 tuners and is a big negative in terms of cost in my use case.


$95. Each month


----------



## tarheelblue32

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> $95. Each month


I'm pretty sure that the FCC has said that cable companies have to charge a reasonable fee for a CableCard. $95/month is blatantly unreasonable. If it were me, I would file a formal complaint with the FCC about it.


----------



## Dan203

He mentioned up thread it's for a business account and that they told him the FCC rules don't apply to business accounts.


----------



## Johncv

Dan203 said:


> And the servers running the "cloud" and all the switches that make up the internet aren't? I bet if you could measure end to end all the power used to deliver a video on demand and play a video from the HDD of a DVR they wouldn't be that different.


All of that could be put on the wind or solar power.


----------



## atmuscarella

Johncv said:


> All of that could be put on the wind or solar power.


My TiVo's are 75% solar powered now.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

Dan203 said:


> He mentioned up thread it's for a business account and that they told him the FCC rules don't apply to business accounts.


I don't see why he doesn't open a residential account for cable service then and keep the business account for what services he currently has.


----------



## DCIFRTHS

Dan203 said:


> ...The gateway would have the tuners and all the authorization hardware and the retail device would simply borrow one of those tuners over the local network whenever you wanted to watch or record something. However unlike a TiVo the gateway would be owned and authorized by the MSO, just like a STB. So all the hassle of pairing the retail device to the MSOs network is gone. Once the gateway is running you'd be able to connect any certified retail device to it without any explicit authorization from your MSO. So if you want to add a new TV in an extra room you just plug it in, connect it to the gateway and you're good to go. No interaction with the MSO is required.


How would MOS's charge for "extra outlets"? I'm guessing when you plug in a new device, it would register with the MSO, then they would either charge for it, or not, depending on their policy regarding extra outlets?

Or is this were they might give you a gateway device with a certain amount of tuners, and charge you more for a second device?


----------



## DCIFRTHS

Dan203 said:


> Yeah but the ONT is just converting light to radio frequencies. You couldn't do that with QAM to IP. You'd need a tuner and a way to request a specific channel. You couldn't just convert all channels.
> 
> The gateway device will be more like a STB. Just with multiple tuners and a software interface for borrowing one of those tuners via IP. (likely DLNA CVP-2) I guess they could still stick it on the side of your house, but it seems like more of an* inside device.*


Especially for apartment installs where the ONT is already inside.

Didn't you mention earlier that it's possible for FiOS to create a virtual gateway? If so, do you mean that it would exist the in the CO (central office), and all channel requests would traverse the network to the CO? Wouldn't this significantly slow things down when requesting a channel?


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

DCIFRTHS said:


> Especially for apartment installs where the ONT is already inside.
> 
> Didn't you mention earlier that it's possible for FiOS to create a virtual gateway? If so, do you mean that it would exist the in the CO (central office), and all channel requests would traverse the network to the CO? Wouldn't this significantly slow things down when requesting a channel?


Wouldn't those requests mostly travel at the speed of light, being fiber and all?


----------



## DCIFRTHS

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> Wouldn't those requests mostly travel at the speed of light, being fiber and all?


From the ONT (in my apt.) to the CO - yes, it's all fiber. I guess my concern (if there even is one) is the CO's handling of the request, and where it would take place. Meaning would it be in the local CO or a remote video distribution point?

I know this is all speculation at this point in time, but I am just curious...


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

It shouldn't be any worse than using SDV with Tuning Adapters. That is to say maybe 2 seconds for channel changes based on my experience tuning to SDV TA channels. It really doesn't feel any different for those channels verse the linear cable card channels.


----------



## Dan203

DCIFRTHS said:


> How would MOS's charge for "extra outlets"? I'm guessing when you plug in a new device, it would register with the MSO, then they would either charge for it, or not, depending on their policy regarding extra outlets?
> 
> Or is this were they might give you a gateway device with a certain amount of tuners, and charge you more for a second device?


I'd hope they would just charge a flat fee for a gateway with X tuners and if you need more then that they can charge you for a second one, rather then there being individual outlet fees.


----------



## trip1eX

TonyD79 said:


> Netflix is NOT VoD. It is a streaming service of limited product for a relatively low price. It no longer has much newer programming as other services have taken away programming like movies from Starz! and the like. Yes, it has its own product but it should not be compared to VoD.


VoD has nothing to do with the amount or type or age of programming offered nor with how that service is delivered to the customer.

VoD means more than just the cable company's VoD offering.


----------



## Dan203

DCIFRTHS said:


> Especially for apartment installs where the ONT is already inside.
> 
> Didn't you mention earlier that it's possible for FiOS to create a virtual gateway? If so, do you mean that it would exist the in the CO (central office), and all channel requests would traverse the network to the CO? Wouldn't this significantly slow things down when requesting a channel?


They have enough bandwidth that they could create a virtual gateway system where each channel is essentially VOD stream and sent directly to the user as an IP stream.


----------



## Dan203

DCIFRTHS said:


> From the ONT (in my apt.) to the CO - yes, it's all fiber. I guess my concern (if there even is one) is the CO's handling of the request, and where it would take place. Meaning would it be in the local CO or a remote video distribution point?
> 
> I know this is all speculation at this point in time, but I am just curious...


A local gateway would introduce a delay too. Your TiVo would essentially send it a signal requesting a channel, it would then tune that channel using one of it's internal tuners, decrypt and repackage it to an open IP standard, then send that back to your TiVo. There would likely be at least another second or two added to each channel tune compared to a TiVo using it's own internal tuners.

H.264 encoding is going to make channel surfing worse for most people anyway. With MPEG-2 there is a pretty standard GOP patterned used in the industry which introduces an entry point every 1/2 second. Ine of the main advantages of H.264, which allows it to compress streams more, is that it can have really long GOPs. So I'd expect they would push them out to at least 2 seconds each. Which means depending on where you join the stream it could take up to 2 seconds before your TiVo can even start to decode and display frames. I've seen streams from H.264 channel in Europe with a 10 second GOP. Talk about a long channel change.


----------



## trip1eX

lessd said:


> Unfortunately for me your most likely more correct than I am. I do have Netflix and it is way better than my Comcast VOD, but I like the idea of TiVos having _my shows_, so I am not searching for what I want, I just scroll to the recording I want to watch, much easier than setting up my Netflix movie list.


Really? IT seems like you can just add stuff you want to watch to your favorites list on Netflix which seems analogous to My Shows on Tivo.


----------



## trip1eX

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Let's see how high the price goes, commercials get added and ISP caps change that as Netflix Programming costs are only going up and higher than HBO, Showtime, Epix, Starz AND Amazon, COMBINED.


They could very well add a commercial option in the future. I don't see why not if they think there is demand for it.

They have more subscribers than any of those services. I think they have more than HBO and Showtime combined.

I'm sure the price will go up. It is going up. I think the grandfathered-in $7.99 price period ends in a few months. Then your rate goes up to $9.99. Roughly speaking.

But that's all besides the point. People love the way Netflix works compared to linear broadcasting. VoD seems destined to take over. That's the point. Netflix was just an example of VoD in the wild.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Really? IT seems like you can just add stuff you want to watch to your favorites list on Netflix which seems analogous to My Shows on Tivo.


The watch list on Netflix sucks! It's just one long list with Zero organization. It doesn't even seem to retain the same order from one visit to the next. If they had a better UI with a way to organize your watch list and to alert you that a particular show is going away soon then it might be useable the way you describe but right now DVRs are far superior in that respect.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> They could very well add a commercial option in the future. I don't see why not if they think there is demand for it.
> 
> They have more subscribers than any of those services. I think they have more than HBO and Showtime combined.
> 
> I'm sure the price will go up. It is going up. I think the grandfathered-in $7.99 price period ends in a few months. Then your rate goes up to $9.99. Roughly speaking.
> 
> But that's all besides the point. People love the way Netflix works compared to linear broadcasting. VoD seems destined to take over. That's the point. Netflix was just an example of VoD in the wild.


You're right that VOD is the future, but I'm not so sure it will be as consumer friendly as you think. MSOs are in a unique position to sqeeze all competition out of the market, since they control the vast majority of internet connections. And their version of VOD is one with forced commercials and limited viewing windows. If that model wins out then your vision of an all VOD future may not be as utopian as you think.


----------



## foghorn2

Dan203 said:


> A local gateway would introduce a delay too. Your TiVo would essentially send it a signal requesting a channel.... I've seen streams from H.264 channel in Europe with a 10 second GOP. Talk about a long channel change.


Thats way too long to see if the next channel has naked boobs, down with H.264!


----------



## TonyD79

trip1eX said:


> VoD has nothing to do with the amount or type or age of programming offered nor with how that service is delivered to the customer. VoD means more than just the cable company's VoD offering.


I guess you don't understand the different business models.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> The watch list on Netflix sucks! It's just one long list with Zero organization. It doesn't even seem to retain the same order from one visit to the next. If they had a better UI with a way to organize your watch list and to alert you that a particular show is going away soon then it might be useable the way you describe but right now DVRs are far superior in that respect.


DVRs are hardly far superior right now in that respect. Does Tivo have user accounts? No! Netflix does. That's called organization.

But anyway it's all besides the point. There is nothing inherent about VoD that lends itself to poor organization. Same with a dvr. And it isn't like the routine organization/search/categorization of a finite amount of computerized information, like Tivo does, is a state held secret.


----------



## trip1eX

TonyD79 said:


> I guess you don't understand the different business models.


Nonsense. You don't understand what VoD means.

You sound like you think VoD is like Kleenex or RollerBlades. That it pertains to a specific brand sorta speak. That it means it is from your cable company over their closed cable system.

I think the term VoD covers all tissues and in-line skates. It doesn't matter if that video is delivered OTT or via a closed cable system.


----------



## realityboy

trip1eX said:


> DVRs are hardly far superior right now in that respect. Does Tivo have user accounts? No! Netflix does. That's called organization.
> 
> But anyway it's all besides the point. There is nothing inherent about VoD that lends itself to poor organization. Same with a dvr. And it isn't like the routine organization/search/categorization of a finite amount of computerized information, like Tivo does, is a state held secret.


I love Netflix, but total VoD without any DVR would be a step backwards at this point. I'm not to bothered with commercials or trick play, but time shifting is awesome. With a DVR, I can watch anything that has aired on a linear channel anytime that I want. With VoD, I am limited to what the provider (cable company, Netflix, Hulu, etc.) allows when they allow it. That's better than watching live, but it certainly doesn't live up to the time shifting capabilities of a DVR.

If there comes a point where all shows are made available on VoD immediately after air and stay there indefinitely, then of course, that would be superior, but that's just a pipe dream.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> You're right that VOD is the future, but I'm not so sure it will be as consumer friendly as you think. MSOs are in a unique position to sqeeze all competition out of the market, since they control the vast majority of internet connections. And their version of VOD is one with forced commercials and limited viewing windows. If that model wins out then your vision of an all VOD future may not be as utopian as you think.


Meh. CAble can't stop the VoD OTT services. IT's too obvious.

They can charge customers for internet access though.

And the cable company closed system VoD is an ancient model whose roots were started over 20 years ago in the lab. Viewing windows and commercials are vestiges of agreements with the content owners/media companies and attached to the current "paytv" model.

I'm of the opinion that if they do not provide customers with all the options/features that the tech is capable of today (and if they try to use VoD in a way that is meant to protect their old linear broadcasting model) then you'll see new media companies rise to the top through the VoD OTT space.

It's the wild west right now. There's room for new players or old companies to gain ground through OTT VoD.


----------



## trip1eX

realityboy said:


> I love Netflix, but total VoD without any DVR would be a step backwards at this point. I'm not to bothered with commercials or trick play, but time shifting is awesome. With a DVR, I can watch anything that has aired on a linear channel anytime that I want. With VoD, I am limited to what the provider (cable company, Netflix, Hulu, etc.) allows when they allow it. That's better than watching live, but it certainly doesn't live up to the time shifting capabilities of a DVR.
> 
> If there comes a point where all shows are made available on VoD immediately after air and stay there indefinitely, then of course, that would be superior, but that's just a pipe dream.


VoD means time shifting I think. I agree we aren't there yet. I would hardly call it a pipe dream. Everything is moving that way as we speak.

And you could count buying shows on iTunes or Amazon as a form of VoD and the vast majority of scripted cable shows are available via those services. The fact you can do that further shows how close we are to a VoD future.


----------



## slice1900

Dan203 said:


> A local gateway would introduce a delay too. Your TiVo would essentially send it a signal requesting a channel, it would then tune that channel using one of it's internal tuners, decrypt and repackage it to an open IP standard, then send that back to your TiVo. There would likely be at least another second or two added to each channel tune compared to a TiVo using it's own internal tuners.
> 
> H.264 encoding is going to make channel surfing worse for most people anyway. With MPEG-2 there is a pretty standard GOP patterned used in the industry which introduces an entry point every 1/2 second. Ine of the main advantages of H.264, which allows it to compress streams more, is that it can have really long GOPs. So I'd expect they would push them out to at least 2 seconds each. Which means depending on where you join the stream it could take up to 2 seconds before your TiVo can even start to decode and display frames. I've seen streams from H.264 channel in Europe with a 10 second GOP. Talk about a long channel change.


Not sure why you think that a gateway would add such a large delay. The "sending it a signal requesting a channel" step takes less than a millisecond, tuning the channel and decrypting it takes no longer for a gateway that a Tivo using its own internal tuners/decryption, and "repacking it to an open IP standard" should hardly take much time either if you have a decent CPU in the gateway. You won't even notice the delay, unless you were doing this over wireless and had a crappy home network. You already experience all these steps when using a Tivo Mini or Directv Genie client - do those add two seconds to a channel change? Hardly.

If you want to see the difference between MPEG2 and MPEG4 encoding, compare changing SD and HD channels on Directv and Dish. Channel changing on HD takes a bit longer but the idea of it taking anywhere near 10 seconds is laughable FUD. I don't really notice the difference between changing HD channels on Directv and changing channels on my Tivo Premiere (on a MPEG2 cable system)


----------



## realityboy

trip1eX said:


> VoD means time shifting I think. I agree we aren't there yet. I would hardly call it a pipe dream. Everything is moving that way as we speak.
> 
> And you could count buying shows on iTunes or Amazon as a form of VoD and the vast majority of scripted cable shows are available via those services. The fact you can do that further shows how close we are to a VoD future.


VoD is time shifting, but it allows less freedom. The majority isn't good enough if you happen to watch less popular shows that aren't available or time shift dramatically watching shows years after they end. As things progress, there will be more VoD and less that needs to be DVRed locally, but I still need/want the DVR as long as there are shows unavailable elsewhere.


----------



## Dan203

slice1900 said:


> Not sure why you think that a gateway would add such a large delay. The "sending it a signal requesting a channel" step takes less than a millisecond, tuning the channel and decrypting it takes no longer for a gateway that a Tivo using its own internal tuners/decryption, and "repacking it to an open IP standard" should hardly take much time either if you have a decent CPU in the gateway. You won't even notice the delay, unless you were doing this over wireless and had a crappy home network. You already experience all these steps when using a Tivo Mini or Directv Genie client - do those add two seconds to a channel change? Hardly.
> 
> If you want to see the difference between MPEG2 and MPEG4 encoding, compare changing SD and HD channels on Directv and Dish. Channel changing on HD takes a bit longer but the idea of it taking anywhere near 10 seconds is laughable FUD. I don't really notice the difference between changing HD channels on Directv and changing channels on my Tivo Premiere (on a MPEG2 cable system)


The repackaging is really the unknown. And yes the Mini adds a significant delay to live TV channel changing compared to the local TiVo. At least an extra second or two. Although I think it does some buffering, so that may not be an apples to apples comparison.

As for H.264... I said that US broadcasters will likely use 2 second GOPs, which means worst case scenario is you tune right after the last GOP ends and have to wait the full 2 seconds to reach the next IDR frame. I have however seen European files (sent to me for my job) with 10 second GOPs. I doubt anyone in the US would do that, but they could. There are no rules pertaining to GOP length.


----------



## atmuscarella

Linear/live broadcast TV and video on demand have been living together just fine for close to 40 years and I expect they will both live just fine together for another 40 years. Why anyone thinks other wise is beyond me. Sure the availability of video on demand has increased and become more convenient over the last 40sih years but so has linear/live broadcast TV. If I go back to 1970 access to consumer video on demand libraries didn't really exist yet and I had access to 4 linear/live broadcast stations. Now I can pay to have access to hundreds of linear/live broadcast stations and I can create/buy/rent nearly unlimited video on demand libraries.

Just in case anyone hasn't figured it out yet: Netflix is a video on demand library that you can rent that Netflix creates & controls. Your TiVo recordings are a video on demand library that you create & own/control. Your VHS/DVD/Blu-ray collections are also a video on demand libraries that you create & own/control. Vudu has created a video on demand library that you can rent and/or own, but primary control remains with Vudu. 

So the questions really are who do you want to control the video on demand libraries you access and do you want to own or rent them. 

Personally I want it all.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Meh. CAble can't stop the VoD OTT services. IT's too obvious.
> 
> They can charge customers for internet access though.


Exactly! And if they start charging metered pricing (i.e. $x per GB) but exempt their own VOD offerings then who do you think is going to suffer? I'm betting OTT services would take a serious dive. Even if it gets challenged in court it could take years, and by then it might be too late.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

realityboy said:


> If there comes a point where all shows are made available on VoD immediately after air and stay there indefinitely, then of course, that would be superior, but that's just a pipe dream.


Thats not a pipe dream.

That's already how HBO Go / HBO Now work with the new programs being available at exactly the same time as their scheduled linear TV times.

Its just a matter of time until the other channels work the same way.


----------



## Johncv

trip1eX said:


> VoD has nothing to do with the amount or type or age of programming offered nor with how that service is delivered to the customer.
> 
> VoD means more than just the cable company's VoD offering.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand

*Video on demand (display) (VOD)* are systems which allow users to select and watch/listen to video or audio content when they choose to, rather than having to watch at a specific broadcast time. IPTV technology is often used to bring video on demand to televisions and personal computers.
Television VOD systems can either stream content through a set-top box, a computer or other device, allowing viewing in real time, or download it to a device such as a computer, digital video recorder (also called a personal video recorder) or portable media player for viewing at any time. The majority of cable- and telco-based television providers offer both VOD streaming, including pay-per-view and free content, whereby a user buys or selects a movie or television program and it begins to play on the television set almost instantaneously, or downloading to a DVR rented from the provider, or downloaded onto a PC, for viewing in the future. Internet television, using the Internet, is an increasingly popular form of video on demand. VOD can also be accessed via desktop client applications such as iTunes.
Some airlines offer VOD as in-flight entertainment to passengers through individually controlled video screens embedded in seatbacks or armrests or offered via portable media players. Some video on demand services such as Netflix use a subscription model that requires users to pay a monthly fee to access a bundled set of content. Other services use an advertising-based model, where access is free for users, and the platforms rely on selling advertisements as a main revenue stream.


----------



## TonyD79

trip1eX said:


> Nonsense. You don't understand what VoD means. You sound like you think VoD is like Kleenex or RollerBlades. That it pertains to a specific brand sorta speak. That it means it is from your cable company over their closed cable system. I think the term VoD covers all tissues and in-line skates. It doesn't matter if that video is delivered OTT or via a closed cable system.


You can think all you want. It is not the same model. You are lumping all non-linear sources together. They are not the same not matter how much you want to claim it. The business models are completely different.


----------



## TonyD79

Johncv said:


> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand Video on demand (display) (VOD) are systems which allow users to select and watch/listen to video or audio content when they choose to, rather than having to watch at a specific broadcast time. IPTV technology is often used to bring video on demand to televisions and personal computers. Television VOD systems can either stream content through a set-top box, a computer or other device, allowing viewing in real time, or download it to a device such as a computer, digital video recorder (also called a personal video recorder) or portable media player for viewing at any time. The majority of cable- and telco-based television providers offer both VOD streaming, including pay-per-view and free content, whereby a user buys or selects a movie or television program and it begins to play on the television set almost instantaneously, or downloading to a DVR rented from the provider, or downloaded onto a PC, for viewing in the future. Internet television, using the Internet, is an increasingly popular form of video on demand. VOD can also be accessed via desktop client applications such as iTunes. Some airlines offer VOD as in-flight entertainment to passengers through individually controlled video screens embedded in seatbacks or armrests or offered via portable media players. Some video on demand services such as Netflix use a subscription model that requires users to pay a monthly fee to access a bundled set of content. Other services use an advertising-based model, where access is free for users, and the platforms rely on selling advertisements as a main revenue stream.


I don't give a damn what someone on Wikipedia wrote. No one equates Netflix with video on demand.


----------



## foghorn2

Netflix is Video On Demand.

All cable has to do is go metered only.

And offer unlimited data if you bundle with TV.

Im all for that, and bye bye netflix.


----------



## lessd

foghorn2 said:


> Netflix is Video On Demand.
> 
> All cable has to do is go metered only.
> 
> And offer unlimited data if you bundle with TV.
> 
> Im all for that, and bye bye netflix.


Before I had Netflix I used about 10Gb/month on Comcast, the cap at that time was 250Gb/month, not even close to a problem, the cap in my area has been suspended at this time but using Netflix I am up to about 150Gb/month, still below the original cap, but if I ever go 4K 

The average Joe is not going to keep track of that stuff until his bill comes in the mail, this is what happens with some people and their cell phone use.


----------



## Dan203

And how do you think Netfix fares when they change to metered pricing? When people can directly correlate that Netflix is costing them $X/mo I think they might reconsider pulling up Netfix when looking for something to watch. The biggest problem we have as consumers is that these alternatives all use the internet and the vast majority of our internet connections are controlled by companies with their own video service interests. Right now we're still in the beginning, but once these OTT services become a substantial threat to the core business of these MSOs they're going to use their position as your ISP to try to stop that threat.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> And how do you think Netfix fares when they change to metered pricing? When people can directly correlate that Netflix is costing them $X/mo I think they might reconsider pulling up Netfix when looking for something to watch. The biggest problem we have as consumers is that these alternatives all use the internet and the vast majority of our internet connections are controlled by companies with their own video service interests. Right now we're still in the beginning, but once these OTT services become a substantial threat to the core business of these MSOs they're going to use their position as your ISP to try to stop that threat.


Given how much carriage fees have been increasing, I assume that most cable companies now make more of their profit off internet services than television, which means that providing an internet connection to customers is now their "core business".


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> I don't see why he doesn't open a residential account for cable service then and keep the business account for what services he currently has.


They are still in essence refusing to lease a cablecard on a business account.

What they are allowing is 1 residential account with all the channels the business has on it for $95 a month with the cablecard.

So they are in essence charging $95 to use a cablecard.

I see no reference to commercial v residential account in the cablecard ruling so I intend to push it. Their lawyers claim they are in compliance with the law.

And again, I remind you the person leading the MVPD. Group against AllVid is working at this MSO.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> Meh. CAble can't stop the VoD OTT services. IT's too obvious.
> 
> They can charge customers for internet access though.
> 
> And the cable company closed system VoD is an ancient model whose roots were started over 20 years ago in the lab. Viewing windows and commercials are vestiges of agreements with the content owners/media companies and attached to the current "paytv" model.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that if they do not provide customers with all the options/features that the tech is capable of today (and if they try to use VoD in a way that is meant to protect their old linear broadcasting model) then you'll see new media companies rise to the top through the VoD OTT space.
> 
> It's the wild west right now. There's room for new players or old companies to gain ground through OTT VoD.


Not if they cannot get the content. That's why they are beginning to do their own programming now. And as noted, at some point they have to start making a profit....actually a large profit.

And btw, they have already lost a considerable amount of programs.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

tarheelblue32 said:


> Given how much carriage fees have been increasing, I assume that most cable companies now make more of their profit off internet services than television, which means that providing an internet connection to customers is now their "core business".


Correct. However, most of the head end and infrastructure has been on the Video side. With people cutting back on video packages they will shift those expenses to the ip side.

ACA has already started talking about doing away with video services and just be the ip pipe....let people sub to CBS, HBO, sHowtime directly and do it all OTA.

That way they stay out if retransmission wars.


----------



## BobCamp1

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Correct. However, most of the head end and infrastructure has been on the Video side. With people cutting back on video packages they will shift those expenses to the ip side.
> 
> ACA has already started talking about doing away with video services and just be the ip pipe....let people sub to CBS, HBO, sHowtime directly and do it all OTA.
> 
> That way they stay out if retransmission wars.


That's how I'm starting to watch TV now. I just go to the content provider's website or use their app and start streaming. I have excellent control with my mouse or touchscreen. There are closed captions. I can watch it on any device I want to, including the TV. And I usually only have to sit through two 30 second commercials, though that varies wildly.

That's how most people under 35 watch TV now. They use their cable package as a way to bundle all these various online services together under one bill.


----------



## trip1eX

realityboy said:


> VoD is time shifting, but it allows less freedom. The majority isn't good enough if you happen to watch less popular shows that aren't available or time shift dramatically watching shows years after they end. As things progress, there will be more VoD and less that needs to be DVRed locally, but I still need/want the DVR as long as there are shows unavailable elsewhere.


VoD doesn't inherently allow less "freedom." You do give up control that could lead to less "freedom."

But "freedom" is just a buzzword meant to paint VoD in a negative light. I mean who wants to lose "freedom?" I don't.

But a VoD service, like HBO Now, gives you its entire back catalog at the tip of your fingers. That's what you get in exchange for giving up your "freedom."

Sure you could, in theory, have HBO's entire back catalog on your dvr. You have had the "freedom" to do that.

But, practically speaking, how many have that? Close to zero I'm thinking. HOw many would gladly give up the "freedom" to record and store HBO's back catalog locally in exchange for on-demand access to that back catalog from a VoD service? Probably everyone else. Practically speaking this is another appeal of VoD.

The number of cable shows on iTunes or Amazon was just an example of how far one's ability to watch cable shows on demand has come. And to show how VoD is far from a pipedream. No argument was made that it replaces cabletv 100% today and completely eliminates the need for a dvr today.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Exactly! And if they start charging metered pricing (i.e. $x per GB) but exempt their own VOD offerings then who do you think is going to suffer? I'm betting OTT services would take a serious dive. Even if it gets challenged in court it could take years, and by then it might be too late.


Hey the very worst of the worst case scenario is possible. But not very realistic imo.


----------



## trip1eX

TonyD79 said:


> You can think all you want. It is not the same model. You are lumping all non-linear sources together. They are not the same not matter how much you want to claim it. The business models are completely different.


lol. I'm merely talking about why VoD is taking over for the DVR.

You're making some vague straw man argument about business models.


----------



## trip1eX

TonyD79 said:


> I don't give a damn what someone on Wikipedia wrote. *I don't* equate Netflix with video on demand.


Fixed. 

We get it. You define VoD differently.


----------



## realityboy

trip1eX said:


> VoD doesn't inherently allow less "freedom." You do give up control that could lead to less "freedom."


Use control if you don't like the use of the word "freedom". In this instance, they're interchangeable. The providers determine what's available instead of the consumers.

You bring up HBO often as a counter example because they have all of their shows available. That's wonderful, but it's really just a drop in the bucket when there were 1400 different shows that aired during prime time in 2015. Also afaik, there's not a single non premium channel that makes their shows available in the same manner.

I suppose, in theory, that if the FCC forced providers of linear television to make all shows available on demand that would eliminate the need for a new standard to replace the cablecards in DVRs.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> And how do you think Netfix fares when they change to metered pricing? When people can directly correlate that Netflix is costing them $X/mo I think they might reconsider pulling up Netfix when looking for something to watch. The biggest problem we have as consumers is that these alternatives all use the internet and the vast majority of our internet connections are controlled by companies with their own video service interests. Right now we're still in the beginning, but once these OTT services become a substantial threat to the core business of these MSOs they're going to use their position as your ISP to try to stop that threat.


There's power in 75 million customers. Then add on the SlingTV and VUE customers. HBO Now. and Showtime customers. Hulu. Amazon. And that's just today. That doesn't include future OTT services.

That doesn't include YouTube either. Nor all the other internet video people watch.

Plus the demand for more internet bandwidth doesn't just come from those video services. It also comes from other areas like videogames. Games on today's consoles are over 50GB. And more and more players are downloading those games. Even if you don't download the games you have to download updates which can be 5-10gb each easy.

Customers are using the internet for cloud data storage and backup. People back up their massive photo libraries to the cloud. They download lots of apps and games to their mobile devices. Much of this is done at home.

So despite all this demand and despite the cost of providing faster speeds and more data getting cheaper for cable companies, you want to promote a scenario where the cable company increases your internet pricing so much that you, the customer, think twice about subscribing to internet.

I mean you're not only painting a picture where the customer thinks twice about subscribing to Netflix, but to home internet. If the cable company would make internet so unattractive then customers might drop further down to the economy package and take away $30/mo from the cable company if they don't drop internet altogether.

Plus you paint this doomsday scenario in a backdrop where mobile data is only getting faster, cheaper and providing more bandwidth. Maybe I don't need home internet if the cable company is going to chop off the hand that feeds it. Verizon is testing "gigabit" wireless and it will likely start rolling out next year or the year after. I already "need" mobile data.

Many of us have DSL too. It's not that great. 5-10mbps maybe a bit more where I'm at. I'm sure most get 5mbps or so?? But if the cable company is going to squash what we use internet for then DSL starts looking good.

I think your scenario is the theoretical worst scenario. Not the likeliest.


----------



## trip1eX

realityboy said:


> Use control if you don't like the use of the word "freedom". In this instance, they're interchangeable. The providers determine what's available instead of the consumers.
> 
> You bring up HBO often as a counter example because they have all of their shows available. That's wonderful, but it's really just a drop in the bucket when there were 1400 different shows that aired during prime time in 2015. Also afaik, there's not a single non premium channel that makes their shows available in the same manner.
> 
> I suppose, in theory, that if the FCC forced providers of linear television to make all shows available on demand that would eliminate the need for a new standard to replace the cablecards in DVRs.


I'm only using HBO Now to illustrate what VoD can bring to the table that, practically speaking, the average dvr customer cannot especially in the context of "freedom" that you bring up.

However, the side issue of control or freedom is a tree in the forest. The forest is that VoD is going to take over for the DVR. The level of freedom you're losing from this change is a total non-issue for vast majority of the market.

Your statement that providers determine what is available and not customers is disingenuous much like stating that VoD means loss of freedom. Might as well say every business determines what is available and not customers then.  MIght as well say we lost our freedom in movie theaters when they said its against the law to yell 'Fire."

No the customer has a big say in what is available. They aren't going to pay if they don't like what is available. A VoD service knows exactly what customers watch and what they don't too.

Anyway it's all about whether the tradeoff as a whole is the more desirable option. Most modern conveniences have minor tradeoffs compared to the past. VoD, as a whole, is going to end up the more desirable option than the dvr.


----------



## realityboy

We'll just have to disagree. As a customer, content is way more important to me than how it's delivered, and VoD just doesn't currently have all of the content available that I want to watch, and thankfully, it's not an either or proposition. I'll continue supplementing my Netflix, HBOgo, Showtime Anywhere, WWE Network, & CBS All Access viewing with a DVR as long as that's possible so that means the cable companies need to play nice with set top boxes. 

And no, the individual customers do not have a say in what gets carried. One of my favorite shows of the year was Spotless. It's carried on none of the streaming services. Which one should I cancel in order to get it added? As long as each offers shows that I like, it makes no sense to cancel even if they are depriving me of other shows that I like. Less popular shows just won't make it to the streaming world.


----------



## lessd

trip1eX said:


> Anyway it's all about whether the tradeoff as a whole is the more desirable option. Most modern conveniences have minor tradeoffs compared to the past. VoD, as a whole, is going to end up the more desirable option than the dvr.


I think your use of the word *desirable option* may be true for some people but never for all people, I have VOD and use it when I miss something on my TiVo record list, or someone tells me about a great show, I have missed the first two episodes, I go to VOD and can watch the show, if I like it I then can set up one-pass, if not, no loss. I don't like finding stuff on VOD, unless I know what I am looking for. I read about a show that I think I will like, make up a one-pass and forget about it, when it shows up on my TiVo I then can watch it, to remember the date the show will first come on VOD, so I can watch it, would be a pain.
Each to his own I guess.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> There's power in 75 million customers.


With functional monopolies in most areas those customer's opinions mean very little. Cable companies are essentially like the power companies at this point, but without the regulation. They've basically got you over a barrel and can do practically whatever they want with pricing.

Some areas are lucky to have two choices, but in most cases both of those choices have video interests. Verizon offers TV services just like cable and AT&T now has both Uverse and DirecTV. So there is nothing stopping both of your options from using caps or metered pricing to squeeze out OTT services.

And in some states, like mine, there are actually laws on the books that prevent municipalities from creating public internet options that compete with the entrenched cable/telecoms monopolies.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> Anyway it's all about whether the tradeoff as a whole is the more desirable option. Most modern conveniences have minor tradeoffs compared to the past. VoD, as a whole, is going to end up the more desirable option than the dvr.


"More desirable" is a personal opinion and for me changes all the time. Right now it might be more desirable to watch one of my DVR recordings, latter it might be more desirable to watch an Amazon show, after that it might be more desirable to watch something on live TV, tomorrow might be a Blu-ray night or maybe a movie in a theater.

There is no need for any trade offs at all, everything can exist at one time without any issues at all. Which method of video delivery that has the most market share is irrelevant to me and my guess to the vast majority of people.

Your assertion that control doesn't matter is absurd. Everyone wants control of what they watch, again what level of control an individual finds acceptable is another personal thing. Some people find being given the option to pick what they are going to watch from what is on a few linear broadcast channels enough control over what they watch. You just happen to believe that current or future streaming options will provide you with the level of control you find acceptable. Others will want more control than that and maintain their own video libraries along with having access to the libraries of various streaming services and linear broadcast channels.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> There's power in 75 million customers. Then add on the SlingTV and VUE customers. HBO Now. and Showtime customers. Hulu. Amazon. And that's just today. That doesn't include future OTT services.
> 
> That doesn't include YouTube either. Nor all the other internet video people watch.
> 
> Plus the demand for more internet bandwidth doesn't just come from those video services. It also comes from other areas like videogames. Games on today's consoles are over 50GB. And more and more players are downloading those games. Even if you don't download the games you have to download updates which can be 5-10gb each easy.
> 
> Customers are using the internet for cloud data storage and backup. People back up their massive photo libraries to the cloud. They download lots of apps and games to their mobile devices. Much of this is done at home.
> 
> So despite all this demand and despite the cost of providing faster speeds and more data getting cheaper for cable companies, you want to promote a scenario where the cable company increases your internet pricing so much that you, the customer, think twice about subscribing to internet.
> 
> I mean you're not only painting a picture where the customer thinks twice about subscribing to Netflix, but to home internet. If the cable company would make internet so unattractive then customers might drop further down to the economy package and take away $30/mo from the cable company if they don't drop internet altogether.
> 
> Plus you paint this doomsday scenario in a backdrop where mobile data is only getting faster, cheaper and providing more bandwidth. Maybe I don't need home internet if the cable company is going to chop off the hand that feeds it. Verizon is testing "gigabit" wireless and it will likely start rolling out next year or the year after. I already "need" mobile data.
> 
> Many of us have DSL too. It's not that great. 5-10mbps maybe a bit more where I'm at. I'm sure most get 5mbps or so?? But if the cable company is going to squash what we use internet for then DSL starts looking good.
> 
> I think your scenario is the theoretical worst scenario. Not the likeliest.


Interesting.

You have a problem paying a MVPD like Verizon FiOS a metered rate (which they have noted is inevitable) and no problem paying Verizon Wireless for internet that is metered at a much higher rate than you would pay the wired ISP.

Furthermore, as Netflix continues to lose money, their rates need to rise at very minimum of 50% to become a successful business.


----------



## Johncv

Dan203 said:


> Exactly! And if they start charging metered pricing (i.e. $x per GB) but exempt their own VOD offerings then who do you think is going to suffer? I'm betting OTT services would take a serious dive. Even if it gets challenged in court it could take years, and by then it might be too late.


This is why the last mile to the house need to be open to any service provider. This would force competition between internet/video providers. So if Comcrap started charging metered pricing you call them and say f**k you and change to another provider who did not.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Johncv said:


> This is why the last mile to the house need to be open to any service provider. This would force competition between internet/video providers. So if Comcrap started charging metered pricing you call them and say f**k you and change to another provider who did not.


In most places, there is no barrier to additional competitors, except the huge cost of building the infra-structure which is why there is not more competition.

In fact, even Verizon stopped their build out in Florida, Texas and California roughly 5 years ago, even in communities where they already had partial build outs.

If Verizon does not have the cash, the list of possibilities is very short.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Johncv said:


> This is why the last mile to the house need to be open to any service provider. This would force competition between internet/video providers. So if Comcrap started charging metered pricing you call them and say f**k you and change to another provider who did not.


Sounds good but then the problem shifts to other areas. They already did this with DSL (open up telco lines) and very little competition ensued for two reasons: the wholesale rate was not cheap enough to attract enough competitiors at reasonable prices, and when there's a last mile line issue a lot of finger pointing results.

The real answer if you want to do this is to force the cableCos to spin off the plant infrastructure into a separate company which then provides access to all comers. Kind of like how some states have done with gas and power lines. You then pay a monthly maint. fee for the line access and pay whomever you want for the HSI.

Not that any of this is ever going to fly. Something like the new Starry wireless may be our only hope in the future.


----------



## 7thton

slowbiscuit said:


> Sounds good but then the problem shifts to other areas. They already did this with DSL (open up telco lines) and very little competition ensued for two reasons: the wholesale rate was not cheap enough to attract enough competitiors at reasonable prices, and when there's a last mile line issue a lot of finger pointing results.
> 
> The real answer if you want to do this is to force the cableCos to spin off the plant infrastructure into a separate company which then provides access to all comers. Kind of like how some states have done with gas and power lines. You then pay a monthly maint. fee for the line access and pay whomever you want for the HSI.
> 
> Not that any of this is ever going to fly. Something like the new Starry wireless may be our only hope in the future.


This is the only real way to increase competition, IMHO.


----------



## slowbiscuit

I also think it's technically infeasible for cable's shared infrastructure architecture, btw. There's not a separate line running to everyone's house like there is with telco, so you can't have multiple companies using the same lines with the same overall bandwidth to the last mile.


----------



## lessd

slowbiscuit said:


> I also think it's technically infeasible for cable's shared infrastructure architecture, btw. There's not a separate line running to everyone's house like there is with telco, so you can't have multiple companies using the same lines with the same overall bandwidth to the last mile.


Someone in my city tried to run fiber cable past all homes then rent out the fiber cable to others for internet, cable TV, phone, never went anywhere, they stopped the build out, at the time I had Comcast, they (this new co) would have dig up part of my yard to lay new cable to my home, and I did not see any big cost savings (if any at all) when I looked at the different services that was offered on this fiber cable .


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

TonyD79 said:


> I don't give a damn what someone on Wikipedia wrote. No one equates Netflix with video on demand.


I have tried to stay out of this, (which has taken real self control  ) but one simply has to Google SVOD OTT and you will find that the Industry considers OTT including Netflix and Hulu to be SVOD, which is a Subscription Video On Demand - just as the Cable Provider VOD is classified.

And you are correct, they are different business models.

Cable Providers make money.

Netflix operates at a loss every quarter.


----------



## JoeKustra

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Netflix operates at a loss every quarter.


http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NFLX&ql=1

EPS (ttm) is .28 which is not a loss.


----------



## atmuscarella

Interesting:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hulu-one-big-advantage-over-172940477.html


----------



## JoeKustra

Very interesting.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

JoeKustra said:


> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NFLX&ql=1
> 
> EPS (ttm) is .28 which is not a loss.


Wow. They actually made a small profit last Quarter!

Let's see, that puts their P/E at 326.75:1 where most companies are <20:1, ROFLMAO.


----------



## trip1eX

realityboy said:


> We'll just have to disagree. As a customer, content is way more important to me than how it's delivered, and VoD just doesn't currently have all of the content available that I want to watch, and thankfully, it's not an either or proposition.


 I never said VoD is ready for primetime today. I said it will take over for the DVR.

You're making a strawman argument that says "you're wrong. I can't get everything via streaming today.' But I never made an argument that you could.



realityboy said:


> And no, the individual customers do not have a say in what gets carried. One of my favorite shows of the year was Spotless. It's carried on none of the streaming services. Which one should I cancel in order to get it added? As long as each offers shows that I like, it makes no sense to cancel even if they are depriving me of other shows that I like. Less popular shows just won't make it to the streaming world.


lol. I didn't say you get everything your mind desires.

I said customers have a say.

Otherwise every content service would switch to showing you the cheapest crap they could find. Hell they would just show you commercials. Netflix would just run commercials for $8/mo if customers had no say.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> With functional monopolies in most areas those customer's opinions mean very little. Cable companies are essentially like the power companies at this point, but without the regulation. They've basically got you over a barrel and can do practically whatever they want with pricing.
> 
> Some areas are lucky to have two choices, but in most cases both of those choices have video interests. Verizon offers TV services just like cable and AT&T now has both Uverse and DirecTV. So there is nothing stopping both of your options from using caps or metered pricing to squeeze out OTT services.
> 
> And in some states, like mine, there are actually laws on the books that prevent municipalities from creating public internet options that compete with the entrenched cable/telecoms monopolies.


Did you read the rest of my post? There's too much headwind against the doomsday scenario you're trying to sell.

I get the picture you're painting. Monopoly bad. Wipe out everything. Customer lose. But I think it's not quite that simple and won't be as bad.


----------



## trip1eX

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Interesting.
> 
> You have a problem paying a MVPD like Verizon FiOS a metered rate (which they have noted is inevitable) and no problem paying Verizon Wireless for internet that is metered at a much higher rate than you would pay the wired ISP.


Never said that. I did say that if a doomsday scenario emerges where a cable compny truly thwarts all OTT services etc and destroys everything in its path then I'm looking at my options. And my options should be a lot more attractive in the future if I can't stream video.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Furthermore, as Netflix continues to lose money, their rates need to rise at very minimum of 50% to become a successful business.


different discussion. And I don't think Netflix is losing money either.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> "More desirable" is a personal opinion and for me changes all the time. Right now it might be more desirable to watch one of my DVR recordings, latter it might be more desirable to watch an Amazon show, after that it might be more desirable to watch something on live TV, tomorrow might be a Blu-ray night or maybe a movie in a theater.


I'm talking about the market as a whole. I say the market moves to VoD and that takes over for the DVR. There's no reason for the dvr to exist in a VoD world.



atmuscarella said:


> There is no need for any trade offs at all, everything can exist at one time without any issues at all. Which method of video delivery that has the most market share is irrelevant to me and my guess to the vast majority of people.


As more stuff moves to VoD in some form or another there will be no need for the DVR.

The "tradeoffs" I mentioned are the little issues the market accepts in exchange for bigger gains when moving to a modern convenience.



atmuscarella said:


> Your assertion that control doesn't matter is absurd. Everyone wants control of what they watch, again what level of control an individual finds acceptable is another personal thing. Some people find being given the option to pick what they are going to watch from what is on a few linear broadcast channels enough control over what they watch. You just happen to believe that current or future streaming options will provide you with the level of control you find acceptable. Others will want more control than that and maintain their own video libraries along with having access to the libraries of various streaming services and linear broadcast channels.


My assertion is the market is willing to trade their ability to watch their dvr-archived recordings of the 6-part XFiles special 2 years later for the convenience of VoD. I never argued that every person on the planet is on board with this.

But the market as a whole will be and that's where the business will go. The cable company isn't going to cater to the few that still want to keep the dvr.

OTA and Satellite are a different story. They can't do on-demand. Satellite will have to create on-demand through the dvr. HOpper 3 has 16 tuners for example. OR they move to doing some sort of OTT service which is also a bet Dish has made with SlingTV.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> Did you read the rest of my post? There's too much headwind against the doomsday scenario you're trying to sell.
> 
> I get the picture you're painting. Monopoly bad. Wipe out everything. Customer lose. But I think it's not quite that simple and won't be as bad.


From Section 1A of the Netflix K10 filed last Friday, 1/29/2016

*Changes in how network operators handle and charge for access to data that travel across their networks could adversely impact our business.*

We rely upon the ability of consumers to access our service through the Internet. If network operators block, restrict or otherwise impair access to our service over their networks, our service and business could be negatively affected. To the extent that network operators implement usage based pricing, including meaningful bandwidth caps, or otherwise try to monetize access to their networks by data providers, we could incur greater operating expenses and our membership acquisition and retention could be negatively impacted. Furthermore, to the extent network operators create tiers of Internet access service and either charge us for or prohibit us from being available through these tiers, our business could be negatively impacted.

Most network operators that provide consumers with access to the Internet also provide these consumers with multichannel video programming. As such, many network operators have an incentive to use their network infrastructure in a manner adverse to our continued growth and success. While we believe that consumer demand, regulatory oversight and competition will help check these incentives, to the extent that network operators are able to provide preferential treatment to their data as opposed to ours or otherwise implement discriminatory network management practices, our business could be negatively impacted. In some international markets, these same incentives apply however, the consumer demand, regulatory oversight and competition may not be as strong as in our domestic market.


----------



## randian

trip1eX said:


> I'm talking about the market as a whole. I say the market moves to VoD and that takes over for the DVR. There's no reason for the dvr to exist in a VoD world.


Only in a no-data-cap world. Comcast wants to charge you more for your Internet than they do now for cable tv, and data caps are an integral part of making that happen in a VoD world.

Even then, VoD isn't as good. With VoD you don't control commercials, when archived episodes are deleted, and video quality is generally lower.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Did you read the rest of my post? There's too much headwind against the doomsday scenario you're trying to sell.
> 
> I get the picture you're painting. Monopoly bad. Wipe out everything. Customer lose. But I think it's not quite that simple and won't be as bad.


You have a very optimistic outlook. I'm not so optimistic. I think the cable companies will do whatever it takes to protect their bottom line. If they notice a big shift from their own video services to OTT services they are going to raise prices on the internet portion of their service, or even meter it, to maintain their profits. This will deter people from using OTT services and push them back over to their own VOD service. As SomeRandomIdiot pointed out Netflix is worried enough about that possibility that they reported it to their investors.


----------



## trip1eX

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> From Section 1A of the Netflix K10 filed last Friday, 1/29/2016
> 
> *Changes in how network operators handle and charge for access to data that travel across their networks could adversely impact our business.*
> 
> We rely upon the ability of consumers to access our service through the Internet. If network operators block, restrict or otherwise impair access to our service over their networks, our service and business could be negatively affected. To the extent that network operators implement usage based pricing, including meaningful bandwidth caps, or otherwise try to monetize access to their networks by data providers, we could incur greater operating expenses and our membership acquisition and retention could be negatively impacted. Furthermore, to the extent network operators create tiers of Internet access service and either charge us for or prohibit us from being available through these tiers, our business could be negatively impacted.
> 
> Most network operators that provide consumers with access to the Internet also provide these consumers with multichannel video programming. As such, many network operators have an incentive to use their network infrastructure in a manner adverse to our continued growth and success. *While we believe that consumer demand, regulatory oversight and competition will help check these incentives,* to the extent that network operators are able to provide preferential treatment to their data as opposed to ours or otherwise implement discriminatory network management practices, our business could be negatively impacted. In some international markets, these same incentives apply however, the consumer demand, regulatory oversight and competition may not be as strong as in our domestic market.


Every 10-Q always contains the worst case scenarios for the business. Comcast has their share of worst case scenarios in their 10-Q too. 

But if Netflix really believed they had no prayer then they wouldn't be spending the $5 billion on new content that they are spending. Read the part I put in bold.


----------



## trip1eX

randian said:


> Only in a no-data-cap world. Comcast wants to charge you more for your Internet than they do now for cable tv, and data caps are an integral part of making that happen in a VoD world.
> 
> Even then, VoD isn't as good. With VoD you don't control commercials, when archived episodes are deleted, and video quality is generally lower.


Data caps, in and of themselves, don't automatically adversely affect VoD.

Video quality has nothing to do with VoD. IT's a factor of bandwidth.

VoD tech has the capability of giving customers both a commercial-supported and a commercial free option.

I don't think selling video at ad-supported prices to customers and allowing those customers to bypass commercials is sustainable in the long run. While I love doing it myself with my Tivo and am enjoying it while I can, the more customers that do it the more it isn't sustainable. OR so it seems to me.

The number of episodes archived are in flux. VoD is a new world. Most if not all of the shows that have a limited number of episodes available on VoD services/systems today are shows that originate on linear broadcast networks. And while one customer doesn't directly control the number of archived episodes, customer demand does influence this to a high degree.

btw, it will be interesting to see if tv show episodes in the VoD world of the future are still given out piecemeal to consumers week by week or if they adopt the Netflix way of dropping a season onto the customer all at once. Maybe Netflix tries giving out 1 episode per week of a show instead of dropping the whole season onto the consumer at once.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> You have a very optimistic outlook. I'm not so optimistic. I think the cable companies will do whatever it takes to protect their bottom line. If they notice a big shift from their own video services to OTT services they are going to raise prices on the internet portion of their service, or even meter it, to maintain their profits. This will deter people from using OTT services and push them back over to their own VOD service. As SomeRandomIdiot pointed out Netflix is worried enough about that possibility that they reported it to their investors.


All businesses report their worst case scenarios in their 10-Q. IT's required by law. Go read Comcast's 10-Q. 

I'm sure they will try to leverage their position to some degree. The problem with that is the cat's out of the bag. And everyone is watching.

And really I don't think raising the price of the internet has anything really to do with VoD taking over for the dvr. IN a way it says Comcast doesn't need to protect linear broadcasting.

I'm optimistic that VoD takes over for the dvr. And optimistic we aren't going to reach the doomsday scenario.


----------



## Dan203

I agree that VOD takes over for DVR, but I think the MSOs retain control and the only VOD available has forced commercials. At least for the C3/C7 windows.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> Every 10-Q always contains the worst case scenarios for the business. Comcast has their share of worst case scenarios in their 10-Q too.
> 
> But if Netflix really believed they had no prayer then they wouldn't be spending the $5 billion on new content that they are spending. Read the part I put in bold.


Oh they have a prayer.....they just have to 1) Add Commercials that unskippable and/or 2) Raise rates about 50% and 2) Hope Usage Billing does not happen.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> I'm sure they will try to leverage their position to some degree. The problem with that is the cat's out of the bag. And everyone is watching.


18 years ago the city put in reclaimed water (right about the time Broadband internet started rolling out).

They had so much they wanted to get rid of it...did not know what to do with it all.

It was all you could use for the $18 service price.

Fast Forward 18 years and now there are water shortages. Everyone wants reclaim water (sort of like Broadband). And now they charge the service price - PLUS a metered price.

It can happen. And the head of Comcast and Verizon have both stated they are moving in that direction. Cox has indicated the same from tests. If you do not understand who controls Charter (which is taking over TWC and Brighthouse), you should read up on him. He will go for metered in a heartbeat.

As atleast 33% of the traffic on the internet is Netflix, I am not even sure Google Fiber would truly be against metered internet in the long run.

Then again, as Program Costs continue to spiral and Netflix continuing to lose content (which is why they are ramping up their own production), the situation might take care of itself by rights owners curtailing licensing.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Dan203 said:


> I agree that VOD takes over for DVR, but I think the MSOs retain control and the only VOD available has forced commercials. At least for the C3/C7 windows.


That is what the Networks want. They hate the DVR.


----------



## slowbiscuit

trip1eX said:


> Data caps, in and of themselves, don't automatically adversely affect VoD.


That's a ridiculous assertion - of course they affect VoD. Can tell you that we hit the 300GB cap every month on Comcast and I always have to think about what we're streaming. I even resort to BT'ing stuff at lower quality that I could stream for free with Prime because the Tivo Amazon app stupidly won't let you do anything less than 1080p.

So you're saying that folks will happily pay more and more money to their cableCo just so they can have all this so-called greatness with VoD? Hmmm.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> I'm talking about the market as a whole. I say the market moves to VoD and that takes over for the DVR. There's no reason for the dvr to exist in a VoD world.
> 
> As more stuff moves to VoD in some form or another there will be no need for the DVR.
> 
> The "tradeoffs" I mentioned are the little issues the market accepts in exchange for bigger gains when moving to a modern convenience.
> 
> My assertion is the market is willing to trade their ability to watch their dvr-archived recordings of the 6-part XFiles special 2 years later for the convenience of VoD. I never argued that every person on the planet is on board with this.
> 
> But the market as a whole will be and that's where the business will go. The cable company isn't going to cater to the few that still want to keep the dvr.
> 
> OTA and Satellite are a different story. They can't do on-demand. Satellite will have to create on-demand through the dvr. HOpper 3 has 16 tuners for example. OR they move to doing some sort of OTT service which is also a bet Dish has made with SlingTV.


Unless you are being paid well to post the above views I suggest you consider some reality: A CEOs job and what they are legally required to do is enhance share holder value. Remember that and repeat it to yourself often. To understand what that means go read this article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hulu-one-big-advantage-over-172940477.html. Simple put the CEO of Time Warner Inc. (Not TWC) is willing to buy Hulu.com and destroy it to protect TW Inc.'s contents value.

As consumers we want choice and competition, CEOs want to eliminate choice and competition, in fact they are legally obligated to do so. What this means is simple, both the content producers and the cable delivery system owners will do what ever is necessary to assure that VoD does not increase choice or competition to a point that negatively effects their revenue.

TiVo household are niche market with stand alone TiVo's being in less than 1% of the households with a TV. This has been good for us as we do not really effect anyone's revenue enough to have them feel the need to take any negative actions.

You assertion that VoD on demand will displace DVRs for cable users, is likely true for the masses. However this does not mean the end of the linear broadcast or stand alone DVRs. So far non-cable streaming Video services have not replaced cable and have pretty much been an add on. *We all had better hope it stays that way.* If either the major content providers or cable companies feel the need to go into full battle mode to protect their revenue we will not like it at all.

In my opinion TiVo users in general likely have the best of all worlds now. I am not in favor off any moves that limit choice or increase costs. In my opinion your mythical world of no DVRs/linear broadcast with everything being VoD would do both.


----------



## tarheelblue32

atmuscarella said:


> Unless you are being paid well to post the above views I suggest you consider some reality: *A CEOs job and what they are legally required to do is enhance share holder value.* Remember that and repeat it to yourself often. To understand what that means go read this article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hulu-one-big-advantage-over-172940477.html. Simple put the CEO of Time Warner Inc. (Not TWC) is willing to buy Hulu.com and destroy it to protect TW Inc.'s contents value.
> 
> As consumers we want choice and competition, *CEOs want to eliminate choice and competition, in fact they are legally obligated to do so. * What this means is simple, both the content producers and the cable delivery system owners will do what ever is necessary to assure that VoD does not increase choice or competition to a point that negatively effects their revenue.


CEOs are legally required to maximize shareholder value and eliminate choice and competition? Completely false. There is no law that requires a CEO to do either of those things. In fact, there are antitrust laws preventing CEOs from eliminating too much choice and competition from the marketplace.


----------



## atmuscarella

tarheelblue32 said:


> CEOs are legally required to maximize shareholder value and eliminate choice and competition? Completely false. There is no law that requires a CEO to do either of those things. In fact, there are antitrust laws preventing CEOs from eliminating too much choice and competition from the marketplace.


CEOs have various legal fiduciary responsibilities, part of these fiduciary responsibilities requires the CEO to act in the best interest of the companies shareholders. If you think that doesn't mean maximizing shareholder value we will just disagree. I agree we have anti trust laws to prevent CEOs from eliminating competition, however they will go as far as they are allowed to go by the government because it is in the best interest of the shareholders.

The way I stated it was intentional, because I wanted to highlight what the results of fiduciary responsibilities are, instead of dancing around with a bunch of fancy words trying to hide how big business works.


----------



## trip1eX

slowbiscuit said:


> That's a ridiculous assertion - of course they affect VoD. Can tell you that we hit the 300GB cap every month on Comcast and I always have to think about what we're streaming. I even resort to BT'ing stuff at lower quality that I could stream for free with Prime because the Tivo Amazon app stupidly won't let you do anything less than 1080p.
> 
> So you're saying that folks will happily pay more and more money to their cableCo just so they can have all this so-called greatness with VoD? Hmmm.


"Data caps, in and of themselves, don't automatically adversely affect VoD."

You quoted what I said. Now you just have to read it.


----------



## lessd

trip1eX said:


> "Data caps, in and of themselves, don't automatically adversely affect VoD."
> 
> You quoted what I said. Now you just have to read it.


Comcast VOD does not use the internet for the program itself, just to order the program, it then comes on a channel Comcast assigns like any other cable program.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> Unless you are being paid well to post the above views I suggest you consider some reality: A CEOs job and what they are legally required to do is enhance share holder value. Remember that and repeat it to yourself often. To understand what that means go read this article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hulu-one-big-advantage-over-172940477.html. Simple put the CEO of Time Warner Inc. (Not TWC) is willing to buy Hulu.com and destroy it to protect TW Inc.'s contents value.
> 
> As consumers we want choice and competition, CEOs want to eliminate choice and competition, in fact they are legally obligated to do so. What this means is simple, both the content producers and the cable delivery system owners will do what ever is necessary to assure that VoD does not increase choice or competition to a point that negatively effects their revenue.
> 
> TiVo household are niche market with stand alone TiVo's being in less than 1% of the households with a TV. This has been good for us as we do not really effect anyone's revenue enough to have them feel the need to take any negative actions.
> 
> You assertion that VoD on demand will displace DVRs for cable users, is likely true for the masses. However this does not mean the end of the linear broadcast or stand alone DVRs. So far non-cable streaming Video services have not replaced cable and have pretty much been an add on. *We all had better hope it stays that way.* If either the major content providers or cable companies feel the need to go into full battle mode to protect their revenue we will not like it at all.
> 
> In my opinion TiVo users in general likely have the best of all worlds now. I am not in favor off any moves that limit choice or increase costs. In my opinion your mythical world of no DVRs/linear broadcast with everything being VoD would do both.


You too believe VoD takes over for the DVR for the masses. And if you believe that then you have to believe the DVR is dead because linear broadcasting isn't going to stay alive for the few.


----------



## trip1eX

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> 18 years ago the city put in reclaimed water (right about the time Broadband internet started rolling out).
> 
> They had so much they wanted to get rid of it...did not know what to do with it all.
> 
> It was all you could use for the $18 service price.
> 
> Fast Forward 18 years and now there are water shortages. Everyone wants reclaim water (sort of like Broadband). And now they charge the service price - PLUS a metered price.
> 
> It can happen. And the head of Comcast and Verizon have both stated they are moving in that direction. Cox has indicated the same from tests. If you do not understand who controls Charter (which is taking over TWC and Brighthouse), you should read up on him. He will go for metered in a heartbeat.
> 
> As atleast 33% of the traffic on the internet is Netflix, I am not even sure Google Fiber would truly be against metered internet in the long run.
> 
> Then again, as Program Costs continue to spiral and Netflix continuing to lose content (which is why they are ramping up their own production), the situation might take care of itself by rights owners curtailing licensing.


Ok but I never said you won't pay x for each bucket of broadband data in the future.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> You too believe VoD takes over for the DVR for the masses. And if you believe that then you have to believe the DVR is dead because linear broadcasting isn't going to stay alive for the few.


Linear broadcasting isn't going away any time soon. Maybe in the next decade or two, but CableCARD isn't going to sustain us until then.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> You too believe VoD takes over for the DVR for the masses. And if you believe that then you have to believe the DVR is dead because linear broadcasting isn't going to stay alive for the few.


Not at all I expect Linear broadcast to stay around for an extended period time. However I also expect that cable companies with the support of the content producers will supply VoD for enough content that the many people will find it good enough and not care about a cable DVR. This has already started, when & for how long the video will be available and how many commercials you will not be able to ff through will all be controlled by the cable provider & content producers.

The experience will be nothing like using a TiVo but the masses don't use their cable DVRs like many TiVo owners do anyway, they watch live TV more and sit through commercials more now. Heck we have people here still concerned with being able to get live TV on all their TVs and who apparently routinely watch live TV because they are concerned about the buffers.

I also don't think alternative streaming video service (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) will be allowed to damage the current linear broadcast model. The interests of the major content producers and cable companies are too intertwined. The content providers will only provide content when it doesn't negatively effect their primary income streams and the cable companies will only provide affordable bandwidth when the same is true.

All that said I don't find it unreasonable to expect change - in fact it is likely. What is also likely is that the content providers and cable companies will control the change to their benefits. Right now I see VoD being away for the content providers and cable companies to preserve their linear broadcast model revenue.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> Linear broadcasting isn't going away any time soon. Maybe in the next decade or two, but CableCARD isn't going to sustain us until then.


I have to admit that I am bias on cable cards as I have been using them for about 9 years, I know that is a long time for any electronic product, but it has worked for me as I upgraded my TiVo from the original Series 3 I got in early 2007 until now with the Roamio. The cable card has been the only consent in that time frame, and I don't want to see that change as I can't now see why anything replacing the cable card would be better for me as I get all the ch. I pay for and have had only a few cable card problems over the last nine years.
Maybe my experience with cable cards is unique, but for me they are simple to use when I upgrade any TiVo on my Comcast system.


----------



## Dan203

If you live in a Comcast market you probably have a better CableCARd experinece then most. They don't use TAs, they have a help line specifically for CableCARDs and they offer VOD access via TiVo. I'm sure people in TWC markets have a very different experience to yours.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> If you live in a Comcast market you probably have a better CableCARd experinece then most. They don't use TAs, they have a help line specifically for CableCARDs and they offer VOD access via TiVo. I'm sure people in TWC markets have a very different experience to yours.


As someone who is in a TWC market, I have to say that my CableCard experience has actually been pretty good. When I first got my Roamio Plus, the people at the TWC CableCard hotline were able to pair my CableCard in about 5 minutes and I really have not had any problems with it in the 2.5 years I've had it working in my Roamio Plus. Now the Cisco TA/SDV was unreliable when I first got it, but the current firmware seems to be stable and has made my TA quite reliable now. As far as VOD, TWC has an excellent Roku app that I can use to get all of the VOD content, and I'm perfectly happy with that, though admittedly I don't really use VOD very much.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

tarheelblue32 said:


> CEOs are legally required to maximize shareholder value and eliminate choice and competition? Completely false. There is no law that requires a CEO to do either of those things. In fact, there are antitrust laws preventing CEOs from eliminating too much choice and competition from the marketplace.


Actually, they can be sued (and lawsuits have been won) when the CEO does not maximize shareholder value. Better yet, the Board of Directors who appoint the CEO can also be shown the door if they allow the CEO to not operate to increase Shareholder Value.

Is it a SEC law? Absolutely not. But it is the job of the CEO to maximize Shareholder Value. That is why a CEO cannot come out and say "we will not sell at any price" - and I remember one Broadcast CEO who got in trouble for that - and had to retract it.



atmuscarella said:


> CEOs have various legal fiduciary responsibilities, part of these fiduciary responsibilities requires the CEO to act in the best interest of the companies shareholders. If you think that doesn't mean maximizing shareholder value we will just disagree. I agree we have anti trust laws to prevent CEOs from eliminating competition, however they will go as far as they are allowed to go by the government because it is in the best interest of the shareholders.
> 
> The way I stated it was intentional, because I wanted to highlight what the results of fiduciary responsibilities are, instead of dancing around with a bunch of fancy words trying to hide how big business works.


You are 100% correct.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> Ok but I never said you won't pay x for each bucket of broadband data in the future.


paying for each bucket of broadband data is a metered cap.


----------



## slowbiscuit

trip1eX said:


> "Data caps, in and of themselves, don't automatically adversely affect VoD."
> 
> You quoted what I said. Now you just have to read it.


Read it just fine with the weaseling you tried to put into it, and still don't agree. It's a silly statement.


----------



## tarheelblue32

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Actually, they can be sued (and lawsuits have been won) when the CEO does not maximize shareholder value. Better yet, the Board of Directors who appoint the CEO can also be shown the door if they allow the CEO to not operate to increase Shareholder Value.
> 
> Is it a SEC law? Absolutely not. But it is the job of the CEO to maximize Shareholder Value. That is why a CEO cannot come out and say "we will not sell at any price" - and I remember one Broadcast CEO who got in trouble for that - and had to retract it.


This guy is maximizing shareholder value. Are you are saying that he is legally required to do what has made Congress and most of the country so angry at him?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-martin-shkreli-drug-hikes-20160204-story.html

Is every pharmaceutical company CEO legally required to raise the price of drugs as high as they can possibly go to maximize shareholder value? If so, then a lot of pharmaceutical company CEOs are breaking the law, because the price of many lifesaving drugs that people need to avoid dying could be much higher before demand dropped to the point that the company would actually receive less revenue.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> Not at all I expect Linear broadcast to stay around for an extended period time. However I also expect that cable companies with the support of the content producers will supply VoD for enough content that the many people will find it good enough and not care about a cable DVR.
> 
> I also don't think alternative streaming video service (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) will be allowed to damage the current linear broadcast model. The interests of the major content producers and cable companies are too intertwined. The content providers will only provide content when it doesn't negatively effect their primary income streams and the cable companies will only provide affordable bandwidth when the same is true.
> 
> All that said I don't find it unreasonable to expect change - in fact it is likely. What is also likely is that the content providers and cable companies will control the change to their benefits. Right now I see VoD being away for the content providers and cable companies to preserve their linear broadcast model revenue.


AS VoD grows there is less need to maintain the old model of channels and timeslots which take up chunks of bandwidth on the cable system. Linear goes away as we know it.

Your notion that the market wants VoD and that VoD will only grow is at odds with your notion that linear broadcasting remains.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

tarheelblue32 said:


> This guy is maximizing shareholder value. Are you are saying that he is legally required to do what has made Congress and most of the country so angry at him?
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-martin-shkreli-drug-hikes-20160204-story.html
> 
> Is every pharmaceutical company CEO legally required to raise the price of drugs as high as they can possibly go to maximize shareholder value? If so, then a lot of pharmaceutical company CEOs are breaking the law, because the price of many lifesaving drugs that people need to avoid dying could be much higher before demand dropped to the point that the company would actually receive less revenue.


If you were really aware of the details on this, the guy is not in trouble for raising the price of drugs.

In fact, as his lawyer said in an interview yesterday, if he had asked him, he would have told him to raise the price in intervals, not in one swoop.

My Health Insurance went up 400% in the 2 years due to Obamacare - doubled last year and up another 50% this year (thanks Obama). So should Obama be prosecuted (rhetorical question).


----------



## trip1eX

slowbiscuit said:


> Read it just fine with the weaseling you tried to put into it, and still don't agree. It's a silly statement.


Data CAPS don't have to be overly restrictive or unreasonable.


----------



## trip1eX

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> paying for each bucket of broadband data is a metered cap.


Yep.


----------



## tarheelblue32

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If you were really aware of the details on this, the guy is not in trouble for raising the price of drugs. In fact, as his lawyer said in an interview yesterday, if he had asked him, he would have told him to raise the price in intervals, not in one swoop.


Right. I'm sure he just pleaded the fifth because he did absolutely nothing wrong.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> My Health Insurance went up 400% in the 2 years due to Obamacare - doubled last year and up another 50% this year (thanks Obama). So should Obama be prosecuted (rhetorical question).


Is Obama a CEO trying to maximize shareholder value? If not, then I don't see how this is remotely relevant to what we were talking about (rhetorical answer).


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

trip1eX said:


> Data CAPS don't have to be overly restrictive or unreasonable.


Yup. In the Cleveland market, Cox has data cap of 2000 Gigs per month for their 200mbit tier, 700 Gigs for 100mbit tier, and 350 Gigs for 50mbit tier, and 250 Gigs for 15mbit tier.

Currently those caps are mostly reasonable. However, it remains to be seen when the caps will be expanded or increased.


----------



## JoeKustra

trip1eX said:


> Data CAPS don't have to be overly restrictive or unreasonable.


Yep. With 30Mbps my cap is 600GB. That's ok with me. Top tier of 125Mbps is 1,200GB


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> AS VoD grows there is less need to maintain the old model of channels and timeslots which take up chunks of bandwidth on the cable system. Linear goes away as we know it.
> 
> Your notion that the market wants VoD and that VoD will only grow is at odds with your notion that linear broadcasting remains.


Fundamentally we look at VoD differently. You look a VoD as a replacement to linear Broadcasts and I look at VoD as a supplement or enhancement to linear Broadcasts.

My take is there are allot of players involved and any shift in how content is deliver has to benefit both the content producers and the companies that delivery it. As you have indicated there currently is no practical way for the 2 Satellite companies to move from linear broadcasts to VoD. There is also no current practical way for local OTA broadcasters to exist without linear broadcasts. The content providers can not just stop providing content to these 2 groups both from a contractual point of view and a financial one. Also the content providers and the broadcasters are extremely concerned about advertising revenue, which for them is currently based on viewer ship of linear broadcasts, which is why the CEO of TW Inc. was so concerned about Hulu. The content providers and broadcasters need to be able to not only sell eyeballs they have to sell the time the eye balls will be available.

The other side of this is the consumer. It seem clears we expect certain things (like news & sports) to be live/linear broadcasts. However when it comes to TV Shows & Movies I would assume people would want more control and want either a DVR or VoD. But how people actually use DVRs and VoD might not prove that out, as there seems to be a large population more than willing to watch linear TV.

In any event we have entered into the realm of pure speculation as I am sure neither of us has enough information to really make much more than a guess on what is going to happen and when.


----------



## Dan203

I think the biggest discrepancy I'm seeing here is that tripleX seems to think the future is guaranteed to be a plethora of OTT VOD services where the consumer can choose how they want to watch, if they're willing to pay the price. Whereas the rest of us think that the established MSOs will use their position as our only choice for high speed internet to squeeze out most/all of the OTT services so that our only choice for VOD is the MSO. At which point they have full control over price, availability, and forced commercials.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> If you live in a Comcast market you probably have a better CableCARd experinece then most. They don't use TAs, they have a help line specifically for CableCARDs and they offer VOD access via TiVo. I'm sure people in TWC markets have a very different experience to yours.


Others may have a experience that was not as good as I had with the cable cards, but when a big change is made you never know if things will get better or not, I don't think people are going to purchase their own cable box unless it is also a DVR (like TiVo) so I don't know why this change is even being talk about, except for TiVo and a few PC cards nobody, outside the cable co.s themselves, used cable cards, and now even they don't have to use them, so why change the system ?. What new 3rd pty is going to make a business using any new cable card replacement, I just don't see it, and it sure will cost the MSO money to integrate any new system.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> Others may have a experience that was not as good as I had with the cable cards, but when a big change is made you never know if things will get better or not, I don't think people are going to purchase their own cable box unless it is also a DVR (like TiVo) so I don't know why this change is even being talk about, except for TiVo and a few PC cards nobody, outside the cable co.s themselves, used cable cards, and now even they don't have to use them, so why change the system ?. What new 3rd pty is going to make a business using any new cable card replacement, I just don't see it, and it sure will cost the MSO money to integrate any new system.


It's not really about buying a "cable box". It's about not needing to rent a box for $5-$7/mo for every TV in the house just to access the service you pay for. It's about giving people choice in how they want to access that content rather then being tied to the features and UI the cable companies decide they want to give you.


----------



## slowbiscuit

And more importantly you should not have to buy a dedicated box if they do it right, could be built in to just about anything.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> Fundamentally we look at VoD differently. You look a VoD as a replacement to linear Broadcasts and I look at VoD as a supplement or enhancement to linear Broadcasts.


I think Vod is and has been a supplement for awhile now. As it becomes more ubiquitous it will replace linear broadcasting because there is zero reason for it not to.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> It's not really about buying a "cable box". It's about not needing to rent a box for $5-$7/mo for every TV in the house just to access the service you pay for. It's about giving people choice in how they want to access that content rather then being tied to the features and UI the cable companies decide they want to give you.


Do you think people would purchase TV with built in UI for the cable system and no DVR ? Everybody I know has a DVR on their main TV, and if their not using a DVR on other TVs in the home Comcast (at least) offers a $2.95/month simple cable box, TiVo users can get a Mini and I don't know much about the Comcast X1 system but I think it is like the TiVo Mini system.


----------



## tarheelblue32

trip1eX said:


> I think Vod is and has been a supplement for awhile now. As it becomes more ubiquitous it will replace linear broadcasting because there is zero reason for it not to.


One reason for it not to is bandwidth capacity. Multicasting is a more efficient way to distribute content from a bandwidth standpoint.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> As you have indicated there currently is no practical way for the 2 Satellite companies to move from linear broadcasts to VoD. There is also no current practical way for local OTA broadcasters to exist without linear broadcasts. The content providers can not just stop providing content to these 2 groups both from a contractual point of view and a financial one.
> 
> Also the content providers and the broadcasters are extremely concerned about advertising revenue, which for them is currently based on viewer ship of linear broadcasts, which is why the CEO of TW Inc. was so concerned about Hulu. The content providers and broadcasters need to be able to not only sell eyeballs they have to sell the time the eye balls will be available.
> 
> The other side of this is the consumer. It seem clears we expect certain things (like news & sports) to be live/linear broadcasts. However when it comes to TV Shows & Movies I would assume people would want more control and want either a DVR or VoD. But how people actually use DVRs and VoD might not prove that out, as there seems to be a large population more than willing to watch linear TV.
> 
> In any event we have entered into the realm of pure speculation as I am sure neither of us has enough information to really make much more than a guess on what is going to happen and when.


If satellite and OTA can stay alive in a VoD world then the two can coexist.

Cable will go VoD in the long run. There's no reason not to.

Live events can be accessed on-demand. They don't have to be delivered via a dedicated channel.

Of course the CEO of a cable company is concerned about their business and concerned about the competition. That's their job.

Customers are trained to watch linear broadcasting. It's a model that has existed for 50 years or more. I don't expect habits to die quickly especially given VoD is a new development. It's just beginning. And there isn't a VoD equivalent of the content in a complete cable subscription yet.

Even with a dvr, customers still watch live tv (other than habit) because it is much simpler experience and no planning/hassle is necessary. VoD is the best of both worlds. IT beats the dvr with the simple just watch experience of linear tv. And beats linear tv by letting the customer watch whatever whenever they want to.


----------



## trip1eX

tarheelblue32 said:


> One reason for it not to is bandwidth capacity. Multicasting is a more efficient way to distribute content from a bandwidth standpoint.


Very true that broadcasting is more efficient. And that's a reason that VoD hasn't taken over yet despite it being around for 20 years or more. Cable companies were testing VoD systems 20 years ago.

But it's not such a concern today given how much more bandwidth they can squeeze out of the pipe.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> Do you think people would purchase TV with built in UI for the cable system and no DVR ? Everybody I know has a DVR on their main TV, and if their not using a DVR on other TVs in the home Comcast (at least) offers a $2.95/month simple cable box, TiVo users can get a Mini and I don't know much about the Comcast X1 system but I think it is like the TiVo Mini system.


Yes I think people would buy "cable ready" TVs. If for no other reason to save power and eliminate another remote. It also makes for a cleaner wall hanging install.

Charter charges $5/mo for an SD box and $7/mo for HD box here. They're all digital so you have to have a box on every TV in the house. My Sister has a TiVo but only a 4 tuner Premiere. They have Minis in two of the rooms, but still have to pay for boxes in two others. (5 TVs in the house) She could buy another Mini and eliminate one of those, but she'd still need one since her TiVo doesn't have enough tuners to support another Mini. (Plus if everyone was using Minis they wouldn't be able to record anything) She could buy a Roamio Pro but that's expensive. What are they like $1,100 now with lifetime?


----------



## lpwcomp

trip1eX said:


> Very true that broadcasting is more efficient. And that's a reason that VoD hasn't taken over yet despite it being around for 20 years or more. Cable companies were testing VoD systems 20 years ago.
> 
> But it's not such a concern today given how much more bandwidth they can squeeze out of the pipe.


Do you have a cite for data that support your contention that there is enough available bandwidth to support a system whereby all content is delivered via VOD?


----------



## Dan203

An 800Mhz system running DOCSIS 3.1 can handle about 8Gbps of data. That's per node. From the node to the headend is fiber so it's essentially unlimited. In most cases a single node services less than 200 homes. And in single family home neighborhoods significantly less then that. An HD stream from an OTT service is typically between 6-10Mbps. So absolute worst case scenario (i.e. 10Mbps video to 200 homes) they'd be able to accommodate 4 streams per home.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> An 800Mhz system running DOCSIS 3.1 can handle about 8Gbps of data. That's per node. From the node to the headend is fiber so it's essentially unlimited. In most cases a single node services less than 200 homes. And in single family home neighborhoods significantly less then that. An HD stream from an OTT service is typically between 6-10Mbps. So absolute worst case scenario (i.e. 10Mbps video to 200 homes) they'd be able to accommodate 4 streams per home.


While the theoretical limit for fiber is very high, it does exist. In any case, it's irrelevant. What's relevant is the actual capacity of currently installed or planned upgrade systems. That is nowhere near "unlimited". The equipment at each end of your "essentially unlimited" pipe determines the actual capacity.

There's also the storage and processing requirements to consider.


----------



## Dan203

The technology exists. Whether or not they want to pay for it and whether or not it would benefit them to do so is a different story. 

But we're way off topic here. A replacement for CableCARD doesn't need any of this. The MSOs either have to decide on a single downloadable security system that will work across platforms or they're going to have to use the gateway approach.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> I think Vod is and has been a supplement for awhile now. As it becomes more ubiquitous it will replace linear broadcasting because there is zero reason for it not to.





trip1eX said:


> If satellite and OTA can stay alive in a VoD world then the two can coexist.
> 
> Cable will go VoD in the long run. There's no reason not to.


The reason is simple it's called money.

Cable companies don't get to decide if they are going to deliver content via a linear channel or via VoD. The content providers do. The cable companies don't get to decide not to carry linear OTA channels they are required by law to carry them. The major networks are under long term contracts to provide content to these same local OTA stations and can not just decide to stop and move to a VoD model even if they wanted to (which there is no indication that they do). There is no workable model where the content providers retain their linear broadcast model for Satellite and then allow cable to just provide the content via VoD.

The Bottom line is the owners of the content who control the linear broadcast channels will not allow linear channels to go away until they can clearly see a way to get equal or greater revenue from VoD.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

tarheelblue32 said:


> Right. I'm sure he just pleaded the fifth because he did absolutely nothing wrong.
> 
> Is Obama a CEO trying to maximize shareholder value? If not, then I don't see how this is remotely relevant to what we were talking about (rhetorical answer).


Clearly you do not know law.

If you answer ANY QUESTIONS, you give up your right to plead 5th at that point.

His lawyer knew the law, and while he could have answered questions about the price hikes as that was not illegal (though most of us agree a crapoy thing to do). if ANY QUESTIONS then came up about Insider Trading, on which he is accused of breaking they law, he would be forced to answer and could not take the 5th. Of course, he would probably refused anyway and be held in contempt, but better to have a good lawyer and get it right (from their point of view).


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Dan203 said:


> I think the biggest discrepancy I'm seeing here is that tripleX seems to think the future is guaranteed to be a plethora of OTT VOD services where the consumer can choose how they want to watch, if they're willing to pay the price. Whereas the rest of us think that the established MSOs will use their position as our only choice for high speed internet to squeeze out most/all of the OTT services so that our only choice for VOD is the MSO. At which point they have full control over price, availability, and forced commercials.


When linear goes away, which it certainly will when TV cannot deliver the mass audience that advertisers want and online cannot deliver yet, then VOD also changes.

Just like a la carte would force the price of ESPN Main Channel to $35+ alone, it will seD the production costs up to a point where it will not really be VOD as known today, but a much higher priced VOD which will end up essentially as a PPV (think per show or season pass). All Sports will be PPV, in fact this is happening faster than I predicted 1 year ago.


----------



## atmuscarella

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> When linear goes away, which it certainly will when TV cannot deliver the mass audience that advertisers want and online cannot deliver yet, then VOD also changes.
> 
> Just like a la carte would force the price of ESPN Main Channel to $35+ alone, it will seD the production costs up to a point where it will not really be VOD as known today, but a much higher priced VOD which will end up essentially as a PPV (think per show or season pass). All Sports will be PPV, in fact this is happening faster than I predicted 1 year ago.


I think this is the fear many of us have. When/if the current model of having advertising pay for the bulk of TV production fails all bets are off. Which is why I am fine with TiVo and OTA users remaining niche markets.

While having sports move more towards a PPV model may be acceptable to the Market I don't think it would be for every day TV, people have a hard time paying what cable costs now, if a medium sized family continued to consumer what they do now on a PPV model it would significantly increase their costs, even if there were still low cost all you can stream services with mostly older stuff to help reduce the cost/fill the time.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

atmuscarella said:


> I think this is the fear many of us have. When/if the current model of having advertising pay for the bulk of TV production fails all bets are off. Which is why I am fine with TiVo and OTA users remaining niche markets.
> 
> While having sports move more towards a PPV model may be acceptable to the Market I don't think it would be for every day TV, people have a hard time paying what cable costs now, if a medium sized family continued to consumer what they do now on a PPV model it would significantly increase their costs, even if there were still low cost all you can stream services with mostly older stuff to help reduce the cost/fill the time.


Just wait if a la carte shows up....and people find that 8-10 channels cost as much as they are paying now!


----------



## ncbill

Why pay on a per-channel basis?

I dropped my cable subscription down to "broadcast only" back in 2006 & picked up a used Series 2 w/ lifetime when Amazon introduced their video service.

It was easy to subscribe to whatever cable shows I wanted on a per-episode basis.

Later I won a Tivo HD w/ lifetime, bought my first HDTV, put up an antenna, & then dropped cable altogether, still buying cable shows (now in HD) from Amazon.


----------



## atmuscarella

ncbill said:


> Why pay on a per-channel basis?
> 
> I dropped my cable subscription down to "broadcast only" back in 2006 & picked up a used Series 2 w/ lifetime when Amazon introduced their video service.
> 
> It was easy to subscribe to whatever cable shows I wanted on a per-episode basis.
> 
> Later I won a Tivo HD w/ lifetime, bought my first HDTV, put up an antenna, & then dropped cable altogether, still buying cable shows (now in HD) from Amazon.


Your model (which is about the same as mine) is great for us. However if the masses moved too that model everything would have to change as it does not generate anywhere near the revenue the content producers and cable companies are getting now.

First if the advertisers on OTA broadcast found everyone using a DVR and not watching the commercials they would stop paying and OTA broadcasts would stop. Second if everyone stopped subbing to cable and used services like Netflix or Amazon instead the cable companies would have to raise the cost of Internet access significantly (think several times more than now) or be faced with bankruptcy. Third if content providers are no longer receiving add revenue or revenue from cable subs the cost you are paying for those shows on Amazon would also have to go up significantly (think several times more than now again).

This may well be the best of times financially for people obtaining TV content like you and I. The fact we are a small niche is great. If that changes we may not be happy.


----------



## slice1900

lessd said:


> Do you think people would purchase TV with built in UI for the cable system and no DVR ? Everybody I know has a DVR on their main TV, and if their not using a DVR on other TVs in the home Comcast (at least) offers a $2.95/month simple cable box, TiVo users can get a Mini and I don't know much about the Comcast X1 system but I think it is like the TiVo Mini system.


You are looking at it wrong. The cable UI wouldn't be built into the TV, the UI would be supplied remotely from the gateway (or possibly the headend if they want to a "virtual" gateway in a future all-IP scenario) So if it is connected to a Comcast gateway it would show Comcast's UI, if you moved that TV to a TWC area it would show the TWC UI off the TWC gateway. What most of us _hope_ is that it would also be possible for a device to access the video stream only from the gateway, and thus provide its own UI. That's what Tivo does today via cable card.

No one is suggesting that people will go out and buy a new TV specifically to get this, just that if there was a single standard that all providers used, TV makers would include support for it based on consumer demand. It would be simple to add to any "smart" TV, and before long all TVs will be "smart TVs" whether we want that or not. You would also be able to buy a tiny box that could provide this functionality for TVs that don't support it, and likely Roku or Apple TV type devices would also support it. Thus you wouldn't need to rent one of the cable company's big boxes on every TV like today (for those who don't have Tivo)


----------



## slice1900

Dan203 said:


> An 800Mhz system running DOCSIS 3.1 can handle about 8Gbps of data. That's per node. From the node to the headend is fiber so it's essentially unlimited. In most cases a single node services less than 200 homes. And in single family home neighborhoods significantly less then that. An HD stream from an OTT service is typically between 6-10Mbps. So absolute worst case scenario (i.e. 10Mbps video to 200 homes) they'd be able to accommodate 4 streams per home.


If they were delivering them this way they wouldn't deliver the same channel twice, they'd use multicasting. That is problematic over the internet but over a closed network like a provider's it would be using technology that's very mature and allows only sending one 'copy' of each live channel at once. That would keep the requirements much lower.

On a per node basis I bet 200 homes are rarely watching even 100 unique channels at once. On per city basis the number would be higher but still far less than the total number of channels a provider offers. I mean, does anyone really believe all 50 music channels are each being watched by someone in their city right now...or all the religious/PI channels...?


----------



## randian

slice1900 said:


> I mean, does anyone really believe all 50 music channels are each being watched by someone in their city right now...or all the religious/PI channels...?


By people I know? No. By _somebody_? Yes.


----------



## Dan203

slice1900 said:


> If they were delivering them this way they wouldn't deliver the same channel twice, they'd use multicasting. That is problematic over the internet but over a closed network like a provider's it would be using technology that's very mature and allows only sending one 'copy' of each live channel at once. That would keep the requirements much lower.


Yeah I was referring more to real VOD, not linear. As long as their are linear channels then multicast is still the best option for them.



slice1900 said:


> On a per node basis I bet 200 homes are rarely watching even 100 unique channels at once. On per city basis the number would be higher but still far less than the total number of channels a provider offers. I mean, does anyone really believe all 50 music channels are each being watched by someone in their city right now...or all the religious/PI channels...?


This is absolutely true, which is why SDV works. They assign 15-20 channels to a block of 10 frequencies because they know that no single node will ever be watching more then 10 of those channels at once. And on the off chance they are then you just get an error that the channel you want is unavailable. (but that's rare)


----------



## randian

Dan203 said:


> This is absolutely true, which is why SDV works. They assign 15-20 channels to a block of 10 frequencies because they know that no single node will ever be watching more then 10 of those channels at once. And on the off chance they are then you just get an error that the channel you want is unavailable. (but that's rare)


Overprovisioning is a good way to make customers unhappy. It's not even necessary when you're like Comcast and have 10-20 unused QAMs even in 750 MHz areas because your HD channel selection is so small compared to everybody else.


----------



## Dan203

randian said:


> Overprovisioning is a good way to make customers unhappy. It's not even necessary when you're like Comcast and have 10-20 unused QAMs even in 750 MHz areas because your HD channel selection is so small compared to everybody else.


Comcast is taking another route. They are converting to H.264 instead which will allow them to fit more HD streams into the pipe without SDV. TWC, Cox and Charter all use SDV already. Mostly for the lesser watched channels, which is how it works without pissing to many people off.


----------



## randian

Dan203 said:


> Comcast is taking another route. They are converting to H.264 instead which will allow them to fit more HD streams into the pipe without SDV.


As much as I appreciate the lack of SDV, H.264 doesn't do much for me if they aren't going to improve image quality or add more HD channels. Instead they're going backwards and reducing their HD lineup (a bunch of premium HD channels got dumped, for example).


----------



## Dan203

Hmmm.... I don't have Comcast so I can't say for sure what they are doing, but H.264 should allow them to fit more HD channels into the lineup. H.264 allows the same basic image quality as MPEG-2 at about 60% the bitrate. So if right now they can only fit 3 HD channels per QAM with H.264 they should be able to fit 5 HD channels per QAM. Unless they're using the bandwidth savings strictly to increase internet speeds you should start seeing them add more HD channels. 

When Charter went all digital here a couple years ago they added like 150 HD channels. Prior to that we only got 22 total. Now we get pretty much every channel that's broadcast in HD in HD.


----------



## randian

Dan203 said:


> Unless they're using the bandwidth savings strictly to increase internet speeds you should start seeing them add more HD channels.


Since they aren't using their unused QAMs to add channels now I don't think they'll be adding more when H.264 is up and running. I think they'd prefer to boast about their DOCSIS 3.1 speeds. Of course where I live (SE FL) Comcast's internet speeds are comparatively lame. Blast is only 75 MB/s here but seems to be 105 or 150 everywhere else (and for lower prices). Charter has a much bigger HD lineup than Comcast according to the AVS Forum list which is very nice.


----------



## Dan203

Yes but we have much lower internet speeds. Only 30Mbps here. They keep advertising that they're going to bump us to 60Mbps but it's been over a year and still nothing yet.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

Dan203 said:


> Yes but we have much lower internet speeds. Only 30Mbps here. They keep advertising that they're going to bump us to 60Mbps but it's been over a year and still nothing yet.


I thought I had it bad with commercials for Gigabit Fiber internet for the past 5 months that won't be rolled out here ever, so stuck on 200Mbps until Docsis 3.1 rolls out in 2017/2018. I don't think I could cope with 30Mbps.


----------



## trip1eX

lpwcomp said:


> Do you have a cite for data that support your contention that there is enough available bandwidth to support a system whereby all content is delivered via VOD?


Yeah do the math. How much bandwidth does it takes for Netflix to deliver a nice picture? What is a common bandwidth of a typical cable internet package?

Where are the internet service speeds headed?

Then throw in the fact they offer you those internet speeds while also delivering every home all those linear video channels.

ON top of it, they can and have been splitting nodes over the years to deliver more bandwidth where needed.


----------



## innocentfreak

Dan203 said:


> Hmmm.... I don't have Comcast so I can't say for sure what they are doing, but H.264 should allow them to fit more HD channels into the lineup. H.264 allows the same basic image quality as MPEG-2 at about 60% the bitrate. So if right now they can only fit 3 HD channels per QAM with H.264 they should be able to fit 5 HD channels per QAM. Unless they're using the bandwidth savings strictly to increase internet speeds you should start seeing them add more HD channels.
> 
> When Charter went all digital here a couple years ago they added like 150 HD channels. Prior to that we only got 22 total. Now we get pretty much every channel that's broadcast in HD in HD.


It might be like Verizon where the rumor is they didn't switch everything to H.264 because they would have to replace a ton of older cable boxes which don't support the spec.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> The reason is simple it's called money.
> 
> Cable companies don't get to decide if they are going to deliver content via a linear channel or via VoD. The content providers do. The cable companies don't get to decide not to carry linear OTA channels they are required by law to carry them. The major networks are under long term contracts to provide content to these same local OTA stations and can not just decide to stop and move to a VoD model even if they wanted to (which there is no indication that they do). There is no workable model where the content providers retain their linear broadcast model for Satellite and then allow cable to just provide the content via VoD.
> 
> The Bottom line is the owners of the content who control the linear broadcast channels will not allow linear channels to go away until they can clearly see a way to get equal or greater revenue from VoD.


No one said the cable companies are going to suddenly just offer VoD and dump linear and force everyone over. It won't work like that.

IT's just that more and more customers will use VoD. More and more content will arrive via VoD. This happens until there is no reason to carry linear cable channels.

If the traditional media companies resist this direction then that leaves room for upstarts to step in, produce content and offer it direct to consumers and in turn become the next big media companies. LIke Netflix is doing. Netflix is outbidding cable channels for the same content.

Netflix could start a 2nd VoD service even. I wouldn't rule that out. Why not? IF customers like their delivery model and the traditional media companies don't or won't step in to fill demand for more VoD content then that leaves room for others including an Amazon or Netflix or a the new upstart company to fill the void.

The tech companies like Apple or Google have potential here as well. They aren't in the video business but they definitely see how cable/satellite and traditional media cable companies are holding back innovation in that space. And I could see them getting into the content space if that's what it took to jumpstart that innovation.

The part about VoD and linear business models not being workable simultaneously? I don't see why not. YOu're just talking contracts and terms.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> If they were delivering them this way they wouldn't deliver the same channel twice, they'd use multicasting. That is problematic over the internet but over a closed network like a provider's it would be using technology that's very mature and allows only sending one 'copy' of each live channel at once. That would keep the requirements much lower.
> 
> On a per node basis I bet 200 homes are rarely watching even 100 unique channels at once. On per city basis the number would be higher but still far less than the total number of channels a provider offers. I mean, does anyone really believe all 50 music channels are each being watched by someone in their city right now...or all the religious/PI channels...?


Music channels are incredibly low bit rate.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> No one said the cable companies are going to suddenly just offer VoD and dump linear and force everyone over. It won't work like that.
> 
> IT's just that more and more customers will use VoD. More and more content will arrive via VoD. This happens until there is no reason to carry linear cable channels.
> 
> If the traditional media companies resist this direction then that leaves room for upstarts to step in, produce content and offer it direct to consumers and in turn become the next big media companies. LIke Netflix is doing. Netflix is outbidding cable channels for the same content.
> 
> Netflix could start a 2nd VoD service even. I wouldn't rule that out. Why not? IF customers like their delivery model and the traditional media companies don't or won't step in to fill demand for more VoD content then that leaves room for others including an Amazon or Netflix or a the new upstart company to fill the void.
> 
> The tech companies like Apple or Google have potential here as well. They aren't in the video business but they definitely see how cable/satellite and traditional media cable companies are holding back innovation in that space. And I could see them getting into the content space if that's what it took to jumpstart that innovation.
> 
> The part about VoD and linear business models not being workable simultaneously? I don't see why not. YOu're just talking contracts and terms.


Considering the lower quality of the VoD from MVPDs, I'd much rather stay with the linear feed from a DVR.


----------



## lpwcomp

trip1eX said:


> Yeah do the math. How much bandwidth does it takes for Netflix to deliver a nice picture? What is a common bandwidth of a typical cable internet package?
> 
> Where are the internet service speeds headed?
> 
> Then throw in the fact they offer you those internet speeds while also delivering every home all those linear video channels.


IOW, you have no real data, just a set of assumptions. The answers to your questions tell me nothing about the true capacity of the network. I can do math as long as I have actual numbers.



trip1eX said:


> ON top of it, they can and have been splitting nodes over the years to deliver more bandwidth where needed.


Unless they are laying new fiber all the way back to the central office to support the additional nodes, splitting nodes does not increase the capacity of the network as a whole. Plus, as I alluded to previously, there's processing power and storage capacity to consider.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> IOW, you have no real data, just a set of assumptions. The answers to your questions tell me nothing about the true capacity of the network. I can do math as long as I have actual numbers.
> 
> Unless they are laying new fiber all the way back to the central office to support the additional nodes, splitting nodes does not increase the capacity of the network as a whole. Plus, as I alluded to previously, there's processing power and storage capacity to consider.


2016 Busy Hour is projected at 600Tbps, up from 500Tbps in 2015. 2019 Projections is 1,600Tbps

Currently Netflix is 37% of Internet traffic and Netflix+YouTube is over 50% during Busy Hour. Amazon is only around 2%.

Projection are 66% of that will come from CDN in 2019


----------



## atmuscarella

I will repeat it still is all about the money. There are lots of parties involved in our current video production & delivery systems. Such as:
Content Producers
Content Resellers
The Networks
The distribution system providers (OTA, Cable, Satellite, Internet)
The advertisers
The Consumers
All of the above have somewhat different interests and many companies are more than one of the above but for 1-5 the bottom line is still the same: IT IS THE MONEY.



trip1eX said:


> No one said the cable companies are going to suddenly just offer VoD and dump linear and force everyone over. It won't work like that.
> 
> IT's just that more and more customers will use VoD. More and more content will arrive via VoD. This happens until there is no reason to carry linear cable channels.


We will have linear cable channels for as long as 1-5 above are making more money by having them than not having them. My guess is we will have some/most linear channels for an extended period of time and there will be a culling of some/a few, especially those that mostly broadcast re-runs. In any event VoD will only replace (as apposed to supplement) linear channels if the revenue can benefit #s 1-4 above.



trip1eX said:


> If the traditional media companies resist this direction then that leaves room for upstarts to step in, produce content and offer it direct to consumers and in turn become the next big media companies. LIke Netflix is doing. Netflix is outbidding cable channels for the same content.
> 
> Netflix could start a 2nd VoD service even. I wouldn't rule that out. Why not? IF customers like their delivery model and the traditional media companies don't or won't step in to fill demand for more VoD content then that leaves room for others including an Amazon or Netflix or a the new upstart company to fill the void.


Netfilx is primarily a re-seller of reruns. I agree that cable channels that also primarily do that are in danger in the long run. The amount of new content that Netflix, Amazon, & the rest is producing is a drop in the bucket (all of it isn't equivalent to one network) and designed to be just enough to keep people paying for re-runs.

Bottom line is we have not seen what a VoD model would have to look like that produced a significant amount of new content, had it delivered to us, and did not receive any revenue via a linear broadcast channel.



trip1eX said:


> The tech companies like Apple or Google have potential here as well. They aren't in the video business but they definitely see how cable/satellite and traditional media cable companies are holding back innovation in that space. And I could see them getting into the content space if that's what it took to jumpstart that innovation.


Future tech/Innovation always has the potential to disrupt existing markets so I do agree something could come along and blow up the whole thing, but I have not seen it yet.



trip1eX said:


> The part about VoD and linear business models not being workable simultaneously? I don't see why not. YOu're just talking contracts and terms.


Well contracts & terms and Government regulations (you know the ones requiring OTA Networks be rebroadcast on cable) are a big deal. But we are really back to the Money, if linear broadcasts are a workable/profitable model of satellite (meaning the advertisers are willing to pay) then those same linear channels will be on cable for the same reason because it is profitable for the people controlling the content.

My bottom line is simple VoD works great for everyone as a supplement to linear broadcasts. But I see no workable model being available anytime soon where VoD can replace linear broadcast and provide the required revenue to 1-4 above and be acceptable to the consumers. Which gets me back to how this all started, as long as there are linear broadcasts there will be a niche market of people who will want a DVR to record them.


----------



## lpwcomp

The "Must Carry" rule went out the window a while back.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> The "Must Carry" rule went out the window a while back.


You beat me to it, though you are still not exactly correct.

Stations can elect to classify themselves as "must carry" and must be carried, with no compensation. LPTV stations do not have that right.

However, stations that do not declare themselves as must carry, negotiate a rate for retransmission, which is what the channels you really want to watch do.

They negotiate a rate for re-transmission - and you know what happens when they cannot agree on a rate.


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> They negotiate a rate for re-transmission - and you know what happens when they cannot agree on a rate.


And that cost gets passed on to the consumer. It's insane that local stations get to charge for this.


----------



## atmuscarella

lpwcomp said:


> The "Must Carry" rule went out the window a while back.





SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You beat me to it, though you are still not exactly correct.
> 
> Stations can elect to classify themselves as "must carry" and must be carried, with no compensation. LPTV stations do not have that right.
> 
> However, stations that do not declare themselves as must carry, negotiate a rate for retransmission, which is what the channels you really want to watch do.
> 
> They negotiate a rate for re-transmission - and you know what happens when they cannot agree on a rate.


I new the above was true but for what I was posting the net effect is the same. If cable wants the linear OTA broadcast channel they may pay for it, but if they don't care or even if they don't want it they will end up being forced to carry it. With the net effect (outside of the short periods of time it takes to settle a contract disputes) being the same - linear OTA broadcast channels will be on cable until the law is changed and how much anyone likes VoD is irreverent to that fact.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> And that cost gets passed on to the consumer. It's insane that local stations get to charge for this.


You can put a barrel outside and collect rainwater for free.

If you want it from the convince of you tap and shower, you pay for it.

Bottom line, if consumers did not pay for it, there would be nothing OTA that you want to see....and quite frankly, as OTA makes up the majority of stuff on the SVOD sites like Netflix and Amazon, that means the content most watch would not be there either.

Also remember that 35% of viewing on MVPD systems are the OTA channels. Yet look at how much the MVPDs charge for that in most separate line items. $2.50 - $4.00 in most cases. And what is your total bill?

I guarantee that OTA fee isn't close to 35% of your bill. It isn't 10% of your bill and may not even be 5%

It's actually the best bargain on the bill


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You can put a barrel outside and collect rainwater for free.
> 
> If you want it from the convince of you tap and shower, you pay for it.


That is a ridiculous analogy. Local stations are advertiser supported. I could get them for free via antenna. I prefer getting them via cable due to reception problems.

Going with your analogy, I am paying the clouds to allow someone else to collect the rainwater and deliver it in a more convenient manner.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> That is a ridiculous analogy. Local stations are advertiser supported. I could get them for free via antenna. I prefer getting them via cable due to reception problems.
> 
> Going with your analogy, I am paying the clouds to allow someone else to collect the rainwater and deliver it in a more convenient manner.


You are not paying for the clouds.

Furthermore, many cable only stations have more ads than OTA.

The analogy is perfect....as you admit you have "collection" issues with your rain barrel


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You are not paying for the clouds.
> 
> Furthermore, many cable only stations have more ads than OTA.
> 
> The analogy is perfect....as you admit you have "collection" issues with your rain barrel


Sorry, but I am paying the cable company to solve my delivery issues. I shouldn't have to pay the local station also. *They* are providing any service for which I should have to pay. They are only doing it because they can. It's ridiculous and your analogy remains absurdly ridiculous.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> Sorry, but I am paying the cable company to solve my delivery issues. I shouldn't have to pay the local station also. *They* are providing any service for which I should have to pay. They are only doing it because they can. It's ridiculous and your analogy remains absurdly ridiculous.


actually they can't. Again, same as water.

The cable company does not own the right to retransmit material they do not own.

You pay the cable company to solve your issues. CORRECT. But the cable company then must pay the TV Station for reselling their service. So technically, you have not paid the TV Station, which you claim you are.

Next you'll tell me you can burn DVDs of stuff you recieve OTA and sell them on eBay or Craigslist, because it solves someone's reception issue.


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> actually they can't. Again, same as water.
> 
> The cable company does not own the right to retransmit material they do not own.
> 
> You pay the cable company to solve your issues. CORRECT. But the cable company then must pay the TV Station for reselling their service. So technically, you have not paid the TV Station, which you claim you are.
> 
> Next you'll tell me you can burn DVDs of stuff you recieve OTA and sell them on eBay or Craigslist, because it solves someone's reception issue.


I refuse to continue dealing with someone who thinks his idiotic analogies are valid.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> I refuse to continue dealing with someone who thinks his idiotic analogies are valid.


I refuse to deal with anyone who believes theft is legal.

Get it through your thick skull. You cannot sell what doesn't belong to you


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I refuse to deal with anyone who believes theft is legal.


----------



## atmuscarella

Analogies aside I will make a few comments. 
First thing to remember is that Cable/Satellite providers are video re-sellers. That is their business, they buy the right to re-sell copyrighted video content. 
There is zero reason any Local OTA channel owner or Broadcast Network should be forced to allow any video re-seller to have their copyrighted content for free.
If a cable, satellite, or any other video re-selling company pays for local OTA channel/Broadcast Network content is optional, if they don't want to pay to re-sell it they don't have to.
The fact that a channel is broadcast OTA is irrelevant to any of the above, the content is still copyrighted and the broadcast is for private noncommercial use. Remember if your local bar/coffee house puts up a TV and plays OTA TV they are required to pay an additional Royalty fee, just like businesses that play radio stations. 
Anyone who enjoys obtaining content via an OTA broadcasts should be very happy video re-sellers also pay for the same content. It is part of the reason the current OTA model still exists.


----------



## Brad Bishop

Dan203 said:


> Hmmm.... I don't have Comcast so I can't say for sure what they are doing, but H.264 should allow them to fit more HD channels into the lineup. H.264 allows the same basic image quality as MPEG-2 at about 60% the bitrate. So if right now they can only fit 3 HD channels per QAM with H.264 they should be able to fit 5 HD channels per QAM. Unless they're using the bandwidth savings strictly to increase internet speeds you should start seeing them add more HD channels.
> 
> When Charter went all digital here a couple years ago they added like 150 HD channels. Prior to that we only got 22 total. Now we get pretty much every channel that's broadcast in HD in HD.


One thing I don't get: SD versions of all of the channels. It seems like we ought to be at the point where they could just ditch SD and make everything HD and recoup that bandwidth.


----------



## lpwcomp

Brad Bishop said:


> One thing I don't get: SD versions of all of the channels. It seems like we ought to be at the point where they could just ditch SD and make everything HD and recoup that bandwidth.


There's still a lot of SD only boxes out there.


----------



## atmuscarella

Brad Bishop said:


> One thing I don't get: SD versions of all of the channels. It seems like we ought to be at the point where they could just ditch SD and make everything HD and recoup that bandwidth.


I have been wondering that myself. Back in time they had SD feeds formatted for 4:3 TVs and HD feeds formatted for 16:9 TVs. For OTA many of the SD channels now are formatted for 16:9 TVs - of course content filmed in 4:3 is side letter boxed but if the content is 16:9 it is no longer double letter boxed.

On cable do the SD channels change the formatting? If not I would think any devise with a digital tuner (cable STB) could output HD content in SD to a TV and that there wouldn't be any need for separate SD & HD feeds.


----------



## lpwcomp

atmuscarella said:


> Analogies aside I will make a few comments.
> First thing to remember is that Cable/Satellite providers are video re-sellers. That is their business, they buy the right to re-sell copyrighted video content.
> There is zero reason any Local OTA channel owner or Broadcast Network should be forced to allow any video re-seller to have their copyrighted content for free.
> If a cable, satellite, or any other video re-selling company pays for local OTA channel/Broadcast Network content is optional, if they don't want to pay to re-sell it they don't have to.
> The fact that a channel is broadcast OTA is irrelevant to any of the above, the content is still copyrighted and the broadcast is for private noncommercial use. Remember if your local bar/coffee house puts up a TV and plays OTA TV they are required to pay an additional Royalty fee, just like businesses that play radio stations.
> Anyone who enjoys obtaining content via an OTA broadcasts should be very happy video re-sellers also pay for the same content. It is part of the reason the current OTA model still exists.


Local stations do not own the copyright for most of their content. They own the _*broadcast*_ rights for their area.

It's not the "video re-seller" who ends up paying for it, it's the end consumer.

When a local broadcaster declares a station to be "must carry", are they not "stealing" from the MSO?


----------



## JoeKustra

atmuscarella said:


> I have been wondering that myself. Back in time they had SD feeds formatted for 4:3 TVs and HD feeds formatted for 16:9 TVs. For OTA many of the SD channels now are formatted for 16:9 TVs - of course content filmed in 4:3 is side letter boxed but if the content is 16:9 it is no longer double letter boxed.
> 
> On cable do the SD channels change the formatting? If not I would think any devise with a digital tuner (cable STB) could output HD content in SD to a TV and that there wouldn't be any need for separate SD & HD feeds.


My feed doesn't change anything. SD channels are still sent, HD costing more. Most SD channels are 480i but not 4:3. Exceptions are subchannels on a 720p main channel. Then the subchannels may be left alone and come through as 4:3 480i. The new Comet channel is that way. But all cable is different.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> Local stations do not own the copyright for most of their content. They own the _*broadcast*_ rights for their area.
> 
> It's not the "video re-seller" who ends up paying for it, it's the end consumer.
> 
> When a local broadcaster declares a station to be "must carry", are they not "stealing" from the MSO?


So local stations do not own their Newscasts which are taking up to 30% of their broadcast day? Interesting.

Must carry is stealing? Interesting again. How does someone steal something someone is saying, take it, it's free.

And of course the reseller charges you.

Just like your car dealer charges you for the car they purchased and sold to you or the oil they put in your car during service.

Just as the Gas Station charges you for the gas they purchased and put in your car.

Just as the electric company charges you for electricity the purchased from another company and sold to you.

Just as your internet supplier purchases interconnects with other companies and allies your traffic to pass while charging you.

Just a contractor buys home building supplies and charges you for them.

Just a TiVo buys TV guide data from Tribune and charges you for them

Just as a MVPD purchases CNN and ESPN and charges you.

Get over it


----------



## atmuscarella

lpwcomp said:


> Local stations do not own the copyright for most of their content. They own the _*broadcast*_ rights for their area.


Correct they pretty much only own the copyright for their news broadcast which in my area is about 5 hours of content a day and is why I specifically included the Broadcast Networks and as you said they own the copyright for their content and are only providing the local station the right to broadcast it OTA for noncommercial use. Part of the fee cable/satellite pays local broadcast stations goes back to the Networks because of this.



lpwcomp said:


> It's not the "video re-seller" who ends up paying for it, it's the end consumer.


Well that is ultimately true of nearly everything, But I fail to see what that has to do with if copyright holders should have to give their content to a re-seller for free or not.



lpwcomp said:


> When a local broadcaster declares a station to be "must carry", are they not "stealing" from the MSO?


If a cable company is forced to carry a station they do not want to carry by the Government (which is what "must carry" is), that is regulatory compliance and a normal cost of doing business. If you want to consider the cost of complying with Government regulation theft by the Government I am sure you will find people to agree with you, but generally that is not how we define theft.


----------



## BobCamp1

lpwcomp said:


> Sorry, but I am paying the cable company to solve my delivery issues. I shouldn't have to pay the local station also. *They* are providing any service for which I should have to pay. They are only doing it because they can.


Usually the charges are combined to hide the store's delivery fee. If Home Depot charged $30 as wholesale price for a faucet, but tacked on a $30 delivery fee on top of that, people would scream. Yet people have no problem paying $60 for a faucet (including me, as of yesterday). It's reverse for the cable companies -- they handle complaints about skyrocketing bills by breaking out the charges to show it's the content prices that are skyrocketing, not the delivery charges.

To be fair, it's a delicate balance for the local stations. Since many cable subscribers have DVRs, they skip the commercials so there isn't a lot of advertising income from them. The local stations have to get their income from those customers mainly from the carriage fees. On the other hand, the people who receive locals OTA generally don't have DVRs so they don't skip the commercials. Although the local stations can't collect OTA carriage fees, their advertising fees can be increased or they can add more time for commercials as more people cut the cord. I'm sure everybody involved is keeping track of exactly how consumers are watching the content.

What this all means for the CableCard replacement is that the FCC is worrying about the wrong thing. The DVR and Internet are killing traditional programming. People are watching the TV shows using Hulu or a website or an app. Or they are skipping the commercials. Local stations are losing their sources of income, yet they are vital in case of a local emergency. How does the FCC keep them afloat?


----------



## lpwcomp

What I am saying is that what _*you*_ are saying is that for all of those years when the only relevant rule in play was "must carry", the government was forcing cable companies to "steal" from the local broadcasters and now, with the rule change, they are allowing local broadcasters to steal from the cable company.

Normally, in any financial transaction, there has to be an exchange of value. Just what of value is the local broadcaster providing in this case? Isn't it up to them to ensure that a decent signal is receivable by everyone in their broadcast area?


----------



## BobCamp1

lpwcomp said:


> When a local broadcaster declares a station to be "must carry", are they not "stealing" from the MSO?


The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (95-992)

And don't worry about it. Nobody except PBS uses "must carry" anymore.


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Must carry is stealing? Interesting again. How does someone steal something someone is saying, take it, it's free.


Are you being deliberately obtuse or is your handle apt? The cable companies are forced to allocate resources to carry the channel. They are the ones who are the victims of "theft".


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> What I am saying is that what _*you*_ are saying is that for all of those years when the only relevant rule in play was "must carry", the government was forcing cable companies to "steal" from the local broadcasters and now, with the rule change, they are allowing local broadcasters to steal from the cable company.
> 
> Normally, in any financial transaction, there has to be an exchange of value. Just what of value is the local broadcaster providing in this case? Isn't it up to them to ensure that a decent signal is receivable by everyone in their broadcast area?


Cable started out as a way to bring local broadcast channels to people who couldn't get a clear OTA signal. "Must carry" was put in to place to force those cable cmpanies to carry all the local channels, even the less desirable independent channels.

But the big desirable stations realized that the cable companies were making money reselling their broadcast so they got the FCC to agree that they should be able to charge a fee for that. And since most people, even today, pay for cable as a reliable way to deliver the big four networks the cable companies have to pay those fees or they will lose customers. The networks have all the power here becuase the whole cable business is primarily based around retransmitting their signal, so the cable companies need them more thn they need the cable companies. And even if a cable company decided to be stubborn and told them to take a hike they could still invoke "must carry" and force them to transmit their station anyway. So basically the cable companies are over a barrel.

Although as more original content becomes available from cable only channels or OTT providers the ratings for the big networks are starting to slip. So there may be a day soon where the balance shifts and the networks have to lower or eliminate their retransmission fees to make sure they're reaching enough people.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse or is your handle apt? The cable companies are forced to allocate resources to carry the channel. They are the ones who are the victims of "theft".


I see you are more deserving of my handle than me.

Allocates resources? Lol.

Let's view it your way.

They don't put the "must carry" on their service.

People put up an antenna.

They find that channel. And the other OTA channels as well

They drop the service.

GREAT IDEA!


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

BobCamp1 said:


> The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (95-992)
> 
> And don't worry about it. Nobody except PBS uses "must carry" anymore.


And religious Broadcasters and some ethnic channels.

But yes, every ruling and law says ldwcomp is wrong.


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And religious Broadcasters and some ethnic channels.
> 
> But yes, every ruling and law say ldwcomp is wrong.


what am I wrong about? I am not the one who brought up the concept of "theft". If one thing is stealing, so is the other.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> what am I wrong about? I am not the one who brought up the concept of "theft". If one thing is stealing, so is the other.


Clearly you are no lawyer


----------



## atmuscarella

BobCamp1 said:


> Local stations are losing their sources of income, yet they are vital in case of a local emergency. How does the FCC keep them afloat?


I think that is what ATSC 3.0 is all about. If it works as advertised every phone and tablet sold will eventually have an ATSC 3.0 tuner included and the reason some people think we will see it come faster than others expect.


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And religious Broadcasters and some ethnic channels.
> 
> But yes, every ruling and law says ldwcomp is wrong.


And no other broadcasters are declaring _*any*_ of their sub-channels to be "must carry".

I ask once again: what am I getting of _*added*_ value from the broadcaster?


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Clearly you are no lawyer


And you are?


----------



## NYHeel

lpwcomp said:


> What I am saying is that what _*you*_ are saying is that for all of those years when the only relevant rule in play was "must carry", the government was forcing cable companies to "steal" from the local broadcasters and now, with the rule change, they are allowing local broadcasters to steal from the cable company.
> 
> Normally, in any financial transaction, there has to be an exchange of value. Just what of value is the local broadcaster providing in this case? Isn't it up to them to ensure that a decent signal is receivable by everyone in their broadcast area?


Clearly the cable companies (and by extension the consumer) get lots of value from showing the OTA networks. I live pretty close to the broadcast towers in NYC but because of interference can't reliably pick up all the broadcast networks I want. I can pay someone to put up a large antenna on my roof or pay the cable company to provide me with the network channels. I choose the latter (mostly because I'm paying for cable anyway since I want many of the other channels they sell to me).

From the cable company's perspective, there are many customers that have cable only because of the broadcast networks. Heck, there are many customers that only subscribe to a broadcast package where those are the only channels they get. A cable company should be able to charge a customer for providing the broadcast networks to a customer but the networks shouldn't be able to charge the cable company to display their channel?


----------



## Dan203

atmuscarella said:


> I think that is what ATSC 3.0 is all about. If it works as advertised every phone and tablet sold will eventually have an ATSC 3.0 tuner included and the reason some people think we will see it come faster than others expect.


Switching to ATSC 3.0 will require an act of congress since they would need to provision funds to provide new subsidized converter boxes like they did when they first went all digital. Given yhe current state of congress I'm skeptical something like that would get approved.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> And you are?


Clearly someone with a moral compass, unlike you.


----------



## atmuscarella

Dan203 said:


> Switching to ATSC 3.0 will require an act of congress since they would need to provision funds to provide new subsidized converter boxes like they did when they first went all digital. Given yhe current state of congress I'm skeptical something like that would get approved.


When ATSC 3.0 is going to happen is certainly an unknown. But Consumer Reports thought things where moving fast enough last summer to right this article: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/07/tv-tuner-stop-working/index.htm​They don't say specifically when they think it is going to happen, but do say that it will be "Pretty Soon". The last paragraph it pretty telling.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Dan203 said:


> Switching to ATSC 3.0 will require an act of congress since they would need to provision funds to provide new subsidized converter boxes like they did when they first went all digital. Given yhe current state of congress I'm skeptical something like that would get approved.


No Congressional approval is needed to switch to ATSC 3.0 and there will be no convertor boondoggle this time either.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

atmuscarella said:


> When ATSC 3.0 is going to happen is certainly an unknown. But Consumer Reports thought things where moving fast enough last summer to right this article: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/07/tv-tuner-stop-working/index.htm​They don't say specifically when they think it is going to happen, but do say that it will be "Pretty Soon". The last paragraph it pretty telling.


Standard is 99% done. Minor fine tuning is all that remains and it will be final this year. It has been OTA and tested in Cleveland, Las Vegas, Baltimore-Washington and other locations which is why the equipment makers will be showing and selling the equipment at the NAB in 60 days.

Also the spectrum auction is happening shortly and 39 months til stations have to repack after it ends.


----------



## lpwcomp

NYHeel said:


> A cable company should be able to charge a customer for providing the broadcast networks to a customer but the networks shouldn't be able to charge the cable company to display their channel?


The cable company isn't charging for "providing broadcast networks" per se. They are charging for providing a better quality signal to customers who are legally entitled to that signal OTA.

In order for there to be a theft, _*something*_ (tangible or intangible) has to be stolen. What exactly am I stealing? What potential revenue is the broadcaster not getting because I'm receiving their signal via cable rather than OTA?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> The cable company isn't charging for "providing broadcast networks" per se. They are charging for providing a better quality signal to customers who are legally entitled to that signal OTA.
> 
> In order for there to be a theft, _*something*_ (tangible or intangible) has to be stolen. What exactly am I stealing? What potential revenue is the broadcaster not getting because I'm receiving their signal via cable rather than OTA?


Some people get it. Some just end up in prison arguing their innocence.

You appear to be the latter.


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Some people get it. Some just end up in prison arguing their innocence.
> 
> You appear to be the latter.


Are you an attorney? Did you even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

If you want to proceed with this, please answer the question I posed - what am I stealing?

Edit: Let me rephrase that. For what service am I compensating the broadcaster?


----------



## Jonathan_S

lpwcomp said:


> Edit: Let me rephrase that. For what service am I compensating the broadcaster?


 A cable company is paying the broadcaster for permission to rebroadcast the copyrighted material from that broadcaster's OTA station (after being informed, in effect, by the broadcaster that the permission was not being freely granted. Which they did by notifying the cable company the broadcaster was invoking the retransmission consent provision of the 1992 United States Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act).

The broadcaster may not own that copyrighted material, but they have a license that allows broadcast and allows them to control rebroadcast within their licensed area.

But if you meant "I" as the end user, you are not directly compensating the broadcaster for anything. You compensate the cable company for providing a high quality feed of the channel, the cable company compensates the broadcaster (as above) in order to be able to provide you that content (without which they'd likely have many fewer customers), and the broadcaster is also compensated by advertisers for delivering their ads to you.


----------



## lessd

lpwcomp said:


> The cable company isn't charging for "providing broadcast networks" per se. They are charging for providing a better quality signal to customers who are legally entitled to that signal OTA.
> 
> In order for there to be a theft, _*something*_ (tangible or intangible) has to be stolen. What exactly am I stealing? What potential revenue is the broadcaster not getting because I'm receiving their signal via cable rather than OTA?


Assuming your paying for your cable and the channels you are receiving you not, under any circumstance, stealing any TV signal from your cable co. even if the cable co is stealing a channel.


----------



## lpwcomp

This whole discussion started because I complained about having to pay the broadcast channel fee and people acted as if I questioned the broadcasters legal right to do so. I didn't. As Dickens noted the law is sometimes "a ass".

What I am questioning is why is that the law other than because they broadcasters and networks convinced congress and/or the FCC that they were entitled to it? Why am I treated differently simply because I receive the broadcast signal via cable rather than OTA?

For those who insist that it is actually the cable company that is paying: a difference that makes no difference is not difference.

As to the fact that even advertiser supported cable only channels charge cable companies for the rights to carry them - that is true. And it is also true that cable cos package such channels together so that you can't get just the channels you want. The difference here are that you can forgo the entire package and that there is no free alternative. You cannot forgo local channels - if you want cable for the cable only channels, you get the broadcast channels and incur the fee. Or you can cut the cord and deal with the possibly crappy reception.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> This whole discussion started because I complained about having to pay the broadcast channel fee and people acted as if I questioned the broadcasters legal right to do so. I didn't. As Dickens noted the law is sometimes "a ass".
> 
> What I am questioning is why is that the law other than because they broadcasters and networks convinced congress and/or the FCC that they were entitled to it? Why am I treated differently simply because I receive the broadcast signal via cable rather than OTA?
> 
> For those who insist that it is actually the cable company that is paying: a difference that makes no difference is not difference.
> 
> As to the fact that even advertiser supported cable only channels charge cable companies for the rights to carry them - that is true. And it is also true that cable cos package such channels together so that you can't get just the channels you want. The difference here are that you can forgo the entire package and that there is no free alternative. You cannot forgo local channels - if you want cable for the cable only channels, you get the broadcast channels and incur the fee. Or you can cut the cord and deal with the possibly crappy reception.


And you can go to a library and read a book (on law and ethics I would suggest) for free, or according to you, since you can get it for free at the library, you should be able to shoplift it from Barnes and Noble as it is more convenient for you.


----------



## lpwcomp

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And you can go to a library and read a book (on law and ethics I would suggest) for free, or according to you, since you can get it for free at the library, you should be able to shoplift it from Barnes and Noble as it is more convenient for you.


 Yet another idiotic analogy.

According to you, I should have to pay the author and/or publisher for the privilege of reading it. Or that the library should have to pay every time it is checked out.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> This whole discussion started because I complained about having to pay the broadcast channel fee and people acted as if I questioned the broadcasters legal right to do so. I didn't. As Dickens noted the law is sometimes "a ass".
> 
> What I am questioning is why is that the law other than because they broadcasters and networks convinced congress and/or the FCC that they were entitled to it? Why am I treated differently simply because I receive the broadcast signal via cable rather than OTA?
> 
> For those who insist that it is actually the cable company that is paying: a difference that makes no difference is not difference.
> 
> As to the fact that even advertiser supported cable only channels charge cable companies for the rights to carry them - that is true. And it is also true that cable cos package such channels together so that you can't get just the channels you want. The difference here are that you can forgo the entire package and that there is no free alternative. You cannot forgo local channels - if you want cable for the cable only channels, you get the broadcast channels and incur the fee. Or you can cut the cord and deal with the possibly crappy reception.


Cable companies make money by sending you someone else's signal. The owner of that signal feels like they deserve a cut of that profit. Congress agreed and made it a law. (and ultimately the Supreme Court upheld that law in the Aereo case)

If you don't want to pay the fee you're more then welcome to put a large antenna on the roof of your house and get the same signal for free.


----------



## lpwcomp

lessd said:


> Assuming your paying for your cable and the channels you are receiving you not, under any circumstance, stealing any TV signal from your cable co. even if the cable co is stealing a channel.


Yes, I am paying for the cable services I get. Part of my bill is a $3.25/mo "Broadcast TV fee". I am paying twice for the privilege of receiving the broadcast channels in a better quality.

Everyone please stop responding as if I am claiming they don't have the _*legal*_ right to charge this fee. Obviously, they do. My contention is they _*shouldn't*_ and there is absolutely no justification for them to be able to do so. What am _*I*_ getting from them beyond what they are already legally obligated to provide?

It would also be a different situation if cable companies were free to negotiate with stations in other cities or directly with the networks but they aren't.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> Cable companies make money by sending you someone else's signal. The owner of that signal feels like they deserve a cut of that profit. Congress agreed and made it a law. (and ultimately the Supreme Court upheld that law in the Aereo case)
> 
> If you don't want to pay the fee you're more then welcome to put a large antenna on the roof of your house and get the same signal for free.


I rent a room in a condo, so not an option. Even if it were and I was viewing all of the broadcast channels via cable, if I want cable for other channels, I cannot avoid the fee. Before you ask: I pay the entire cable (and U-verse internet) bill and all of the TiVos are mine.


----------



## Dan203

That's the cable companies choice. They could offer you a bundle that excluded the local channels if they wanted. The local channels could invoke "must carry" but if they did that they'd have to waive their fees. 

The reason these local channels are included in every bundle is because a) they're the most popular channels carried by the cable company and b) they make deals with the channels to include them in every bundle during the fee negotiations. (same reason everyone pays for ESPN, even those that don't watch sports)

I can understand why you don't like the fee, but you must understand why it's there and how it's legal.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> Yet another idiotic analogy


Good. Then you clearly can understand it as its just for you.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> I can understand why you don't like the fee, but you must understand why it's there and how it's legal.


I have always understood both of those things. I simply don't agree with the argument about why it should be so.

To me, it is on the same level as the ADO fee. I am paying for something which costs them nothing.


----------



## Dan203

Yeah, and because they have a functional monopoly they can get away with that kind of crap. The whole purpose of this CableCARD replacement is to reduce their strangle hold on consumers. It may or may not work, but the idea is to open up the platform so that they can create competition in both the retail device market and the alternative video provider market. If there is a single standard to develop against then MVPDs that use alternative delivery mechanisms like the internet or short range wireless might catch on giving people more choice and giving the entrenched MSOs less ability to gouge people with erroneous fees.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Dan203 said:


> Yeah, and because they have a functional monopoly they can get away with that kind of crap. The whole purpose of this CableCARD replacement is to reduce their strangle hold on consumers. It may or may not work, but the idea is to open up the platform so that they can create competition in both the retail device market and the alternative video provider market. If there is a single standard to develop against then MVPDs that use alternative delivery mechanisms like the internet or short range wireless might catch on giving people more choice and giving the entrenched MSOs less ability to gouge people with erroneous fees.


And on that note:

http://advanced-television.com/2016/02/10/survey-americans-fed-up-with-their-pay-tv-service/

and more pushback from the ACA

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ac...-top-regulations-smaller-providers/2016-02-10

And an interesting set of observations that unfortunately will go over some heads here

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...out-of-the-set-top-box-and-behind-the-curtain


----------



## atmuscarella

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And on that note:
> 
> http://advanced-television.com/2016/02/10/survey-americans-fed-up-with-their-pay-tv-service/
> 
> and more pushback from the ACA
> 
> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ac...-top-regulations-smaller-providers/2016-02-10
> 
> And an interesting set of observations that unfortunately will go over some heads here
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...out-of-the-set-top-box-and-behind-the-curtain


Let me summarize those three articles: 
Consumers don't like traditional pay TV providers
Cable doesn't like the FCC STB requirements
The FCC's decision about STB requirements favors Google over Cable and isn't really good for consumers but we are not going to tell you why give you any facts. Just believe what we are saying.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

atmuscarella said:


> Let me summarize those three articles:
> Consumers don't like traditional pay TV providers
> Cable doesn't like the FCC STB requirements
> The FCC's decision about STB requirements favors Google over Cable and isn't really good for consumers but we are not going to tell you why give you any facts. Just believe what we are saying.


Sad

[1]there are different levels of dislike. When hitting responses like this you are on the extreme ends. And on a TiVo forum a 79% response on DVR fees are important to note.

[2] Cable is filing responses at the FCC tring to find an out

[3] FCC Chairman is going against the groundwork he has set forward with AllVid and no one is sure why the change. Is the equivalent of Obama doing away with his stand on Obamacare, Immigration and Global Warming with new proposals tomorrow with no explanation.


----------



## atmuscarella

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Sad
> 
> [1]there are different levels of dislike. When hitting responses like this you are on the extreme ends. And on a TiVo forum a 79% response on DVR fees are important to note.
> 
> [2] Cable is filing responses at the FCC tring to find an out
> 
> [3] FCC Chairman is going against the groundwork he has set forward with AllVid and no one is sure why the change. Is the equivalent of Obama doing away with his stand on Obamacare, Immigration and Global Warming with new proposals tomorrow with no explanation.


What I thought was sad where the articles. If you felt they provided you with fact based useful information great. I didn't. Especially the third one that provided me with no information at all other than the writer doesn't like what is going on. Perhaps if I already new all about the topic I would be able to appreciate his opinion or have an opinion about his opinion but with the actual information in the article I don't have a clue what he was talking about.


----------



## Dan203

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And an interesting set of observations that unfortunately will go over some heads here
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...out-of-the-set-top-box-and-behind-the-curtain


This is such a shill article. He's basically trying to convince you that this proposal will somehow allow Google to insert itself into the system to spy on you and use your viewing data for their own purposes. But that is completely false! Unless you buy a Google STB/DVR Google will have no part in this system. Also is there anything preventing the STB you're leasing form the MSO from doing that same thing right now? Are you sure it's not? Basically he's arguing that you should trust your MSO to respect your privacy, but not Google or any other 3rd party company. What makes the MSOs any more trustworthy then Google?

The "virtual headend" proposal offered by the tech companies in the committee was simple. The MSO would implement a system which would allow 3rd party devices to discover and access both linear channels and extended services (i.e. VOD) via an open API. In practical terms it means the use of a gateway device (aka AllVid), but two way systems like cable and fiber could eventually move the "virtual headend" further up into the system and do away with the extra hardware if they want.

All this stuff about privacy and child protection is crap! The MSOs want to retain control. They want to control which devices you can use to access their system and the UI used on those devices.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> All this stuff about privacy and child protection is crap! The MSOs want to retain control. They want to control which devices you can use to access their system and the UI used on those devices.


And they want to be able to charge you for every piece of equipment you have attached to "their" cable.


----------



## lessd

lpwcomp said:


> And they want to be able to charge you for every piece of equipment you have attached to "their" cable.


Yes, but with the Roamio 4 or 6 tuner TiVo you can add Minis without any extra cable charge. All cable co equipment you rent comes with an on-sight warranty forever, and free upgrades, that has a cost to any MSO.


----------



## lpwcomp

lessd said:


> Yes, but with the Roamio 4 or 6 tuner TiVo you can add Minis without any extra cable charge. All cable co equipment you rent comes with an on-sight warranty forever, and free upgrades, that has a cost to any MSO.


Officially, those additional costs ( to Comcast at least) are $2.50/mo per outlet.


----------



## BobCamp1

lpwcomp said:


> Yes, I am paying for the cable services I get. Part of my bill is a $3.25/mo "Broadcast TV fee". I am paying twice for the privilege of receiving the broadcast channels in a better quality.
> 
> ... My contention is they _*shouldn't*_ and there is absolutely no justification for them to be able to do so. What am _*I*_ getting from them beyond what they are already legally obligated to provide?


You are not paying twice. Yes there is justification, and here it is:

Normally when you buy something at a store, you are only charged one price. The wholesale price and the store's fees are integrated together. Stores do this to hide how much they are marking up the price. If customers knew how much the prices were being marked up, they'd get angry. But overall they are happy with the combined price because ignorance is bliss.

Cable has the opposite problem. They don't want the price to be increasing as fast as it is. They are losing customers as a result of it (i.e. "cord cutters"). Many people are placing the blame solely on the cable company. However the carriage fees are main cause of the price increases. The cable company is retaliating by breaking out the carriage fees to show their customers that they're not the bad guy.

The other obvious benefit is to keep the advertised price down despite the increases in carriage fees. This works as long as they can advertise with "fees not included" in tiny print. And yes, the fees are now substantial. $3 local fee, $5 regional sports fee (same exact issue), $3 directory fee, etc. It can be difficult to determine what the final bill is, and the FTC has scolded DirecTV in the past for this.

Lastly, cable is not "legally obligated" to carry local channels if the channels insist on being paid for the privilege. And the big four do insist. Local channels are dropped all the time while the new contract is negotiated.


----------



## BobCamp1

Dan203 said:


> Basically he's arguing that you should trust your MSO to respect your privacy, but not Google or any other 3rd party company. What makes the MSOs any more trustworthy then Google?


Because the MSOs are more regulated that Google is. Granted, the MSOs are poorly regulated which proves your point. But in theory, the MSO/ISP has been declared as a vertically integrated monopoly and is also subject to both the FCC and the FTC. Google is not a monopoly and is only subject to general FTC rules.

I'm sure the MSOs are already tabulating that data -- they have to so they can show the data to advertisers. That data all by itself is worth a lot of money, which is why everybody's fighting for control of the box.


----------



## Dan203

BobCamp1 said:


> Lastly, cable is not "legally obligated" to carry local channels if the channels insist on being paid for the privilege. And the big four do insist. Local channels are dropped all the time while the new contract is negotiated.


Exactly. They can either force them to carry it for free (i.e. must carry) or they can charge for it, not both. Right now there is more value to the cable company carrying the channels so they're willing to pay the fee. But network ratings are in a steady decline so that may not always be the case. The tides may shifting to the point where it will become more valuable to the networks to reach cable's customers then it is to cable to have those networks. Once that happens the fees should start to go down or even disappear. Although some of the conglomerates will probably use their cable channels as leverage to keep fees up for a while. (ABC owns ESPN, CBS owns Showtime, Fox owns a bunch of cable channels, etc...)


----------



## Jonathan_S

lpwcomp said:


> Everyone please stop responding as if I am claiming they don't have the _*legal*_ right to charge this fee. Obviously, they do. My contention is they _*shouldn't*_ and there is absolutely no justification for them to be able to do so. What am _*I*_ getting from them beyond what they are already legally obligated to provide?


Baring some special legal allowance you always need permission from the rights owner to redistribute or copy copyrighted material.

It was really the implicit side of must carry, where the station didn't have to actively invoke 'must carry' for the cable company to have the right to redistributed it that was the legal aberration. It had created that special legal allowance.

Retransmission Consent is really just the the TV stations getting Congress to agree to apply that otherwise universal rule (that you need permission from the right's holder) to cable companies rebroadcasting OTA TV stations (i.e. remove the special legal allowance that permitted cable companies to retransmit without permission).

And once you require the station's permission obviously they're in a position to get concessions or payments in exchange for that permission. And given that being able to carry those channels is worth a lot of subscribers to the cable company it's kind of self-evidently valuable, so of course the broadcast stations want compensation for granting that valuable permission.


----------



## slice1900

The discussion about why OTA stations are charging cable/satellite providers for carriage is missing an important detail. The _networks_ are charging the OTA stations to carry the network feed. The OTA stations have to charge cable/satellite providers, or they couldn't survive. If everyone cut the cord and watched OTA instead, the whole model would fall apart, as OTA stations would go bankrupt and the networks would quickly follow.


----------



## lpwcomp

slice1900 said:


> The discussion about why OTA stations are charging cable/satellite providers for carriage is missing an important detail. The _networks_ are charging the OTA stations to carry the network feed. The OTA stations have to charge cable/satellite providers, or they couldn't survive. If everyone cut the cord and watched OTA instead, the whole model would fall apart, as OTA stations would go bankrupt and the networks would quickly follow.


How did they survive all of those years when they didn't charge the fee?


----------



## Dan203

slice1900 said:


> The discussion about why OTA stations are charging cable/satellite providers for carriage is missing an important detail. The _networks_ are charging the OTA stations to carry the network feed. The OTA stations have to charge cable/satellite providers, or they couldn't survive. If everyone cut the cord and watched OTA instead, the whole model would fall apart, as OTA stations would go bankrupt and the networks would quickly follow.


That's not true. They survived for many years on advertising revenue. There are slots allocated during all prime time programming for local advertisements that the affiliates splice in. They also get the vast majority of the ad revenue for the commercials played during non-prime time syndicated programming.

The business model for broadcast TV has always been ads. Only in the last decade or so, with the advent of the DVR and proliferation of OTT services, have they started to ramp up carriage fees in an effort to pad their bottom line.


----------



## Jonathan_S

Dan203 said:


> That's not true. They survived for many years on advertising revenue. There are slots allocated during all prime time programming for local advertisements that the affiliates splice in. They also get the vast majority of the ad revenue for the commercials played during non-prime time syndicated programming.
> 
> The business model for broadcast TV has always been ads. Only in the last decade or so, with the advent of the DVR and proliferation of OTT services, have they started to ramp up carriage fees in an effort to pad their bottom line.


I haven't looked at the broadcast's stations number but in theory its quite possible that they used to be able to survive on advertising but now require the infusion of money from reselling to cable systems to stay afloat.

Advertising rates might be down, viewership might be down (which would reduce income), networks may have raised their rates for primetime content to capture some of the cable retransmission consent fee (increasing costs), the station might have taken loans for the digital HD broadcast hardware based off the higher income from cable fees (increasing costs until the loans are repaid), etc ,etc.

Now maybe they could survive off of pure advertising revenue if forced to give up the cable money. But maybe not (anymore). <shrug>


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> That's not true. They survived for many years on advertising revenue. There are slots allocated during all prime time programming for local advertisements that the affiliates splice in. They also get the vast majority of the ad revenue for the commercials played during non-prime time syndicated programming.
> 
> The business model for broadcast TV has always been ads. Only in the last decade or so, with the advent of the DVR and proliferation of OTT services, have they started to ramp up carriage fees in an effort to pad their bottom line.


Either Comcast or (more likely) the local affiliate has resorted to other measures to combat DVR usage - there was a "Georgia Natural Gas" banner ad in the middle of the most recent "iZombie". I doubt that it is the only one.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> How did they survive all of those years when they didn't charge the fee?





Dan203 said:


> That's not true. They survived for many years on advertising revenue. There are slots allocated during all prime time programming for local advertisements that the affiliates splice in. They also get the vast majority of the ad revenue for the commercials played during non-prime time syndicated programming.
> 
> The business model for broadcast TV has always been ads. Only in the last decade or so, with the advent of the DVR and proliferation of OTT services, have they started to ramp up carriage fees in an effort to pad their bottom line.


Slice1900 is correct.

You can only charge so much for advertising.

ESPN (and other cable channels) air just as many if not more commercials.

Yet one pays 6.50 for the main ESPN Channel and -around $8.50 for the ESPN bundle.

Compare that with the $3 for the local channels you pay on the bill noted above.

ESPN make 60% of their $10 Billion in revenue from that fee, 30% from TV ads and 10% from other (think online advertising etc).

That's why most of the Sports Coverage has moved to ESPN (only 1 of 30 some bowl games rights were not owned by ESPN).

Times have changed. Newspapers cost more to print than their edition price. Ad Revenue made up for it and more. No longer.

OTA TV had to go to dual revenue model because of all the money paid to cable channels that have taken eyeballs away that one cannot charge for any longer.

As Slice1900 pointed out, OTA would not survive any longer without this dual revenue model.


----------



## lpwcomp

Is ESPN available OTA? No. The comparison is invalid.


----------



## Brad Bishop

Dan203 said:


> That's not true. They survived for many years on advertising revenue. There are slots allocated during all prime time programming for local advertisements that the affiliates splice in. They also get the vast majority of the ad revenue for the commercials played during non-prime time syndicated programming.
> 
> The business model for broadcast TV has always been ads. Only in the last decade or so, with the advent of the DVR and proliferation of OTT services, have they started to ramp up carriage fees in an effort to pad their bottom line.


I think they face two problems:
1) cable TV popped up a few decades back and started taking eyeballs from them.
2) They decided that they'd just produce cheaper (reality TV) programming which, while it had some appeal early on, I think that appeal has dwindled. With it, though, goes reruns. I don't think reality TV really lends itself to reruns. It'd be like rerunning some NFL game from 6 months back. Yeah, you may get a few die-hards to watch it but most people wouldn't care. They kind of cut their own throat with the cheapening of their entertainment offerings.

Something else which I think is along the same "cut your own throat"-line: They slowly shift to almost a 1:1 ratio of content to advertising. If you go back and watch an old show from the early 1970s on Netflix, you'll notice that it's about 52min long. Watch a recent show and you'll get about 40min.

I think with this constant grab for money (more ads, poor programming, and, now, fees) that they kind of turned their viewers off. I think most people don't really notice the fees but I think there's a wane of interest in reality programming and people lose interest in a TV show when 1/3 of it is advertising (like they go away for 10min to ads and somewhere in there you're thinking, "Wait.. what was I watching, again?")

Granted, in the early 1970s there were essentially no VCRs (may have been a few for the super wealthy) and little competition except for 2 other networks, if they even had two other networks in their community (not all did).

To show just how bad TV has gotten (and this isn't network): The other night I happened to wake up and thought, "Let's see what the weather is for today." This was about 2AM. I turn on the Weather Channel.

For a moment I want to step back in time to what the Weather Channel used to be about: weather. I remember sitting around and we'd watch the silly channel and whatever weather was happening and go through the rotation of 'local's on the 8s'. It was just people up telling you the nation's weather for the day. Somehow that was interesting enough to where you'd just kind of leave it on. Almost how like back when CNN actually reported news that you'd just leave that on.

Anyway, 2AM and I turn on The Weather Channel and, while I forget what the show was called, it was a reality show following paranormal researchers who were tracking aliens coming to Earth to start up a bunch of tornados in Oklahoma. Read that again and think: Oh, it's the Weather Channel.

I think all of them are cutting their own throat on this stuff. The History Channel has nothing to do with actual History (only aliens, bigfoot, and other weirdness). CNN has little to do with news (it's just a bunch of talking heads talking crap - same with Fox or MSNBC). As they lose viewers, instead of going back to their roots and thinking, "Hey, maybe the Weather Channel ought to actually be about reporting the weather," or, "Hey, maybe the news channel ought to actually be about reporting the news," they just double down on the stupid decisions that got them to where they are in the first place.

It's like their thought process is: We made some bad decisions. The problem is that we haven't made enough bad decisions to really turn all of this around!


----------



## lpwcomp

One other thing: being carried on cable adds the eyes of viewers who would be unable to watch otherwise due to reception problems.


----------



## Brad Bishop

lpwcomp said:


> One other thing: being carried on cable adds the eyes of viewers who would be unable to watch otherwise due to reception problems.


The whole local networks being carried on cable for free always seemed like a win-win for both, to me. I don't understand why they'd want to screw that up other than that they just "can".


----------



## Dan203

Like I said there will come a tipping point where the eyeballs are more important to the networks then carrying the networks is to the cable companies. At that point the fees will start to drop and maybe even eventually disappear. Although the networks that ownboth OTA and cable channels, as well as syndicated content, will likely use that as leverage to keep the fees going longer then they should.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> I will repeat it still is all about the money. There are lots of parties involved in our current video production & delivery systems. Such as:
> Content Producers
> Content Resellers
> The Networks
> The distribution system providers (OTA, Cable, Satellite, Internet)
> The advertisers
> The Consumers
> All of the above have somewhat different interests and many companies are more than one of the above but for 1-5 the bottom line is still the same: IT IS THE MONEY.
> 
> We will have linear cable channels for as long as 1-5 above are making more money by having them than not having them. My guess is we will have some/most linear channels for an extended period of time and there will be a culling of some/a few, especially those that mostly broadcast re-runs. In any event VoD will only replace (as apposed to supplement) linear channels if the revenue can benefit #s 1-4 above.
> 
> Netfilx is primarily a re-seller of reruns. I agree that cable channels that also primarily do that are in danger in the long run. The amount of new content that Netflix, Amazon, & the rest is producing is a drop in the bucket (all of it isn't equivalent to one network) and designed to be just enough to keep people paying for re-runs.
> 
> Bottom line is we have not seen what a VoD model would have to look like that produced a significant amount of new content, had it delivered to us, and did not receive any revenue via a linear broadcast channel.
> 
> Future tech/Innovation always has the potential to disrupt existing markets so I do agree something could come along and blow up the whole thing, but I have not seen it yet.
> 
> Well contracts & terms and Government regulations (you know the ones requiring OTA Networks be rebroadcast on cable) are a big deal. But we are really back to the Money, if linear broadcasts are a workable/profitable model of satellite (meaning the advertisers are willing to pay) then those same linear channels will be on cable for the same reason because it is profitable for the people controlling the content.
> 
> My bottom line is simple VoD works great for everyone as a supplement to linear broadcasts. But I see no workable model being available anytime soon where VoD can replace linear broadcast and provide the required revenue to 1-4 above and be acceptable to the consumers. Which gets me back to how this all started, as long as there are linear broadcasts there will be a niche market of people who will want a DVR to record them.


lol. Vod will replace the DVR. VoD will take over linear broadcasting. That's what we're talking about. The premise is simple. It's much less hassle for the market.

YOu seem to agree, but then you (cloud) it with a bunch of noise like, 'it will only switch over to VoD if they make money' as if VoD tech doesn't allow anyone to charge anybody any money for anything.


----------



## trip1eX

lpwcomp said:


> IOW, you have no real data, just a set of assumptions. The answers to your questions tell me nothing about the true capacity of the network. I can do math as long as I have actual numbers.
> 
> Unless they are laying new fiber all the way back to the central office to support the additional nodes, splitting nodes does not increase the capacity of the network as a whole. Plus, as I alluded to previously, there's processing power and storage capacity to consider.


? What's not real about the data I gave you. Where are all the assumptions?

Plug in the bit rate of Netflix. Plug in your bandwidth. Plug in the fastest bandwidth package you can get from the cable company. Plug in all the extra potential bandwidth a cable company has that is being used by linear broadcasting. Plug in the cable company's ability to split nodes. Plug in technological progress.

You're only counter is that I didn't write a research report for you. You'll have to send a check if you want a report.


----------



## lpwcomp

The banner ad I mentioned above was done by the local affiliate since it was also there OTA. Well, I suppose it theoretically could have been by the network but I don't see Georgia National Gas buying a national ad.

BTW, same banner ad in "Supernatural".


----------



## Dan203

That's bad. They must seriously be hurting for money. I've seen overlays like that on a few shows, but usually advertising another show. I've never seen one advertising an actual business.


----------



## lpwcomp

trip1eX said:


> ? What's not real about the data I gave you. Where are all the assumptions?
> 
> Plug in the bit rate of Netflix. Plug in your bandwidth. Plug in the fastest bandwidth package you can get from the cable company. Plug in all the extra potential bandwidth a cable company has that is being used by linear broadcasting. Plug in the cable company's ability to split nodes. Plug in technological progress.
> 
> You're only counter is that I didn't write a research report for you. You'll have to send a check if you want a report.


I'm not asking about the bandwidth of an individual feed, I'm asking about the bandwidth of the provider's network as a whole. Your data says absolutely nothing about that.

Splitting a node does absolutely nothing to reduce the load on the network as whole.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> lol. Vod will replace the DVR. VoD will take over linear broadcasting. That's what we're talking about. The premise is simple. It's much less hassle for the market.
> 
> YOu seem to agree, but then you could it with a bunch of noise like, 'it will only switch over to VoD if they make money' as if VoD tech doesn't allow anyone to charge anybody any money for anything.


Money isn't noise, it is the reason things happen or don't happen (along with Government regulations). If content producers and cable companies allow linear broadcasts to go away and VoD to replace them it will only be because of money and major changes in Government regulations.

As I stated earlier on VoD has been around in one form or another for close to 40 years. The fact that we can now have VoD via the Internet is a great thing. Depending on how VoD via the Internet is implemented it certainly does have the potential to reduce DVR usage and even the total number of linear broadcast channels (frankly I never believed we could support hundreds of them anyway). But that is a long way from VoD replacing DVRs and all linear broadcast stations on cable. I just don't see that happening. And yes it is ultimately comes down to Government regulations and money both of which strongly favor linear broadcast channels being on cable for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Johncv

More Bull S**t from the big cable: 

Is there a petition somewhere that I sign in support of Wheeler's plan?

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/pay-tv-operators-say-nab-their-side-battle-against-fccs-allvid-proposal/2016-02-12?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokuq3Acu%2FhmjTEU5z17%2BkpWaawi4kz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMSMdjPLHYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3HJdQN18R7RhHnDg%3D%3D


----------



## Dan203

It's weird how much FUD there is out there about this. It's not a perfect plan, given all the various technologies at play in the industry, but all the stuff about privacy, child protection, emergency alerts, etc... just seems like BS the industry is using to muddy the waters and make it seem much more dire then it really is. 

If you look at it objectively you can see that the proposal *should* open up the market and allow *most* people to save money by eliminating leased equipment fees. However for some people, like those of us who need 6-12 tuners dedicated to a single device, it will likely cause prices to go up.


----------



## LoREvanescence

lpwcomp said:


> The banner ad I mentioned above was done by the local affiliate since it was also there OTA. Well, I suppose it theoretically could have been by the network but I don't see Georgia National Gas buying a national ad.
> 
> BTW, same banner ad in "Supernatural".


I saw my first Banner Add last night while watching The 100 on The CW.

It was in similar size to those banner ads on YouTube that appear on the bottom center of the screen.

The banner add I saw on the CW was for Geeco and was animated. It lasted about 30 seconds.

However, what was most annoying is it happened to air while there were subtitles because they were speaking in the "native language" of the grounders and the banner add covered up the subtitles so you couldn't read what they were saying.

I find that absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for.


----------



## gastrof

LoREvanescence said:


> I saw my first Banner Add last night while watching The 100 on The CW.
> 
> It was in similar size to those banner ads on YouTube that appear on the bottom center of the screen.
> 
> The banner add I saw on the CW was for Geeco and was animated. It lasted about 30 seconds.
> 
> However, what was most annoying is it happened to air while there were subtitles because they were speaking in the "native language" of the grounders and the banner add covered up the subtitles so you couldn't read what they were saying.
> 
> I find that absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for.


If it's from the station itself, contacting the network and describing how they obscured needed visual information will get the CW after them.

Our local affiliate began running SMALLVILLE cropped to 4x3 on their SD channel during the digital changeover. (The show hadn't been in 4x3 since I think the first season. It'd been letterboxed since then.) I contacted the CW and complained. (The opening credits sure looked good cropped down to "Mallvill".)

The station very quickly relented and went back to airing it letterboxed.

I don't think the networks like it when local stations mess with their programming.


----------



## lpwcomp

I find it difficult to believe that two CW stations decided to insert local banner ads w/o getting authorization from the network. Complaining to the network might work but it won't be because the stations exceeded their authority.


----------



## trip1eX

lpwcomp said:


> I'm not asking about the bandwidth of an individual feed, I'm asking about the bandwidth of the provider's network as a whole. Your data says absolutely nothing about that.
> 
> Splitting a node does absolutely nothing to reduce the load on the network as whole.


So I guess you had nothing to say?


----------



## lpwcomp

trip1eX said:


> So I guess you had nothing to say?


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> Money isn't noise, it is the reason things happen or don't happen (along with Government regulations). If content producers and cable companies allow linear broadcasts to go away and VoD to replace them it will only be because of money and major changes in Government regulations.
> 
> As I stated earlier on VoD has been around in one form or another for close to 40 years. The fact that we can now have VoD via the Internet is a great thing. Depending on how VoD via the Internet is implemented it certainly does have the potential to reduce DVR usage and even the total number of linear broadcast channels (frankly I never believed we could support hundreds of them anyway). But that is a long way from VoD replacing DVRs and all linear broadcast stations on cable. I just don't see that happening. And yes it is ultimately comes down to Government regulations and money both of which strongly favor linear broadcast channels being on cable for the foreseeable future.


It's going to replace the dvr because there is no reason for it not too.

Content producers and cable companies don't care whether the content is distributed via VoD or linear. They will go where customer demand goes.

VoD doesn't mean free or a cheaper price.

The overall point is that VoD is ultimately less of a hassle for the masses than the dvr and it is less of a hassle than linear tv. There is no reason for it not to take over. No one said who is going to be in control of the VoD future.

No one said it is happening tomorrow. But you can see that it is going to happen eventually.

SEems rather obvious to me. Why would anyone not want to just get on their tv and watch what they want when they want without having to record anything? The market wants that.

There are those that fear they would have to watch commercials with no options. But there is no reason for a company not to offer a customer a commercial free option. Besides, watching commercial free tv for ad-supported prices was never sustainable in the long run.


----------



## lessd

trip1eX said:


> SEems rather obvious to me. Why would anyone not want to just get on their tv and watch what they want when they want without having to record anything? The market wants that.


You would have to know what you wanted to watch, no so easy if you only had VOD, The few times I have used VOD because I screw up or something else screw up a program I wanted to watch, I hated it without fast forward. But that just me, other may feel different about VOD. Turning off and on CC in VOD is a real pain with the TiVo, unless I am missing something.


----------



## Sonyad

lessd said:


> You would have to know what you wanted to watch, no so easy if you only had VOD, The few times I have used VOD because I screw up or something else screw up a program I wanted to watch, I hated it without fast forward. But that just me, other may feel different about VOD. Turning off and on CC in VOD is a real pain with the TiVo, unless I am missing something.


Seriously. I'm out of town using VOD to watch the current season of X-files. I've had to restart one episode 4 times so far because I've fallen asleep. Having to restart the show from the start and waste time through the commercials is no substitute for a DVR. If I was at home I would just fast forward to the few minutes I missed and be done with it. VOD is great in a pinch if your show happens to be available, but that's it.

I have a lot of impromptu recordings on my Tivo, also some saved from Tivo suggestions. As you say, how can VOD address that.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> It's going to replace the dvr because there is no reason for it not too.


That's funny plenty of people around here that don't want to replace their DVR with VoD. I guess people wanting a DVR isn't a reason to have DVRs.



trip1eX said:


> Content producers and cable companies don't care whether the content is distributed via VoD or linear. They will go where customer demand goes.


Well we are back to money and Government regulations again, which still both point to linear broadcast stations on cable.



trip1eX said:


> VoD doesn't mean free or a cheaper price.


Correct, we currently have a model where VoD is a supplement too and supported by linear broadcast stations. Until we see what a model would look like without linear broadcast stations we have no idea if consumers will find that preferable to linear broadcasts with VoD. When thinking about this just remember the reason people like VoD now is because it is cheap or free.



trip1eX said:


> The overall point is that VoD is ultimately less of a hassle for the masses than the dvr and it is less of a hassle than linear tv. There is no reason for it not to take over. No one said who is going to be in control of the VoD future.


Until we see what a world with only VoD looks like none of what you said can be assumed to be true. In fact I assume it is not true.



trip1eX said:


> No one said it is happening tomorrow. But you can see that it is going to happen eventually.
> 
> SEems rather obvious to me. Why would anyone not want to just get on their tv and watch what they want when they want without having to record anything? The market wants that.


Well the world is going to end someday too. Which means as much as your statement. You have no idea that the market wants a VoD only delivery system because we don't know what it would look like so there is no way to know if the market would prefer that over what we have now.



trip1eX said:


> There are those that fear they would have to watch commercials with no options. But there is no reason for a company not to offer a customer a commercial free option. Besides, watching commercial free tv for ad-supported prices was never sustainable in the long run.


I do not agree that we have reach a point where the masses are not watching enough commercials to keep advertisers happy. If the the advertisers become unhappy, they will force change, I don't know what the change will be. It could be paring down the number of stations basically playing re-runs or it could be something more radical, earlier on I posted about TW Inc. looking at buying into Hulu to alter it and protect revenue. Effectively altering VoD to protect linear broadcast revenue.


----------



## humbb

lessd said:


> Turning off and on CC in VOD is a real pain with the TiVo, unless I am missing something.


Not a problem for me using XOD: While an OD program plays, press "Info" to bring up an Info box with a CC toggle control. If you don't see it, press "Info" a second time. That should do it.


----------



## Johncv

trip1eX said:


> It's going to replace the DVR because there is no reason for it not too.
> 
> Content producers and cable companies don't care whether the content is distributed via VoD or linear. They will go where customer demand goes.
> 
> VoD doesn't mean free or a cheaper price.
> 
> The overall point is that VoD is ultimately less of a hassle for the masses than the DVR and it is less of a hassle than linear tv. There is no reason for it not to take over. No one said who is going to be in control of the VoD future.
> 
> No one said it is happening tomorrow. But you can see that it is going to happen eventually.
> 
> Seems rather obvious to me. Why would anyone not want to just get on their tv and watch what they want when they want without having to record anything? The market wants that.
> 
> There are those that fear they would have to watch commercials with no options. But there is no reason for a company not to offer a customer a commercial free option. Besides, watching commercial free tv for ad-supported prices was never sustainable in the long run.


If that the case (VoD is going to "takeover"), the only four players are going to be on top, Netflix, Hula, and HBO and Amazon. The "others" will be lucky to receive any subscribers. I just read that CBS is considering an ad-free version of their VoD app.


----------



## Diana Collins

atmuscarella said:


> ...I do not agree that we have reach a point where the masses are not watching enough commercials to keep advertisers happy. If the the advertisers become unhappy, they will force change, I don't know what the change will be...


They have already become "unhappy" with the number of viewers that don't watch commercials. The "change" is that they don't pay what the networks would like for commercial time by discounting the Nielsen numbers to compensate for DVR viewers. That's why nearly every channel is constantly raising their carriage fees, and why our cable and satellite bills are so high. Since the networks can't squeeze any more money out of advertisers, they are raising rates to the viewers to make it up.

Ironically, it was the DVR that started the death spiral of linear broadcasting: it reduced the number of "impressions" broadcasters delivered to advertisers, which (once the numbers became noticeable) reduced advertising revenue, which forced the broadcasters to raise the rates charged to cable and satellite operators, which raised our rates, which cause people to reduce or eliminate their cable subscriptions, which further reduces revenue. Add in that the DVR has trained a generation of viewers that you can watch whatever you want whenever you want, and the days of linear broadcasting are clearly numbered.

The price for content just keeps going up, and cable bills will keep rising as a smaller and smaller group of viewers must support the old system. Meanwhile, non-linear systems like Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, HBO Now, etc. are growing and collecting ever larger numbers of subscribers to support their content. At some point, the old model will just collapse under its own weight and the only thing using linear "broadcasting" will be news and sports. Everything else will be on demand.


----------



## lessd

humbb said:


> Not a problem for me using XOD: While an OD program plays, press "Info" to bring up an Info box with a CC toggle control. If you don't see it, press "Info" a second time. That should do it.


That works great when watching a TiVo recording, but I will have to try that using XVOD.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lpwcomp said:


> Is ESPN available OTA? No. The comparison is invalid.


As only ~12% of households view OTA, you are the only one to realize that cable and OTA are synonymous at this point.

Again, without retransmission, anything left worth watching would be on cable at much higher rates and more commercials than you see now.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Johncv said:


> If that the case (VoD is going to "takeover"), the only four players are going to be on top, Netflix, Hula, and HBO and Amazon. The "others" will be lucky to receive any subscribers. I just read that CBS is considering an ad-free version of their VoD app.


No, cable still has VOD of current season and may be last man standing with that.

CBS stated they had looked at $4 on top of their $5.99 non-sports model for commercial free VOD, but they are not moving forward as Hulu's commercial free tier is a bust.


----------



## LoREvanescence

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No, cable still has VOD of current season and may be last man standing with that.
> 
> CBS stated they had looked at $4 on top of their $5.99 non-sports model for commercial free VOD, but they are not moving forward as Hulu's commercial free tier is a bust.


Is that why I have been noticing less and less full seasons available on Netflix and Hulu.

Also, what's up with this? Is this related to why this is happening? All CW Programs take a week or from the Air Date to show up On Demand or available on the iTunes Store for Purchase. They are only available on The CW app until the next episode airs. They are keeping On Demand / the iTunes store 1 episode behind current.

The beginning of January I could not find any information on when The 100 would air. All I could find was "Mid Season 2016". The guide on my X1 had no data on shows airing on the CW, only showed previous seasons with episodes available to purchase at $2.99 a piece from streampix.

All the sudden I found out it's been on and I missed the first 3 episodes. The first 2 were available on Demand, but not the third. And the first 2 were the only ones on the iTunes Store as well. Episode 3 I could only get on the iOS CW App and mirror to my Apple TV. I bought a season pass with season 3 of The 100 on the iTunes store. I own the other two seasons as well. In the past I always got the episodes downloaded the following day after it aired. This season, the season pass gives them to me the day after the next episode airs. Always one episode behind current.

I noticed the same is true for Legends of Tomorrow as well.


----------



## trip1eX

lessd said:


> You would have to know what you wanted to watch, no so easy if you only had VOD, The few times I have used VOD because I screw up or something else screw up a program I wanted to watch, I hated it without fast forward. But that just me, other may feel different about VOD. Turning off and on CC in VOD is a real pain with the TiVo, unless I am missing something.


You have to figure what to watch on Tivo. I don't see a difference compared to VoD except you have to first record the stuff on your Tivo.

The difficulty of turning CC on/off doesn't seem like a problem inherent to VoD tech.

FF isn't as good in some ways on a VoD system as on a Tivo because the content isn't local. Thus the responsiveness will probably never be quite as good in many ways.

But there are tricks that VoD already uses to make up for this. For example, NEtflix uses thumbnails when you want to skip thru alot of content. Those thumbnails very well may be cached. But they allow you to quickly find a specific place in a show and I'd say they work better in some ways than using FF on Tivo.

also I'd have to say the vast majority of my use of FF on Tivo is for skipping commercials. That strikes me as the norm although a ton of people probably don't even use it for that.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> That's funny plenty of people around here that don't want to replace their DVR with VoD. I guess people wanting a DVR isn't a reason to have DVRs.


We're talking the market. Obviously there are a few that swear they will keep their dvrs until they pry them from their cold dead hands. 



atmuscarella said:


> Well we are back to money and Government regulations again, which still both point to linear broadcast stations on cable.


YOu're making some 'besides the pt' strawman argument. It's meaningless in this discussion.



atmuscarella said:


> Correct, we currently have a model where VoD is a supplement too and supported by linear broadcast stations. Until we see what a model would look like without linear broadcast stations we have no idea if consumers will find that preferable to linear broadcasts with VoD. When thinking about this just remember the reason people like VoD now is because it is cheap or free.
> 
> Until we see what a world with only VoD looks like none of what you said can be assumed to be true. In fact I assume it is not true.


Except you gave no reason why VoD tech wouldn't take over. VoD does everything the dvr does without having to deal with recordings and the hassle that comes with that.



atmuscarella said:


> Well the world is going to end someday too. Which means as much as your statement. You have no idea that the market wants a VoD only delivery system because we don't know what it would look like so there is no way to know if the market would prefer that over what we have now.


Again I don't think you are listing any good reasons why VoD wouldn't take over. I know some of the capabilities of the tech. I can see some of it in action right now. And I can see how it is less hassle to click a show and watch it then to first remember to record it, prioritize it, make sure there isn't a conflict, make sure you have enough room, find the show in your recording pile, watch it, then delete it. And then hope it gets recorded in the first place. Hope it doesn't get pre-empted or that the guide listings are correct in the first place.



atmuscarella said:


> I do not agree that we have reach a point where the masses are not watching enough commercials to keep advertisers happy. If the the advertisers become unhappy, they will force change, I don't know what the change will be. It could be paring down the number of stations basically playing re-runs or it could be something more radical, earlier on I posted about TW Inc. looking at buying into Hulu to alter it and protect revenue. Effectively altering VoD to protect linear broadcast revenue.


The fewer people that watch the commercials the less ad revenue collected. So either you see higher prices or cheaper shows.

And the ad skipping capabilities are only getting easier for the consumer. We all know the new Tivo Bolt lets you press the skip button just once to bypass an entire block of commercials.

This doesn't seem go hand in hand with the linear broadcasting business model. It seems at odds with it. It makes the current business model not seem sustainable in the long run the more people that do this. It seems to me that VoD can protect revenue by making sure those that select a commercial-supported option are shown commercials and those that don't want commercials pay the appropriate higher pricepoint.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> Except you gave no reason why VoD tech wouldn't take over. VoD does everything the dvr does without having to deal with recordings and the hassle that comes with that.


VoD is lower bandwidth than the linear channels....thus, it does not look as good as the linear channels do.


----------



## randian

trip1eX said:


> VoD does everything the dvr does without having to deal with recordings and the hassle that comes with that.


That's only true so long as you don't care about mandatory commercials, inability to fast forward or fast rewind, episodes expiring before you get around to watch them, and missing/delayed episodes because the networks are jerks who want you to watch on their schedule not yours. With OnePasses recordings are no hassle at all. So yeah, other than the good things VoD doesn't do it does everything a DVR does.

Fragmentation is a big problem right now because you need a bunch of different VoD services and some of them (Sling TV) are IMO useless because you can only watch live. Can you imagine if every channel went with their own VoD service like CBS All Access is trying to do?

I can easily see the networks trying to force you watch to live if they can eliminate DVRs and they control how your VoD software works, plus every channel is going to have its own idea of how it works, which features are disabled, and what the UI looks like.


----------



## trip1eX

randian said:


> That's only true so long as you don't care about mandatory commercials, inability to fast forward or fast rewind, episodes expiring before you get around to watch them, and missing/delayed episodes because the networks are jerks who want you to watch on their schedule not yours. With OnePasses recordings are no hassle at all. So yeah, other than the good things VoD doesn't do it does everything a DVR does.


I like skipping ads and paying ad-supported prices for tv. It just was never realistically sustainable in the long run. And no reason you can't be offered a commercial free option in VoD.

YOu can skip through shows forward or backward pretty quickly using the thumbnails that a service like Netflix uses. This area has been improved quite a bit. Might be faster than Tivo at least in some uses cases. It's a different way of doing things though. And I would have to think most people aren't doing a ton of ff/rw outside of skipping commercials in the first place.

I don't think expiring episodes, or the possibility of that, is any kind of show stopper for the market given the vast majority of people don't appear to be archiving shows for watching years later. Plus I don't think assuming the worst is that reasonable. There's been some data that says having access to old episodes from a service like Netflix has helped current cable shows flourish.



randian said:


> Fragmentation is a big problem right now because you need a bunch of different VoD services and some of them (Sling TV) are IMO useless because you can only watch live. Can you imagine if every channel went with their own VoD service like CBS All Access is trying to do?
> 
> I can easily see the networks trying to force you watch to live if they can eliminate DVRs and they control how your VoD software works, plus every channel is going to have its own idea of how it works, which features are disabled, and what the UI looks like.


Fragmentation isn't an inherent limitation of VoD. And would be easily solvable. Tivo itself is already able to aggregate some OTT services. Apple is gaining that capability as well. IF the cable company wins the VoD wars then it would already be aggregated.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> We're talking the market. Obviously there are a few that swear they will keep their dvrs until they pry them from their cold dead hands.


If the market will continue to want DVRs depends on how VoD is provided. Under the current system (linear broadcasts, supplemented by VoD) I would guess DVR usage will go down but market demand will not go away.



trip1eX said:


> YOu're making some 'besides the pt' strawman argument. It's meaningless in this discussion.


Government regulations and Money are not beside the point. They are the ONLY 2 things that will decide if current system of linear broadcasts supplemented with VoD will continue or if it will be replaced by some type of VoD only system.



trip1eX said:


> Except you gave no reason why VoD tech wouldn't take over. VoD does everything the dvr does without having to deal with recordings and the hassle that comes with that.


 Read randian's post. It is technically possible to develop a VoD system that can do everything a DVR does, however until we actually see what replacing all linear channels with a VoD system looks like we have no idea if it will be able to do any where near what a DVR can do. My guess is it will not.



trip1eX said:


> Again I don't think you are listing any good reasons why VoD wouldn't take over. I know some of the capabilities of the tech. I can see some of it in action right now. And I can see how it is less hassle to click a show and watch it then to first remember to record it, prioritize it, make sure there isn't a conflict, make sure you have enough room, find the show in your recording pile, watch it, then delete it. And then hope it gets recorded in the first place. Hope it doesn't get pre-empted or that the guide listings are correct in the first place.


Well I have listed plenty of good reasons multiple time, if what you are looking for is a technical reason I don't know enough about any of this tech to talk about it. However in the end the tech will not decide what happens. So I will list the Good reasons again:
Current Government regulation effective prohibit eliminating linear broadcast channels from cable. 
All the of these players have to see either a financial benefit or at least no financial downside from changing from a linear broadcast with VoD system to a VoD only system.:
Content Providers
Content Resellers
The Networks
The distribution system providers (OTA, Cable, Satellite, Internet)
None of these groups are promoting eliminating linear broadcasts and in fact some are taking aggressive steps to protect linear broadcast. 
The 2 groups paying for all of this (consumers & advertisers) will need to want a VoD only system over the current linear broadcast supplemented by VoD system. I can not speak for advertisers at all, but as far as consumers are concerned until we see what the actually VoD only system looks like it is impossible to say they will prefer that over what we have now. So nothing can be said about consumer preference at this point.



trip1eX said:


> The fewer people that watch the commercials the less ad revenue collected. So either you see higher prices or cheaper shows.
> 
> And the ad skipping capabilities are only getting easier for the consumer. We all know the new Tivo Bolt lets you press the skip button just once to bypass an entire block of commercials.
> 
> This doesn't seem go hand in hand with the linear broadcasting business model. It seems at odds with it. It makes the current business model not seem sustainable in the long run the more people that do this. It seems to me that VoD can protect revenue by making sure those that select a commercial-supported option are shown commercials and those that don't want commercials pay the appropriate higher pricepoint.


The networks are taking moves to protect ad revenue, that is why Dish has been forced to move auto skip out to 7 days and TW Inc. is looking to change when Hulu makes shows available. If the whole system gets blown up (which is what converting to a VoD only system would be) is certainly a possibility - I just don't consider it a probability. What I expect is what we have now, a linear broadcast cable model supplemented by VoD. There will be more testing of VoD subscription services, but there will be a significant and sufficient number of households that stay with Pay TV as is to retain the linear broadcast cable model. There really is too much risk involved for everyone for anything else to happen.


----------



## trip1eX

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> VoD is lower bandwidth than the linear channels....thus, it does not look as good as the linear channels do.


Netflix has more efficient compression. It doesn't need as much bandwidth. And in my experience Netflix looks as good as most cable channels most of the time.

There is nothing inherent about VoD that says it has to have lower picture quality.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> If the market will continue to want DVRs depends on how VoD is provided. Under the current system (linear broadcasts, supplemented by VoD) I would guess DVR usage will go down but market demand will not go away.


strawman argument. NO one said VoD will take over even if it is horse****.



atmuscarella said:


> If
> Government regulations and Money are not beside the point. They are the ONLY 2 things that will decide if current system of linear broadcasts supplemented with VoD will continue or if it will be replaced by some type of VoD only system.


Strawman argument. No one said lots of money isn't going to be made off VoD.

No one said that VoD taking over will require or won't require government regulations.



atmuscarella said:


> Read randian's post. It is technically possible to develop a VoD system that can do everything a DVR does, however until we actually see what replacing all linear channels with a VoD system looks like we have no idea if it will be able to do any where near what a DVR can do. My guess is it will not.


lol. We know what VoD can do because it exists today in the market. We know you don't need linear channels to watch a ton of content. YOur paragraph doesn't make any sense.



atmuscarella said:


> Well I have listed plenty of good reasons multiple time, if what you are looking for is a technical reason I don't know enough about any of this tech to talk about it. However in the end the tech will not decide what happens. So I will list the Good reasons again:
> Current Government regulation effective prohibit eliminating linear broadcast channels from cable.
> All the of these players have to see either a financial benefit or at least no financial downside from changing from a linear broadcast with VoD system to a VoD only system.:
> Content Providers
> Content Resellers
> The Networks
> The distribution system providers (OTA, Cable, Satellite, Internet)
> None of these groups are promoting eliminating linear broadcasts and in fact some are taking aggressive steps to protect linear broadcast.
> The 2 groups paying for all of this (consumers & advertisers) will need to want a VoD only system over the current linear broadcast supplemented by VoD system. I can not speak for advertisers at all, but as far as consumers are concerned until we see what the actually VoD only system looks like it is impossible to say they will prefer that over what we have now. So nothing can be said about consumer preference at this point.


This is a strawman argument . Much of this has nothing to do with why VoD takes over. No one said again that we will or will not need government regulation for this to be fully realized. No one said who is going to control VoD in the future so who gets money or loses money is anyone's guess. I will say that usually new companies (new leaders) emerge in cases of a large disruption in business.

Also I'd say you're dead wrong about these "groups" taking steps to protect linear broadcast. I see the complete opposite. They are and have been putting more content into the VoD space.



atmuscarella said:


> The networks are taking moves to protect ad revenue, that is why Dish has been forced to move auto skip out to 7 days and TW Inc. is looking to change when Hulu makes shows available. If the whole system gets blown up (which is what converting to a VoD only system would be) is certainly a possibility - I just don't consider it a probability. What I expect is what we have now, a linear broadcast cable model supplemented by VoD. There will be more testing of VoD subscription services, but there will be a significant and sufficient number of households that stay with Pay TV as is to retain the linear broadcast cable model. There really is too much risk involved for everyone for anything else to happen.


Networks protecting ad revenue is a case for VoD and a case against the dvr. Your talk about TW hijacking Hulu for its own needs is a rumor. You can't use a wild rumor as a reason. And the rumor doesn't make a ton of sense at that.

TW, Inc is the company owns HBO and recently released HBO direct to the public via an OTT VoD service called HBO Now. That's not a rumor. That's a move towards VoD.


----------



## randian

trip1eX said:


> I don't think expiring episodes, or the possibility of that, is any kind of show stopper for the market given the vast majority of people don't appear to be archiving shows for watching years later.


Years later? Maybe not, but I frequently archive to shows to binge watch a few months later during down times because I record more hours in a week than I can reasonably watch in a timely manner.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> strawman argument. NO one said VoD will take over even if it is horse****.


The current system is a known item - Claiming your undefined unknown mythical VoD only system is going to be better and replace it is what is horse****. Lets be very clear without the current broadcast system Netflix, Hulu, & even Amazon models don't exist in their current form either - if you don't understand that I can not help you.



trip1eX said:


> Strawman argument. No one said lots of money isn't going to be made off VoD.
> 
> No one said that VoD taking over will require or won't require government regulations.


Sorry your undefined, unknown, mythical VoD only no broadcast linear channels on cable system can only happen if the laws are changed. So it is a deciding factor if it can or will happen.



trip1eX said:


> lol. We know what VoD can do because it exists today in the market. We know you don't need linear channels to watch a ton of content. YOur paragraph doesn't make any sense.


You know what the tech can do. You do not know what replacing our current linear broadcasting system with a VoD only system would require or look like.



trip1eX said:


> This is a strawman argument . Much of this has nothing to do with why VoD takes over. No one said again that we will or will not need government regulation for this to be fully realized. No one said who is going to control VoD in the future so who gets money or loses money is anyone's guess. I will say that usually new companies (new leaders) emerge in cases of a large disruption in business.


Well if you don't think all the things I have said will have anything to do with if the current linear broadcasts system is replaced by a VoD system or not perhaps you should say why and what you think will. Just saying the market is going to be disrupted means nothing. For a market to be disrupted consumers have to find the product significantly super to the current product. Given you haven't provided any details on what this mythical VoD system is that is going to be found massively superior to our current linear broadcast with supplemental VoD system by the consumer, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for your disruption. Lets be very clear here we are not taking about linear broadcasts versus VoD we are taking replacing the current Linear broadcast supplemented with VoD system with a stand alone VoD only system.



trip1eX said:


> Also I'd say you're dead wrong about these "groups" taking steps to protect linear broadcast. I see the complete opposite. They are and have been putting more content into the VoD space.
> 
> Networks protecting ad revenue is a case for VoD and a case against the dvr. Your talk about TW hijacking Hulu for its own needs is a rumor. You can't use a wild rumor as a reason. And the rumor doesn't make a ton of sense at that.
> 
> TW, Inc is the company owns HBO and recently released HBO direct to the public via an OTT VoD service called HBO Now. That's not a rumor. That's a move towards VoD.


Well I actually find it more than logical for all the players to use VoD in anyway that enhances their revenue streams. HBO, that you mentioned is a good example of this. They are not replacing their linear broadcasts with VoD, they use VoD to enhance their linear broadcasts and expand their market availability to those who are not part of the 96+/- million households with a Pay TV subscription. Why you think the market would prefer to be forced to only have VoD and have the linear broadcasts take away or how that disrupts the market is beyond me.

The fact that companies use VoD to enhance their revenue is a long way for concluding they would be good with or are trying to eliminate their current revenue streams. And if you don't get that all the actions taken against Dish's skip function where to protect the revenue from their linear broadcast stations then we should just stop talking.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> The current system is a known item - Claiming your undefined unknown mythical VoD only system is going to be better and replace it is what is horse****. Lets be very clear without the current broadcast system Netflix, Hulu, & even Amazon models don't exist in their current form either - if you don't understand that I can not help you.


OF course VoD will be better. What's not obviously better about paying less for equipment. Not having to record stuff. Watching what you want when you want. etc. Just because it doesn't exist in its final form today doesn't mean these advantages aren't readily apparent today.



atmuscarella said:


> Sorry your undefined, unknown, mythical VoD only no broadcast linear channels on cable system can only happen if the laws are changed. So it is a deciding factor if it can or will happen.


That's just not true. It may or may not need regulation. But I made no claim either way so it's a strawman argument.



atmuscarella said:


> You know what the tech can do. You do not know what replacing our current linear broadcasting system with a VoD only system would require or look like.


Yes and again this is a strawman argument. I never made the opposite argument to this which is I never claimed to know every detail/requirement of VoD 10 years from now. And again the advantages of VoD seem readily apparent today at this relatively early stage.



atmuscarella said:


> Well if you don't think all the things I have said will have anything to do with if the current linear broadcasts system is replaced by a VoD system or not perhaps you should say why and what you think will.


 IT doesn't really matter how VoD takes over when the point is that it takes over. I think, no matter if there is government regulation or not, and no matter if cable is still in its dominant position or OTT services become the standard, that VoD takes over



atmuscarella said:


> Just saying the market is going to be disrupted means nothing. For a market to be disrupted consumers have to find the product significantly super to the current product. Given you haven't provided any details on what this mythical VoD system is that is going to be found massively superior to our current linear broadcast with supplemental VoD system by the consumer, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for your disruption. Lets be very clear here we are not taking about linear broadcasts versus VoD we are taking replacing the current Linear broadcast supplemented with VoD system with a stand alone VoD only system.


I've listed reasons why VoD is a better experience for the market a few times over now.



atmuscarella said:


> Well I actually find it more than logical for all the players to use VoD in anyway that enhances their revenue streams. HBO, that you mentioned is a good example of this. They are not replacing their linear broadcasts with VoD, they use VoD to enhance their linear broadcasts and expand their market availability to those who are not part of the 96+/- million households with a Pay TV subscription. Why you think the market would prefer to be forced to only have VoD and have the linear broadcasts take away or how that disrupts the market is beyond me.


Again no one said the market is going to be forced to switch over. The market is going to continue to choose VoD options where they are presented. And VoD options have only grown over the past 5 years. That's where things are headed.

And HBO wouldn't release HBO Now if Time Warner Inc wanted to protect their cable revenue streams because it is also a way for those customers, who only subscribed to cable/satellite in order to get HBO, to ditch those cable/satellite subscriptions.

And the mention of HBO Now reaching consumers who don't subscribe to cable/satellite is just more evidence of VoD taking over. It says to consumers you don't need cable/satellite to get this great HBO content. YOu don't need a dvr to watch whatever whenever. It is yet another VoD option for customers.



atmuscarella said:


> The fact that companies use VoD to enhance their revenue is a long way for concluding they would be good with or are trying to eliminate their current revenue streams. And if you don't get that all the actions taken against Dish's skip function where to protect the revenue from their linear broadcast stations then we should just stop talking.


No one said companies are trying to eliminate their current revenue streams. HBO doesn't care if their sub money comes from HBO Now or from cable/satellite subs. If all their customers switched over to HBO Now they won't make less money afaik. They might even be happier if that happened.

And the actions taken against Dish's skip function have nothing whatsoever to do with VoD. IF anything, the Dish Skip function example is an example of the dvr/advertising-supported cable subscription model not being sustainable.


----------



## trip1eX

randian said:


> Years later? Maybe not, but I frequently archive to shows to binge watch a few months later during down times because I record more hours in a week than I can reasonably watch in a timely manner.


I don't think anyone offering original content in a VoD service is going to pull episodes from it after a few months. It doesn't strike me as a reasonable thing to do or a way to maintain subscribers. I don't think it would be the norm at all. Could it happen? Sure there is always a chance I guess. But I don't see a ton of logic in that. It would all depend on the total value though. There's alot of possible business models to be explored. Possibly one could pay less for a service if it didn't include a back catalog.


----------



## lessd

trip1eX said:


> You have to figure what to watch on Tivo. I don't see a difference compared to VoD except you have to first record the stuff on your Tivo.


Once I figure out what programs I want I get a season pass and forget about it, when I go to my shows I only get want I wanted, VOD is a big list, and not in my order, and if I don't get to watch something quickly on my TiVo it will never go away (I have a big disk). I can't control when any VOD may go away, or even know. At least with Netflix you make up your own list.
For me Netflix is the only streaming service that makes sense, for a few things You Tube is ok but still harder to use than Netflix. I still find it a pain to find the current Bill Maher overtime after his Friday show, after I find it I tried to subscribe to overtime but it goes back to the old ones, just not easy unless I am missing something about using You Tube.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> Netflix has more efficient compression. It doesn't need as much bandwidth. And in my experience Netflix looks as good as most cable channels most of the time.
> 
> There is nothing inherent about VoD that says it has to have lower picture quality.


Again, HBO, Starz, Showtime, Epix etc all have lower bandwidth VoD and quality than their linear channels.

Please point me towards the Netflix Linear Channel....it is not on any MVPD I am aware of


----------



## atmuscarella

I am not debating the merits of VoD compared to Linear Broadcasts. I personally prefer VoD over linear broadcasts, which is why I have a DVR, and use it to create my own VoD library.

I am debating the merits and likelihood of having our current system of linear broadcasts being supplemented by various forms of VoD being replaced by a system that only uses VoD demand.

The only straw man running around with his paints on fire is when you keep diverting my comments about a full system change to the generic (and therefor nearly meaningless) term VoD to try an say my comments are irrelevant.

And now because we are having so much fun  I will respond to your individual responses further.



trip1eX said:


> OF course VoD will be better. What's not obviously better about paying less for equipment. Not having to record stuff. Watching what you want when you want. etc. Just because it doesn't exist in its final form today doesn't mean these advantages aren't readily apparent today.


The straw man's paints are on fire ! I didn't say anything about VoD, I said an unknown system that only uses VoD is not necessarily better than the one we have now that uses linear broadcasts and various forms of VoD.



trip1eX said:


> That's just not true. It may or may not need regulation. But I made no claim either way so it's a strawman argument.


As it pertains to what I have been talking about, what I said is true.



trip1eX said:


> Yes and again this is a strawman argument. I never made the opposite argument to this which is I never claimed to know every detail/requirement of VoD 10 years from now. And again the advantages of VoD seem readily apparent today at this relatively early stage.


I am talking about the merits of a full on system change (linear broadcast with VoD to VoD only) if you are not, then you are correct and we should redefine what we are talking about.



trip1eX said:


> IT doesn't really matter how VoD takes over when the point is that it takes over. I think, no matter if there is government regulation or not, and no matter if cable is still in its dominant position or OTT services become the standard, that VoD takes over


I guess that depends on what you mean by "takes over", I have taken your statements to mean replace. If that is what you mean then everything I have been talking about is relevant because we are talking about a system change. If you mean the system we have now stays in place and there is just a shift in the volume of video consumed via VoD options then it is a whole different conversation.



trip1eX said:


> I've listed reasons why VoD is a better experience for the market a few times over now.


And again I am and was not talking about VoD - I am and was talking about a system change. Until consumers can see what a system that is only VoD is there is no way to determine that is better than our current system. My belief is it would not be better.



trip1eX said:


> Again no one said the market is going to be forced to switch over. The market is going to continue to choose VoD options where they are presented. And VoD options have only grown over the past 5 years. That's where things are headed.


The market has been choosing to add VoD to the way they watch video since the day the first video tape player was released. My responses are to my perception that you are claiming linear broadcast will no longer exist on cable. If all we are talking about is that consumers like VoD and will likely continue to consume more video via various VoD methods, I am guessing we have nothing to talk about.



trip1eX said:


> And HBO wouldn't release HBO Now if Time Warner Inc wanted to protect their cable revenue streams because it is also a way for those customers, who only subscribed to cable/satellite in order to get HBO, to ditch those cable/satellite subscriptions.
> 
> And the mention of HBO Now reaching consumers who don't subscribe to cable/satellite is just more evidence of VoD taking over. It says to consumers you don't need cable/satellite to get this great HBO content. YOu don't need a dvr to watch whatever whenever. It is yet another VoD option for customers.


HBO isn't an add supported service, so yes TW Inc. likely doesn't care who anyone subs through. How many people are going to drop cable because they can get HBO without cable is another question and discussion as is what cable's response will be if they become concerned.



trip1eX said:


> No one said companies are trying to eliminate their current revenue streams. HBO doesn't care if their sub money comes from HBO Now or from cable/satellite subs. If all their customers switched over to HBO Now they won't make less money afaik. They might even be happier if that happened.
> 
> And the actions taken against Dish's skip function have nothing whatsoever to do with VoD. IF anything, the Dish Skip function example is an example of the dvr/advertising-supported cable subscription model not being sustainable.


What Dish & Direct have done and are doing with DVRs to complete with cable is an interesting discussion. Unlike TiVo their DVR numbers may matter to advertisers and unlike cable who will still have a role to play in the system even if linear broadcast where replaced by VoD, what happens to Satellite without linear broadcasts? AT&T just made a big purchase by buying Direct, seems they must believe linear broadcast are not going away anytime soon.


----------



## trip1eX

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, HBO, Starz, Showtime, Epix etc all have lower bandwidth VoD and quality than their linear channels.
> 
> Please point me towards the Netflix Linear Channel....it is not on any MVPD I am aware of


 I've watched HBO Go and did not see this inferior picture quality compared to the cable feed that I have.

And again picture quality isn't inherently tied to VoD. So while you may or may not find some shows with a lesser picture quality it doesn't mean they couldn't be shown with a higher picture quality.

And again there are different methods of compression. Some methods are able to maintain picture quality while using less bandwidth. IT is my understanding that the OTT video services are using better (more efficient) compression methods than cable uses.

Last you don't need a Netflix cable channel to judge the quality of the Netflix feed, in general, compared to the quality of the various channels on a cable feed.


----------



## trip1eX

lessd said:


> Once I figure out what programs I want I get a season pass and forget about it, when I go to my shows I only get want I wanted, VOD is a big list, and not in my order, and if I don't get to watch something quickly on my TiVo it will never go away (I have a big disk). I can't control when any VOD may go away, or even know. At least with Netflix you make up your own list.
> For me Netflix is the only streaming service that makes sense, for a few things You Tube is ok but still harder to use than Netflix. I still find it a pain to find the current Bill Maher overtime after his Friday show, after I find it I tried to subscribe to overtime but it goes back to the old ones, just not easy unless I am missing something about using You Tube.


The market doesn't care about that level of control. Content gets yanked on Netflix but people still enjoy the service because of what is on there.

You can't control whether your hard drive dies or not either. My parent's Series 2 Tivo went kaput years ago and they lost all their content. And then couldn't record new stuff for awhile either until they replaced it.

And no matter the size of your hard drive you can't compete with the storage space of a VoD service. So that's another way to look at the 'loss of control.'

Also I believe a Netflix does let you know ahead of time when content is going away. If you have something in your favorites there will be a notice that it is going away with a date on it.

This is not to knock to someone's desire to save their shows on their own hard drive and maintain that archive for as long as they want. But that's just not a show stopper for the market.

Next Tivo doesn't have a patent on organization. And VoD doesn't inherently mean less organization.

Sure some of the organization is worse and some is better today with the current VoD options compared to a Tivo etc. But it's a very fluid dynamic space right now.

To only focus on the today though is like not seeing where the 1st iPhone (or Android) was going to go because one's focus was on what it couldn't do back then compared to the other devices on the market at that time like Blackberry etc. That didn't mean it wasn't capable of improving or that it wasn't going to improve or that it wasn't going to take over. or that it didn't bring its own set of big advantages to the table that made these concerns look small in comparison.

Anyway remember just because a VoD service doesn't do something today it doesn't mean it is incapable of doing it.


----------



## NashGuy

At the risk of getting this thread a bit off-topic (ha!), here are some thoughts that I posted elsewhere recently regarding HD picture quality between linear, on-demand, and OTT streaming...

I've never laid eyes on HD channels from Google Fiber or FiOS, so I can't compare those, but I will say that the best quality 1080p streams offered by both Netflix and Amazon Video are superior to what you see on linear HD channels offered by DirecTV (or Dish or Comcast or Uverse) -- I used to subscribe to all those pay TV carriers at different times. I'm a big fan of Showtime as it airs a lot of my favorite series the past few years, so I particularly use that as a point of comparison.

My experience was that the main Showtime HD channel on DirecTV looked quite good while some of the less popular Showtime multiplex channels (Showtime Beyond, Showtime Next, etc.) were inferior. But I found that downloading programs over the internet using Showtime OnDemand via my DirecTV Genie delivered even better PQ than watching my recordings from the main Showtime channel. So I began watching Nurse Jackie, Homeland, Episodes, etc. via OnDemand.

In the past year, I've subscribed to Showtime as a streaming service, through their own standalone app on my Apple TV, as well as an add-on subscription through both Hulu and Amazon Prime. The Amazon Video app on my TiVo, paired with either AT&T or Comcast internet of at least 18 Mbps, delivers absolutely beautiful 1080p24 (or 1080p30, whichever is native) video with DD 5.1 sound at a total bitrate of about 10 Mbps for MPEG4 encoded video. (Netflix looks amazing as well with a 1080p24 MPEG4 bitrate of about 6 Mbps -- more efficiently encoded than Amazon, apparently.)

I would bet that the only way to get better HD PQ for Showtime programming than through Amazon Video is to wait for it to come out on Bluray. It looks better through Amazon Video than through Showtime's own app or through Hulu (which is limited to 720p), and it most certainly looks better than on DirecTV. Granted, I'm talking about streaming titles on demand rather than a live linear channel. (If you subscribe to Showtime as an add-on to Amazon Prime, you can stream their live linear HD channels but only through certain web browsers and the PQ, while decent, is not as good as most traditional TV providers.) Given that most Showtime shows via Amazon are encoded at 1080p24 (with a few at 1080p30), while the Showtime linear channels are done in 1080i60, I'm betting that Amazon is doing their own superior encoding of all those titles directly from source files rather than relying on the broadcast-ready files produced by Showtime.


----------



## trip1eX

Diana Collins said:


> They have already become "unhappy" with the number of viewers that don't watch commercials. The "change" is that they don't pay what the networks would like for commercial time by discounting the Nielsen numbers to compensate for DVR viewers. That's why nearly every channel is constantly raising their carriage fees, and why our cable and satellite bills are so high. Since the networks can't squeeze any more money out of advertisers, they are raising rates to the viewers to make it up.
> 
> Ironically, it was the DVR that started the death spiral of linear broadcasting: it reduced the number of "impressions" broadcasters delivered to advertisers, which (once the numbers became noticeable) reduced advertising revenue, which forced the broadcasters to raise the rates charged to cable and satellite operators, which raised our rates, which cause people to reduce or eliminate their cable subscriptions, which further reduces revenue. Add in that the DVR has trained a generation of viewers that you can watch whatever you want whenever you want, and the days of linear broadcasting are clearly numbered.
> 
> The price for content just keeps going up, and cable bills will keep rising as a smaller and smaller group of viewers must support the old system. Meanwhile, non-linear systems like Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, HBO Now, etc. are growing and collecting ever larger numbers of subscribers to support their content. At some point, the old model will just collapse under its own weight and the only thing using linear "broadcasting" will be news and sports. Everything else will be on demand.


Exactly.


----------



## lpwcomp

People have been skipping commercials since the VCR first appeared. Going to a digital random access medium simply made it easier.


----------



## lessd

trip1eX said:


> Anyway remember just because a VoD service doesn't do something today it doesn't mean it is incapable of doing it.


Predicting the future of tech is hard if your aim is to be correct (Remember DVD audio), one can guess at the future all they want, but that does not make it true (in high school we were told that by the 2100 century we would all be flying around in personal flying things, not using cars much) I think we know pretty much what going to be in common use 4 years out (most all but the smallest HDTV will be 4K as an example), but cars without steering wheels that can be used on existing roads will not be available to the general public in 4 years, 10 years out things get somewhat fuzzy. Eclectic power by fusion has been 25 years out for the last 20 or more years, I believe it will happen, but not in my lifetime.
The exact future of the VOD model and linear cable is unknown, so anybody can give a guess as to what will win out and when, but it just a guess. 
Except for a few people I don't think UH-BD will become very popular within the next 4 years, but options are like a**holes, everybody has one.


----------



## trip1eX

lessd said:


> Predicting the future of tech is hard if your aim is to be correct (Remember DVD audio), one can guess at the future all they want, but that does not make it true (in high school we were told that by the 2100 century we would all be flying around in personal flying things, not using cars much) I think we know pretty much what going to be in common use 4 years out (most all but the smallest HDTV will be 4K as an example), but cars without steering wheels that can be used on existing roads will not be available to the general public in 4 years, 10 years out things get somewhat fuzzy. Eclectic power by fusion has been 25 years out for the last 20 or more years, I believe it will happen, but not in my lifetime.
> The exact future of the VOD model and linear cable is unknown, so anybody can give a guess as to what will win out and when, but it just a guess.
> Except for a few people I don't think UH-BD will become very popular within the next 4 years, but options are like a**holes, everybody has one.


Meh. That's all a cop out. It goes without saying that no one knows exactly what will happen in the future.

And predicting VoD will take over is hardly a stretch. It's more like predicting all tvs will be 4k or higher res in the future.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> I've watched HBO Go and did not see this inferior picture quality compared to the cable feed that I have.
> 
> And again picture quality isn't inherently tied to VoD. So while you may or may not find some shows with a lesser picture quality it doesn't mean they couldn't be shown with a higher picture quality.
> 
> And again there are different methods of compression. Some methods are able to maintain picture quality while using less bandwidth. IT is my understanding that the OTT video services are using better (more efficient) compression methods than cable uses.
> 
> Last you don't need a Netflix cable channel to judge the quality of the Netflix feed, in general, compared to the quality of the various channels on a cable feed.


That you do not see it might speak more to you than anything else.

HBO VoD (and others) do not have the bandwidth of the linear channels.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

lessd said:


> Predicting the future of tech is hard if your aim is to be correct (Remember DVD audio), one can guess at the future all they want, but that does not make it true (in high school we were told that by the 2100 century we would all be flying around in personal flying things, not using cars much) I think we know pretty much what going to be in common use 4 years out (most all but the smallest HDTV will be 4K as an example), but cars without steering wheels that can be used on existing roads will not be available to the general public in 4 years, 10 years out things get somewhat fuzzy. Eclectic power by fusion has been 25 years out for the last 20 or more years, I believe it will happen, but not in my lifetime.
> The exact future of the VOD model and linear cable is unknown, so anybody can give a guess as to what will win out and when, but it just a guess.
> Except for a few people I don't think UH-BD will become very popular within the next 4 years, but options are like a**holes, everybody has one.


I assure you that by the 2100 Century personal flying things will probably have come.....and gone.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> Meh. That's all a cop out. It goes without saying that no one knows exactly what will happen in the future.
> 
> And predicting VoD will take over is hardly a stretch. It's more like predicting all tvs will be 4k or higher res in the future.


It will not be VOD....it will end up PPV anyway, much like buying an individual program or season today.


----------



## lessd

trip1eX said:


> Meh. That's all a cop out. It goes without saying that no one knows exactly what will happen in the future.
> 
> And predicting VoD will take over is hardly a stretch. It's more like predicting all tvs will be 4k or higher res in the future.


I Think some people will differ with you on VOD will take away liner cable in the next 4 to 5 years, or ever as a certainty.


----------



## slowbiscuit

trip1eX said:


> OF course VoD will be better. What's not obviously better about paying less for equipment. Not having to record stuff. Watching what you want when you want. etc. Just because it doesn't exist in its final form today doesn't mean these advantages aren't readily apparent today.


This is where you are constantly going off the rails - I don't think anyone can dispute that VoD might be the endgame. What we're disputing is that it will be better than it is today. All you can offer is that in some magical fantasy future everything you want will be available whenever you want with a much better viewing experience and no one is seeing that except you.

And this is because it could already happen today with any niumber of VoD services but hasn't, for business reasons not technical.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slowbiscuit said:


> This is where you are constantly going off the rails - I don't think anyone can dispute that VoD might be the endgame. What we're disputing is that it will be better than it is today. All you can offer is that in some magical fantasy future everything you want will be available whenever you want with a much better viewing experience and no one is seeing that except you.
> 
> And this is because it could already happen today with any niumber of VoD services but hasn't, for business reasons not technical.


Not the least of which is USA Viewers continue to watch TV live instead of DVR or VOD. Yet another study came out yesterday.


----------



## trip1eX

slowbiscuit said:


> This is where you are constantly going off the rails - I don't think anyone can dispute that VoD might be the endgame. What we're disputing is that it will be better than it is today. All you can offer is that in some magical fantasy future everything you want will be available whenever you want with a much better viewing experience and no one is seeing that except you.
> 
> And this is because it could already happen today with any niumber of VoD services but hasn't, for business reasons not technical.


Your position makes no sense at all.

Vod is the end game but will be a worse experience but it can be done today but it isn't because of the business reasons.

I think the fantasy is your post. It's just vague hot air with no reasoning behind it. I have listed plenty of reasons why VoD takes over and why it is the better experience.

I can sum up the detractor's arguments in one word: Fear. Fear of change. Fear of the unknown. Fear that their worst fears come true.


----------



## slice1900

slowbiscuit said:


> This is where you are constantly going off the rails - I don't think anyone can dispute that VoD might be the endgame. What we're disputing is that it will be better than it is today. All you can offer is that in some magical fantasy future everything you want will be available whenever you want with a much better viewing experience and no one is seeing that except you.
> 
> And this is because it could already happen today with any niumber of VoD services but hasn't, for business reasons not technical.


trip1ex seems to look at it as "these things are possible, consumers want these things, therefore these things will happen."

What he's missing is that consumers won't get what we want, providers will give us what they want to give us, nothing more. Consumers don't want 20 minutes of commercials in a one hour program, we get that because that's what providers want to give us. They could give us VOD/streaming that allows FF and skipping of commercials, because that's what consumers want but that's not what providers want to give us so we don't have it.

I think some people forget the lawsuits filed to try to stop VCRs. If they had been successful there would be no DVRs today, or if there were they would exist purely for time shifting but would not allow FF to insure you had to watch the commercials like a good little consumer. The fact DVRs and commercial skipping are allowed is seen as a problem by the providers, who are trying to figure out a 'fix' for. VOD is a good fix since providers can rely on technical means to prevent us from recording VOD content, which affords them complete control over whether we can FF and skip commercials.

A future where VOD replaces DVRs would be dark indeed, but I don't see any chance of that happening. What we may see are many of the niche channels that don't really have a reason for existing quitting linear broadcast and going VOD/streaming only. Would anyone really miss TLC, TruTV or WE if they disappear from cable/satellite lineups and go VOD only? Any niche channels disappearing that carry programming I watch would simply mean I won't watch that programming any longer, none of it is so important to me that I will follow it to a streaming platform that requires me to sit through commercials.


----------



## slice1900

trip1eX said:


> Your position makes no sense at all.
> I can sum up the detractor's arguments in one word: Fear. Fear of change. Fear of the unknown. Fear that their worst fears come true.


And we can sum up yours as optimistic that a pro-consumer solution will emerge simply because that's what consumers want.

Based on history, is optimism or pessimism more justified when it comes to what the entertainment industry is going to offer us?


----------



## trip1eX

slice1900 said:


> And we can sum up yours as optimistic that a pro-consumer solution will emerge simply because that's what consumers want.
> 
> Based on history, is optimism or pessimism more justified when it comes to what the entertainment industry is going to offer us?


Sorry you don't need optimism to list why VoD makes the DVR antiquated.

And if a pro-consumer solution is any solution except for your worst fears realized then I guess my view is pro-consumer. If being optimistic is anything except having your worst fears come true then, yes, my position is optimistic.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> Sorry you don't need optimism to list why VoD makes the DVR antiquated.
> 
> And if a pro-consumer solution is any solution except for your worst fears realized then I guess my view is pro-consumer. If being optimistic is anything except having your worst fears come true then, yes, my position is optimistic.


You do realize the networks want VOD to replace DVRs so they can eliminate commercial Skipping?

Is that A win for consumers?


----------



## trip1eX

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You do realize the networks want VOD to replace DVRs so they can eliminate commercial Skipping?
> 
> Is that A win for consumers?


Networks want to eliminate commercial skipping in dvrs. Do you realize that?

Do you realize paying ad-supported prices for content and skipping the ads was never sustainable?

Do you realize VoD can give the customer a commercial-free and an ad-supported version? Isn't that a win for the consumer?

Do you realize the VoD brings new possibilities to ad viewing to the table? YouTube lets you skip a commercial after 5 seconds for example. Isn't this a win for the consumer?

And right now, a breadth of current OTA and cable content is available commercial free on iTunes and Amazon. Prices are high but it is ala carte, commercial free and you own the content in your account.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> Do you realize VoD can give the customer a commercial-free and an supported version?


Do you realize that they don't have to offer a commercial free option?

Just last week Time Warner said they were thinking about buying Hulu and shutting down access to next day content because it was a threat to their pay TV business. These guys are going to do whatever they can to protect their existing business model, no matter how consumer unfriendly it is.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Do you realize that they don't have to offer a commercial free option?
> 
> Just last week Time Warner said they were thinking about buying Hulu and shutting down access to next day content because it was a threat to their pay TV business. These guys are going to do whatever they can to protect their existing business model, no matter how consumer unfriendly it is.


I think your story is mixed up. First it's a rumor. Second the rumor was they want to buy a stake in Hulu. 3rd the part about them shutting it down is just an opinion of the rumored deal. Time Warner never has said they want to shut Hulu down.

There's more opinion/speculation to the contraire, ie that Time Warner wants to become 1 of the big 4 partners in Hulu and bring their content to the service. Plus it doesn't make much sense that they would want to shut it down for purposes of protecting their pay tv business when I don't think they have a ton of content on the service and it seems like they could just pull any content they do have on the service as soon as possible.

And who do you think the owners of Hulu are in the first place? 3 networks who get their money from linear broadcasting supported by ads. Yet they own this VoD service and even (relatively) recently offered a commercial free option.

You act like no one will make money going VoD or not showing commercials (for a higher price.) I don't think they care where their money comes from.

On top of it you have Time Warner creating a cable/satellite free HBO service. Kind of odd for a company you say so desperately wants to protect pay tv as it is.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> Sorry you don't need optimism to list why VoD makes the DVR antiquated.


You statement is ridiculous, one of a DVRs main purposes is build and then provide access to a personal VoD library.

You keep using VoD like it is some product or service, it is not. VoD is terminology and specifically refers to systems which allow users to select and watch/listen to video or audio content when they choose to, rather than having to watch at a specific broadcast time.

If you would like to talk about an actual product or service that you believe is going to make DVRs antiquated please do so. Include how that product or service works, what VoD library it has access to, how much it costs, and any other information a consumer would need/want to know to make an informed decision to use that product or service to access VoD instead of a DVR to build and access their own VoD library.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> I think your story is mixed up. First it's a rumor. Second the rumor was they want to buy a stake in Hulu. 3rd the part about them shutting it down is just an opinion of the rumored deal. Time Warner never has said they want to shut Hulu down.
> 
> There's more opinion/speculation to the contraire, ie that Time Warner wants to become 1 of the big 4 partners in Hulu and bring their content to the service. Plus it doesn't make much sense that they would want to shut it down for purposes of protecting their pay tv business when I don't think they have a ton of content on the service and it seems like they could just pull any content they do have on the service as soon as possible.
> 
> And who do you think the owners of Hulu are in the first place? 3 networks who get their money from linear broadcasting supported by ads. Yet they own this VoD service and even (relatively) recently offered a commercial free option.
> 
> You act like no one will make money going VoD or not showing commercials (for a higher price.) I don't think they care where their money comes from.
> 
> On top of it you have Time Warner creating a cable/satellite free HBO service. Kind of odd for a company you say so desperately wants to protect pay tv as it is.


CBS said they considered an ad-free version of their OTT service and decided against it because it's not working out on Hulu.

Regardless I still think you're being overly optimistic. I think there is at least a 50/50 chance that we end up in a world where all content is VOD with forced commercials and no option to watch them commercial free short of purchasing each episode for $3-5/ea. And even then there may be a delay imposed so that those sales don't interfere with C3 or C7.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> You statement is ridiculous, one of a DVRs main purposes is build and then provide access to a personal VoD library.
> 
> You keep using VoD like it is some product or service, it is not. VoD is terminology and specifically refers to systems which allow users to select and watch/listen to video or audio content when they choose to, rather than having to watch at a specific broadcast time.
> 
> If you would like to talk about an actual product or service that you believe is going to make DVRs antiquated please do so. Include how that product or service works, what VoD library it has access to, how much it costs, and any other information a consumer would need/want to know to make an informed decision to use that product or service to access VoD instead of a DVR to build and access their own VoD library.


I've already talked about it. Far from ridiculous. Go read the posts if you want.

Top two arguments against are fear of commercials and yanking of shows. I've rebutted those a few times already. NOthing more to be said.


----------



## BobCamp1

atmuscarella said:


> You statement is ridiculous, one of a DVRs main purposes is build and then provide access to a personal VoD library.


I'm surprised you said that. Everybody here knows that your DVR can die at anytime and you'll lose that VoD library, many times without warning. I know people like to use a DVR for that purpose, but we all know deep down that you can never trust a DVR to store anything for a long time.

That's why VoD is so appealing. Somebody else is spending their time and money maintaining that library so you don't have to.


----------



## randian

Dan203 said:


> CBS said they considered an ad-free version of their OTT service and decided against it because it's not working out on Hulu.


They haven't said what their definition of "not working out" is. It may not be reasonable.


----------



## Dan203

BobCamp1 said:


> I'm surprised you said that. Everybody here knows that your DVR can die at anytime and you'll lose that VoD library, many times without warning. I know people like to use a DVR for that purpose, but we all know deep down that you can never trust a DVR to store anything for a long time.
> 
> That's why VoD is so appealing. Somebody else is spending their time and money maintaining that library so you don't have to.


At least with a DVR (or TiVo at least) you have the option of archiving to a PC if you want to protect your shows. With VOD a show can be removed from rotation at any time without warning.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> CBS said they considered an ad-free version of their OTT service and decided against it because it's not working out on Hulu.
> 
> Regardless I still think you're being overly optimistic. I think there is at least a 50/50 chance that we end up in a world where all content is VOD with forced commercials and no option to watch them commercial free short of purchasing each episode for $3-5/ea. And even then there may be a delay imposed so that those sales don't interfere with C3 or C7.


CBS did not decide against it.

"During CBS' fourth-quarter earnings call Thursday, Moonves said the ad-free version of Hulu "hasn't worked that well." He added that CBS is merely "exploring" the option. "We're not there yet.""

And again I don't think there is a good reason for these services not to offer a commercial free option. I don't think they care where their money comes from.

And again VoD brings new options for commercials. The best example is where YouTube lets you skip the commercial after 5 seconds.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> I've already talked about it. Far from ridiculous. Go read the posts if you want.
> 
> Top two arguments against are fear of commercials and yanking of shows. I've rebutted those a few times already. NOthing more to be said.


You haven't talked about anything. All you have done is used the term VoD which doesn't refer to any product or service and is nearly meaningless gibberish.

You claim VoD is going to make DVRs antiquated. DVRs provide VoD so what they provide is going to make them antiquated?? Like I said meaningless gibberish.

VoD isn't going to do anything. Some product or service that provides some type of VoD acess may (which again is already what a DVR does). Until you talk about an actual product or service you are not talking about anything.


----------



## TonyD79

trip1eX said:


> CBS did not decide against it. "During CBS' fourth-quarter earnings call Thursday, Moonves said the ad-free version of Hulu "hasn't worked that well." He added that CBS is merely "exploring" the option. "We're not there yet."" And again I don't think there is a good reason for these services not to offer a commercial free option. I don't think they care where their money comes from. And again VoD brings new options for commercials. The best example is where YouTube lets you skip the commercial after 5 seconds.


You mean YouTube which didn't even have commercials just years ago?

Read the trends.


----------



## atmuscarella

BobCamp1 said:


> I'm surprised you said that. Everybody here knows that your DVR can die at anytime and you'll lose that VoD library, many times without warning. I know people like to use a DVR for that purpose, but we all know deep down that you can never trust a DVR to store anything for a long time.
> 
> That's why VoD is so appealing. Somebody else is spending their time and money maintaining that library so you don't have to.


Potential risk of the loss of your VoD library is a down side of a DVR. But that doesn't change the fact that any time you record something you are creating VoD and any time you watch a recording you are watching VoD. That is what a DVR does and is used for.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> You haven't talked about anything. All you have done is used the term VoD which doesn't refer to any product or service and is nearly meaningless gibberish.
> 
> You claim VoD is going to make DVRs antiquated. DVRs provide VoD so what they provide is going to make them antiquated??
> 
> VoD isn't going to do anything. Some product or service that provides some type of VoD acess may (which again is already what a DVR does). Until you talk about an actual product or service you are not talking about anything.


Ok.


----------



## trip1eX

TonyD79 said:


> You mean YouTube which didn't even have commercials just years ago?
> 
> Read the trends.


lol. Don't tell me you thought YouTube built all those datacenters and pay for all that bandwidth every month out of the goodness of their heart?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You do realize the networks want VOD to replace DVRs so they can eliminate commercial Skipping?
> 
> Is that A win for consumers?





trip1eX said:


> Networks want to eliminate commercial skipping in dvrs. Do you realize that?


Why no, I didn't 

I do hear an echo though!


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> Do you realize paying ad-supported prices for content and skipping the ads was never sustainable?


Yes I do. However, as research shows, VERY FEW people are doing that.

Those who are, are generally low income (advertisers do not care about) and light TV Viewers.

Do you realize that?



trip1eX said:


> Do you realize VoD can give the customer a commercial-free and an ad-supported version? Isn't that a win for the consumer?


Of course they can if they want. Hulu is doing it now.

The problem as Moonves indicated, no one is subscribing to Hulu's commercial free platform.

You do realize that?



trip1eX said:


> Do you realize the VoD brings new possibilities to ad viewing to the table? YouTube lets you skip a commercial after 5 seconds for example. Isn't this a win for the consumer?


CBS and other content provider/producers et al are not going to let you skip commercials like Google.

You do realize that?



trip1eX said:


> And right now, a breadth of current OTA and cable content is available commercial free on iTunes and Amazon. Prices are high but it is ala carte, commercial free and you own the content in your account.


Yes, if you want to pay $3 - $4 for an episode or buy a Season Pass for a lot more, you certainly can. But why hasn't this taken off? Oh, that's right....price and ala carte. People are used to free....


----------



## TonyD79

trip1eX said:


> lol. Don't tell me you thought YouTube built all those datacenters and pay for all that bandwidth every month out of the goodness of their heart?


No. I'm a realist. I'm not the one painting a Pollyanna-ish view of video on demand.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

trip1eX said:


> lol. Don't tell me you thought YouTube built all those datacenters and pay for all that bandwidth every month out of the goodness of their heart?


I also remember @home building out that first massive nationwide home cable broadband isp....which went chapter 11.

Yahoo.....I remember that as well....as it slides to oblivion.

MySpace.....I remember that one as well. What did it sale to Rupert Murdoch for?

I even remember Apple's Lisa.....and all the other bombs.


----------



## trip1eX

TonyD79 said:


> No. I'm a realist. I'm not the one painting a Pollyanna-ish view of video on demand.


lol. Except your last comment made no sense to this discussion. YouTube was free before!!!!!!!!! 

It cost money to run YouTube.

Their next move was not going to be in the "consumer friendly" direction from where they were before. They had to either charge customers money or show commercials or combination of the two or beg for donations. So far they are just showing commercials.

That has absolutely nothing to do with why VoD is taking over for the dvr.

The only trend it indicates is that free services that cost alot of money to run have to eventually cover those costs some way, some how.

I'm sorry you don't understand this.

And if any reasoning except for confirmation of your worst fears is pollyanish then I'm pollyanish.

YouTube IS an example of what can be done with commercials in the VoD space that can't be done in the linear broadcasting space aka the skippable commercials after 5 seconds. And it IS an example of consumers getting used to watching what they want when they want.


----------



## trip1eX

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes I do. However, as research shows, VERY FEW people are doing that.
> 
> Those who are, are generally low income (advertisers do not care about) and light TV Viewers.
> 
> Do you realize that?


So you agree they don't want commercial skipping and know they have sued companies to prevent this and then want to say but no one skips commercials?

And on top of it you want to say the market doesn't skip commercials but then want to use 'commercials' as a reason why VoD won't take over the market?

If the masses are diligent commercial watchers then they will get commercials with VoD. And yet that still doesn't preclude an ad-free option, priced to make up for per subscriber ad revenue, for those don't want to.

The real conflict is paying ad-supported prices for commercial-free tv. That's the issue. The problem isn't we don't want to charge you more for a commercial free option because we don't like your money and just want you to watch commercials cause we can make you watch commercials.

And what you're saying about all those that skip commercials is we all don't make money or don't watch much tv. I'm sure everyone in this thread will be raising their hand after reading that. 



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Of course they can if they want. Hulu is doing it now.
> 
> The problem as Moonves indicated, no one is subscribing to Hulu's commercial free platform.
> 
> You do realize that?


Except Moonves didn't say that. He didn't elaborate on what he did say which was a vague 'it isn't working that great" for Hulu while also saying CBS is exploring an ad-supported option. On top of it CBS All-Access just came out. IT's a brand new service in a relatively new space from a company so used to the ad-supported linear broadcasting model that it is ingrained in their DNA.

Also realize Moonves is a competitor. And that, if Hulu isn't getting the take up with their commercial-free option that they might have thought they would get, then maybe there are problems with how attractive they have made this option.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> CBS and other content provider/producers et al are not going to let you skip commercials like Google.
> 
> You do realize that?


Says who? SomeRandomIdiot? Moonves said he is exploring an ad-free option. He even stated what their ad revenue brings in per eyeball as to what he thinks the pricepoint would have to be.

And they haven't even got to the point where they are thinking about letting customers skip commercials after 5 seconds. Rome wasn't built in a day. Old habits die hard.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes, if you want to pay $3 - $4 for an episode or buy a Season Pass for a lot more, you certainly can. But why hasn't this taken off? Oh, that's right....price and ala carte. People are used to free....


 Are you saying it has stopped growing? IT seems to me more people use these services all the time.

And realize this is ala carte. And you own the content. One can reasonably expect a larger package subscription service to be cheaper than buying shows individually.

People aren't used to free tv. NOt in this discussion. We've been talking cable/satellite and OTT Video services that cost money.


----------



## slowbiscuit

trip1eX said:


> lol. Don't tell me you thought YouTube built all those datacenters and pay for all that bandwidth every month out of the goodness of their heart?


LOL yourself, you just made the point everyone's been saying. They're going to get their money one way or the other, and getting rid of DVRs is a great way to lock people back into the old commercial-run way of doing bidness.

You do realize you're the only one in this thread with this fantasy world view of a future VoD, right?


----------



## trip1eX

slowbiscuit said:


> LOL yourself, you just made the point everyone's been saying. They're going to get their money one way or the other, and getting rid of DVRs is a great way to lock people back into the old commercial-run way of doing bidness.
> 
> You do realize you're the only one in this thread with this fantasy world view of a future VoD, right?


You make no sense. And you can't count.

I am not making a case that VoD means free tv. Sorry you don't understand that.

You're going to have to watch commercials or pay extra to not watch them in the VoD world. It won't be free. VoD won't be offered at some supreme discount.

And sorry but the current pay tv model isn't commercial free contrary to what your post implies. You're acting like skipping commercials with your dvr is the business model. It isn't.

And yes if any viewpoint except your worst fears realized is a fantasy world view of the future then that's what I have.


----------



## slowbiscuit

I'm done, you win. Future VoD will be so much better than using a DVR, it's not funny.


----------



## atmuscarella

slowbiscuit said:


> I'm done, you win. Future VoD will be so much better than using a DVR, it's not funny.


Someone around here likes to use words that have no exact/specific meaning. Like VoD or Better. Kind of hard to have any real discussion with anyone when they only refer to some unknown, unspecified, future product or service declaring it will be "Better" than a known current product (DVRs). Especially when the response when ask to define who it is better for and why the answer is the same, just repeat and reuse the same unspecific terms after all we all know it's going to be better  what else could anyone possible need to know than that?

From my point of view it isn't hard for me to define what better for me is:

For a future VoD product or service to be better than a DVR (specifically my TiVo) it has to provide:
An equal or better user experience.
Access to the same or more video content or at least the video content I want access too.
Cost the same or less over time to use. 

I have seen no product or service that does the above and I have seen no proposals for any that will.


----------



## lessd

atmuscarella said:


> Someone around here likes to use words that have no exact/specific meaning. Like VoD or Better. Kind of hard to have any real discussion with anyone when they only refer to some unknown, unspecified, future product or service declaring it will be "Better" than a known current product (DVRs). Especially when the response when ask to define who it is better for and why the answer is the same, just repeat and reuse the same unspecific terms after all we all know it's going to be better  what else could anyone possible need to know than that?
> 
> From my point of view it isn't hard for me to define what better for me is:
> 
> For a future VoD product or service to be better than a DVR (specifically my TiVo) it has to provide:
> An equal or better user experience.
> Access to the same or more video content or at least the video content I want access too.
> Cost the same or less over time to use.
> 
> I have seen no product or service that does the above and I have seen no proposals for any that will.


:up::up::up:


----------



## trip1eX

lol. You guys crack me up.


----------



## slice1900

Sometimes, when EVERYONE is disagreeing with your position, you have to stop and think that maybe you are wrong. Obviously you are the type who thinks you're always right so its not worth fighting the battle with you, but hopefully for the sake of people who have to be around you in real life you learn that lesson someday.


----------



## Diana Collins

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ...The problem as Moonves indicated, no one is subscribing to Hulu's commercial free platform.


He should have stopped three words sooner.


----------



## randian

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The problem as Moonves indicated, no one is subscribing to Hulu's commercial free platform.


When I tested Hulu I tried the commercial-free option. I quit Hulu, not because I was dissatisfied with how commercial-free worked, but because Hulu wasn't a sufficient replacement for regular cable and regular cable was hardly more expensive than a fast internet line + several streaming services. Plus my TiVo works with cable and that convenience is worth some money.


----------



## trip1eX

slice1900 said:


> Sometimes, when EVERYONE is disagreeing with your position, you have to stop and think that maybe you are wrong. Obviously you are the type who thinks you're always right so its not worth fighting the battle with you, but hopefully for the sake of people who have to be around you in real life you learn that lesson someday.


lol. This is nonsense.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Yep, we're all talking nonsense and you're not. There's nothing more to say here since it's devolved down to we're all wrong about the future of TV.


----------



## lessd

slowbiscuit said:


> Yep, we're all talking nonsense and you're not. There's nothing more to say here since it's devolved down to we're all wrong about the future of TV.


If we did know the future what could we do about it now anyways, remove our cable cards from our TiVos because 5 years or more something will replace them


----------



## trip1eX

slowbiscuit said:


> Yep, we're all talking nonsense and you're not. There's nothing more to say here since it's devolved down to we're all wrong about the future of TV.


lol. STrawman argument. I never said everyone is talking nonsense.

But too many posts have carried the discussion too much in the direction of attacking the person instead of the issue and that adds up to a lot of nonsense.


----------



## slowbiscuit

We can revisit this thread in a few years and see how far your VoD utopia has evolved. My guess is, not much.


----------



## lessd

slowbiscuit said:


> we can revisit this thread in a few years and see how far your vod utopia has evolved. My guess is, not much.


+1


----------



## trip1eX

slowbiscuit said:


> We can revisit this thread in a few years and see how far your VoD utopia has evolved. My guess is, not much.


I look forward to how much closer we are to your hell. My guess is we move farther away from that.

So at least we have the two sides of the argument down. Hell and utopia.


----------



## BobCamp1

Wow, I go on vacation for a week and the thread takes a nasty turn!

Just wanted to let everybody know that my son streamed the Superbowl live directly to his phone and watched it that way, even though I had the game on the TV in the living room. My kids are 14 and 10 and think that TVs are antiquated because they aren't portable. They view their entire world through their smart devices.

I also watched a couple of episodes I missed due to bad guide data by using the content provider's website. I was forced to watch a few commercials and didn't die. I guess I was lucky. I'll watch a few more commercials tonight and see if I lose an eye or a limb. I'll wear a helmet just in case.

Note that these companies aren't producing these shows for free. They need some combination of advertising and service fees as a main source of income. Advertising is a necessary evil if you want to keep the fees down.

I generally agree with trip1eX because in my kids I see that that future is already happening. I was originally in denial (like most people in this thread) but when I see it happening in front of me I can't deny it anymore. I think the transition away from linear programming will be very gradual like 20 years or more. So don't throw out your DVRs just yet.

So the question is, should the FCC bother to waste time on improving a technology that is slowly dying? Maybe, if they can do it right and fast enough before the obsolescence kicks in. But this is the FCC we're talking about, so it's not going to be fast or right.


----------



## lessd

BobCamp1 said:


> Wow, I go on vacation for a week and the thread takes a nasty turn!
> 
> Just wanted to let everybody know that my son streamed the Superbowl live directly to his phone and watched it that way, even though I had the game on the TV in the living room. My kids are 14 and 10 and think that TVs are antiquated because they aren't portable. They view their entire world through their smart devices.
> 
> I also watched a couple of episodes I missed due to bad guide data by using the content provider's website. I was forced to watch a few commercials and didn't die. I guess I was lucky. I'll watch a few more commercials tonight and see if I lose an eye or a limb. I'll wear a helmet just in case.
> 
> Note that these companies aren't producing these shows for free. They need some combination of advertising and service fees as a main source of income. Advertising is a necessary evil if you want to keep the fees down.
> 
> I generally agree with trip1eX because in my kids I see that that future is already happening. I was originally in denial (like most people in this thread) but when I see it happening in front of me I can't deny it anymore. I think the transition away from linear programming will be very gradual like 20 years or more. So don't throw out your DVRs just yet.
> 
> So the question is, should the FCC bother to waste time on improving a technology that is slowly dying? Maybe, if they can do it right and fast enough before the obsolescence kicks in. But this is the FCC we're talking about, so it's not going to be fast or right.


I can't believe most people would want to watch the Superbowl live directly on a phone, a Superbowl party may be fun that way , each person on their own phone looking at the Superbowl and not a big HDTV, that would something to see.


----------



## atmuscarella

BobCamp1 said:


> Wow, I go on vacation for a week and the thread takes a nasty turn!
> 
> Just wanted to let everybody know that my son streamed the Superbowl live directly to his phone and watched it that way, even though I had the game on the TV in the living room. My kids are 14 and 10 and think that TVs are antiquated because they aren't portable. They view their entire world through their smart devices.
> 
> I also watched a couple of episodes I missed due to bad guide data by using the content provider's website. I was forced to watch a few commercials and didn't die. I guess I was lucky. I'll watch a few more commercials tonight and see if I lose an eye or a limb. I'll wear a helmet just in case.
> 
> Note that these companies aren't producing these shows for free. They need some combination of advertising and service fees as a main source of income. Advertising is a necessary evil if you want to keep the fees down.
> 
> I generally agree with trip1eX because in my kids I see that that future is already happening. I was originally in denial (like most people in this thread) but when I see it happening in front of me I can't deny it anymore. I think the transition away from linear programming will be very gradual like 20 years or more. So don't throw out your DVRs just yet.
> 
> So the question is, should the FCC bother to waste time on improving a technology that is slowly dying? Maybe, if they can do it right and fast enough before the obsolescence kicks in. But this is the FCC we're talking about, so it's not going to be fast or right.


This thread has been all over the place on what we have talked about but most of it has to do with our video delivery systems. Who has control, how to foster competition, what the tech may make possible, who benefits from various possible video delivery system models, and where the market trends are going. Most of our opinions are influenced by our own desires and how we interpret market trends. The trends I see that are important in all this are 
The user base for the video delivery system represented by cable/satillite/FIOS appears to be stable or declining slightly. 
The user base for the video delivery system represented by OTA broadcasts appears to be stable or growing slightly. 
The user base for the video delivery system represented by Solid media appears to be stable or declining slightly. 
The user base for the video delivery systems represented by on line streaming services appears to be growing. 
The amount of video consumed via various VoD options appears to be increasing.
The amount of video consumed by linear broadcasts appears to be stable or declining slightly. 
When it comes to what the FCC should do it really depends on what one believes. If one believes that cable/satellite/FIOS are really dying and in 20 years they are gone or nearly no one is subbing to their Pay TV services then worrying about trying to keep the services as competitive as possible by removing equipment as a barrier really makes no sense. On the other hand if one believe that in 20 years 100 or even 70 million+ households are still going to be using their Pay TV services then the answer changes significantly. The other part of the debate is who benefits from various FCC actions.

The other discussions in the thread are all along the same vain. What do the above trends mean (if anything) for the future. When it comes to triplex's opinions, I guess how we read things must be different. You say you generally agree with triplex and then everything you say after that appears to significantly disagree with his statements. I am of the mind that pretty much nothing goes away, consumers are varied enough that pretty much everything is popular enough to continue. And of course there will be/are also debates over who benefits with various scenarios.

To end I wouldn't put to much stock in what a teenager thinks or does will have anything much to do with what they think or do when they are an adult. My memory of that time of my life is pretty fuzzy but I think basically nothing much carried forward into adult hood. That said I do agree that mobility will be important to many, that is part of why OTA will go to ATSC 3.0 - because all those hand held devices will be able to receive the broadcasts either directly and/or indirectly via a household gateway device.


----------



## trip1eX

I came to the conclusion that everyone knows VoD is the future. It's just that some are more angry about it than others.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> I came to the conclusion that everyone knows VoD is the future. It's just that some are more angry about it than others.


I don't know if anyone is angry or not and I highly doubt that anyone on this forum doesn't expect various forms of VoD to be a significant part of our future video delivery systems. After all it has been around in various forms for close to 40 years and has driven a significant part of the CE industry and is what DVRs are all about, which again most people on these forums are pretty big fans of.

What I am not a big fan of is meaningless statements. "VoD is the future" means about as much as "the world is going to end" both are likely true and both provide me with no useful information - or effectively tell me nothing and therefor are meaningless.


----------



## aaronwt

I'll pass on VOD in its current form. My coworkers had started embracing it a few years ago instead of recording things. But now they are back to recordings things because of the restrictions using VOD. Like not being able to skip over commercials and sometimes not even being able to fast forward.

I'll stop watching TV completely before being forced to watch commercials and not being able to fast forward.


----------



## trip1eX

atmuscarella said:


> What I am not a big fan of is meaningless statements. "VoD is the future" means about as much as "the world is going to end" both are likely true and both provide me with no useful information - or effectively tell me nothing and therefor are meaningless.


except "VoD is the future" is just referencing my position on the whole discussion we've had the past few weeks. IT's not meant to give you useful information on its own.

You're really just creating yet another strawman argument here/preaching to the choir. No one is a fan of meaningless statements.


----------



## trip1eX

aaronwt said:


> I'll pass on VOD in its current form. My coworkers had started embracing it a few years ago instead of recording things. But now they are back to recordings things because of the restrictions using VOD. Like not being able to skip over commercials and sometimes not even being able to fast forward.
> 
> I'll stop watching TV completely before being forced to watch commercials and not being able to fast forward.


WEll good news. You can already buy shows off iTunes and Amazon commercial-free.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> WEll good news. You can already buy shows off iTunes and Amazon commercial-free.


If they offered a cheaper "rent" option I might consider that route. I don't want to own every show I ever watch. 99.9% of shows I watch once and never want to watch again.


----------



## TonyD79

Dan203 said:


> If they offered a cheaper "rent" option I might consider that route. I don't want to own every show I ever watch. 99.9% of shows I watch once and never want to watch again.


Hell. The few I've bought I wish I could remove from my library.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> If they offered a cheaper "rent" option I might consider that route. I don't want to own every show I ever watch. 99.9% of shows I watch once and never want to watch again.


What's the price gotta be for you to buy in?


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> What's the price gotta be for you to buy in?


To rent an episode to watch one time? $1 or less.

I don't mind paying for ad-free VOD options either, like Hulu, but there are timing restrictions I don't like. For example they usually only have the last 2-3 episodes of current shows. I don't want to worry about waiting too long to watch a given show and end up missing an episode, or more, because it expired from their service.

The biggest problem with VOD at the moment is it's all a big cluster f*ck with too many players and content spread across them all. And some shows still aren't available VOD. For example I don't see The Walking Dead available via any of the OTT VOD service. You can watch it on AMCs website or on their mobile app, but none of those are easily accessed on a real TV. Even if you are willing to suffer through the commercials.


----------



## Diana Collins

I'm not taking sides in this debate, but would like to point out a few market realities that it seems have been overlooked...

First, it is possible, today, to capture a VOD into a file on your computer. Once captured, it is no different than a recording downloaded from your TiVo. It isn't easy, or something most people would have the skills to do, but should VOD become the primary delivery mechanism, you'll see the functionality 'productized.'

Second, while OTT (I rather prefer that term to VOD) services are gaining ground rapidly, they are still a small fraction of the size of the linear delivery system. While millennials may not be subscribing to cable, and some of their elders are cutting the cord, there are tens of millions of households where the members of that household will have to be dead before they drop cable. While it will be increasingly difficult to finance the existing infrastructure on a diminishing pool of viewers, and so changes will occur, it seems likely that linear broadcasting will be around for another 20 years, at least.

Finally, I firmly believe that if the VCR lawsuit had gone the other way someone would have come up with a different solution. While our economic system barely works in some ways, it is very good at meeting consumer demand. If enough people want something, and someone can make a buck supplying it, it WILL be invented assuming it is technologically possible in the first place. If the OTT service don't meet the demand, someone else will. DVRs are a great example. The cable companies were not providing a convenient way to time shift so the VCR was invented. Once it became technologically possible to build a machine to do "VCR-ing" automatically, several companies did so, including TiVo. So, no matter what happens, 5, 10 or 20 years from now, I believe that the market will provide what consumers demand. If enough people want the ability to watch TV "on-demand," with or without a network connection, then someone will provide it.


----------



## TonyD79

Sanity comes to this thread.


----------



## slice1900

Diana Collins said:


> First, it is possible, today, to capture a VOD into a file on your computer. Once captured, it is no different than a recording downloaded from your TiVo. It isn't easy, or something most people would have the skills to do, but should VOD become the primary delivery mechanism, you'll see the functionality 'productized.'


And VOD providers will defeat that capturing if becomes widespread, by using the DRM components built into Windows they are ignoring today.


----------



## atmuscarella

Diana Collins said:


> I'm not taking sides in this debate, but would like to point out a few market realities that it seems have been overlooked...


I am not sure there are any sides here . Everyone's opinion is somewhere from nothing will change ever to the whole system is going to be blown up and replaced tomorrow, with my guess being very few of our opinions are in exactly the same place in that spectrum.

My personal opinion is the market preference for various video delivery options will continually change, but the changes will be gradual and not absolute meaning for the foreseeable future pretty much all video delivery options continue to exist. Of course that is also my personal preference, I like what we have know and just want the various video delivery options improved from a consumer point of view.

I am sure others also have their own personal opinions but honestly for some people it is pretty hard to tell what those opinions are.


----------



## foghorn2

I prefer Tivo trick play recordings. 

I also have my own VOD streamed from my NAS to my FireTV with Kodi or WDTV.

I will NEVER pay for VOD.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> To rent an episode to watch one time? $1 or less.
> 
> I don't mind paying for ad-free VOD options either, like Hulu, but there are timing restrictions I don't like. For example they usually only have the last 2-3 episodes of current shows. I don't want to worry about waiting too long to watch a given show and end up missing an episode, or more, because it expired from their service.
> 
> The biggest problem with VOD at the moment is it's all a big cluster f*ck with too many players and content spread across them all. And some shows still aren't available VOD. For example I don't see The Walking Dead available via any of the OTT VOD service. You can watch it on AMCs website or on their mobile app, but none of those are easily accessed on a real TV. Even if you are willing to suffer through the commercials.


Yeah I'm well aware of the state of VoD today. The problems you state aren't inherent problems of VoD though. Thus they aren't arguments against VoD taking over in the long run.

They are arguments for why VoD won't take over today. But no one is arguing that VoD is taking over today.

btw, I think you can get shows on iTunes today for as little as $2/per episode. Shows are $3/episode individually. For Better Call Saul you pay $2.50/ep for the 10 episode season pass. And then, if you stock up on iTunes cards when they hit 20% off like they do a few times per year, $2/show becomes realistic and practical.

IF you settle for SD, which I don't think is far from cable quality, you can get the same SD episodes for as low as $1.36 each. $2 per episode list. $1.70 per if you get a season pass to a 10-episode series like Better Call Saul. 20% off if you stock up on cards. IT becomes doable to get it down $1.36 per episode.

That's the best case pricing today. And that's ala carte. You even own it.

For all this talk against VoD taking over in the long run and fear of commercials etc., it isn't that far, today, from your $1/show commercial-free buy-in point.


----------



## TonyD79

Yeah, 100 to 200% higher is close.


----------



## Dan203

Like I said I don't want to buy every show I watch. I want to be able to watch a show once and then delete it. I don't want a bunch of old episodes of shows I don't care about cluttering up my list and I don't want to pay 2-3x so I can "own" them.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> Like I said I don't want to buy every show I watch. I want to be able to watch a show once and then delete it. I don't want a bunch of old episodes of shows I don't care about cluttering up my list and I don't want to pay 2-3x so I can "own" them.


When I watch a show and pay nothing on my TiVo I delete the show, it was free, if I watched say 30 programs per month, and paid $1 for each program, and cut off cable saving say $100/month, I would still have a problem dumping the $30 of programs I watched each month, I know it is may only be my hang up, but it is real, I have movies I purchased years ago, can't toss them out, and will never watch them again, but maybe someone will someday. (I did toss my VCR tapes, and 8 track cassettes)


----------



## TonyD79

30 a month? I record something like 30-40 a week. And watch movies and other things I don't necessarily record.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> Like I said I don't want to buy every show I watch. I want to be able to watch a show once and then delete it. I don't want a bunch of old episodes of shows I don't care about cluttering up my list and I don't want to pay 2-3x so I can "own" them.


Meh. Owning isn't an obstacle and you know that. There can always be a check box to hide the shows you want hidden. Price is the issue.

I only briefly touched on "owning" to show that the prices are for owning which would be presumably higher than for "renting" if they ever went back to renting. Also you'd have to think if anyone put together a package deal that the price would go down further.


----------



## Dan203

I don't think content owners would do it though. They want control. They Want to force to watch weekly rather then bingeing. They want to force you to watch commercials. They want to have blackout periods where even the shows/movies you "own" are unavailable. Add to that the content providers who also have a vested interest in forcing you to watch commercials and you get a double whammy of consumer unfriendly behavior.


----------



## TonyD79

Dan203 said:


> I don't think content owners would do it though. They want control. They Want to force to watch weekly rather then bingeing. They want to force you to watch commercials. They want to have blackout periods where even the shows/movies you "own" are unavailable. Add to that the content providers who also have a vested interest in forcing you to watch commercials and you get a double whammy of consumer unfriendly behavior.


Stop bringing economic reality into a discussion on on demand utopia. LOL.


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I'm well aware of the state of VoD today. The problems you state aren't inherent problems of VoD though. Thus they aren't arguments against VoD taking over in the long run.
> 
> They are arguments for why VoD won't take over today. But no one is arguing that VoD is taking over today. ...


I have to give you points for being consistent. You are again holding to your belief that someday, some mythical undefinable video delivery system based solely on VoD will replace what we have today. Of course you have no idea when this will happen, how it will work, how much it will cost, or who is going to provide it. You just know it is going to happen because VoD is better .

Well I agree watching video via a VoD source is better and I will continue to do so via my Blu-ray player and TiVo DVR for the bulk of the video I watch, with zero expectations that other people will prefer to stop watching various live events via linear broadcasts.

If at some point you would actually like to define how some future video delivery system based solely on VoD is going to work and how we are going to get there I am sure there will be many opinions on how likely that is to happen.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Well of course some mythical player is going to come along and offer every show ever made, for the low low price of $19.99 (call now!!). With no commercials and full trickplay that actually works well. And oh btw the capping a-holes like Comcast are going to go full unlimited data at no extra charge because they realized that they're being a-holes.

We all know it's going to happen, and we should all look forward to it.


----------



## LoREvanescence

Dan203 said:


> I don't think content owners would do it though. They want control. They Want to force to watch weekly rather then bingeing. They want to force you to watch commercials. They want to have blackout periods where even the shows/movies you "own" are unavailable. Add to that the content providers who also have a vested interest in forcing you to watch commercials and you get a double whammy of consumer unfriendly behavior.


I hate blackout periods. I never have experienced them before until this year.

I have purchased a season pass to all 3 seasons of "The 100" on the CW through the iTunes store. The first 2 seasons the episodes automatically downloaded the day after their aired.

With the third seasons I don't get the episodes until the day after the next one airs. There is a week blackout on them. The episodes are also withheld from On Demand. They appear to be only available through the CW App / their Web site for streaming during the blackout period.

This was a pain because I didn't know when the show series was returning to TV. All I could find online was "Mid Season 2016" which I assumed was March or something like that and I couldn't find any listings of the show in my guide the beginning of January except for purchasing previous episodes at $2.99 a piece.

The next thing I now I see a commercial for it late January and realize and realized I missed the first 3 episodes and the 4th was going to air later that week. I could only get the first 2 on iTunes, same with On Demand. I had to watch episode 3 on the CW app on my iPhone to be able to catch up on that episode before episode 4 aired. Other wise I would have had to record episode 4 but not watch it. Catch up on episode 3 the next day then watch episode 4.

I mean really? What is up with that format?


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> I don't think content owners would do it though. They want control. They Want to force to watch weekly rather then bingeing. They want to force you to watch commercials. They want to have blackout periods where even the shows/movies you "own" are unavailable. Add to that the content providers who also have a vested interest in forcing you to watch commercials and you get a double whammy of consumer unfriendly behavior.


What are you talking about? WE just talked about the huge swath of commercial-free cable content on iTunes and Amazon. Content owners don't care about commercials for commercials sake. They care about getting paid.

And the legacy content owners aren't going to change overnight. They are trying to maintain their old way while dipping their toes in the new way. All they do is delay the inevitable though.

New content owners like Netflix and Amazon have none of these hangups.


----------



## trip1eX

slowbiscuit said:


> Well of course some mythical player is going to come along and offer every show ever made, for the low low price of $19.99 (call now!!). With no commercials and full trickplay that actually works well. And oh btw the capping a-holes like Comcast are going to go full unlimited data at no extra charge because they realized that they're being a-holes.
> 
> We all know it's going to happen, and we should all look forward to it.


Another strawman argument. No one said content is going to be cheap. Only point I tried to get across was the ala carte price at iTunes was your ceiling not your floor.


----------



## Dan203

trip1eX said:


> What are you talking about? WE just talked about the huge swath of commercial-free cable content on iTunes and Amazon. Content owners don't care about commercials for commercials sake. They care about getting paid.


They care more about control. If the traditional linear TV model goes away it may not be that easy to buy commercial free versions like we can now. A poster above already pointed out a situation where a content owner delays the release of the commercial free version for purchase for a week because they don't want it cutting in to their ad revenue. That could become the norm, or worse, in the future if their ad revenue stream starts to deteriorate. Competition and technology doesn't solve everything. These are still huge companies use to making billions of dollars that will do whatever they want to try and maintain their bottom line. And the end result may not even be as user friendly as it is now, let alone better.


----------



## jth tv

Based on the commercials that air for Older shows, rerun content has got to be cheap, really cheap. Even shows that are only few years old, eg "Republic of Doyle" rely on commercials are mostly scams and I can't believe that it costs much to run those commercials. There is ton of "used" content and more each day.


----------



## TonyD79

Look. There are technological possibilities. A lot of them. There are technological challenges. Most of them can be overcome. 

The reality is that technology for technology's sake only gets you so far. The economics is what drives adoption and success. 

One of us is talking technology. The rest are talking technology and economics. 

Even the success in meeting tech challenges is rooted in economics. Are the economics going to support overcoming the challenges? For example, for pure streaming style delivery to be the top dog, there will be a huge demand for bandwidth. Who is going to provide it? Does the economics say it will pay off? Not yet or it would be done or at least be in the works. The plain fact remains that linear channels are more economic and still draw the majority of the demand. 

As for the rest. I imagine prices going up rather than down or staying stable for pay for content without commercials. Right now, buying shows from Amazon is extra money. The producers of programming will take it because it is free money. But not their bread and butter. And yet HBO Now costs more than HBO plus HBO Go, even though the content is the same. 

You can say "Netflix original content" but Netflix is doing that more to survive than thrive. People are flocking to Netflix because of it. It adds to the programming Netflix can offer as they lose programming to competing venues. The economics don't make sense otherwise.

And now we see added fees for specialized programming like showtime on Amazon. 

We are not seeing the ceiling. We are seeing a market determined price point that will probably go up like every other program providing system has in the past (see movie rentals on demand). 

As for buying versus renting. The single programs are but because it is felt the market can sustain 2 bucks for buying a program. It doesn't want to let you rent it for 99 cents or less because you will watch either one once in most cases. And these folks have analyzed the market to determine that a lower rental price won't result in enough sales to make up halving the price. 

And I haven't even addressed the concept of paying for the programming and the delivery mechanism (Internet). 

You cannot separate economics from the technology when discussing OTT products.


----------



## atmuscarella

TonyD79 said:


> ...
> One of us is talking technology. The rest are talking technology and economics.
> ...


We can only assume some are talking about technology. As VoD isn't a technology, it is terminology that doesn't refer to any specific technology.

The technologies behind how video is delivered are things like OTA/ATSC, cable/QAM, Satellite/DBS, Internet/Internet Protocol, or even digital optical disk.

OTT is another term - but it does refer to the use of one delivery technology (Internet/Internet Protocol). But it isn't only VoD, it can also be linear video broadcasts.


----------



## trip1eX

TonyD79 said:


> One of us is talking technology. The rest are talking technology and economics.


Hogwash. Show me all this grand economic talk. There is none. I've talked as much as about pricing as anyone. total bs. I've never tried to make a case that everything is going to be so much cheaper either which seems to be what you are arguing below.



TonyD79 said:


> Even the success in meeting tech challenges is rooted in economics. Are the economics going to support overcoming the challenges? For example, for pure streaming style delivery to be the top dog, there will be a huge demand for bandwidth. Who is going to provide it? Does the economics say it will pay off? Not yet or it would be done or at least be in the works. The plain fact remains that linear channels are more economic and still draw the majority of the demand.


It is being done though. Look at the build out of internet bandwidth that is going on across the country. You'd have to blind not to see that. Look at the continued increase in customers streaming content and the increasing number of VoD OTT services.

No one is arguing VoD is taking over today either.



TonyD79 said:


> As for the rest. I imagine prices going up rather than down or staying stable for pay for content without commercials. Right now, buying shows from Amazon is extra money. The producers of programming will take it because it is free money. But not their bread and butter. And yet HBO Now costs more than HBO plus HBO Go, even though the content is the same.


HBO Now should cost the same as HBO Go and HBO because your money buys the same exact content either way.

And I too imagine paying ala carte for content on Amazon won't drop in price unless they bring back rentals or offer a larger subscription service.



TonyD79 said:


> You can say "Netflix original content" but Netflix is doing that more to survive than thrive. People are flocking to Netflix because of it. It adds to the programming Netflix can offer as they lose programming to competing venues. The economics don't make sense otherwise.


So Netflix is figuring out that producing original content, like the big media companies, is causing customers to flock to its service and you want to use that as a reason why VoD won't take over!?!??! 

This is exactly why big media is vulnerable if they continue to treat the VoD space as additive.



TonyD79 said:


> And now we see added fees for specialized programming like showtime on Amazon.


No one said content is going to be free. No one said it is going to be so much cheaper. You're the one equating VoD with free or cheap.



TonyD79 said:


> We are not seeing the ceiling. We are seeing a market determined price point that will probably go up like every other program providing system has in the past (see movie rentals on demand).


You're right that, over time prices, go up for nearly everything.



TonyD79 said:


> As for buying versus renting. The single programs are but because it is felt the market can sustain 2 bucks for buying a program. It doesn't want to let you rent it for 99 cents or less because you will watch either one once in most cases. And these folks have analyzed the market to determine that a lower rental price won't result in enough sales to make up halving the price.


I mentioned the current market prices. TV shows used to rentals only. Not sure why it went away. Media companies maybe saw it as too cheap. Or customers didn't like the rental model and thought their rentals disappeared too quickly. And this was the only agreement that could be reached.



TonyD79 said:


> You cannot separate economics from the technology when discussing OTT products.


Sure but where's the beef? . HEre are some economics for you. Content owner makes content. Content owner sell content. Content owner gets money.

And there are many economic benefits VoD brings. You know exactly what the customer is watching. You don't have to fill up 24 hrs/7 days a week of time slots. You can let shows grow without having to win a specific time slot to stay alive. It's very difficult for these big companies ,that are built around a linear broadcasting model, to grasp what VoD brings to the table.

Look at how magazines and newspapers have done by not fully embracing the disruptive nature of the internets. Look at how Microsoft did in the mobile space by trying to making the mobile space additive to their Windows business.


----------



## trip1eX

Dan203 said:


> They care more about control. If the traditional linear TV model goes away it may not be that easy to buy commercial free versions like we can now. A poster above already pointed out a situation where a content owner delays the release of the commercial free version for purchase for a week because they don't want it cutting in to their ad revenue. That could become the norm, or worse, in the future if their ad revenue stream starts to deteriorate. Competition and technology doesn't solve everything. These are still huge companies use to making billions of dollars that will do whatever they want to try and maintain their bottom line. And the end result may not even be as user friendly as it is now, let alone better.


The content owner is a legacy content owner. I touched on this in the 2nd sentence of the post you only partially quoted. I know those guys are doing it the name of protecting their current business. That is pretty common mindset when a new disruptive tech appears.

Microsoft did the same thing. They viewed the mobile space through their entrenched Windows business. Everything they did was to protect Windows. It clouded their judgement. And they got killed in the mobile space because of it.

Magazines and newspapers have done the same sorta thing with the internets.

IBM did the same thing and MS was created out of that similar-type of clouded judgement.

This happens alot when new disruptive tech emerges.

No one is making a case for VoD to mean cheaper content either.

VoD is going to take over because there is no reason for it not too. That statement doesn't care who controls the future.


----------



## TonyD79

I made a typo. 

People are NOT flocking to Netflix for original content. I typed it all on my iPhone and missed the autocorrect. 

And one person just wants to argue.


----------



## TonyD79

atmuscarella said:


> We can only assume some are talking about technology. As VoD isn't a technology, it is terminology that doesn't refer to any specific technology.
> 
> The technologies behind how video is delivered are things like OTA/ATSC, cable/QAM, Satellite/DBS, Internet/Internet Protocol, or even digital optical disk.
> 
> OTT is another term - but it does refer to the use of one delivery technology (Internet/Internet Protocol). But it isn't only VoD, it can also be linear video broadcasts.


Yes, there is a wide range of delivery mechanism but for the sake of the conversation here there are two tech groupings. Linear "broadcast" including cable channels and selectable viewing, which here has been loosely called VoD.

Fine on OTT. I was only trying to shorten typing on an iPhone. That's a bit nit picky. As for linear Non-traditional delivery like ip switching that uverse uses, that from a customer perspective is still linear, traditional style. Just as fios is really just cable. I don't give a crap that it is delivered via fiber. It looks and acts like cable.


----------



## TonyD79

trip1eX said:


> .
> 
> No one is making a case for VoD to mean cheaper content either.
> 
> VoD is going to take over because there is no reason for it not too. That statement doesn't care who controls the future.


For something to take over there has to be a reason for it to. You have yet to present that reason. What would it be?


----------



## atmuscarella

trip1eX said:


> ...
> 
> No one is arguing VoD is taking over today either.
> 
> No one said content is going to be free. No one said it is going to be so much cheaper. You're the one equating VoD with free or cheap.
> 
> ...


Assuming the "No one" your talking about is you, let me help you with a clearer response, just use this: "I haven't said anything, because I refuse to be specific and only use words that have no specific meaning".

I also assume (again because you refuse to use any words the might have a specific meaning) that you talking about IPTV technology and how that is going to effect the consumption of video in the future. I think we can all concede that IPTV technology has, is, and will continue to have an effect on video consumption and on the various video delivery systems existing today.

Or put more simply the debate isn't if IPTV technology will effect video delivery but how and when.

So if you would actually like to say something as apposed to nothing try making statements that represent your views on how and when IPTV technology will effect video delivery.

Try statements like: 
I don't think services using IPTV technology will significantly alter the number of household subscribing to a linear Pay TV services for at least 20 years, or
I think services using IPTV technology will shift peoples viewing habits from linear broadcasts to VoD and over the next 10 years the number of Pay TV linear broadcast channels will decrease by 20%, or
I think the shift to services using IPTV technology, will result in the content providers obtaining greater control over the consumers access to video content and result in high costs to consumers., or
I think IPTV technology will render linear broadcast channels obsolete and force cable companies out of the Pay TV business, etc.etc.
The above are all specific opinion statements that have meaning. Unlike open ended nonspecific opinion statements like "VoD is better" or "VoD is going to take over", which can mean anything (have no specific meaning) which basically means they are meaningless. And of course it is also helpful to post actual facts if you have any that support opinions.


----------



## trip1eX

TonyD79 said:


> For something to take over there has to be a reason for it to. You have yet to present that reason. What would it be?


If you mean in the past few days then you're right. If you mean in the past few weeks then you're wrong.


----------



## TonyD79

trip1eX said:


> If you mean in the past few days then you're right. If you mean in the past few weeks then you're wrong.


So I have to go through dozens of you posts to find it.

Nice.

If it is such a great point, you should be repeating it rather than hiding it.


----------



## wco81

Obama pledges support for cable box competition, angering the NCTA:

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...ompetition-and-surprise-cable-lobby-is-angry/

Nothing is likely to change during the time left in Obama's term.

So I guess the election will determine if these efforts to replace CableCard with something more open than the cable company wants you to have will have any kind of traction.

If the Republicans win the WH, presumably a GOP majority in the FCC will reverse the vote on many issues like this and net neutrality.


----------



## daveak

wco81 said:


> Obama pledges support for cable box competition, angering the NCTA:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/business/201...ompetition-and-surprise-cable-lobby-is-angry/
> 
> Nothing is likely to change during the time left in Obama's term.
> 
> So I guess the election will determine if these efforts to replace CableCard with something more open than the cable company wants you to have will have any kind of traction.
> 
> If the Republicans win the WH, presumably a GOP majority in the FCC will reverse the vote on many issues like this and net neutrality.


I love how some media outlets are talking about me being able to own my own set-top box with this new effort. Have they never heard of TiVo? I've been an owner for about 8 years.


----------



## Dan203

TiVo only works with cable. This new standard is suppose to work with all MSOs including DSS and IPTV providers.


----------



## DCIFRTHS

If Verizon goes for IP delivery, and eliminates QAM, wouldn't this break existing TiVo boxes?


----------



## Dan203

Yep. They were always in sort of a gray area and only required to support CableCARD becuase they were using QAM. If they eliminate QAM they'll no longer be required to support CableCARD or TiVo.


----------



## DCIFRTHS

Dan203 said:


> Yep. They were always in sort of a gray area and only required to support CableCARD becuase they were using QAM. If they eliminate QAM they'll no longer be required to support CableCARD or TiVo.


Damn. I have to admit that I would have to consider dropping TiVo if this happens. Love my FiOS, and Cablevision really turned me off a long time ago. Is it true that Cablevision doesn't use SDV anymore? I thought someone posted that here a while back.


----------



## CharlesH

daveak said:


> I love how some media outlets are talking about me being able to own my own set-top box with this new effort. Have they never heard of TiVo? I've been an owner for about 8 years.


I have also noted this. To hear the stories, there does not currently exist an alternative for the cable set-top boxes. Is TiVo really that far out of the mainstream


----------



## Dan203

DCIFRTHS said:


> Damn. I have to admit that I would have to consider dropping TiVo if this happens. Love my FiOS, and Cablevision really turned me off a long time ago. Is it true that Cablevision doesn't use SDV anymore? I thought someone posted that here a while back.


Not sure, I live in Charter country and they still use SDV here.


----------



## wco81

This is kind of an interesting development.

I didn't realize Comcast was now putting their apps. in streaming boxes like the Roku.

No lease fees for getting a physical box from Comcast.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-proves-the-fcc-is-right-about-set-top-boxes/

Though these days, they're really trying to push an X1 box on you for almost nothing as part of these deals. But at some point down the line, presumably they make you pay like $20 a month or something.


----------



## Dan203

That's Comcast's attempt to placate the FCC and prevent them from forcing a new open standard on them. Durring these committee meetings all the MSOs kept pointing to apps as evidence that an open standard was unnecessary. Except that with an app you're still forced to use the MSOs UI so it doesn't really create the retail competition that the original law intended.


----------



## wco81

Right but if you don't have to pay a separate lease fee for a box, that's a good start.

With today's news, we may be left with DVRs only from the provider.

Nor is streaming a real answer because streaming will eat up caps real quickly, though Comcast is raising caps from 300 GB to 1 TB in June.


----------



## DrewTivo

wco81 said:


> Right but if you don't have to pay a separate lease fee for a box, that's a good start.


Yes and no. If the lease gets bundled into the monthly package then you're worse off, because there's no possible competition for other boxes - you pay whether you use the cable co box or a competing one - and it's hard to compete against "free".


----------



## wheadley

wmhjr said:


> To me, what this means is obvious.
> 
> 1) Cablecards were a poor solution from the day they were released. I'm glad they exist, they allow Tivo to continue to function, but frankly they're not a great design, and they are (currently, and now forever) uni-directional - which flies in the face of the direction that content distribution is moving.
> 
> 2) This will mean that even though the Editor believes that there will be no modifications to existing legislation concerning Cablecard support/distribution, the reality is that the poor support that we receive from the likes of VZ, Comcast, etc, will get even worse. Think about it. If they move to an IP based distribution model with respect to both authentication and decryption, Cablecard becomes obsolete, and only hangs around for legacy use. It will be further de-emphasized (if that's even possible) and probably more expensive. Since the Cablecard provisioning and management systems will over time become useless for anything beyond retail users, more and more of the cost of those systems will need to be added into the cost, and less of that cost subsidized by the cablecos own "system distribution". Meaning, since they won't use it for their own boxes, they may will move all the cost of it over to the pricing model for us retail users.
> 
> 3) One thing it may finally do is open up the "DVR" market to more competition - though it will not likely be just like Tivo. I firmly believe that CableCard has been a pretty big obstacle to entry for other devices to get "conventional" TV. While many may still not accept it, more and more are in fact "cutting the cord". Go over to the Amazon Prime forums. Look how many Prime members have eliminated cable because they are now getting free Prime streaming Video. Personally, I think it's apples and oranges, but they are doing it - of that there is zero doubt.
> 
> I do see this is a major major threat to Tivo. I've been convinced that if the Roamio were not the last "conventional" Tivo that used technology such as Cablecard, it would be one of the last. Tivo revenue is totally dependent on MSO subs, and they clearly cannot survive based solely on the retail market. I believe the ratio of MSO (cable owned) subs vs Tivo retail subs is around 4 to 1. And it's mostly NOT in the US. As a 2013 Wired article stated "Here in the States, TiVo remains that box you bought five years ago then stuck in a closet when you replaced it with a far cheaper DVR from your cable company". Given the loss of Cablecard, combined with new competition such as Verizon Fios Quantum (a single DVR with 12 tuners, handling 10 TVs, 200hrs of HD content storage, streaming, mobile apps for all common devices) it seems like tough going for Tivo IMHO. Also note in that release the lack of any comment about deals to "continue" with any MSO other than Comcast. Which is exactly what I'd expect.
> 
> Tivo needs to really make some inroads FAST to be on board with VZ, ATT, Comcast, TWC, etc like yesterday or I fear this forum will end up being like a Commodore 64 fan forum. I really do think they had a chance to get ahead of this, but frankly their weakest points have always been around IP based content, network related issues, etc. Which unfortunately, are probably the most important areas moving forward. I know the MSOs (including VZ, etc) have not made things easy for VZ here in the US, but honestly, if you were in their shoes you wouldn't have either. Why would you willingly make cannibalization of your own service line easy and painless? That's the market Tivo is in, and it's a survival of the fittest market.


Actually, in the USA, it is now a survival of the rent-seeking, politically connected monopolies market and has been for a long time. TiVo has barely been a gnat con Comcast's bottom-feeding rent-seeking ass. I'm sure the USA will continue it's trend away from smaller competitive businesses toward a shrinking number of hyper-consolidated vertical monopolies-- all the better to screw their customers. Market collusion is how we roll these days-- in phones, cable, Internet, insurance, etc.

Anyone that thinks this has been good for the consumer ought to compare what Americans get for their dollar in media services vs. the EU or even Canada. By and large US customers are played as chumps-- paying the highest prices in the world while lagging behind the rest of the world in things like Internet speed, wireless service offerings, etc. This is a long-term trend and well documented. The USA has monopolies where used to be markets and competitors. Our government happily aides and abets all of it 99% of the time.

I'll miss TiVo once it becomes one with the Borg.


----------



## wco81

Industry trying to provide only limited access to content to third-party set top boxes.

Specifically, they want to control the UI and 3rd-party boxes wouldn't be able to record.

In return, they will provide apps. on 3rd-party devices.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-box-compromise-to-avoid-stricter-regulation/

OK, if the govt. changes hands, the FCC will probably bend over backwards to the NCTA, headed by former FCC chairman Michael Powell.


----------



## Dan203

That's no different the CableCARD 2.0 which used OCAP. The CE industry rejected the proposal and bailed on the consortium. 

There is absolutely no point in having 3rd party boxes if the industry has complete control over the UI. There is nothing that would distinguish one box from another and the cheapest Chinese made box would "win". The main way devices distinguish themselves from one another in the market is the UI, and UI related features. 

This proposal was intended to be a replacement for CableCARD. It can't be a viable replacement for CableCARD if it doesn't at the bare minimum provide the same functionality as CableCARD.


----------



## wco81

Again the addressable market for 3rd party boxes, especially if they require several hundred dollars in upfront investment, would be so small that maybe the FCC chairmen wouldn't push this too far.

Maybe if it worked on any cable system as well as D* and Dish, more people would be willing to invest.

It would have to have streaming features and probably things like out of home streaming and smart phone remote control to give people reason to spend the money.


----------



## atmuscarella

wco81 said:


> Again the addressable market for 3rd party boxes, especially if they require several hundred dollars in upfront investment, would be so small that maybe the FCC chairmen wouldn't push this too far.
> 
> Maybe if it worked on any cable system as well as D* and Dish, more people would be willing to invest.
> 
> It would have to have streaming features and probably things like out of home streaming and smart phone remote control to give people reason to spend the money.


There is a pretty big difference between a Pay TV STB and a Pay TV DVR.

How many people have and will buy a Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, etc.? The answer is millions - how much more would it take to make them work as Pay TV STB if cable cards where replaced with a software solution and any tuners you needed where network attached? Next to nothing. Cable is already willing to give that type of device an app they just don't want to give the third party devices control over the UI which is where the innovation could come in and where the consumer would benefit. It also sounds like they would like to lock down the DVR side, which again only benefits them not the consumer.

The FCC should tell all the Pay TV providers to drop dead and open up their networks or the fines will be that their business will be seized and sold to new owners who will open up the network. Or better yet the congress should make it a felony if the CEO and boards fall to open their networks up within a specified time frame and then if they don't put them all in prison.


----------



## wco81

You're not going to get relief from Congress.

The cable companies can lobby and buy politicians for relatively little money.


----------



## Dan203

Congress already gave the FCC the ability to do this back in 1996. And when they revisited it last year they only removed the "integration ban" portion of the law.


----------



## slowbiscuit

LOL, same old tired line from big cable - 'You can have whatever you want on third party boxes as long as it's our app and that's it. And oh yeah, forget DVRs.'

This proposal should be rejected outright for the red herring that it is. Comcast could do an Xfinity app with access to all channels today on Roku etc., there's nothing stopping them except their own biz model. But that's NOT what the FCC is proposing here.


----------



## wco81

House Republicans put terms in budget proposal to strip FCC of powers, so it can't push net neutrality or promote competition in cable set top boxes:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-to-kill-net-neutrality-and-cable-box-rules/



> The Republican budget proposal has passed through the necessary committees and is pending a vote of the full House. The budget plan would also delay the FCC's attempt to write new rules designed to encourage more competition in the cable TV set-top box industry. "The FCC is already committed to a lengthy, thorough rulemaking process that would establish a robust record of comment and analysis from companies, non-profit organizations, and academics," the White House said. "The current provision unnecessarily interferes with these long-established processes by requiring a delay of at least 270 days, and probably much longer, and a redundant, potentially costly study."
> 
> Additionally, the White House objected to the Republican budget proposal to reduce FCC funding. The commission requested $358.3 million in fiscal 2017 budget authority from regulatory fee collections, $25.7 million less than the current year's budget, which included extra money for moving to a new facility to reduce space usage. The House's proposed budget allocates $314.8 million.
> 
> Such reductions would force the FCC to scale back work on public safety, wireless spectrum, and IT modernization, the White House's statement said. The budget reduction could also harm efforts to save taxpayers money and boost government revenue, the White House said. Specifically, the lower budget proposal would "undermine efforts to save the taxpayers money by consolidating office space and improving oversight of the Universal Service Fund" and harm efforts to modernize the infrastructure needed to support spectrum auctions that "have the potential to return tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury."


----------



## Dan203

All I can do is...


----------



## TonyD79

wco81 said:


> House Republicans put terms in budget proposal to strip FCC of powers, so it can't push net neutrality or promote competition in cable set top boxes: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/white-house-warns-congress-not-to-kill-net-neutrality-and-cable-box-rules/


Yup. Business uber alles. Screw the consumer.


----------



## Dan203

Could they be any more in the pocket of big business? Seriously. Their actual constituents out number these guys 1,000/1 and yet they do sh*t that is blatantly against the majority of those constituents anyway.


----------



## foghorn2

Both sides are corrupt, just depends what lobbies pays more to what party. 

Fire them all.


----------



## wco81

Both sides are corrupt but at the moment, it's the Republicans who are pushing anti-consumer policies in telecom, like trying to roll back net neutrality and blocking this initiative for set top boxes.

Also, Powell, who was the FCC chairman, is now a big time cable industry lobbyist.


----------



## DrewTivo

wco81 said:


> Also, Powell, who was the FCC chairman, is now a big time cable industry lobbyist.


Traditional career path for both parties:
1) Committee staff
2) FCC commissioner
3) telecoms lobbyist


----------



## wco81

Well Wheeler was a lobbyist before he became chairman.

With him pushing net neutrality an this open box thing, he's probably not going to get another private gig again.


----------



## tarheelblue32

wco81 said:


> Well Wheeler was a lobbyist before he became chairman.
> 
> With him pushing net neutrality an this open box thing, he's probably not going to get another private gig again.


Wheeler is 70 years old. I think he realized he was at the end of his career and decided to go out actually doing the right thing. The next administration won't make the mistake of appointing someone that old.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

tarheelblue32 said:


> Wheeler is 70 years old. I think he realized he was at the end of his career and decided to go out actually doing the right thing. The next administration won't make the mistake of appointing someone that old.


Why does age matter? Consider the presumptive Republican nominee is 70 years old too.


----------



## tarheelblue32

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> Why does age matter? Consider the presumptive Republican nominee is 70 years old too.


If you are 45 and haven't cashed out yet, you aren't going to piss off the industry that will provide you a cushy, overpaid job after your 2 year stint at the FCC.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Nice Ars article about Comcast whining that it can't possibly provide an API or gateway to give access to programming. Read some of the comments to see how this is all just the usual flim-flammery from them.

http://arstechnica.com/information-...cs-set-top-box-plan-is-a-technical-nightmare/


----------



## Dan203

The problem certainly is more complicated then we'd like to admit. To comply with these rules the MSOs basically have two choices... 

1) Build some sort of gateway device which translates their proprietary tuner/authentication system into an open standard.

2) Build some sort of abstration layer into their network that allows 3rd party devices to access their IP based video.

For cable and fiber/VDSL they could really go either way. A gateway based approach would probably be simpler short term, and allow them to keep renting a box to the end user, but long term a portal into their IP stream is probably where they end up.

For DSS a gateway is the only real option since the only IP streams they offer are delivered over the internet and not their own system.

But as long as they all use the same open standard it wont really matter to the user. From their perspective it should all just work. Except when it doesn't and the MSOs start blaming thw 3rd party devices. The only way it's ever really going to work is if the MSOs start using the same system for their own equipment. Now whether they'll eventually do that on their own or will need to be forced to do so by congress/the FCC we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## wco81

Yeah but it's not really a technical obstacle.

Comcast has invested a lot of time and money to develop and advertise the X1, to push it on subscribers.

If they had to comply and make it easier for third party devices, it hurts their strategy.

They will fight becoming just a provider of pipes, because it's easier to raise prices on the X1 "platform" which is a value-added product, than to raise prices just on connection costs or content fees, most of which they do not own.


----------



## Dan203

Yeah the MSOs main concern is definitely loss of control more so then technical difficulty. They argue that the 1996 telcom act was only meant to allow consumers to own their own hardware, not create competing UIs. CE companies argue that without competing UIs there is no incentive for users to purchase their own hardware. I think most informed consumers would agree with the CE companies, but the vast majority don't really care and only want an alternative to the $7/mo box in every room they're currently forced to have.


----------



## NashGuy

MSOs can argue that OTT TV services like PS Vue, Sling TV, DirecTV Now, Vidgo (if it ever launches), the upcoming Hulu live TV service, and whatever else pops up are providing consumers with a range of different UIs on consumer-owned equipment for accessing subscription TV. Of course, in all of those cases, the UI is still controlled by the TV service provider rather than a separate company like TiVo. But, given that all of the OTT players will ultimately have access to pretty much the same channels at around the same prices, won't their UI be one of the main points of differentiation and (hopefully) innovation?

I understand that none of those streaming services are an exact replacement for traditional cable TV because they do not allow local recording of video streams. I'm just playing devil's advocate, so to speak, and pointing out a market development that MSOs may reference to suggest that the market is already solving the problem of competing UIs for video entertainment.


----------



## Dan203

If these rules were to go into effect I believe they would apply to ALL MVPDs, including those internet based ones. So PSVue, Sling, etc... would also have to comply with opening up their services to 3rd party UIs. Although the FCC could grant special exceptions.


----------



## Johncv

Dan203 said:


> If these rules were to go into effect I believe they would apply to ALL MVPDs, including those internet based ones. So PSVue, Sling, etc... would also have to comply with opening up their services to 3rd party UIs. Although the FCC could grant special exceptions.


Now I would love to see the PSVue use the TiVo interface.


----------



## trip1eX

Siri on the Apple TV can currently search for the cable authenticated content in apps from these channels/services:

ABC
A&E
Bravo
CBS
Cooking Channel
Disney Channel
Disney Jr
Disney XD
DIY
E!
Food Network
FOXNOW
FXNOW
FYI
HBO GO
HBO NOW
HGTV
History
Hulu
Lifetime
Nat Geo TV
NBC
Netflix
PBS
PBS Kids
SHOWTIME
SHOWTIME Anytime
Starz
Syfy
Travel Channel
USA

Last fall the list included Netflix and only a couple other of names.


----------



## wco81

NCTA takes a hard line in its negotiating stance.

No recording in third-party boxes, no gateways.

http://arstechnica.com/information-...offer-no-dvr-requirement-no-more-compromises/


----------



## Dan203

If it's a replacement for CableCARD then it needs to offer at least the same functionality as CableCARD. No recording should be a deal breaker in my opinion.


----------



## slowbiscuit

They claim it will lead to piracy because they won't have control over what third-parties do with recordings, which is a ROTFLMAO because EVERY FREAKING SHOW is on torrent trackers within 15 minutes after they air.


----------



## wco81

Yeah really, does HBO care that Game of Thrones is the most pirated show in history?

You wonder if it's HBO or Comcast who set the flag to prevent downloading of HBO content to the iPad app.

What's odd is that the Xfinity Go app. will let you download Showtime content for offline viewing but not HBO content.


----------



## TonyD79

wco81 said:


> Yeah really, does HBO care that Game of Thrones is the most pirated show in history? You wonder if it's HBO or Comcast who set the flag to prevent downloading of HBO content to the iPad app. What's odd is that the Xfinity Go app. will let you download Showtime content for offline viewing but not HBO content.


I'd assume HBO required or set the flag for do not copy since it is on for multiple providers. HBO has always been risk averse for pirating. Guess they never heard of screen scrapes.


----------



## JackStraw

With all the problems I'm having with Verizon FIOS and my CableCARD I hope it dies a slow and painful death.


----------



## wco81

Have a bad feeling that years from now, we may look back at CableCard Tivos with nostalgia about how things just worked.


----------



## lessd

wco81 said:


> Have a bad feeling that years from now, we may look back at CableCard Tivos with nostalgia about how things just worked.


Yes, Yes :up:


----------



## NashGuy

wco81 said:


> Have a bad feeling that years from now, we may look back at CableCard Tivos with nostalgia about how things just worked.


I think many of us will look back wistfully at the cost benefits of voluminous ad-supported content that could be indefinitely saved and played back whenever we wanted with the ability to skip the ads. As others have pointed out on this forum, TiVo allowed viewers to, completely legally, "game the system".

I expect that the future will continue to bring consumers more options and greater ability to assemble the ad-free and/or ad-supported combinations of services they want but, for those folks who want the full, all-you-can-eat TV buffet at the lowest total cost combined with the best viewing experience, yep, TiVo + CableCARD is (was) probably the pinnacle.


----------



## Dan203

I tried to use my cable companies VOD system the other night because we had an episode of Big Brother get messed up due to the RNC. It doesn't just prevent you from skipping the commercials, it prevents you from FFing at all. :down: We had watched 1/2 the episode on the TiVo knowing that VOD had forced ads, figuring we could just skip to that point in the show and continue from there. But nope, couldn't FF at all. Ended up watching the remainder on my iPad via CBS app. Still had forced commercials but at least you can scrub to the point you want in the video before having to watch the ads. 

I'm not too optimistic about this all VOD future we're heading toward.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> I tried to use my cable companies VOD system the other night because we had an episode of Big Brother get messed up due to the RNC. It doesn't just prevent you from skipping the commercials, it prevents you from FFing at all. :down: We had watched 1/2 the episode on the TiVo knowing that VOD had forced ads, figuring we could just skip to that point in the show and continue from there. But nope, couldn't FF at all. Ended up watching the remainder on my iPad via CBS app. Still had forced commercials but at least you can scrub to the point you want in the video before having to watch the ads.
> 
> I'm not too optimistic about this all VOD future we're heading toward.


For me to get around that problem I have an old Humax Series 2 TiVo with the built in DVD connected to one of my TiVo minis, I just set up that Mini to the VOD I want and record onto the Humax, than I can move the program to my main TiVo and FF the VOD program. My picture is in SD, but better than what you had to go through. (The Humax is normally not plug in until I need it)


----------



## NashGuy

Dan203 said:


> I tried to use my cable companies VOD system the other night because we had an episode of Big Brother get messed up due to the RNC. It doesn't just prevent you from skipping the commercials, it prevents you from FFing at all. :down: We had watched 1/2 the episode on the TiVo knowing that VOD had forced ads, figuring we could just skip to that point in the show and continue from there. But nope, couldn't FF at all. Ended up watching the remainder on my iPad via CBS app. Still had forced commercials but at least you can scrub to the point you want in the video before having to watch the ads.
> 
> I'm not too optimistic about this all VOD future we're heading toward.


I believe you could've watched it in HD, commercial-free, with full FF and RWD using the CBS channel in Plex. It's not that big of a hassle to set up the Plex Media Server on a PC or Mac on your home network and then install the CBS channel in the PMS software. Your TiVo, of course, already has the Plex app installed.


----------



## randian

wco81 said:


> You wonder if it's HBO or Comcast who set the flag to prevent downloading of HBO content to the iPad app.


My bet would be Comcast. They don't allow their subscribers access to HBO's streaming service (which is included in your cable sub at other MSOs) in order to force use of their VOD service. Setting that flag would be the same kind of thing.


----------



## Dan203

NashGuy said:


> I believe you could've watched it in HD, commercial-free, with full FF and RWD using the CBS channel in Plex. It's not that big of a hassle to set up the Plex Media Server on a PC or Mac on your home network and then install the CBS channel in the PMS software. Your TiVo, of course, already has the Plex app installed.


I actually have a Plex server on my PC, but I never really use it so I forgot about the channels. Doh!


----------



## DrewTivo

wco81 said:


> NCTA takes a hard line in its negotiating stance.
> 
> No recording in third-party boxes, no gateways.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/information-...offer-no-dvr-requirement-no-more-compromises/


Help me understand - from the article it appears to contain a positive, which is that the cable cos. would make an app that third party boxes could run. So, no need for a proprietary box. That seems good, broadly speaking - presumably that app could run direct on your TV, on a tivo-like box, or others (Roku, appleTV).

The biggest downside seems to be that they won't allow recording, except on the proprietary box. Seems hard to explain why the discrimination - i.e., "you can record on our box but not yours." But if that's the gap, it seems like one could get past that hurdle in some way, no? Is this just about preserving the cablecos ability to insert ads themselves? Because the content providers have a much bigger dog in the fight that the cable cos., so not sure why they would back a plan that allows commercial skipping on the cable cos box, but not third party boxes.


----------



## Dan203

They're trying to make it seem like they're compromising, when in reality this would be everything they want. 

During the committee meetings they kept trying to argue that the "apps approach" was the best option and was fully inline with the 1996 law. However if you watch the video of the TiVo Demo during one of the committee meetings you'll see representatives from several MSOs argue that the reason they don't want the "virtual headend" approach is specifically because it would allow 3rd party devices to bypass their UI. The TiVo guy even mentions how apps like Netflix offer two options, one for the user to launch the app directly and navigate it as-is and one for TiVo to launch directly into a video and start playing it. The DirecTV (or was it Dish) guy specifically says that they would never consider adding direct launch points into their videos like that because it would bypass their ads. 

The MSOs want apps, and no recording, because they want to force users to use their UI at all times. They don't really care if you record. They just don't want you to record with a different UI. With the "apps approach" they're giving up revenue from hardware leasing but retaining full control over the user experience so that they can make up that revenue via ads and upselling on VOD and other services.


----------



## wco81

Isn't it more about making sure their boxes have more capabilities so they can keep making money charging monthly fees to use their boxes instead of getting third-party ones?

There is a WSJ article out today about Apple's failures in TV. Over the past 5-10 years, they've tried to cut deals with the networks and cable cos. but they've demanded much lower fees than the industry norm.

One thing of interest is that Comcast and some of the other cable cos. were interested but wanted to see what the UI of the Apple product was going to be. Apple never showed it to them so a deal was never cut.

Again, they want a good UI only if it helps them make more money. But otherwise, they want exclusive features it seems.


----------



## randian

wco81 said:


> One thing of interest is that Comcast and some of the other cable cos. were interested but wanted to see what the UI of the Apple product was going to be. Apple never showed it to them so a deal was never cut.


No way Apple shows them anything without at least a "no copying our UI" contract. If Comcast doesn't sign it's obvious they were never going to use Apple's product they just wanted to clone it.


----------



## lpwcomp

wco81 said:


> Isn't it more about making sure their boxes have more capabilities so they can keep making money charging monthly fees to use their boxes instead of getting third-party ones?
> 
> There is a WSJ article out today about Apple's failures in TV. Over the past 5-10 years, they've tried to cut deals with the networks and cable cos. but they've demanded much lower fees than the industry norm.
> 
> One thing of interest is that Comcast and some of the other cable cos. were interested but wanted to see what the UI of the Apple product was going to be. Apple never showed it to them so a deal was never cut.
> 
> Again, they want a good UI only if it helps them make more money. But otherwise, they want exclusive features it seems.


They don't have ro make it better, just prevent 3rd parties from being able to do so.


----------



## Dan203

wco81 said:


> Isn't it more about making sure their boxes have more capabilities so they can keep making money charging monthly fees to use their boxes instead of getting third-party ones?
> 
> There is a WSJ article out today about Apple's failures in TV. Over the past 5-10 years, they've tried to cut deals with the networks and cable cos. but they've demanded much lower fees than the industry norm.
> 
> One thing of interest is that Comcast and some of the other cable cos. were interested but wanted to see what the UI of the Apple product was going to be. Apple never showed it to them so a deal was never cut.
> 
> Again, they want a good UI only if it helps them make more money. But otherwise, they want exclusive features it seems.


No it's about control of the "user experience". The focus here has been on the lack of recording but in reality they want to prevent 3rd party UIs from having any direct access to their services, including linear TV. They don't want 3rd party UIs to even be able to use their own guide. They basically just want to clone the software on their boxes over to an app and have you use that from a 3rd party piece of hardware. They don't want to allow 3rd parties to do anything special that would allow them to distinguish themselves in any way.

We've seen this same argument before during the CableCARD 2.0 negotiations. The MSOs wanted to use OCAP, which essentially allows them to download an "app" (java) to the 3rd party hardware and take over the entire UI. They refused to add any hooks that would allow 3rd party devices to access their services directly. The CE companies realized there was no money in making dumb hardware that simply ran the MSOs software, so they abandoned the negotiations and we never got CableCARD 2.0.

This is essentially the negotiation for CableCARD 3.0 and the MSOs are pulling the same sh*t they did last time around.


----------



## jth tv

When I think of cable box "user experience", I think of channel surfing and the cable companies making people tune channels they have Not subscribed to when channel up/down is pressed. They have been doing that since the early days and everyone complains about it but they still do it. Apparently they like to annoy people.


----------



## Dan203

It's also about ads in the guide and upselling PPV content or channels you don't subscribe to.


----------



## wco81

Comcast is providing an Ultra High Definition Sampler App to LG and Samsung Ultra HD TVs which will show NBC's 4K feed from the Rio Olympic Games.


----------



## wco81

US Copyright Office say 3rd-party devices could violate copyrights and agreements between the content owners and video distributors.

For instance, if a 3rd-party device allowed skipping or replacing of ads or added ads of its own, it would violate the agreements between the content owners and cable/satellite:

http://arstechnica.com/information-...h-cable-companies-against-fccs-set-top-rules/



> Even if third-party devices and applications did not replace the advertising that appears in the programming itself, the Proposed Rule would appear to allow them to add additional advertising as part of the programming stream, e.g., advertising spots before or after an on-demand video, or banner advertising next to or overlaid on top of a program, without any requirement that resulting advertising revenues be shared with either the MVPD or the content creator.


So content owners are anti-consumer too.


----------



## Dan203

They have no agreement with content providers with regards to ads on linear channels, so what's their excuse for not providing recording or allowing 3rd party UIs with those? CableCARDs allow both of those right now and have for the last decade.

I can (sort of) understand them wanting to protect their VOD content, but even then they could just have rules written in to the spec that requires 3rd party device to adhere to FF restrictions and prevents them from inserting their own ads. If that's really all they were worried about there are compromises that can be made.


----------



## wco81

Things like net neutrality and open competition for 3rd-party set tops are things Democrats generally support.

But they also have ties to Hollywood and the music industry too. I believe they backed laws to extend copyrights for example and some of the people who used to run organizations like the RIAA are now party operatives, like Hilary Rosen.

Maybe the tech industry isn't as gung-ho about this market, enough to throw a lot of lobbying money to loosen restrictions which would open up the market.


----------



## Dan203

I think that's the problem. There aren't enough deep pockets on the other side of the issue to put up a big fight. Our only real hope here is Google, and I'm not sure how invested in this market they really are.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> I think that's the problem. *There aren't enough deep pockets on the other side of the issue to put up a big fight.* Our only real hope here is Google, and I'm not sure how invested in this market they really are.


What, TiVo isn't a "Deep Pocket"?


----------



## Dan203

HarperVision said:


> What, TiVo isn't a "Deep Pocket"?


Nope. Not even with Rovis money.


----------



## HarperVision

*Fox and CBS ex parte filings hint that the FCC is going to make major compromises to Unlock the Box*



> Separate ex parte filings by 21st Century Fox and CBS Corp. indicated that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is preparing to back away from his controversial Unlock the Box set-top regulation proposal, morphing the NPRM to look much more like the apps-based counter-proposal put forth by the pay-TV industry.
> 
> The commission representatives indicated that they were seriously considering a revised approach to this proceeding that would ensure that all of programmers valuable content would remain inside of, and under the control of, apps developed exclusively by multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) with whom programmers have a direct contractual relationship, said Fox, in its ex parte (PDF) detailing August 15 and 17 meetings it had, alongside the Walt Disney Company, with Jessica Almond, a rep from Wheelers office.
> 
> *The commission staff also stressed that third party platforms, when distributing these MVPD apps, would be required to honor and abide by all of the terms and conditions set forth in programmers licenses with MVPDs, *Fox added.
> 
> Describing its own meeting with Almond on August 10, CBS said (PDF) the discussion centered around a revised approach that would help ensure that our valuable content and services remain inside of, and under the control of, MVPDs with whom we have a direct contractual relationship for the distribution of our product. *This approach would also mean that third-party devices and platforms would have to honor and abide by all the terms and conditions set forth in programmers agreements with MVPDs, as well as any other restrictions pertaining to our content that may not be covered by such agreements.*
> 
> An FCC rep told FierceCables that the agency has no comment.
> 
> In February, FCC commissioners voted 3-2 to advance the Unlock the Box NPRM, which would require pay-TV operators to furnish third-party device makers like Google, Amazon and TiVo with three information streams  programming information, programming permissions such as the ability to record and TV programming itself.
> 
> The plan has been rigorously contested by the pay-TV industry, which has garnered key constituencies ranging from Congress to the programming industry.
> 
> However, perhaps the most important win has been the turning of FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who voted to advance Unlock the Box, but who has backed away from the NPRM in recent months, stating publicly that it needs major alterations.
> 
> For more:
> - read this Bloomberg BNA story
> - read this 21st Century Fox ex parte (PDF)
> - read this CBS Corp. ex parte (PDF)


----------



## HarperVision

.......and this:

*AT&T: CCIA proposal just a thinly veiled repackaging of Unlock the Box*



> AT&T has sharply rebuked a white paper filed last week by the Google-backed Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), labeling it as a thinly veiled repackaging of the FCCs unlawful, unwise, and unworkable unbundling proposal.
> 
> The org, which also represents TiVo and (somewhat counter-intuitively) Dish Network, filed a white paper called "Unlock the Box: How to Address Opposition and Boost Competition. In the document, the group purports to bridge the gap between the FCCs Unlock the Box NPRM and the pay-TV industrys apps-based counter proposal, Ditch the Box.
> 
> Poppycock! said AT&T, in an ex parte filing.
> 
> "Such co-existence supposedly can occur because CCIAs proposal remedies all of the many fundamental copyright, security, privacy, and other flaws that programmers, MVPDs, virtually the entire creative community, over 200 bipartisan members of Congress, unions, scholars and academics, public interest groups, industry experts, the Copyright Office, and myriad others have identified with the Commissions original proposal in this proceeding. In fact, CCIAs proposal does not magically enable the 'coexistence' that it purports to provide, wrote AT&T.
> 
> *The new proposal, AT&T said, perpetuates CCIAs original and outrageous demand that the FCC facilitate its members ability to poach, reshape, and monetize valuable video programming  for free and unbound by the very contractual/licensing terms that catalyzed creation of the programming in the first place.*
> 
> Most egregiously, the ex parte adds, CCIA explicitly concedes that its supposed solution, just like the NPRM proposal, would not honor all terms of programmers copyright licenses.
> 
> AT&T cited a previous CCIA ex parte, which stated, Because third parties are not parties to and lack access to programmers private contracts, there should be no expectation that competitive navigation devices can or should have to follow those restrictions.
> 
> The Copyright Office, AT&T noted, has expressly rejected such a result as incompatible with the basic legal protections Congress has provided for copyright owners.
> 
> The pay-TV industry has vigorously opposed the FCCs adoption in February to unlock the proprietary pay-TV set-top business to third-party operators including Google and TiVo. The industry has gained traction with a counter-proposal that would rely on multi-screen apps provided by operators.
> 
> For more:
> - see this FCC filing
> - read this CCIA white paper


----------



## slowbiscuit

If the apps approach is the 'compromise' hinted at in that filing then we're all well and truly screwed. Tivo will be the last stand.


----------



## HarperVision

Which is why Dan, myself and many others would really like to see TiVo partner with an OTT streaming TV service like Vue, SlingTV, DTV Now, etc.


----------



## HarperVision

Wow, and this too!

*Samsung and NAGRA partner on set-top replacement dongle*



> *Samsung and NAGRA partner on set-top replacement dongle*
> by Daniel Frankel | Aug 26, 2016 11:44am
> 
> As the pay-TV industry and the FCC battle it out in Washington over the future of the set-top box, Samsung Electronics has partnered with NAGRA on a dongle-sized, secure set-top alternative for cable and satellite TV subscribers with Samsung TVs.
> 
> The new 4K- and HDR-capable TVkey is billed as a low-cost USB dongle that delivers content protection without a set-top or second remote.
> 
> *The TVkey security system incorporates the built-in terrestrial, satellite and cable tuners of Samsung TVs to offer subscribers a set-top-free connection to their service.*
> 
> Notably, Samsung was the first, alongside Roku, to enlist in Comcasts Xfinity TV Partners Program, which delivers the MSOs X1 video platform over multiscreen app in lieu of set-top.
> 
> And at the INTX trade show in May, Comcast was among a number of operators and vendors showcasing diminutive set-top device alternatives.
> 
> By integrating our latest content protection technology alongside open standards, such as USB and HbbTV/HTML5, we not only ensure excellent security, but also deliver a feature-rich, operator-branded user experience directly to the consumers TV, said Maurice van Riek, NAGRA senior VP of content and asset security, in a press release.
> 
> Samsung said it plans to release the product later this year, opening it up to other TV manufacturers in 2017.
> 
> For more:
> - read this Samsung press release


I wonder if a TiVo box could be made to work with this TVkey?


----------



## Dan203

I've said all along that the best compromise here would be to unlock linear programming, just like CableCARD does now, but allow the MSOs to confine all VOD content a to an HTML5 app that any device could use. DLNA CVP-2 (aka VidiPath) already offers all of this functionality. 

The big advantages this approach would provide us TiVo users is that it would make the hardware provider agnostic, so a TiVo could be moved between cable and DSS without having to buy new hardware. And it would allow everyone to have access to VOD content via an app similar to how Comcast works now. (it would also eliminate the TA, which would be a big plus for some users) 

Although I think that's more of a short term solution for someone like TiVo since eventually the MSOs will all transition to IP delivery and will no longer fall under this regulation. So long term TiVo needs to partner with some sort of OTT provider or they're going to get boxed out completely.


----------



## Dan203

HarperVision said:


> I wonder if a TiVo box could be made to work with this TVkey?


I doubt this device allows recording.


----------



## HarperVision

I don't see why not. This would just authorize the TV stream to be displayed similar to a cablecard, so I would guess it would also be similar to a TV with a cablecard installed that just shows the protected content vs a TiVo with the same cablecard installed that then allows it to record that decrypted TV stream.

This sounds similar to the USB dongle we've heard discussed about the new ATSC 3.0 spec for OTA?


----------



## Dan203

HarperVision said:


> I don't see why not. This would just authorize the TV stream to be displayed similar to a cablecard, so I would guess it would also be similar to a TV with a cablecard installed that just shows the protected content vs a TiVo with the same cablecard installed that then allows it to record that decrypted TV stream.
> 
> This sounds similar to the USB dongle we've heard discussed about the new ATSC 3.0 spec for OTA?


Because it sounds like it was developed by the MSOs and they don't want to allow recording. Short of some sort of government requirement they're never going to voluntarily allow recording from any of their apps/devices.

It's also highly likely that it's single tuner. Based on the brief description it sounds like the tuner is built in to the dongle so that each MSO can provide a dongle that's compatible with their system. A single tuner dongle isn't really useful for a TiVo.


----------



## slowbiscuit

HarperVision said:


> Which is why Dan, myself and many others would really like to see TiVo partner with an OTT streaming TV service like Vue, SlingTV, DTV Now, etc.


And then watch all their MSO partners flip them off, including all that ad metric revenue. I just can't see Tivo doing this even though for us it would make more sense if the FCC caves.


----------



## Johncv

Dan203 said:


> I've said all along that the best compromise here would be to unlock linear programming, just like CableCARD does now, but allow the MSOs to confine all VOD content a to an HTML5 app that any device could use. DLNA CVP-2 (aka VidiPath) already offers all of this functionality.
> 
> The big advantages this approach would provide us TiVo users is that it would make the hardware provider agnostic, so a TiVo could be moved between cable and DSS without having to buy new hardware. And it would allow everyone to have access to VOD content via an app similar to how Comcast works now. (it would also eliminate the TA, which would be a big plus for some users)
> 
> Although I think that's more of a short term solution for someone like TiVo since eventually the MSOs will all transition to IP delivery and will no longer fall under this regulation. So long term TiVo needs to partner with some sort of OTT provider or they're going to get boxed out completely.


Dan, why don't you file something to the FCC, you seem to know what you are talking about.


----------



## jth tv

Dan203 said:


> It's also highly likely that it's single tuner. Based on the brief description it sounds like the tuner is built in to the dongle so that each MSO can provide a dongle that's compatible with their system. A single tuner dongle isn't really useful for a TiVo.


But it says "built-in terrestrial, satellite and cable tuners of Samsung TVs"

I think the tuner is in the TV. The dongle is a dongle in the traditional sense of copy protection.

They are replacing a cablecard with a usb TVkey. Don't see how its any better or any worse, well unless the TVkey is single tuner.


----------



## Johncv

jth tv said:


> But it says "built-in terrestrial, satellite and cable tuners of Samsung TVs"
> 
> I think the tuner is in the TV. The dongle is a dongle in the traditional sense of copy protection.
> 
> They are replacing a cablecard with a usb TVkey. Don't see how its any better or any worse, well unless the TVkey is single tuner.


This is worse because you will no longer be able to record, time-shift, or skip commercials.


----------



## HarperVision

Johncv said:


> This is worse because you will no longer be able to record, time-shift, or skip commercials.


You don't know that! You're just speculating John, come on. Stop spreading FUD.


----------



## Dan203

Johncv said:


> Dan, why don't you file something to the FCC, you seem to know what you are talking about.


I actually did once. Someone from the FCC actually emailed me after and asked for my info saying that someone from Sony was interested in contacting me. I gave it to him, but no one ever contacted me. This was during the public comments phase at the end of the working group from the end of last summer.


----------



## DrewTivo

jth tv said:


> But it says "built-in terrestrial, satellite and cable tuners of Samsung TVs"
> 
> I think the tuner is in the TV. The dongle is a dongle in the traditional sense of copy protection.
> 
> They are replacing a cablecard with a usb TVkey. Don't see how its any better or any worse, well unless the TVkey is single tuner.


If the tuner is in the TV and the TVKey just provides an unlock code, shouldn't a multi-tuner TV/Tivo be able to use it to record multiple channels simultaneously?


----------



## Johncv

HarperVision said:


> You don't know that! You're just speculating John, come on. Stop spreading FUD.


I am not speculating, from your own post from Fox and CBS ex parte filings:

The commission staff also stressed that third-party platforms, when distributing these MVPD apps, *would be required to honor and abide by all of the terms and conditions set forth in programmers licenses with MVPDs*, Fox added.

Describing its own meeting with Almond on August 10, CBS said (PDF) the discussion centered around a revised approach that would help ensure that our valuable content and services remain inside of, and under the control of, MVPDs with whom we have a direct contractual relationship for the distribution of our product. This approach would also mean *that third-party devices and platforms would have to honor and abide by all the terms and conditions set forth in programmers agreements with MVPDs, as well as any other restrictions pertaining to our content that may not be covered by such agreements.*

This clearly mean no recording, no time-shifting, no skipping commercials. You watch the show when we want you to watch the show and all commercials we can stuff into the show.


----------



## Jonathan_S

DrewTivo said:


> If the tuner is in the TV and the TVKey just provides an unlock code, shouldn't a multi-tuner TV/Tivo be able to use it to record multiple channels simultaneously?


If it's like a cable-card the card / key needs to be aware of the multiple simultaneous channels so it can keep the decryption data going for all of them.

That's because a setup where the TVKey (or cablecard) simply hands the channel's decryption key over to offboard hardware is too vulnerable to attack - it's too easy to snoop the connection and recover the key (allowing people to then pirate that channel). Like cablecard I assume that key parts of the channel decryption process would need to occur within the physically secure card/key itself. But if it's doing the crypto and you want to handle multiple channels you require explicit extra hardware support to handle each additional simultaneous crypto session (aka to support the decryption of each additional simultaneous channel)

So if it's designed to support single-tuner TVs it would be like the old S-card cable-cards. If you wanted to support 6 tuners with those you needed to lease 6 S-cards from the cable company -- in this case you'd need to lease 6 USB TVkeys. If nothing else the per/key fees would add up to a lot of money per month (unless the government limits them to something significantly more nominal than the current cablecard price limits)


----------



## Dan203

If the tuner is not inside the key then how is it any different the CableCARD? I just can't see why MSOs, especially cable MSOs, would want to work with a new device that essentially works the same as the standard that's existed for over a decade. 

Also Samsung would need to build special tuners into their TVs for each potential source. DirecTV, Dish, Cable, Uverse all have different tuner technology. Seems unlikely they'd want to spend the money to put tuners for all of those sources into the TV itself.


----------



## HarperVision

Johncv said:


> I am not speculating, from your own post from Fox and CBS ex parte filings:
> 
> The commission staff also stressed that third-party platforms, when distributing these MVPD apps, *would be required to honor and abide by all of the terms and conditions set forth in programmers licenses with MVPDs*, Fox added.
> 
> Describing its own meeting with Almond on August 10, CBS said (PDF) the discussion centered around a revised approach that would help ensure that our valuable content and services remain inside of, and under the control of, MVPDs with whom we have a direct contractual relationship for the distribution of our product. This approach would also mean *that third-party devices and platforms would have to honor and abide by all the terms and conditions set forth in programmers agreements with MVPDs, as well as any other restrictions pertaining to our content that may not be covered by such agreements.*
> 
> This clearly mean no recording, no time-shifting, no skipping commercials. You watch the show when we want you to watch the show and all commercials we can stuff into the show.


Hmmmmm.....that's not what I get from that, unless I "speculate" what those things you put in bold mean.

The Key could be basically the same as a cablecard, which DOES allow recording, etc.



Dan203 said:


> If the tuner is not inside the key then how is it any different the CableCARD? I just can't see why MSOs, especially cable MSOs, would want to work with a new device that essentially works the same as the standard that's existed for over a decade.
> 
> Also Samsung would need to build special tuners into their TVs for each potential source. DirecTV, Dish, Cable, Uverse all have different tuner technology. Seems unlikely they'd want to spend the money to put tuners for all of those sources into the TV itself.


Maybe it's the same concept and idea as cablecard, but more modern and easier to program, authenticate, pair, provision, etc.?

Maybe this can be used with your "gateway" approach you always talk about Dan, so the tuners can reside in that device and then the authentication is one of these keys at each TV?


----------



## Dan203

No reason to do it that way though. If they were going to do a gateway then the Samsung TVs would just use it. And if all this key did was decrypt then they would just use CableCARD. Seems silly to reinvent the wheel just to have a different connector on the end. I can't imagine a USB port is that mich cheaper then a PCMCIA slot.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> No reason to do it that way though. If they were going to do a gateway then the Samsung TVs would just use it. And if all this key did was decrypt then they would just use CableCARD. Seems silly to reinvent the wheel just to have a different connector on the end. I can't imagine a USB port is that mich cheaper then a PCMCIA slot.


TVs stopped using cable card slots because it was too hard to find the ch one wanted and no TV had as good UI (and no VOD) as the cable co box, most people just used the cable co DVR or box, my Comcast package comes with a "free DVR" that I don't take because I already have TiVo, but if I was starting out and had no cable equipment the cable co DVR would have been a much better $ deal, the UI may not be as good as TiVo but I would have never invested the money in a TiVo system to find out as the free cable DVR and free on-sight service is too much of a good deal, and that why new TiVo retail customers are hard to come by. So far I have kept up to date by selling my old TiVo when a new TiVo comes out to replace my current TiVo, the cost was not that great, now when the Bolt comes out with a 6 tuner unit and all-in costing $599 + the cost of the bolt, the net upgrade cost I think will be much higher, the last Roamio Plus I sold on E-Bay (some time ago) I had a net of over $600, don't know that I can do that again.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> No reason to do it that way though. If they were going to do a gateway then the Samsung TVs would just use it. And if all this key did was decrypt then they would just use CableCARD. Seems silly to reinvent the wheel just to have a different connector on the end. I can't imagine a USB port is that mich cheaper then a PCMCIA slot.


I imagine it would be cheaper, as almost all TVs today come with a USB port. If you could just utilize the port already there by default anyway, then the added hardware cost would be essentially $0.


----------



## HarperVision

Plus, it would probably be easier to flash a USB stick in the office with your channel authentications etc than it is trying to get a Cablecard authorized over their cable network.


----------



## tarheelblue32

HarperVision said:


> Plus, it would probably be easier to flash a USB stick in the office with your channel authentications etc than it is trying to get a Cablecard authorized over their cable network.


You could also potentially have a system where the self-installing subscriber could attach it to their home computer and go to the cable operator's automated website to have that done. You could even do it with a smartphone app if you have a micro-USB adapter. Heck, if it's a smart TV even all that wouldn't be necessary. The TV could just connect directly to the cable company's servers and do it automatically.


----------



## TonyD79

HarperVision said:


> Plus, it would probably be easier to flash a USB stick in the office with your channel authentications etc than it is trying to get a Cablecard authorized over their cable network.


What office? You mean the cable company store? Many of them are closing their stores left and right.


----------



## jth tv

It also depends on patents and copyrights and chips and equipment certifications, cost and time delays. Somebodies going to try to make a bundle. They want their buddies to be the ones that get rich.


----------



## DrewTivo

HarperVision said:


> Maybe it's the same concept and idea as cablecard, but more modern and easier to program, authenticate, pair, provision, etc.?


Well, one advantage is that USB is a common standard, and built into most TVs now (and easily included in future ones).

CC slots in TVs died pretty quickly because there was no demand for them. USB ports are likely to continue to remain in demand.


----------



## HarperVision

TonyD79 said:


> What office? You mean the cable company store? Many of them are closing their stores left and right.


And that's a bad thing?


----------



## TonyD79

HarperVision said:


> And that's a bad thing?


Yes. I never had a problem walking into the local fios office to get things done immediately and always right.


----------



## DrewTivo

Johncv said:


> I am not speculating, from your own post from Fox and CBS ex parte filings:
> 
> The commission staff also stressed that third-party platforms, when distributing these MVPD apps, *would be required to honor and abide by all of the terms and conditions set forth in programmers licenses with MVPDs*, Fox added.
> 
> Describing its own meeting with Almond on August 10, CBS said (PDF) the discussion centered around a revised approach that would help ensure that our valuable content and services remain inside of, and under the control of, MVPDs with whom we have a direct contractual relationship for the distribution of our product. This approach would also mean *that third-party devices and platforms would have to honor and abide by all the terms and conditions set forth in programmers agreements with MVPDs, as well as any other restrictions pertaining to our content that may not be covered by such agreements.*
> 
> This clearly mean no recording, no time-shifting, no skipping commercials. You watch the show when we want you to watch the show and all commercials we can stuff into the show.


But that will set up a battle with the cablecos no? Aren't they pretty happy to have on-demand viewing and DVRs, so long as they're controlled by the cable cos? I can understand CBS doesn't like that - but that's a battle between the content providers and the content distributors.

And if the cablecos are able to secure licensing terms that allow time shifting then presumably third parties can argue that they too should have the same rights to provide time shifting services, so long as they comply with copy protection etc.


----------



## wco81

FCC came up with a final proposal:



> The cable industry proposal would have only required cable company apps to include linear and on-demand TV content, leaving customers without the ability to record unless they buy or rent a traditional set-top box. The FCC will instead require cable companies to provide the same recording functionality in apps that they provide in set-top boxes.
> 
> Secondly, cable companies proposed building their applications using HTML5 only. The FCC will instead require the pay-TV operators to use whatever type of technology is necessary to reach the devices being used by consumers. Cable companies can still use HTML5, but if a major platform requires a different standard, cable TV companies will have to use whatever is needed.
> 
> Pay-TV operators wont have to build apps for every conceivable device, but the FCC will require apps for "all widely deployed platforms." The FCC hasnt yet said how many users a platform must have to qualify, but this would likely include major operating systems like Windows, iOS, Android, and macOS. Cable companies could potentially support desktops and laptops with browser-based apps instead of native applications.


http://arstechnica.com/information-...ules-to-please-industry-gets-blowback-anyway/

The NCTA, Republicans and content owners aren't happy while consumer advocacy groups are:



> The NCTA issued a statement after today's FCC announcement claiming that "The work of this licensing body would be subject to intrusive FCC oversight, creating a bureaucratic morass and improperly involving the FCC in private licensing arrangements in a way that will slow the deployment of video apps, ignore copyright protections and infringe on consumer privacy."
> 
> Programmers including Disney, CBS, Viacom, and Time Warner also objected to a licensing process controlled by the commission or a third party.
> 
> New plan earns praise, and ridicule
> 
> Cable companies and programmers could try to stop the rules by suing the FCC after the vote. But Wheelers most pressing concern was making sure he had enough votes to approve his plan. He had to ditch his original proposal to gain the vote of Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the original was too complicated and raised copyright concerns.
> 
> Republican Commissioner Michael O'Rielly blasted Wheeler's new proposal today, saying "it appears to exist within a fantasy world of unlimited Commission authority. The Commission is and must remain in the business of licensing spectrum and infrastructure, not content."
> Consumer advocates didn't get everything they asked for, but advocacy group Public Knowledge is pleased with the FCC's new plan. Since his initial proposal, the Chairman has worked assiduously to address all the legitimate concerns raised by some programmers and the pay-TV industry," Public Knowledge Senior Counsel John Bergmayer said. "The modified approach the Chairman has described today addresses the legitimate concerns raised by these parties while preserving the benefits to the public, and fulfilling the Congressional directive that requires the FCC to ensure that viewers do not need to rent set-top boxes from their providers."
> 
> US Senators Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) supported the new FCC plan. Markey and Blumenthal last year conducted a survey of pay-TV providers, and said it found that about 99 percent of US customers rent set-top boxes directly from their providers and pay an average of $231.82 a year in rental fees.


If apps. are able to record, that might cut off Tivo or any kind of DVR with hardware tuners.

Now if recording is allowed to the extent that it is now, maybe some souped-up box, instead of simple streamers like Roku or Apple TV, might have much more local storage and the ability to record multiple streams or channels at once.

Of course, if these apps. allowed on-demand viewing, the industry will claim there's no need to record.

But of course the truth is that a lot of shows stop being available shortly after the season ends and end up only on Amazon Prime or Hulu while only the current season may remain on cable on-demand servers.

I don't know if it's a question of the costs of maintaining older seasons or the rights to those older seasons are sold off to other services. Probably some of both but the latter may be becoming more prevalent as an additional revenue source, since the content industry is into playing games with different availability windows, the way the movie studios are with movies that go into home video, then eventually pay TV channels.


----------



## innocentfreak

While not as bad as it could be, it isn't that good either. 

I do worry about the future of TV and the bad UIs we will have to deal with. Meanwhile the point of apps will be avoided since you won't be able to choose any provider even those not local.


----------



## Dan203

Yeah even if the apps allow recording it takes away all the control TiVo, and others, had over that recording. There will be no competitive advantage to the UI or additional features like mobile streaming or PC transfers. Your box will basically be a dumb terminal running the MSOs app and only offer whatever recording features that app allows.

This is basically OCAP with a more modern programming language.


----------



## bradleys

Apps are the worst possible consumer option it puts all the control back on the programmers and creates segmented delivery presentations.

It is the mechanism that the MSO's have been pushing...


----------



## Dan203

I surprised we haven't seen a response from TiVo or Google on this. This will essentially box them out of the market.

Whats really funny is that even with this apps approach they're still going to need a gateway type box to do the actual tuning if they want to serve these apps to devices like a Roku or smart TVs because they don't have any of the hardware required to tune encrypted QAM or DSS channels. Once they go IP they wont need it, but that's still at least 5 years out, probably more.


----------



## NashGuy

If this plan passes on Sept. 29, large TV providers will have two years to comply and smaller ones will have four years. That would be enough time for them to offer their full suite of TV services over IP (managed IP if the TV provider also controls the internet connection to the home, OTT if they don't). Will Dish (which would never presumably transition to IP on their own) be exempt? DirecTV is already planning to offer both a managed IP (successor to U-verse TV) and OTT streaming version (DirecTV NOW) of their service anyhow. I recently read that C-Spire, a small fiber provider in MS, is already moving to a pure app-based approach and doing away with their own STBs. Of course, since fiber is IPTV to begin with, that's not difficult for them.

I'm assuming that this streaming apps solution is all IP-based and doesn't require some kind of separate hardware tuner in the home to tune and decrypt QAM or SDD channels and then convert them to IP streams for devices on the home network, as nothing about that is mentioned in anything I've read about the plan.

The good news for current CableCARD users is that, should compliance with this plan relieve MSOs from having to support CableCARD devices (and perhaps it doesn't), you would appear to have 2 to 4 more years before your TiVos stop working (and of course it's possible that some MSOs would voluntarily continue to support them even after they no longer legally have to). Hopefully the FCC provides some clarification soon about what this new app-based plan means for continued CableCARD support.


----------



## atmuscarella

If anyone would like to read the actual FCC Proposal you can access it here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheelers-plan-increase-choice-and-innovation-video

It is available in 3 formats Pdf, Docx, & txt


----------



## NashGuy

Here's the op-ed that the FCC chairman wrote for the LA Times today that represents where the proposal currently stands. It isn't very detailed, just provides the big picture:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-wheeler-set-top-box-rules-20160908-snap-story.html


----------



## TonyD79

atmuscarella said:


> If anyone would like to read the actual FCC Proposal you can access it here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheelers-plan-increase-choice-and-innovation-video It is available in 3 formats Pdf, Docx, & txt


I don't like to read FCC mumbo jumbo but are they at least mandating standards? No standards means they make deals with specific hardware and that is really the same as a company box.


----------



## NashGuy

I think the standards are these (excepted from the FCC chairman's op-ed):

_pay-TV providers will be required to provide apps  free of charge that consumers can download to the device of their choosing to access all the programming and features they already paid for

One of the biggest benefits consumers will see is integrated search. The rules would require all pay-TV providers to enable the ability for consumers to search for pay-TV content alongside other sources of content. Just type in the name of a movie, and a list will come up with all the places it is scheduled for broadcast and where it can be streamed (like Amazon Prime or Hulu)._


----------



## innocentfreak

I don't see how this will help competition unless I can choose the provider I want even if they aren't my local provider.

Imagine if cell phones worked the same way, Android and IOS wouldn't matter since you are stuck using Verizon's messaging app, dealer, voicemail etc.


----------



## HarperVision

NashGuy said:


> .......pay-TV providers will be required to provide apps &#150; free of charge&#150; that consumers can download to the device of their choosing to access all the programming and features they already paid for ........


I hope that means if you pay for their DVR "feature" you still get full DVR functionality.



innocentfreak said:


> I don't see how this will help competition unless I can choose the provider I want even if they aren't my local provider.
> 
> Imagine if cell phones worked the same way, Android and IOS wouldn't matter since you are stuck using Verizon's messaging app, dealer, voicemail etc.


Exactly, I should be able to choose whether I want Comcrap...the future of awful, Charter, Cox, Vue, DirecTV, Dish, SlingTV, whomever no matter where I am.


----------



## NashGuy

I'm pretty sure they'll have to include DVR functionality in their apps, otherwise the apps wouldn't be equivalent in functionality to their own STBs. I'd also bet that they'll have the option of letting their apps use cloud DVR rather than local storage DVR, even in their STBs are still using the latter.

Who knows, maybe we'll see some of the retail streaming boxes begin including hard drives or make it simple to attach USB hard drives and store videos downloaded from apps. (Amazon's mobile apps already allow users to download and keep for limited periods many shows available on Amazon Prime as well as individual titles you've purchased or rented.) But I really think that, for everything other than satellite, pay TV providers are already on the path to replacing local DVR with cloud DVR. I'd say it lowers their equipment and support costs (all those failing hard drives) while making it easier for customers to access their recordings anywhere from any device.


----------



## innocentfreak

NashGuy said:


> I'm pretty sure they'll have to include DVR functionality in their apps, otherwise the apps wouldn't be equivalent in functionality to their own STBs. I'd also bet that they'll have the option of letting their apps use cloud DVR rather than local storage DVR, even in their STBs are still using the latter.
> 
> Who knows, maybe we'll see some of the retail streaming boxes begin including hard drives or make it simple to attach USB hard drives and store videos downloaded from apps. (Amazon's mobile apps already allow users to download and keep for limited periods many shows available on Amazon Prime as well as individual titles you've purchased or rented.) But I really think that, for everything other than satellite, pay TV providers are already on the path to replacing local DVR with cloud DVR. I'd say it lowers their equipment and support costs (all those failing hard drives) while making it easier for customers to access their recordings anywhere from any device.


Right but like I mentioned in the other thread the DVR will still exist. The difference will be you are now stuck with the cable company's DVR.

Do you care what hardware you use to watch the current apps offered by cable companies? No because it doesn't matter since the experience is the same.

The FCC is killing the incentive for third party hardware. I see this leading to less competition especially since you know they won't open it up to the consumer being able to choose any provider.

We also don't know what restrictions there will be if any on multiple users. Currently a CableCard supports up to 6 tuners. The app could support one and they could charge a fee per additional streams. On top of that using the apps on the devices like Roku which don't have Coax input could easily apply towards your data caps. The FCC only said the app must be free. I didn't see any remarks on the number of simultaneous streams.


----------



## wco81

I think a lot of the language was about preserving copyright and whatever rights they've negotiated with the networks.

So if the cable cos. and the networks get tired of ad skipping, they may make the apps. record in very limited fashion, with no ability to ad skip or just do away with recording altogether. Like ESPN could say you can't record or channels period. Then the apps. on third party devices won't record ESPN either.


----------



## NashGuy

innocentfreak said:


> Right but like I mentioned in the other thread the DVR will still exist. The difference will be you are now stuck with the cable company's DVR.
> 
> Do you care what hardware you use to watch the current apps offered by cable companies? No because it doesn't matter since the experience is the same.
> 
> The FCC is killing the incentive for third party hardware. I see this leading to less competition especially since you know they won't open it up to the consumer being able to choose any provider.
> 
> We also don't know what restrictions there will be if any on multiple users. Currently a CableCard supports up to 6 tuners. The app could support one and they could charge a fee per additional streams. On top of that using the apps on the devices like Roku which don't have Coax input could easily apply towards your data caps. The FCC only said the app must be free. I didn't see any remarks on the number of simultaneous streams.


Yep. I think TiVo users approach this whole thing being more concerned about having a choice in UI for TV/DVR while the FCC seems mainly concerned about giving consumers choice in the hardware they use to access services so that they can save money on rental fees. You're right that the MSO's app on your Roku will look and function pretty much the same as the software on the MSO's own STB you can rent. It's not like we'll have a choice in which app we can use to access the MSO's services. There won't be a TiVo app, sporting the TiVo UI, unless the MSO strikes a deal with TiVo to allow that. (Who knows, maybe some providers would offer an optional TiVo-powered app that if they thought it gave them a competitive advantage versus their competitors.)

In the end, I think pay TV providers' UI/UX/feature set (along with channel packages and pricing, of course) will be their competitive differentiators. It's very possible that eventually, the major cable companies (Comcast, Charter, etc.) will follow AT&T's example with DirecTV NOW and offer an OTT app-based version of their service to customers nationwide, regardless of whether they're served by their own cable internet pipe or not. If they have to offer an IP-based app-packaged version of their service to their existing customers in their own geographic footprint, why not go ahead and roll it out everywhere and compete nationally?


----------



## wco81

Comcast objects to the FCC proposal, which largely is based on the apps. approach that the NCTA wanted:



> Comcast responded just after this story published, pointing to a recent filing by itself and other industry members. The filing says the FCC proposal "essentially imposes a royalty-free compulsory copyright license on [pay-TV operators] and programmers, which would also be well beyond the Commissions authority to adopt."
> 
> "Expect even more detailed analysis with the multiple legal issues the new proposal raises to be filed in the coming days," Comcast told Ars. "Not knowing what standards or licensing is going to be for months and maybe years is going to stifle innovation."
> 
> The proposal includes a system for licensing cable company apps to device makers. The FCC plan would require the industry to develop a standard license so that device makers wont have to comply with different terms imposed by each pay-TV operator. Though the licensing group would consist of pay-TV operators and programmers, the FCC said it would review the groups work to ensure that nothing in the standard license will harm the marketplace for competitive devices.
> 
> The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the industrys main lobby group, said yesterday that The work of this licensing body would be subject to intrusive FCC oversight, creating a bureaucratic morass and improperly involving the FCC in private licensing arrangements in a way that will slow the deployment of video apps, ignore copyright protections and infringe on consumer privacy. This proposal would far exceed the Commissions legal authority and improperly insert the government into private contract negotiations between pay TV distributors, content creators and device manufacturers.


http://arstechnica.com/information-...set-top-box-plan-violates-law-doesnt-say-how/

Sounds like they want to charge for their apps. or require payments to be on a given device.


----------



## HarperVision

wco81 said:


> I think a lot of the language was about preserving copyright and whatever rights they've negotiated with the networks. So if the cable cos. and the networks get tired of ad skipping, they may make the apps. record in very limited fashion, with no ability to ad skip or just do away with recording altogether. Like ESPN could say you can't record or channels period. Then the apps. on third party devices won't record ESPN either.


Yep, and that's exactly how it's done on Vue. Each channel has its own rules as to what and how you can record, FF, RWD, skip, etc.



NashGuy said:


> Yep. I think TiVo users approach this whole thing being more concerned about having a choice in UI for TV/DVR while the FCC seems mainly concerned about giving consumers choice in the hardware they use to access services so that they can save money on rental fees. You're right that the MSO's app on your Roku will look and function pretty much the same as the software on the MSO's own STB you can rent. It's not like we'll have a choice in which app we can use to access the MSO's services. There won't be a TiVo app, sporting the TiVo UI, unless the MSO strikes a deal with TiVo to allow that. (Who knows, maybe some providers would offer an optional TiVo-powered app that if they thought it gave them a competitive advantage versus their competitors.)


That's why I think it's imperative for TiVo to partner with or develop their own programming packages and be able to offer their own OTT service from a provider so they can finally pull that MVPD thorn out of their sides and be an all in one solution.



NashGuy said:


> In the end, I think pay TV providers' UI/UX/feature set (along with channel packages and pricing, of course) will be their competitive differentiators. It's very possible that eventually, the major cable companies (Comcast, Charter, etc.) will follow AT&T's example with DirecTV NOW and offer an OTT app-based version of their service to customers nationwide, regardless of whether they're served by their own cable internet pipe or not. If they have to offer an IP-based app-packaged version of their service to their existing customers in their own geographic footprint, why not go ahead and roll it out everywhere and compete nationally?


I believe I read that "Con"cast is planning to do that very thing.


----------



## lpwcomp

NashGuy said:


> I'm pretty sure they'll have to include DVR functionality in their apps, otherwise the apps wouldn't be equivalent in functionality to their own STBs. I'd also bet that they'll have the option of letting their apps use cloud DVR rather than local storage DVR, even in their STBs are still using the latter.
> 
> Who knows, maybe we'll see some of the retail streaming boxes begin including hard drives or make it simple to attach USB hard drives and store videos downloaded from apps. (Amazon's mobile apps already allow users to download and keep for limited periods many shows available on Amazon Prime as well as individual titles you've purchased or rented.) But I really think that, for everything other than satellite, pay TV providers are already on the path to replacing local DVR with cloud DVR. I'd say it lowers their equipment and support costs (all those failing hard drives) while making it easier for customers to access their recordings anywhere from any device.


Hard drives don't fail if they're part of a "cloud" server?


----------



## NashGuy

lpwcomp said:


> Hard drives don't fail if they're part of a "cloud" server?


Oh sure, but dealing with that sort of stuff when it's all concentrated in one big server room is much easier and more cost-effective than when you've got hundreds of thousands of little hard drives spread throughout homes across the country. (And of course there would be redundancy built into the servers powering cloud DVRs, so there's less likely to be customer disruptions when drives fail.)


----------



## atmuscarella

I am generally a glass half full type guy but in this case I think the bottom is being cut out of the glass. 

First I don't really believe it will happen, cable companies will fight this in court until I am dead and gone or at least until they get to a point where what they deliver isn't regulated. And even if it does happen, what we get isn't going to be worth a sh**. There will be zero incentive for the Pay TV companies to develop apps that are worth a sh** and the DVR functions will certainly suck.


----------



## NashGuy

HarperVision said:


> That's why I think it's imperative for TiVo to partner with or develop their own programming packages and be able to offer their own OTT service from a provider so they can finally pull that MVPD thorn out of their sides and be an all in one solution.


And maybe that will eventually happen. But if TiVo were to do that right now, it would seem to put them in an awkward position, as their biggest business in the US these days is selling their software/service to small/midsize MSOs to power their own STBs. If they were to partner up with an OTT "streaming cable TV" provider, they would be directly competing against their existing MSO partners, which could possibly endanger those contracts.


----------



## lpwcomp

NashGuy said:


> Oh sure, but dealing with that sort of stuff when it's all concentrated in one big server room is much easier and more cost-effective than when you've got hundreds of thousands of little hard drives spread throughout homes across the country. (And of course there would be redundancy built into the servers powering cloud DVRs, so there's less likely to be customer disruptions when drives fail.)


It may be "easier" in the sense that it is centralized but on the other hand you incur additional infrastructure costs. If you want redundancy ( say RAID-5), that's additional disks.

I'd want to see an actual cost/benefit analysis before I committed to anything rather than just someone saying "cloud" and all the execs saying "oooh, shiny".


----------



## NashGuy

lpwcomp said:


> It may be "easier" in the sense that it is centralized but on the other hand you incur additional infrastructure costs. If you want redundancy ( say RAID-5), that's additional disks.
> 
> I'd want to see an actual cost/benefit analysis before I committed to anything rather than just someone saying "cloud" and all the execs saying "oooh, shiny".


I'm pretty sure a company the size of Comcast/NBC/Universal has one or two folks on staff who do that kind of analysis.


----------



## lpwcomp

NashGuy said:


> I'm pretty sure a company the size of Comcast/NBC/Universal has one or two folks on staff who do that kind of analysis.


Probably, but they actually have to _*do*_ it.


----------



## HarperVision

NashGuy said:


> And maybe that will eventually happen. But if TiVo were to do that right now, it would seem to put them in an awkward position, as their biggest business in the US these days is selling their software/service to small/midsize MSOs to power their own STBs. If they were to partner up with an OTT "streaming cable TV" provider, they would be directly competing against their existing MSO partners, which could possibly endanger those contracts.


And these same "partner MSOs" that are part of the NCTA, etc. don't give two hoots about TiVo and are trying to kill them off, so why should TiVo care at all. Business is business and these MSO could care less if TiVo folded because there's many other stb providers waiting in the wings, plus this whole app thing where they don't even need STBs anymore.



lpwcomp said:


> It may be "easier" in the sense that it is centralized but on the other hand you incur additional infrastructure costs. If you want redundancy ( say RAID-5), that's additional disks. I'd want to see an actual cost/benefit analysis before I committed to anything rather than just someone saying "cloud" and all the execs saying *"oooh, shiny"*.


Hey, you stole my line!


----------



## lpwcomp

HarperVision said:


> Hey, you stole my line!


That is a bottom duck! I'll have you know I stole it from "Sluggy Freelance".


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> That is a bottom duck! I'll have you know I stole it from "Sluggy Freelance".


Say whaaaaa......?


----------



## lpwcomp

HarperVision said:


> Say whaaaaa......?


Bottom duck = base canard.


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> Bottom duck = base canard.


I'm old, I'm confused, I'm lost.


----------



## slowbiscuit

innocentfreak said:


> While not as bad as it could be, it isn't that good either.
> 
> I do worry about the future of TV and the bad UIs we will have to deal with. Meanwhile the point of apps will be avoided since you won't be able to choose any provider even those not local.


I don't know what you're talking about here, because apps are as bad as it gets. The FCC caved and will cave further, we have no one left to support third-party anything.


----------



## TonyD79

slowbiscuit said:


> I don't know what you're talking about here, because apps are as bad as it gets. The FCC caved and will cave further, we have no one left to support third-party anything.


I am usually optimistic about these kinds of things but it sure looks like they caved to me.


----------



## atmuscarella

slowbiscuit said:


> I don't know what you're talking about here, because apps are as bad as it gets. The FCC caved and will cave further, we have no one left to support third-party anything.


I agree. My hope for unlock the box was that it would pull the satellite companies into having to open up their services. What good is an app for satellite? Is someone really going to replace a satellite STB/DVR with with a app on a streaming device and have to use a third parties Internet to get their content? What a joke.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Well to be fair if you're on sat you're using third-party internet anyway, but now you won't even have the chance to use your own box. You either use their DVR or you use their FCC-compliant app, same as with cable. If you want to ditch their box, I guess the only reason to subscribe to sat when this gets done is to get channels that aren't available on cable or some other streaming provider.


----------



## atmuscarella

slowbiscuit said:


> Well to be fair if you're on sat you're using third-party internet anyway, but now you won't even have the chance to use your own box. You either use their DVR or you use their FCC-compliant app, same as with cable. If you want to ditch their box, I guess the only reason to subscribe to sat when this gets done is to get channels that aren't available on cable or some other streaming provider.


There is no requirement to have high speed internet with Satellite. My parents have satellite and could not get internet fast enough to do 2 streams, I have a friend with satellite that can not even get Internet fast enough to do one stream and neither of them actually have high speed Internet.

The FCC just basically exempted satellite from doing anything again and by the time this is done either the whole thing will be dropped or the only providers who will have any real requirement are those foolish enough to still be using QAM.


----------



## lpwcomp

True, you don't need high speed internet for basic DirecTv. You don' need it for cable either. But unlike cable, you do need it for DirecTV On Demand.


----------



## innocentfreak

slowbiscuit said:


> I don't know what you're talking about here, because apps are as bad as it gets. The FCC caved and will cave further, we have no one left to support third-party anything.


Requiring consumers to pay for the app. FCC says it has to be free.

Not supporting recording. FCC says it has to offer DVR functionality.

Only supporting devices they choose or exclusive support, IE the ones the cable box makers sell. FCC says it has to offer the app on most devices.

Etc, etc.

I agree it sucks and the app model is horrible. There are just so many ways it could be worse.


----------



## Dan203

Yeah 3rd parties will be able to build boxes now with built in tuners that can record from DSS or encrypted QAM, but they'll essentially be dumb terminals running the MSOs app. They will have no direct control over the DVR portion of the app, so any functionality it provides will be controlled by the MSO supplied app. 

I can't see many CE companies jumping on that bandwagon. The fpught tooth and nail against essentially the same thing (OCAP) during the CableCARD 2.0 debates and when the FFC caved they simply dropped out of the discussion and never made a retail device that used the spec.


----------



## slowbiscuit

innocentfreak said:


> Requiring consumers to pay for the app. FCC says it has to be free.
> 
> Not supporting recording. FCC says it has to offer DVR functionality.
> 
> Only supporting devices they choose or exclusive support, IE the ones the cable box makers sell. FCC says it has to offer the app on most devices.
> 
> Etc, etc.
> 
> I agree it sucks and the app model is horrible. There are just so many ways it could be worse.


Yep, we'll all get free apps that suck and be forced to rent or go another pay-TV route, probably with a streaming service. And then watch as our nice 1TB Comcast cap (just recently upped from 300GB) gets hit every month because we're not subbing to cable anymore.

This is the death of the DVR and all the control we have over how we consume TV now, I fear. But the big unknown in this horrible proposal is how long cable has to support cards going forward.


----------



## thyname

They can't possibly eliminate the DVRs. Seriously? This is like going back to the dark ages. Let's be realistic.


----------



## JohnBrowning

thyname said:


> They can't possibly eliminate the DVRs. Seriously? This is like going back to the dark ages. Let's be realistic.


Sure, let's be realistic. They won't eliminate the DVR, they'll just eliminate all of the features that make the DVR so desirable. Do you think you'll be able to skip commercials? I don't.


----------



## Dan203

The FCC is forcing them to include recording, it's not forcing them to include all the features we've come to know as a "DVR". For all we know their apps will only allow one off recordings from the guide. No Season Pass, no padding, no priorities. They could also be single "tuner" meaning you wont be able to record multiple shows in the same time slot.

The FCC has changed their focus from competition to pricing. They're essentially conceding to the MSOs that all they want is for users to be able to access content using 3rd party hardware. They don't care that without a 3rd party UI actual competition wont exist and the MSOs will be able to limit innovation as much as they want.


----------



## slowbiscuit

JohnBrowning said:


> Sure, let's be realistic. They won't eliminate the DVR, they'll just eliminate all of the features that make the DVR so desirable. Do you think you'll be able to skip commercials? I don't.


Exactly. The FCC caving on apps will essentially be the death of the DVR as we know and love it, make no mistake. It's just a matter of how long cards in third-party devices must be supported now.


----------



## wco81

Remind me again what happens when the Cable Card hits some deadline?

Can cable operators just drop support for CC devices right away?

Or you might have to worry about Tivo being unwilling to make more CC products without the FCC requiring CC support beyond any deadline. Then of course you have to worry about the Rovi factor too.


----------



## tarheelblue32

wco81 said:


> Remind me again what happens when the Cable Card hits some deadline?
> 
> Can cable operators just drop support for CC devices right away?
> 
> Or you might have to worry about Tivo being unwilling to make more CC products without the FCC requiring CC support beyond any deadline. Then of course you have to worry about the Rovi factor too.


As far as I know, there is currently no way for a cable operator to drop support for CableCards in retail devices. I think the FCC did give a waiver to a cable company saying if they developed an alternative to CableCard and it was used by a 3rd party retail device that they could, but that never happened as far as I know. The FCC (or Congress) would have to act in order for cable companies to drop support for CableCards.


----------



## wco81

What if they changed their network or modulation or authentication scheme like go fully IP?

The thing is, if there were more people using third-party CC devices, they might be more eager to shut it down.

What's likely the case is that Tivos and other 3rd-party CC devices are used by a small percentage of their user base so they don't care that much.

Then again, if they had the legal right to do it, they might cut off third-party CC devices arguing that few people use it.


----------



## Dan203

What they'd do is simply stop giving out new ones. They have a LOT of their own boxes in the field that use CCs, since until last year there was an integration ban that required them to. So there is no way they'll actually cut off CC support completely. But if the one you have fails they could refuse to give you a new one. They could also refuse to pair the one you have to a new device if the TiVo you're using it in now fails or you decide to upgrade. So if they decide to drop CC support you'll pretty much be stuck with whatever TiVo you have at the time of the deadline and if it ever fails you'll likely have to switch to something that uses the app.

If that were to happen I suspect that TiVo would simply stop producing retail hardware as well. In fact they may do that anyway just at the prospect.


----------



## Dan203

Does anyone know if there is a link where we could submit a public comment on this purposal? I'd like to send something in, even if it's futile.

Anyone interested instarting one of those petitions that they have to respond to if you get enough signatures?


----------



## slowbiscuit

wco81 said:


> What if they changed their network or modulation or authentication scheme like go fully IP?
> 
> The thing is, if there were more people using third-party CC devices, they might be more eager to shut it down.
> 
> What's likely the case is that Tivos and other 3rd-party CC devices are used by a small percentage of their user base so they don't care that much.
> 
> Then again, if they had the legal right to do it, they might cut off third-party CC devices arguing that few people use it.


Tivo was working with Comcast on IP access a couple of years ago but it's apparently gone nowhere, and/or Rovi doesn't care anymore.

We are a small percentage of the cable userbase, that's why they will probably move to cut off supplies of new cards as Dan said once the apps get out there. And the FCC will probably cave on that too.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> Does anyone know if there is a link where we could submit a public comment on this purposal? I'd like to send something in, even if it's futile. Anyone interested instarting one of those petitions that they have to respond to if you get enough signatures?


We could start one of those change.org petitions?


----------



## tarheelblue32

HarperVision said:


> We could start one of those change.org petitions?


I'd rather do a White House petition, just in case it goes viral and there are enough signatures on it to make the administration give an official response.


----------



## NashGuy

slowbiscuit said:


> Tivo was working with Comcast on IP access a couple of years ago but it's apparently gone nowhere, and/or Rovi doesn't care anymore.
> 
> We are a small percentage of the cable userbase, that's why they will probably move to cut off supplies of new cards as Dan said once the apps get out there. And the FCC will probably cave on that too.


Based on numbers I saw from 2014, it looked like retail CableCARDs represented under 1.5% of the STBs/devices (or perhaps of the individual customers accounts? not sure) served by the nine largest cable TV providers in the US.

I don't know if the extra resources that, say, Comcast has to commit to supporting retail CableCARDs (extra training for installers, specialized telephone customer support staff, etc.) impact their bottom line enough to care about. Maybe not. OTOH, maybe it constitutes so few customers that they're not that concerned if a third of them ditched cable TV service if they completely shut down CableCARD support when they launched their retail device app program (assuming that's a legal option). I could imagine Comcast sending their CableCARD users a letter stating that support will end in X months while offering a special deal to switch to X1 and/or a coupon to save on a Roku Stick if they wish to access TV through their new app.

All the talk from Comcast during the Unlock the Box debate would indicate that they aren't interested in cooperating to produce a next-gen non-CableCARD version of TiVo. But, then again, it is true that TiVo was working with Comcast (as well as Charter, I believe) on such a plan awhile back. (It's also true that Comcast and Rovi are locked in a lawsuit battle, which probably doesn't dispose Comcast toward helping out TiVo now.)


----------



## innocentfreak

Dan203 said:


> Does anyone know if there is a link where we could submit a public comment on this purposal? I'd like to send something in, even if it's futile.
> 
> Anyone interested instarting one of those petitions that they have to respond to if you get enough signatures?


https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=97-80&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

97-80 is the proceeding.

I believe you click new filing which allows you to upload a word document or express which has a comment box. I don't know the character limit.


----------



## PhiTauBill

NashGuy said:


> The good news for current CableCARD users is that, should compliance with this plan relieve MSOs from having to support CableCARD devices (and perhaps it doesn't), you would appear to have 2 to 4 more years before your TiVos stop working (and of course it's possible that some MSOs would voluntarily continue to support them even after they no longer legally have to). Hopefully the FCC provides some clarification soon about what this new app-based plan means for continued CableCARD support.


Here's a question that I have. If CableCard mandates do, in fact, disappear, any reason to think that the existing TiVo infrastructure (which already supports apps) won't be able to have apps of its own to continue to provide access to content? I guess it would be a question of how universal the TiVo platform is considered to be (conspicuously absent from the FCC Fact Sheet) and how much of a loss of functionality we'd experience from the change. I guess I sort of answered my own question. But any other thoughts people may have are welcomed!


----------



## NashGuy

PhiTauBill said:


> Here's a question that I have. If CableCard mandates do, in fact, disappear, any reason to think that the existing TiVo infrastructure (which already supports apps) won't be able to have apps of its own to continue to provide access to content? I guess it would be a question of how universal the TiVo platform is considered to be (conspicuously absent from the FCC Fact Sheet) and how much of a loss of functionality we'd experience from the change. I guess I sort of answered my own question. But any other thoughts people may have are welcomed!


Assuming that a cable co. provided their app to TiVo, sure, you could access their TV service that way. But it would be weird in that you'd just be using a TiVo as an "app box" like a Roku. You would no longer be using the actual TiVo UI, which is really a huge part of why people buy and use TiVo. You'd just turn on the TiVo and go straight to the cable app and stay there. I can't see TiVo continuing on selling their retail cable DVRs (which would no longer really be DVRs) any more if that were the only way to use them with cable tv. So given that, combined with the fact that there are relatively few retail TiVos in use, make me doubt that we'll see these cable apps come to TiVo.


----------



## bradleys

NashGuy said:


> Assuming that a cable co. provided their app to TiVo, sure, you could access their TV service that way. But it would be weird in that you'd just be using a TiVo as an "app box" like a Roku. You would no longer be using the actual TiVo UI, which is really a huge part of why people buy and use TiVo. You'd just turn on the TiVo and go straight to the cable app and stay there. I can't see TiVo continuing on selling their retail cable DVRs (which would no longer really be DVRs) any more if that were the only way to use them with cable tv. So given that, combined with the fact that there are relatively few retail TiVos in use, make me doubt that we'll see these cable apps come to TiVo.


Correct, these "apps" are going to be all streaming services like Hulu and Netflix branded by the cable company. I am not sure what the point of a DVR is at that point.

Frankly, this is the worst case scenario because only the cable company's will be able to support true DVR's. Access outside of their rented set top box would be streaming only...


----------



## NashGuy

Sounds me to like there's increasing industry opposition to the current FCC app-based proposal and it will probably get challenged in court if the FCC passes it. I'm thinking things will sort of continue on for quite awhile as they are now: CableCARD devices must still be supported and big cable companies will roll out their own apps for popular streaming devices of their choosing, designed just as cable wants them, to basically show the FCC and the public that they don't need any actual regulations in place to make app-based service a reality. 

Who knows, maybe the FCC will never actually pass any kind of successor plan for CableCARD and it will just linger on as a dying technology that fewer and fewer consumers use because more and more of the services offered by cable TV (on-demand, cloud DVR, UHD 4K video, upper tier HD channels, etc.) will be transitioned from QAM to IP and therefore will be outside of the scope of CableCARD.


----------



## HarperVision

NashGuy said:


> Assuming that a cable co. provided their app to TiVo, sure, you could access their TV service that way. But it would be weird in that you'd just be using a TiVo as an "app box" like a Roku. You would no longer be using the actual TiVo UI, which is really a huge part of why people buy and use TiVo. You'd just turn on the TiVo and go straight to the cable app and stay there. I can't see TiVo continuing on selling their retail cable DVRs (which would no longer really be DVRs) any more if that were the only way to use them with cable tv. So given that, combined with the fact that there are relatively few retail TiVos in use, make me doubt that we'll see these cable apps come to TiVo.


For OTA capable tivos you could hook up an antenna to receive and DVR network shows at least.


----------



## matk123

HarperVision said:


> For OTA capable tivos you could hook up an antenna to receive and DVR network shows at least.


Until broadcasters switch over to ATSC 3.0


----------



## HarperVision

matk123 said:


> Until broadcasters switch over to ATSC 3.0


Haha I was thinking that exact thing as I typed it and just knew someone would reply with that!


----------



## mobilelawyer

I just re-added tv to my cable package, and when the installer brought me the cablecard, he told me that this was the first cablecard only install he had done in 3 years with the company. 

I know this is just anecdotal, but I didn't find it particularly reassuring in looking at the issue from the context of TiVo ownership.


----------



## slowbiscuit

That's not a good indication of card installs - per FCC mandate all of the MSOs have to offer self-install and many have made it easier for folks to do so. In fact on Comcast you get charged for a tech install vs. doing it yourself, so there's little reason now for someone to need a tech install for a card.


----------



## Fant

slowbiscuit said:


> That's not a good indication of card installs - per FCC mandate all of the MSOs have to offer self-install and many have made it easier for folks to do so. In fact on Comcast you get charged for a tech install vs. doing it yourself, so there's little reason now for someone to need a tech install for a card.


I know when i recently signed up for FIOS online, there was no option for a cablecard only install .. they made you order at least 1 cable box ... then you can return it after it has been installed ...


----------



## NashGuy

Now that the original Unlock the Box proposal (which would have obviously been in TiVo's favor) is dead in the water, it looks like TiVo is backing the current proposal that calls for streaming apps for popular retail devices that are overseen and licensed by the FCC. I guess they figure it's better than nothing, although I still don't see what role TiVo would have to play in the retail world under the proposal.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...ays-fcc-should-trump-private-contracts/159839


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

Especially when the leaders of streaming hardware platforms, Roku and Google will likely be the first and second target platforms for the new apps. I dont see Tivo even making the list unless its via platform agnostic HTML5 web-based interfaces.


----------



## thyname

Wouldn't TiVo be completely out of the game if the "apps" are implemented? I can see the TiVo guide (maybe) being part of the app, but what about DVR functions? TiVo without DVR is simply a very expensive streamer


----------



## wco81

If Tivo can rip the streams from those apps, they'd have something.


----------



## HarperVision

Maybe they don't care because they're going to sign an agreement with an OTT streaming cable company like Vue, SlingTV, eVUE-TV, Layer3, DirecTV Now, etc.?

They're also releasing the Mantis as their OTA device that will most likely have apps on the competing streamers like Roku, AppleTV and FireTV.


----------



## atmuscarella

NashGuy said:


> Now that the original Unlock the Box proposal (which would have obviously been in TiVo's favor) is dead in the water, it looks like TiVo is backing the current proposal that calls for streaming apps for popular retail devices that are overseen and licensed by the FCC. I guess they figure it's better than nothing, although I still don't see what role TiVo would have to play in the retail world under the proposal.
> 
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...ays-fcc-should-trump-private-contracts/159839


Under the FCCs proposal if the MSO still offers DVR service then the app would have to be able to provide the same so perhaps they will be record-able. But I agree with your take that TiVo looks at this as better than nothing, which is where the MSOs are trying to get too.


----------



## NashGuy

HarperVision said:


> Maybe they don't care because they're going to sign an agreement with an OTT streaming cable company like Vue, SlingTV, eVUE-TV, Layer3, DirecTV Now, etc.?
> 
> They're also releasing the Mantis as their OTA device that will most likely have apps on the competing streamers like Roku, AppleTV and FireTV.


Yeah, licensing their UI/patents to an OTT streaming TV provider is really the only way I can see how TiVo would have a play in a post-CableCARD app-based retail pay TV world. Of course, none of this affects their viability in terms of the OTA market, including the upcoming Mantis product.



atmuscarella said:


> Under the FCCs proposal if the MSO still offers DVR service then the app would have to be able to provide the same so perhaps they will be record-able.


Yeah, that's a possibility. (The alternative is that the FCC determines that cloud DVR service is sufficient for apps and local recording isn't needed.) But even if local DVR recording must be implemented, I don't see how that benefits TiVo (other than through licensing specific patents, maybe); we'd just be looking at a Roku, Android TV, etc. with an attached or built-in hard drive and the cable company's own app controlling everything.


----------



## HarperVision

Or maybe the Mantis (or future TiVo device) will be a streamer too and host the apps from the MSOs and the normal ones like Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc. as well as having its own OTA tuner and ability to attach a HDD.


----------



## Dan203

I doubt the Mantis will be a streamer. Didn't the design blow outs show that it had no video output?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Tivo generally supports the app approach, but with the caveats we would expect.

Continued support for cablecards for 7 years while the market develops and deploys the replacement. MVPDs could requests relief from this rule if they deploy their solution sooner.

If DVR service (cloud or local) is provided, so too should the app provide an equal number of streams.

The app should provide enough information so that Tivo can provide its own EPG, universal search, customized interface, etc

And other things, but those are the high order bits. Basically it sounds like they want all the APIs or whatever so they can still provide their own UI, as if to treat the apps like middleware.

Edit: Link to Tivo's specific filing.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109171885001835/TiVo Ex Parte 9-14-16 F.pdf


----------



## wco81

If by some miracle 4K and HDR channels become common on cable, would CableCard devices still be able to access them?

Would it still be some form of QAM?


----------



## slowbiscuit

NashGuy said:


> Now that the original Unlock the Box proposal (which would have obviously been in TiVo's favor) is dead in the water, it looks like TiVo is backing the current proposal that calls for streaming apps for popular retail devices that are overseen and licensed by the FCC. I guess they figure it's better than nothing, although I still don't see what role TiVo would have to play in the retail world under the proposal.
> 
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...ays-fcc-should-trump-private-contracts/159839


I have a feeling this is the first sign that Rovi wants out of hardware. It boggles the mind as to why Tivo would back this in any way.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom

It should still be usable since its merely digital data being sent. 

The question becomes do the QAM channels have enough bandwidth to support the increased size in the data. There could be 4x increase in data size for the 4K pixel resolution and then the increase needed for HDR encoding for each pixel. 

The HDR is 10bit encoding where the normal range is only 8bit per color component (red, green, blue pixel data), so that could mean an increase of 20% data size just for HDR. The actual size increase depends if the original 8bit color data is stored as merely 24bits or packed into a 32bit field. If it's a 32bit field, then the 10bit color data could be stored in the same 32bit fields without any data size increase.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> I doubt the Mantis will be a streamer. Didn't the design blow outs show that it had no video output?


Oh yes, good point that I had forgotten Dan. :up:

Maybe the future Mini will be? It could be something similar to the Evolution Digital eBox.



BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> It should still be usable since its merely digital data being sent. The question becomes do the QAM channels have enough bandwidth to support the increased size in the data. There could be 4x increase in data size for the 4K pixel resolution and then the increase needed for HDR encoding for each pixel. The HDR is 10bit encoding where the normal range is only 8bit per color component (red, green, blue pixel data), so that could mean an increase of 20% data size just for HDR. The actual size increase depends if the original 8bit color data is stored as merely 24bits or packed into a 32bit field. If it's a 32bit field, then the 10bit color data could be stored in the same 32bit fields without any data size increase.


They can probably do it with h.265 compression I'm thinking. Dan would probably be able to answer that better.


----------



## Dan203

QAM has a max bitrate per channel of 38Mbps, so it should be plenty for 4K. Also 4K can only be transmitted in H.265. If they used H.264 the bitrate would be beyond that 38Mbps limit.

Now ATSC 3.0 only has 28Mbps. That's a little low, even for H.265. But the industry thinks that they can do 4K using it so we'll have to wait and see on that.


----------



## NashGuy

Dan203 said:


> QAM has a max bitrate per channel of 38Mbps, so it should be plenty for 4K. Also 4K can only be transmitted in H.265. If they used H.264 the bitrate would be beyond that 38Mbps limit.
> 
> Now ATSC 3.0 only has 28Mbps. That's a little low, even for H.265. But the industry thinks that they can do 4K using it so we'll have to wait and see on that.


Netflix is doing UHD in h.265 at about 16 Mbps. (Granted, that's pre-encoded, but still.) So there's plenty of bandwidth for UHD on ATSC 3.0.


----------



## Dan203

NashGuy said:


> Netflix is doing UHD in h.265 at about 16 Mbps. (Granted, that's pre-encoded, but still.) So there's plenty of bandwidth for UHD on ATSC 3.0.


That's for 24fps content. Broadcast 4K is going to be 60fps. If you scale that out to be the same bits per pixel then it would require 40Mbps for the same quality as the current Netflix content.


----------



## NashGuy

wco81 said:


> If by some miracle 4K and HDR channels become common on cable, would CableCard devices still be able to access them?
> 
> Would it still be some form of QAM?


While it's technically possible that UHD HDR could be transmitted via QAM, I'll be surprised if that happens. Of the major cable co's, I'm most familiar with Comcast and they definitely appear to be transitioning toward IP (or at least a hybrid QAM/IP system). Once they finally add linear UHD channels, I'd be shocked if they weren't IP rather than QAM.

The only cable company I know of that *I think* carries any linear UHD channels is Rogers up in Canada. They have a couple of UHD sports channels and from what I've read, I'm fairly sure they're IP, not QAM.


----------



## NashGuy

Dan203 said:


> That's for 24fps content. Broadcast 4K is going to be 60fps. If you scale that out to be the same bits per pixel then it would require 40Mbps for the same quality as the current Netflix content.


I'm doubtful that you're going to see scripted TV shows jumping from 24fps (which, like films, nearly all of them are) up to 60fps. Sports and other major live events may be at 60fps, in which case the dynamic bandwidth allocation properties of ATSC 3.0 would let the broadcaster temporarily drop their subchannels and devote all their bandwidth to the main UHD channel at 60 fps.

People are so used to the cinematic look of 24fps that I don't think you're going to have people clamoring to watch drama series and sitcoms at those very high framerates. (See here for how The Hobbit was received at 48fps. Hint: not well.) Beyond viewer preferences, I just don't think broadcasters will see it as the most commercially useful allocation of their bandwidth.


----------



## HarperVision

NashGuy said:


> While it's technically possible that UHD HDR could be transmitted via QAM, I'll be surprised if that happens. Of the major cable co's, I'm most familiar with Comcast and they definitely appear to be transitioning toward IP (or at least a hybrid QAM/IP system). Once they finally add linear UHD channels, I'd be shocked if they weren't IP rather than QAM. The only cable company I know of that *I think* carries any linear UHD channels is Rogers up in Canada. They have a couple of UHD sports channels and from what I've read, I'm fairly sure they're IP, not QAM.


Yeah right, "Con"cast doesn't even do 1080i anymore! 

Sure, they may throw a channel or two out there initially to tout "gee, look at us, we have UHD!", and then their greed and total lack of care for quality and their customers will take over once again and it'll be dropped to 1080p if we're lucky, so it looks a bit better than their crappy 720p, and then call THAT down converted and compressed POS "UHD"!


----------



## lpwcomp

HarperVision said:


> Yeah right, "Con"cast doesn't even do 1080i anymore!


Give it a rest , willya. That's simply not true


----------



## Dan203

NashGuy said:


> I'm doubtful that you're going to see scripted TV shows jumping from 24fps (which, like films, nearly all of them are) up to 60fps. Sports and other major live events may be at 60fps, in which case the dynamic bandwidth allocation properties of ATSC 3.0 would let the broadcaster temporarily drop their subchannels and devote all their bandwidth to the main UHD channel at 60 fps.
> 
> People are so used to the cinematic look of 24fps that I don't think you're going to have people clamoring to watch drama series and sitcoms at those very high framerates. (See here for how The Hobbit was received at 48fps. Hint: not well.) Beyond viewer preferences, I just don't think broadcasters will see it as the most commercially useful allocation of their bandwidth.


I know that dramas are filmed at 24fps just like movies, but multi camera sitcoms are not nor are sports. With sitcoms they could probably get away with 30fps, but sports is where the real problem lies. The maximum bandwidth for ATSC 3.0 is 28Mbps and I just don't think that's enough for a 4K, live, 60fps broadcast. Current encoders still can't do live encoding at anywhere near that bitrate. Maybe in a few years they will be able to, but I'm skeptical.


----------



## qz3fwd

Dan203 said:


> QAM has a max bitrate per channel of 38Mbps, so it should be plenty for 4K. Also 4K can only be transmitted in H.265. If they used H.264 the bitrate would be beyond that 38Mbps limit.
> 
> Now ATSC 3.0 only has 28Mbps. That's a little low, even for H.265. But the industry thinks that they can do 4K using it so we'll have to wait and see on that.


The industry thinks 8mbps mpeg2 1080 is fine too-so they likely think 16 mbps h265 should be perfect and they can have 4k-h265+1080-mpeg2+several SD streams fit within the 28 mbps....


----------



## Dan203

Maybe, but the hardware isn't there yet to even make that happen. But I guess by the time ATSC 3.0 actually gets deployed it could be.


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> Give it a rest , willya. That's simply not true


It's very true and they've admitted it! Not all channels have been down converted yet, and of course they won't do THEIRS.

And NO, I won't "give it a rest". It's BS what they're doing and attitudes like yours are exactly why they are!


----------



## lpwcomp

HarperVision said:


> It's very true and they've admitted it! Not all channels have been down converted yet, and of course they won't do THEIRS.


 The statement that they don't "do 1080i anymore" is a *lie* since you know it to be untrue.



HarperVision said:


> And NO, I won't "give it a rest". It's BS what they're doing and attitudes like yours are exactly why they are!


Do you have to bring it up iN _*every freaking topic in which you participate?*_. If they're going to convert more channels from 1080i to 720p, there going to do it regardless of what anybodies "attitude" is.

I consider what MeTV is doing to be far worse and my complaints to both the local affiliate and to MeTV simply resulted in them justifying the change.


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> The statement that they don't "do 1080i anymore" is a lie since you know it to be untrue.
> 
> Do you have to bring it up iN every freaking topic in which you participate?. If they're going to convert more channels from 1080i to 720p, there going to do it regardless of what anybodies "attitude" is. I consider what MeTV is doing to be far worse and my complaints to both the local affiliate and to MeTV simply resulted in them justifying the change.


Ok, I'll change it to "don't do *all native* 1080i anymore", how's that?

No, attitudes like yours allows them to have the bravado to do it in the first place, because they know people like this will just roll over like a puppy dog and take it and eventually be in this position RIGHT HERE, beating others down that are fighting their BS.

So you're saying people can't make change? We should all just sit around and take whatever is shoved down our throats? Have you been watching the news lately? If the colonies were full of attitudes like this, we wouldn't even be a country!

So NO, I will not ever "give it a rest". I fought and had friends die for this very right. If you don't like what I say, the ignore list is available.


----------



## lpwcomp

HarperVision said:


> Ok, I'll change it to "don't do *all native* 1080i anymore", how's that?
> 
> No, attitudes like yours allows them to have the bravado to do it in the first place, because they know people like this will just roll over like a puppy dog and take it and eventually be in this position RIGHT HERE, beating others down that are fighting their BS.
> 
> So you're saying people can't make change? We should all just sit around and take whatever is shoved down our throats? Have you been watching the news lately? If the colonies were full of attitudes like this, we wouldn't even be a country!
> 
> So NO, I will not ever "give it a rest". I fought and had friends die for this very right. If you don't like what I say, the ignore list is available.


Your friends did not fight and die for your "right" to be an annoying jerk in a privately run forum. My father ws a navy pilot in WWII, my brother was in the Army, I was in the Air Force, so you can take your opinion of my attitude and shove it.


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> Your friends did not fight and die for your "right" to be an annoying jerk in a privately run forum. My father ws a navy pilot in WWII, my brother was in the Army, I was in the Air Force, so you can take your opinion of my attitude and shove it.


Nice!


----------



## matk123

slowbiscuit said:


> I have a feeling this is the first sign that Rovi wants out of hardware. It boggles the mind as to why Tivo would back this in any way.


Why did Rovi buy Tivo then? What was the point?


----------



## thyname

matk123 said:


> Why did Rovi buy Tivo then? What was the point?


Patents. As simple as that.

Maybe software too.

Definitely not for the hardware


----------



## HarperVision

thyname said:


> Patents. As simple as that. Maybe software too. Definitely not for the hardware


It could be partly for the hardware, to run the FanTV UX they bought a little before they bought TiVo, since that egg shaped thing they offered bombed so badly.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Comcast is NOT converting any 1080i broadcast channels to 720p. You may have a valid point about the others that were converted (which shouldn't be polluted in every thread where Comcast is mentioned), but it is wrong to say they are not still delivering native 1080i channels because they are.


----------



## HarperVision

I amended it and said they're not doing "all" native. Which is true. It's just a matter of time though. You'll see.

Frog, pot, water, bring to boil.


----------



## BobCamp1

HarperVision said:


> It's very true and they've admitted it! Not all channels have been down converted yet, and of course they won't do THEIRS.
> 
> And NO, I won't "give it a rest". It's BS what they're doing and attitudes like yours are exactly why they are!


Yet my NBC affiliate does exactly that with their own OTA transmission, so they in fact did theirs. And nobody knows the difference.

Comcast does it because everybody wants everything for free. People don't want to pay higher cable bills so Comcast can restructure to get more bandwidth, yet people want more channels and higher Internet speeds.

I get better picture quality streaming from the CW website than I do watching it on TV.


----------



## RoamioJeff

BobCamp1 said:


> Comcast does it because everybody wants everything for free. People don't want to pay higher cable bills so Comcast can restructure to get more bandwidth, yet people want more channels and higher Internet speeds.


^^^THIS^^^

This is our fault, collectively. Consumers communicate what they want with their wallets, and business listens. Business gives consumers what consumers collectively say that they want. Consumers desire cheap, quality, and quantity. Something has to give, and you only get to pick two.

Consumers want more and want to pay less. The desire for quality is not as pronounced, and bandwidth is finite, so the providers are going to naturally seek to water down the quality by reducing resolution and bandwidth of some channals so that they can add others. Another Eskimo vegitarian cooking channel. Another little league soccer sports channel. And of course, as many shopping channels, and broken-record 7 minute repeating provider-branded "news channels" (the worst) as possible.

Just go through your entire lineup and look at all of those "special interest" channels. And each one of those picayune channels has a small but vocal cheerleader section in the peanut gallery.


----------



## Dan203

I think there is more of a profit motive here then consumer demand. Big corporations like Comcast have a tendency to listen more to their shareholders then their customers. This is especially true when in the vast majority of their markets they have a functional monopoly. 

The content providers are also to blame for the channel bloat. They tend to bundle these "special interest" channels with their biggest, most popular, channels and force MSOs to include them in their lineup if they want the popular channels. They have no concept of bandwidth, or any of the infrastructure stuff, they just want to sell content (and ads) It's up to the MSOs to figure out how they're going to wedge these channels into their system.


----------



## RoamioJeff

Dan203 said:


> I think there is more of a profit motive here then consumer demand.


I agree, in part. But it takes two to tango.

If consumers would not automatically opt for the most expensive "premier" or "deluxe" tiers of bloated cable lineups packed with junk channels, there would not be a market for them.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> I think there is more of a profit motive here then consumer demand. Big corporations like Comcast have a tendency to listen more to their shareholders then their customers. This is especially true when in the vast majority of their markets they have a functional monopoly.
> 
> The content providers are also to blame for the channel bloat. They tend to bundle these "special interest" channels with their biggest, most popular, channels and force MSOs to include them in their lineup if they want the popular channels. They have no concept of bandwidth, or any of the infrastructure stuff, they just want to sell content (and ads) It's up to the MSOs to figure out how they're going to wedge these channels into their system.


Well said Dan! :up:


----------



## Dan203

This is where IP really becomes a better option. With IP delivery you can have a million channels and it doesn't really matter. When a channel isn't being watched it's not taking up any bandwidth. So they can have as many "special interest" channels as they want and if nobody ever watches them then they take up zero of their resources.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> This is where IP really becomes a better option. With IP delivery you can have a million channels and it doesn't really matter. When a channel isn't being watched it's not taking up any bandwidth. So they can have as many "special interest" channels as they want and if nobody ever watches them then they take up zero of their resources.


Now it does not matter how many people watch/record any given group of cable channels, with IP there must be some limit on how many people can watch/record any group of channels, 60% of what my wife records she will never watch, but the recordings have no cost to them, and don't take up any bandwidth that not already at my home, with IP that may be a problem if you can record IP at all.


----------



## lpwcomp

Right now I'm trying to decide whether TCM is worth the cost of having the "Digital Preferred" package as they won't renew my discount. There a a couple of other channels I watch that are not in the "Digital Starter" package, but TCM is the one I would really miss.

This comes at a really bad time for me as today someone stole $1820 from my bank account by using my PayPal account to purchase a bunch of gift cards.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> Now it does not matter how many people watch/record any given group of cable channels, with IP there must be some limit on how many people can watch/record any group of channels, 60% of what my wife records she will never watch, but the recordings have no cost to them, and don't take up any bandwidth that not already at my home, with IP that may be a problem if you can record IP at all.


Most cable systems are already using SDV which is basically a poor man's IP system built on old VOD technology. Multicast will allow them to do essentially the same thing with IP. What IP adds is that they can convert their system from QAM to DOCSIS 3.1, which uses more efficient modulation and adds about 3Gbps to a typical 800Mhz system.


----------



## jth tv

lpwcomp said:


> Right now I'm trying to decide whether TCM is worth the cost....


After a while I'd had seen all the ones on TCM I wanted to. I don't think they change much, they'll probably be there years from now. You could always change packages again later.


----------



## lpwcomp

jth tv said:


> After a while I'd had seen all the ones on TCM I wanted to. I don't think they change much, they'll probably be there years from now. You could always change packages again later.


A lot of what I record and archive is off of TCM. There are actually some older movies that simply aren't shown that often and aren't available anywhere else. I have a while to decide.


----------



## HarperVision

lpwcomp said:


> ........ This comes at a really bad time for me as today someone stole $1820 from my bank account by using my PayPal account to purchase a bunch of gift cards.


Holy crap! How are they able to do that? 

Sorry to hear that, it sucks! I wonder if I should be worried about my paypal account? Is it vulnerable?


----------



## thyname

Shouldn't you be protected from PayPal on unauthorized purchases?


----------



## lpwcomp

HarperVision said:


> Holy crap! How are they able to do that?
> 
> Sorry to hear that, it sucks! I wonder if I should be worried about my paypal account? Is it vulnerable?


I have no idea how it happened or if you're vulnerable. I hope not. I also find it hard to believe that this just happened to occur on the day of the SS deposit.

The first I new of it was when I played a voice-mail from my bank saying they had suspended my debit card for "suspicious activity". Gee, ya think? Couldn't they have noticed before it got that high?, which by the way was actually $2020. I faiiled to notice initially that the first transaction for $200 took place before the deposit. I have never bought a Gyft card and they didn't think it was suspicious until after _22_ of them had been purchased?



thyname said:


> Shouldn't you be protected from PayPal on unauthorized purchases?


Theoretically, but that would depend on the definition of "unauthorized".

One of the really irksome things is that PayPal flat out refused to make any effort to try to rescind the gift cards.


----------



## lpwcomp

HarperVision said:


> Holy crap! How are they able to do that?


Oh, I guess your asking about the actual mechanism. I have no money in my PayPal account, it is simply linked to my debit card. Bad move on my part I guess.


----------



## Dan203

This is why I only keep $50 in my checking account. I've always been paranoid someone would use PayPal to clean me out.


----------



## jth tv

Dan203 said:


> This is why I only keep $50 in my checking account. I've always been paranoid someone would use PayPal to clean me out.


I thought it was easy Not have credit card info for PayPal accounts, just provide it on a per use basis.


----------



## BobCamp1

Dan203 said:


> I think there is more of a profit motive here then consumer demand. Big corporations like Comcast have a tendency to listen more to their shareholders then their customers. This is especially true when in the vast majority of their markets they have a functional monopoly.
> 
> The content providers are also to blame for the channel bloat. They tend to bundle these "special interest" channels with their biggest, most popular, channels and force MSOs to include them in their lineup if they want the popular channels. They have no concept of bandwidth, or any of the infrastructure stuff, they just want to sell content (and ads) It's up to the MSOs to figure out how they're going to wedge these channels into their system.


I agree with all of that. But you can't have a profit without consumers. Consumers are voting with their wallets by cord cutting or cord shaving or whatever weird terms you want to use. This has gotten the executive boards' attention.

They are migrating from an MSO that also happens to be an ISP to an ISP that also happens to be an MSO. Their priorities are shifting as people's demands are shifting.

Which would be worse in your household, a cable TV outage or an Internet outage? In my house, if the TV goes down nobody cares except me and maybe my wife. If the Internet goes down, I get everybody running to me yelling that the Internet down and ordering me to please fix it ASAP.


----------



## wco81

FCC vote delayed:



> The set-top box rulemaking process resulted in a split between Wheeler and Rosenworcel. In February, the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would have essentially created a software-based replacement for CableCard. Under that now-defunct plan, pay-TV operators from the cable, satellite, and telco industries would have had to provide content and programming information to makers of third-party hardware or applications.
> 
> That would have let any company make an app or device that could display the TV channels customers subscribe to. But cable companies opposed the idea during a public comment period and offered to deploy their own applications for third-party set-top boxes.
> 
> Rosenworcel said the original plan was "too complicated" and expressed concerns about the proposal's impact on "copyright, privacy, [and] diversity." Wheeler needs the votes of all three Democrats because Republicans Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly oppose the plan outright.
> 
> Wheeler earlier this month announced a new set of rules that adopts the core of the cable industry's apps plan. But he made changes that displeased cable operators, and Rosenworcel continued to express concerns. The biggest sticking point appears to be how cable company applications would be licensed to third-party device makers. Wheeler wanted to form an industry group that would create a standard license so that device makers won't have to comply with different terms for each pay-TV operator. Cable companies and programmers objected to the standard license, saying that licenses should be negotiated on a one-off basis.
> 
> If the FCC can settle on a final plan, cable companies would have to develop free applications for devices such as the Apple TV and Roku or anything that runs iOS, Windows, or Android. Operators would generally have two years to comply, though it's possible they might sue to try to delay or overturn the new rules.


http://arstechnica.com/information-...v-apps-vote-needs-time-to-work-out-licensing/

So they're targeting popular streaming boxes which have reached a certain threshold in installed base.

Nothing for third-party DVRs.


----------



## HarperVision

Yeah that sucks. Wheeler is caving. Here's another article:

*Set-top box order pulled from FCC's September meeting agenda at last minute*

http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/se...fcc-s-september-meeting-agenda-at-last-minute


----------



## trip1eX

HarperVision said:


> Yeah that sucks. Wheeler is caving. Here's another article:
> 
> *Set-top box order pulled from FCC's September meeting agenda at last minute*
> 
> http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/se...fcc-s-september-meeting-agenda-at-last-minute


I think he already caved. The app solution isn't really even needed anyway. There isn't much of your cable subscription that can't be streamed via 3rd party streaming boxes these days.

But maybe he could have demanded commercial-free options for consumers.


----------



## HarperVision

Yeah, true. This is a good USA Today that's on our side.

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

End cable's rental rip-off: Our view

http://usat.ly/2dE9sIF


----------



## RoamioJeff

Dan203 said:


> ... it would allow everyone to have access to VOD content via an app similar to how Comcast works now.


^^^ THIS ^^^

And THIS!!! :


Dan203 said:


> it would also eliminate the TA, which would be a big plus for some users


----------



## NashGuy

We've discussed before the cable industry's long-term transition away from QAM to IP, which will eventually make CableCARD useless, even if the FCC in their upcoming ruling reaffirms that cable co's must continue to fully support CableCARD so long as they offer QAM-based TV. Here's an article that speculates about how long the transition to IP will take. As I've said before, it sounds like Comcast will be among the soonest to transition with X1 but the article says it will be several years before we see it fully happen industry-wide.

http://www.multichannel.com/blog/bauminator/long-good-bye/407907


----------



## thyname

NashGuy said:


> We've discussed before the cable industry's long-term transition away from QAM to IP, which will eventually make CableCARD useless, even if the FCC in their upcoming ruling reaffirms that cable co's must continue to fully support CableCARD so long as they offer QAM-based TV. Here's an article that speculates about how long the transition to IP will take. As I've said before, it sounds like Comcast will be among the soonest to transition with X1 but the article says it will be several years before we see it fully happen industry-wide.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/blog/bauminator/long-good-bye/407907


2025 sounds good to me! I like to keep my TiVo for as long as possible


----------



## tarheelblue32

thyname said:


> 2025 sounds good to me! I like to keep my TiVo for as long as possible


Yeah I could live with 2025. By then I'll probably be using my own holodeck for entertainment rather than watching TV anyway.


----------



## pl1

lpwcomp said:


> Oh, I guess your asking about the actual mechanism. I have no money in my PayPal account, it is simply linked to my debit card. Bad move on my part I guess.


FYI, going forward, you do not need to have any bank account linked to Paypal. I would leave a credit card on file, or set something up as needed.

I have been hit myself with a credit card on file, and it was reversed right away.

As far as debit cards, you should not link them at all in my opinion, since they are linked to your bank cash balance. But, I believe your bank must reverse the charges within 10 days for a debit card.

Here someone else agrees with me:

https://consumerist.com/2013/01/17/...rd-fraud-claims-disputes-and-other-fun-stuff/

When To Avoid Using Debit Altogether

Given that debit cards offer fewer consumer protections than credit cards, W. advises that there are situations where you might be best off paying with credit (and then paying the whole thing off at the end of the month, of course).

If youre signing up for a trial service or membership, she says you should definitely put it on a credit card. Likewise, W. says that putting online purchases or booking travel arrangements on your credit card will also result in less problems later if there any issues arise.

When you have disputes, it is SO MUCH EASIER to get transactions like these removed from a credit card rather than a debit card, she explains.


----------



## wco81

thyname said:


> 2025 sounds good to me! I like to keep my TiVo for as long as possible


Well that would be better for the investment but I would hope that in a couple of years, we'll have something for 4K and HDR programming at least.

I've recouped my investment in Roamio Plus, Mini and lifetime for both.

The longer I could use this setup, the better my "return" is.

But I'd want to upgrade in a couple of years because we get 4k HDR content. I wouldn't upgrade if all they're delivering is the same HD content.

The other thing is, with the uncertain status of Tivo after Rovi took over, a lot of Tivo fans would be relieved if Tivo was still developing next gen hardware.

And the US market as a whole progresses, technology-wise.


----------



## thyname

wco81 said:


> Well that would be better for the investment but I would hope that in a couple of years, we'll have something for 4K and HDR programming at least.
> 
> I've recouped my investment in Roamio Plus, Mini and lifetime for both.
> 
> The longer I could use this setup, the better my "return" is.
> 
> But I'd want to upgrade in a couple of years because we get 4k HDR content. I wouldn't upgrade if all they're delivering is the same HD content.
> 
> The other thing is, with the uncertain status of Tivo after Rovi took over, a lot of Tivo fans would be relieved if Tivo was still developing next gen hardware.
> 
> And the US market as a whole progresses, technology-wise.


I am with you. That's one of the reasons I still have DirecTV


----------



## Krandor

It is really kinda sad. The content providers are going to finally get what they have wanted since the original VCR lawsuit - total and complete control over the user experience with the user not having any choice whatsoever. Goodbye fast forward, commercial skip, etc. We'll be forced the content how they want it and just have to accept it. 

and before somebody says "if hulu forces commercials, netflix or somebody else won't and take the customers"... the rules on stuff like commercial skip will come from the makers of the content so even if a show is on multiple services the rules will be the same on all since it will be mandated in the contract to carry the show. 

It really is a step back in so many many ways.


----------



## jth tv

We watch as much TV as we watch because it is cheap and plentiful. If it costs more money or time or effort, it is not as if there isn't plenty of other things to do, we'll just do that then.


----------



## NashGuy

wco81 said:


> But I'd want to upgrade in a couple of years because we get 4k HDR content. I wouldn't upgrade if all they're delivering is the same HD content.


I still wonder whether a UHD version of any major linear network is going to happen in the next couple of years. I've read nothing about UHD plans from the likes of ESPN, HBO, Showtime, Discovery, etc., much less the major broadcast nets like NBC, CBS, etc. So far, the only ones I'm aware of are UHD sampler channels on DirecTV and UHD Canadian sports channels on Rogers cable in Canada (which I believe are carried via IP, not QAM).

I strongly doubt that Comcast will ever carry any UHD content over QAM, meaning it will probably never be accessible by any current TiVo (unless Comcast produces a new IP version of their Xfinity OnDemand app for TiVo). They're the cable co that's making the biggest strides away from QAM to IP and already have something like 40% of their customers using the IP-capable X1 platform, with plans to hit 50% by year end. While 2025 may be a reasonable projection for when some cable co's will fully switch over to IP (especially those that have the bandwidth crutch of SDV, unlike Comcast), I think it's plausible that Comcast will go IP-only in many markets by 2020.


----------



## lessd

Does anyone know if the Comcast X1 system, now deployed, will be able to record IP when Comcast starts putting out channels on IP 4K or HD?


----------



## wco81

lessd said:


> Does anyone know if the Comcast X1 system, now deployed, will be able to record IP when Comcast starts putting out channels on IP ?


If I have to get X1 to replace my Tivo, I will probably cut the cord.

In fact, if we get stuck with apps., might be a good time to cut the cord.


----------



## thyname

lessd said:


> Does anyone know if the Comcast X1 system, now deployed, will be able to record IP when Comcast starts putting out channels on IP 4K or HD?


If the IPtv is launched, all our current TiVos are toast. They only work with QAM (via CableCard).

That's my understanding

Edit: to clarify - that is if the provider goes 100% IPtv with no QAM available. My guess is that initially and for long time, both are offered simultaneously


----------



## RoamioJeff

thyname said:


> If the IPtv is launched, all our current TiVos are toast. They only work with QAM (via CableCard).


_Unless_ there is a software change for the TiVo to receive IP channel content via the internet.

Improbable for sure, but not technically infeasible.


----------



## lessd

thyname said:


> If the IPtv is launched, all our current TiVos are toast. They only work with QAM (via CableCard).
> 
> That's my understanding
> 
> Edit: to clarify - that is if the provider goes 100% IPtv with no QAM available. My guess is that initially and for long time, both are offered simultaneously





wco81 said:


> If I have to get X1 to replace my Tivo, I will probably cut the cord.
> 
> In fact, if we get stuck with apps., might be a good time to cut the cord.


*That not my question*, I want to know if the Comcast X1 system, as it is now, could record IPtv if Comcast starts putting some channels on IPtv, I know TiVo as is can't, but I don't know if anybody knows the answer to my Comcast X1 question.


----------



## HarperVision

thyname said:


> If the IPtv is launched, all our current TiVos are toast. They only work with QAM (via CableCard). That's my understanding Edit: to clarify - that is if the provider goes 100% IPtv with no QAM available. My guess is that initially and for long time, both are offered simultaneously





RoamioJeff said:


> Unless there is a software change for the TiVo to receive IP channel content via the internet. Improbable for sure, but not technically infeasible.


I did kind of wonder about what I saw in this specs list on Best Buy's website where it says "Video Input(s): Coaxial video, Ethernet". It's probably nothing but a misprint though. They could be saying it because of the apps......or maybe the new Mantis network TiVo?


----------



## NashGuy

lessd said:


> *That not my question*, I want to know if the Comcast X1 system, as it is now, could record IPtv if Comcast starts putting some channels on IPtv, I know TiVo as is can't, but I don't know if anybody knows the answer to my Comcast X1 question.


X1 currently uses a mix of both local DVR (like TiVo) and cloud DVR. It's suspected (but I don't know if confirmed) that cloud DVR recordings are streamed from Comcast's servers to the X1 box via IP. I see no reason why Comcast's servers couldn't also record a linear IP channel as easily as they now record a linear QAM channel. My guess is that linear IP channels will only ever be recordable via cloud DVR, not local DVR.


----------



## lpwcomp

TiVos can already receive and display content received via the Internet (Netflx, Amazon, etc.) and record content received via Intranet (TiVo-TiVo and PC-TiVo transfer). The only reason they can't record the former is because they aren't allowed to.


----------



## lessd

lpwcomp said:


> TiVos can already receive and display content received via the Internet (Netflx, Amazon, etc.) and record content received via Intranet (TiVo-TiVo and PC-TiVo transfer). The only reason they can't record the former is because they aren't allowed to.


So* could *the FCC give us the right to record IPtv as they do now with linear QAM channels ?


----------



## lpwcomp

lessd said:


> So* could *the FCC give us the right to record IPtv as they do now with linear QAM channels ?


I suppose they could but we already have a provider (U-Verse) that is delivering content in this manner and they are not governed by the same rules and thus have no requirement to support third party devices.

The other thing is that, as I understand the proposed rules, the provider controls the apps and doesn't have to allow general access by third party devices.


----------



## DrewTivo

lessd said:


> So* could *the FCC give us the right to record IPtv as they do now with linear QAM channels ?


There would be a massive battle over that if the FCC did . . . the right to record is based on a Supreme Court ruling that says doing so is fair use - i.e., not prohibited. But to establish a "right" through regulation seems highly susceptible of challenge. And given the DMCA has been interpreted not to allow copying of encrypted DVDs, even for personal use, and the act doesn't have provisions for doing so, it seems unlikely the FCC could get away with it either in court or in Congress (i.e., Congress would apply pressure or amend the law to prevent it).


----------



## DrewTivo

trip1eX said:


> I think he already caved. The app solution isn't really even needed anyway.


The whole argument seems antiquated at this point - it's itching the annoying scratch that cablecos make additional money by renting boxes, which are generally useless overpriced pieces of hardware. So instead Cablecos will use apps and raise bills by the equivalent amount of revenue they were getting from cable boxes, while adding a degree of control. Nothing in the proposal really addresses either of those things.


----------



## Dan203

Yeah it's giving us the illusion of choice, not actual choice. If the app is the same whether you're using a Roku, AppleTV or a FireTV. Then what choice are you really being given? And if they simply raise prices across the board to recoup the loss of hardware rental then we're not really saving any money either. It's all just an illusion that's getting us to the exact place the MSOs wanted us to go anyway.


----------



## atmuscarella

DrewTivo said:


> There would be a massive battle over that if the FCC did . . . the right to record is based on a Supreme Court ruling that says doing so is fair use - i.e., not prohibited. But to establish a "right" through regulation seems highly susceptible of challenge. And given the DMCA has been interpreted not to allow copying of encrypted DVDs, even for personal use, and the act doesn't have provisions for doing so, it seems unlikely the FCC could get away with it either in court or in Congress (i.e., Congress would apply pressure or amend the law to prevent it).


You do understand that the only reason you can record QAM is because the FCC mandates it, right? The bottom line is simple cable companies want out of regulation and have enough money to likely pay their way out of it one way or another. Going to IP TV as their delivery tech is one way to move past cable cards requirements, with the hope they can prevent the Government from implementing similar regulations that cover pay TV delivered via IP TV (and satellite for that matter).


----------



## DrewTivo

atmuscarella said:


> You do understand that the only reason you can record QAM is because the FCC mandates it, right?


No, I was not. What is the nature of the mandate?


----------



## Dan203

The CableCARD mandate. It's the only reason why you are allowed to record, or even view, encrypted channels on a 3rd party device. It also mandates the use of the copy flags which allow DVRs to record the content for time shifted viewing and mandates how those flags are allowed to be used. There is actually a flag called "copy never" that forces a DVR to delete a recording after 90 minutes. The CableCARD rules prevent the MSOs from using that flag on every channel. It only allows them to use it on PPV channels. It also forces them to use the "copy freely" flag on all channel that are broadcast over public airwaves (i.e. locals) which is why MSOs like Time Warner couldn't prevent local channels from working with TiVo out of home streaming or TiVoToGo. 

If this new apps thing comes down the way it's currently purposed then that means the MSO is going to have complete control over the UI and all features available in that UI. So if they want to force you to watch commercials or only keep a recording for X days then they will be able to do that and we'll have no alternative.


----------



## atmuscarella

DrewTivo said:


> No, I was not. What is the nature of the mandate?


Simple put without FCC requirements no cable cards - without cable cards no ability to directly record encrypted QAM. These same FCC regulations prevent cable companies from preventing or restricting recordings anymore than they do now.

Even without FCC rules there would likely still be cable company DVRs because along with making money renting them cable companies have to compete with Satellite which use/used their DVRs to complete with cable. Just like the current IP TV providers (AT&T & Google) also have to provide DVRs to be competitive with everyone else.

A move to IP TV by cable doesn't mean the end of DVRs just the end of non-cable DVRs unless the FCC steps in. For DVRs to go away all competitive Pay TV providers would have to decide nearly at the same time to stop providing them, which doesn't seem likely to me. What I could see happening is more reliance on VoD or cloud DVRs with restrictions/costs that many TiVo users wouldn't like.


----------



## slowbiscuit

RoamioJeff said:


> _Unless_ there is a software change for the TiVo to receive IP channel content via the internet.
> 
> Improbable for sure, but not technically infeasible.


Tivo was working with Comcast on that but it appears to have not gone anywhere. Publicly at least.


----------



## ajwees41

slowbiscuit said:


> Tivo was working with Comcast on that but it appears to have not gone anywhere. Publicly at least.


I think that was SDV not IP also Cox customers with Tivo in certain areas not sure if it cover every cox area yet, but they use IP backchannel for vod


----------



## Dan203

IP should be easy to add if the MSOs cooperate or the FCC forces a standard, but otherwise we're SOL.


----------



## wco81

Yeah but by the time we need IP-only devices, chances are we're going to have to have new hardware.

Will Rovi develop new hardware?

Will there be a reason to buy new hardware apart from compliance with IP-only cable systems?


----------



## ajwees41

wco81 said:


> Yeah but by the time we need IP-only devices, chances are we're going to have to have new hardware.
> 
> Will Rovi develop new hardware?
> 
> Will there be a reason to buy new hardware apart from compliance with IP-only cable systems?


It will be TiVo not Rovi by that time since that's the combined companies name. Who knows Sony or another third party could build the hardware, but TiVo will provide the software.


----------



## NashGuy

Dan203 said:


> IP should be easy to add if the MSOs cooperate or the FCC forces a standard, but otherwise we're SOL.


Based on everything we've seen at the FCC this year, it seems clear that the plan for IP video will simply be apps designed by the pay TV services themselves, not some open system that separates the IP video streams from the UI. Which leaves TiVo, as you say, SOL.


----------



## thyname

NashGuy said:


> Based on everything we've seen at the FCC this year, it seems clear that the plan for IP video will simply be apps designed by the pay TV services themselves, not some open system that separates the IP video streams from the UI. Which leaves TiVo, as you say, SOL.


Exactly!

Which means that we, as already invested as TiVo owners, will have to hope that this transition happens as late as possible, hopefully in 2025!


----------



## Dan203

Yep. Our only hope is that lobbying from CE companies like TiVo or Google can get them to bend a little on the apps thing and force them to have some sort of open API that 3rd party devices can tap into to access the streams directly. But I honestly doubt that will happen. At this point I suspect that once CableCARDs die we'll all be stuck using apps that work exactly like the MSOs supplied hardware.


----------



## DrewTivo

Dan203 said:


> Yep. Our only hope is that lobbying from CE companies like TiVo or Google can get them to bend a little on the apps thing and force them to have some sort of open API that 3rd party devices can tap into to access the streams directly. But I honestly doubt that will happen. At this point I suspect that once CableCARDs die we'll all be stuck using apps that work exactly like the MSOs supplied hardware.


Right . . . which is why I commented above that the FCC seems to be chasing only the bugaboo of consumers having to pay for useless hardware (they are), while dodging the bigger issue of whether MSOs should control content or merely pass it through to consumers as pipes and aggregators. (Or actually weighing in on the side of "control content").

And I suspect Google at some point will give up the lobbying and direct their efforts instead to other mechanisms - the "app" approach is likely to be quickly superseded direct connections to the content providers anyway, and google will work with them.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> Yep. *Our only hope* is that lobbying from CE companies like TiVo or Google can get them to bend a little on the apps thing and force them to have some sort of open API that 3rd party devices can tap into to access the streams directly. But I honestly doubt that will happen. At this point I suspect that once CableCARDs die we'll all be stuck using apps that work exactly like the MSOs supplied hardware.


TiVo can partner with an OTT linear TV streaming provider, as we've discussed previously, and not have to bow down to these elitist cable MSOs.


----------



## thyname

HarperVision said:


> TiVo can partner with an OTT linear TV streaming provider, as we've discussed previously, and not have to bow down to these elitist cable MSOs.


This seems much more doable.

However, what about the following.

1 - DVR capabilities of current Tivo boxes we have?

2 - Will new TiVo hardware be required? in other words, have we wasted our money with current TiVos we have?


----------



## HarperVision

thyname said:


> This seems much more doable.
> 
> However, what about the following.
> 
> 1 - DVR capabilities of current Tivo boxes we have?
> 
> 2 - Will new TiVo hardware be required? in other words, have we wasted our money with current TiVos we have?


I don't think so. I posted a link previously that showed that eVUE-TV can run on Series 4 (and higher?) TiVos.

From here:


> Evolution Digitals eVUE-TV on the VU-IT! platform enables cable operators to innovate with TiVos world-renowned features and capabilities. *The VU-IT! solution features TiVo Series 4 set-top boxes,* Evolution Digitals eBOX IP Hybrid Set-Top Box and other third-party hardware.


----------



## Fant

I don't get it. The FCC thinks having a separate app by each network that works differently is going to allow more competition and choice? We already have too many apps to watch different services.


----------



## Dan203

Not per network. Each MSO would supply an app that would work just like their own boxes.


----------



## slowbiscuit

DrewTivo said:


> Right . . . which is why I commented above that the FCC seems to be chasing only the bugaboo of consumers having to pay for useless hardware (they are), while dodging the bigger issue of whether MSOs should control content or merely pass it through to consumers as pipes and aggregators. (Or actually weighing in on the side of "control content").


Yep, this is where they totally caved and I can't believe that Tivo is not opposing the app-only idea with everything at its disposal.

Unless they WANT to get out of the DVR hardware biz now that Rovi is in control, that is.


----------



## HarperVision

slowbiscuit said:


> Yep, this is where they totally caved and I can't believe that Tivo is not opposing the app-only idea with everything at its disposal.
> 
> Unless they WANT to get out of the DVR hardware biz now that Rovi is in control, that is.


[speculation]Because they're going to make their own app that utilizes eVUE-TV for streaming OTT linear cable channels and the gateway in house will be the upcoming TiVo Mantis as a local network DVR (just add a USB HDD) to record your local channels and integrates them into the TiVo/eVUE Guide.[/speculation]


----------



## Dan203

HarperVision said:


> [speculation]Because they're going to make their own app that utilizes eVUE-TV for streaming OTT linear cable channels and the gateway in house will be the upcoming TiVo Mantis as a local network DVR (just add a USB HDD) to record your local channels and integrates them into the TiVo/eVUE Guide.[/speculation]


I think that is the ideal solution for TiVo long term, but I'm not sure having that as an option is enough for them to just give up on the broader DVR market. I too am shocked they're not fighting this harder.


----------



## NashGuy

Dan203 said:


> I think that is the ideal solution for TiVo long term, but I'm not sure having that as an option is enough for them to just give up on the broader DVR market. I too am shocked they're not fighting this harder.


I think they're realistic enough to recognize a lost cause when they see one. The handwriting has been on the wall for awhile now in terms of the future of TiVo retail cable DVRs. Now more than ever, after the merger with Rovi, TiVo has bigger fish to fry.


----------



## Dan203

I guess I was just hoping TiVo would be the one to keep fighting and keep hope alive for retail DVRs.


----------



## Krandor

Dan203 said:


> I guess I was just hoping TiVo would be the one to keep fighting and keep hope alive for retail DVRs.


The content providers have been playing a long game ever since the original VCR lawsuit many many years ago. They now finally can get what they always wanted and are not going to give it up. The copy protect flags were the first volley.. full IPTV with full control via apps finally gives them total control and the user none. You can run the app of your smart TV or your rocku or your appleTV but you still have to run their app and be subject to whatever controls they want.

How is this better?

I've said all along the people pushing for al la carte better be careful what you wish for. We may long for the days of cable when you have to use netflix app to watch daredevil, amazon app to watch X, CBS app to watch Star Trek, etc etc. with no unified guide or look or UI or anything.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Krandor said:


> I've said all along the people pushing for al la carte better be careful what you wish for. We may long for the days of cable when you have to use netflix app to watch daredevil, amazon app to watch X, CBS app to watch Star Trek, etc etc. with no unified guide or look or UI or anything.


Or you can just bittorrent everything you want to watch.


----------



## jth tv

We are getting more choices of how to watch TV without commercials all the time, not less.


----------



## thyname

It looks like IPtv is launching soon from Verizon:

https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r31022473-New-ONT-Router-Combo-Passed-Through-FCC

Granted it is from a forum, but the OP is the most active poster over at Verizon DSLREPORTS forums, with inside knowledge and connections to the company


----------



## Dan203

If they switch to IP then CableCARD users are SOL. They're not regulated under the same laws as cable. IIRC they complied with the CableCARD mandate voluntarily because they used QAM and they wanted to avoid being reclassified by the FCC. If they convert to IP then the FCC will essentially have no jurisdiction over them.


----------



## thyname

Dan203 said:


> If they switch to IP then CableCARD users are SOL. They're not regulated under the same laws as cable. IIRC they complied with the CableCARD mandate voluntarily because they used QAM and they wanted to avoid being reclassified by the FCC. If they convert to IP then the FCC will essentially have no jurisdiction over them.


You are talking about Verizon FIOS, right?

Then we are screwed. At least I will still have my Roamio OTA to use with antenna.

But again, they have been talking about ITtv over at Verizon's for over three years now, so hopefully just rumors.


----------



## Dan203

Yeah we're talking about FIOS.


----------



## Fant

Maybe this is a stupid question but If cable operators switch to IP, then shouldn't I be able to get internet from my local provider and tv over ip from any provider? ie I'd have the choice if getting tv from Verizon or Comcast or cablevision etc?


----------



## tarheelblue32

Fant said:


> Maybe this is a stupid question but If cable operators switch to IP, then shouldn't I be able to get internet from my local provider and tv over ip from any provider? ie I'd have the choice if getting tv from Verizon or Comcast or cablevision etc?


"IP" doesn't necessarily mean streamed over your internet connection. IP is just a data transmission standard.


----------



## thyname

Fant said:


> Maybe this is a stupid question but If cable operators switch to IP, then shouldn't I be able to get internet from my local provider and tv over ip from any provider? ie I'd have the choice if getting tv from Verizon or Comcast or cablevision etc?


No. that's called OTT tv. Confusing?


----------



## DrewTivo

tarheelblue32 said:


> "IP" doesn't necessarily mean streamed over your internet connection. IP is just a data transmission standard.


And doesn't the viability of the design rely on integration to keep bandwidth minimal? I.e., if everybody is just streaming TV over their internet connection then won't that bog down speeds? Whereas IP TV presumably has some aspect that avoids that problem?


----------



## Dan203

IPTV would be streamed over just the MSOs internal network, not the internet. They would likely also use multicast to avoid redundant bandwidth being used for multiple users watching the same channel. Add in the gains from converting to DOCSIS 3.1 and H.264 encoding and they gain enough bandwidth that they can actually increase internet speeds for most people.


----------



## wco81

Well as unsatisfactory as Wheelers app. proposals have been, the new FCC board to be appointed next year may be even worse.


----------



## Dan203

wco81 said:


> Well as unsatisfactory as Wheelers app. proposals have been, the new FCC board to be appointed next year may be even worse.


I'm not sure it even matters at this point. The apps aren't really acceptable for TiVo users anyway, so our only hope at this point is competition from OTT skinny bundle services like PSVue.


----------



## wco81

Maybe Direct TV Now? Though the AT&T merger with Time Warner may be in trouble.


----------



## tarheelblue32

DrewTivo said:


> And doesn't the viability of the design rely on integration to keep bandwidth minimal? I.e., if everybody is just streaming TV over their internet connection then won't that bog down speeds? Whereas IP TV presumably has some aspect that avoids that problem?


Yes, but that is true for any simulcast technology.


----------



## NashGuy

Seems likely that the FCC won't end up moving forward with their pay TV app-based plan -- a revised version of "Unlock the Box" -- under the Trump administration. I'm doubtful that the end result will differ very much, as I still expect most cable TV providers to offer apps without being forced to by the FCC, although without the FCC mandate, they'll be able to pick and choose which devices to support, so perhaps there will be fewer hardware choices for customers of any particular cable provider.

It looks like Republicans have shot down the FCC's plan to kill the cable box


----------



## wco81

With the change of party in the White House, all efforts to reform the set top market are all but dead.

They claim content creators were hesitant because of this potential reform to the set-top box market.

You'd think they'd come up with a half-viable rationalization at least.



> The fact that the set-top box proceeding is technically still open is considered a problem by House Republicans. "Without a clear indication that the Commission rejects this current proposal, content creators will be hesitant to invest in high-quality video programs," they wrote to Pai. Additionally, "video programming distributors will not know whether their contracts will violate FCC policy."
> 
> Pay-TV providers should also be given "a clear sign that they can bring technological advances to set-top boxes and video delivery without fear that the Commission [will] overturn them by regulation," the lawmakers wrote. The potential of set-top box regulation "has cast a shadow over investment and innovation in traditional video programming delivery," they claimed.
> 
> Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge today urged Pai to "end [the] cable box ripoff," pointing out that Section 629 of the Communications Act "directs the FCC to ensure that consumers can choose from a competitive market for 'unaffiliated' devices that can access their complete cable TV or other pay-TV subscriptions." Comcast and other pay-TV companies do offer video streaming apps, but deployment is uneven across cable companies and devices. Congressional Democrats have also fought for set-top box reform.


House Republicans seek permanent end of FCC's set-top box reform plan


----------



## Fant

Doesn't this mean that there will be no change for cablecards for the foreseeable future which already allows people to use a box of their choice?


----------



## Dan203

CableCARDs have some limitations that we were hoping a new standard would correct. The biggest one is the tuning adapter. Having to have a TA for every CC device basically defeats the purpose. Especially in SciAtlanta areas where the TA is the same size as a regular cable box. 

The other thing we were hoping for was that this new standard would allow 3rd party devices to access VOD content. That's not going to happen either.

In fact what's likely to happen here is that the FCC is going to say that apps are good enough to satisfy the law and then the cable companies are going to dump CableCARDs completely. After that the only 3rd party devices that will work will be streaming stick type devices that load their app with their UI.


----------



## Bigg

At least for Comcast, I don't think CableCards will die before linear QAM dies. They are aggressively pursing IPTV, and that will effectively kill CableCards, irregardless of the law is or isn't. My guess is that the cable companies just want to keep the status quo at this point, and let CableCard die out as QAM dies.


----------



## Dan203

That's probanly true, but they could deminish support for the CableCARD so much that they become nearly impossible to get and get setup. Much like the situation we had back in 2006 when they initially launched.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> That's probanly true, but they could deminish support for the CableCARD so much that they become nearly impossible to get and get setup. Much like the situation we had back in 2006 when they initially launched.


As far as I can tell, Comcast and Cox have no intent on getting rid of CableCard as long as QAM is around, which isn't really that long. They are pretty easy to get if you know what to ask for. Setting them up can be a challenge though, as they sometimes manage to royally screw things up.


----------



## wco81

Well if you use the Comcast Xfinity app. on Roku, you will be paying an additional outlet fee:

Comcast will charge extra fee for watching TV on Roku boxes


----------



## Jed1

Well elections do have consequences and the FCC has now scrapped plans for STB competition.
FCC Chairman Scraps Plan To Promote Set-Top Box Competition


----------



## Dan203

We knew that was coming. But to be honest Wheeler's position wasn't much better for TiVo, or DVRs, anyway so I'm not sure it really matters.


----------



## Jed1

Dan203 said:


> We knew that was coming. But to be honest Wheeler's position wasn't much better for TiVo, or DVRs, anyway so I'm not sure it really matters.


Yea but it is now official so that will end any hope or optimism that some may have been holding onto. The one thing I do know the broadcasting industry always wanted was a rewrite of the 1996 Telecom Act. It looks like they can get that now so I will not be surprised to hear that it is happening.
The silly thing is it was economics that drove the outcome of the election and it is these type of things that make these peoples lives more expensive. The problem is those voters can not connect these things together and they constantly blame the wrong source for their problems, thanks to those "Alternative Facts".


----------



## BobCamp1

wco81 said:


> Well if you use the Comcast Xfinity app. on Roku, you will be paying an additional outlet fee:
> 
> Comcast will charge extra fee for watching TV on Roku boxes


They could have done that with the other third-party boxes too. Make the outlet or use fee big enough to discourage people from buying third-party boxes. The proposal was always doomed in the long run for various reasons.


----------



## NashGuy

BobCamp1 said:


> They could have done that with the other third-party boxes too. Make the outlet or use fee big enough to discourage people from buying third-party boxes. The proposal was always doomed in the long run for various reasons.


I think the additional outlet fee is a charge that Comcast assesses regardless of whether you're using their STB or some other equipment (e.g. CableCARD device, Roku) at that outlet. However, Comcast has indicated that you won't be charged an equipment fee if you're using a Roku with the new Xfinity app at an outlet. So I think it will be something like: pay $9.99 for an additional outlet + $2.50 for a Comcast STB OR pay $9.99 for an additional outlet + $0.00 to use your own Roku. I think this is how the pricing works now with CableCARD devices.


----------



## wco81

BobCamp1 said:


> They could have done that with the other third-party boxes too. Make the outlet or use fee big enough to discourage people from buying third-party boxes. The proposal was always doomed in the long run for various reasons.


But the thing is, you don't even have to run another cable to a Roku or other streaming box. It's not like the set top boxes that Comcast would be leasing to you.

One of the reasons the FCC looked at reforming the set top box market was that the cable companies were making billions a year on equipment rental fees.


----------



## NashGuy

Can someone familiar with Comcast policies and practices answer a Q for me? I just recently switched from internet only to their Internet Plus plan, which comes with basic local channels plus Showtime. It came with an SD digital converter box for watching TV but I have no plans to use it because I access locals in HD via my TiVo Roamio OTA and I watch Showtime through the Showtime Anytime app.

Can I return the SD digital converter box they issued me and request a CableCARD in exchange for it in order to get a $2.50/mo credit to my bill? My understanding is that $2.50 is the charge for their converter box and that there is no charge for the first CableCARD. The thing is, though, that I wouldn't actually activate the CableCARD since my TiVo is OTA-only. The CableCARD would just sit in my house unused, like the converter box is currently doing. But if it saves me $2.50 a month, why not?

So I guess I have two questions, one is whether my understanding about pricing/credits is correct. The second is whether I'd receive the credit even if the CableCARD never got activated.


----------



## HerronScott

NashGuy said:


> I think the additional outlet fee is a charge that Comcast assesses regardless of whether you're using their STB or some other equipment (e.g. CableCARD device, Roku) at that outlet. However, Comcast has indicated that you won't be charged an equipment fee if you're using a Roku with the new Xfinity app at an outlet. So I think it will be something like: pay $9.99 for an additional outlet + $2.50 for a Comcast STB OR pay $9.99 for an additional outlet + $0.00 to use your own Roku. I think this is how the pricing works now with CableCARD devices.


It's $9.95 for an additional outlet which includes the hardware so when you supply your own (ie TiVo etc.), you get a $2.50 COE credit so the final cost is $7.45.

Scott


----------



## HerronScott

NashGuy said:


> Can someone familiar with Comcast policies and practices answer a Q for me? I just recently switched from internet only to their Internet Plus plan, which comes with basic local channels plus Showtime. It came with an SD digital converter box for watching TV but I have no plans to use it because I access locals in HD via my TiVo Roamio OTA and I watch Showtime through the Showtime Anytime app.
> 
> Can I return the SD digital converter box they issued me and request a CableCARD in exchange for it in order to get a $2.50/mo credit to my bill? My understanding is that $2.50 is the charge for their converter box and that there is no charge for the first CableCARD. The thing is, though, that I wouldn't actually activate the CableCARD since my TiVo is OTA-only. The CableCARD would just sit in my house unused, like the converter box is currently doing. But if it saves me $2.50 a month, why not?
> 
> So I guess I have two questions, one is whether my understanding about pricing/credits is correct. The second is whether I'd receive the credit even if the CableCARD never got activated.


Your problem might be getting them to supply a CableCARD for basic TV service.

Scott


----------



## wco81

HerronScott said:


> It's $9.95 for an additional outlet which includes the hardware so when you supply your own (ie TiVo etc.), you get a $2.50 COE credit so the final cost is $7.45.
> 
> Scott


But that's in the case of them running a separate coax to the box. For Roku and other streaming boxes, you could have a Wifi connection.

Comcast isn't charging me an extra outlet for my Mini in addition to my Tivo Roamio, which is connected both to the coax TV signal and ethernet from my router which connects to the cable modem, which gets a split coax. So I'm getting live TV in two different rooms without the separate outlet fee.

Now that they have a compliant FCC, maybe they'll go searching for those additional streaming boxes like Apple TV, Tivo Mini, etc.


----------



## HerronScott

wco81 said:


> But that's in the case of them running a separate coax to the box. For Roku and other streaming boxes, you could have a Wifi connection.
> 
> Comcast isn't charging me an extra outlet for my Mini in addition to my Tivo Roamio, which is connected both to the coax TV signal and ethernet from my router which connects to the cable modem, which gets a split coax. So I'm getting live TV in two different rooms without the separate outlet fee.


They have no visibility into how Mini's use the resources of the primary TiVo which is why Mini's are great. It doesn't really have anything to do with how the device is connected since Mini's can use a coaxial cable with MOCA as well to connect to the TiVo.

They've already indicated in their FAQ that ADO charges for services to outlets connected to Roku devices are being waived during the beta and that after the beta is over, you will be informed of what charges will apply (presumably the same ADO charge since they mention it).

"Customers will not pay equipment charges with respect to their use of Roku devices. All other fees associated with a customer's service will apply, except that, during the Beta trial, additional outlet charges for services to outlets connected to Roku devices are being waived. On conclusion of the trial, you will be informed of the charges that will apply for connecting this device with your XFINITY TV service and will have the opportunity to opt in."

Scott


----------



## Dan203

And this is precisely why we need an open, regulated, standard. At least with CableCARD a device can have 6 tuners and only pay one ADO fee. With these apps they're not going to be any cheaper then renting a box.


----------



## Bigg

HerronScott said:


> Your problem might be getting them to supply a CableCARD for basic TV service.


They have to provide it per federal law. If someone does this, they should make sure not to lose the CableCard if it's thrown in a drawer somewhere, as they're probably like $500 to replace or something.


----------



## chiguy50

NashGuy said:


> Can someone familiar with Comcast policies and practices answer a Q for me? I just recently switched from internet only to their Internet Plus plan, which comes with basic local channels plus Showtime. It came with an SD digital converter box for watching TV but I have no plans to use it because I access locals in HD via my TiVo Roamio OTA and I watch Showtime through the Showtime Anytime app.
> 
> *Can I return the SD digital converter box they issued me and request a CableCARD in exchange for it in order to get a $2.50/mo credit to my bill?* My understanding is that $2.50 is the charge for their converter box and that there is no charge for the first CableCARD. The thing is, though, that I wouldn't actually activate the CableCARD since my TiVo is OTA-only. The CableCARD would just sit in my house unused, like the converter box is currently doing. But if it saves me $2.50 a month, why not?
> 
> *So I guess I have two questions, one is whether my understanding about pricing/credits is correct. The second is whether I'd receive the credit even if the CableCARD never got activated.*


Firstly, as with most Comcast billing questions, be advised that YMMV since their corporate policies are not uniform and are not even uniformly implemented.

My experience has been that you can not return the converter (DTA) box. I have had two of them, which I have never used, for over 12 years and was told that I must hold on to them as they are part and parcel of my basic service (provided for by my HOA's bulk services agreement). I wanted to get them off my hands and thought that maybe I could wangle a small credit, but no soap. So, no, you can not "exchange" the DTA for a CableCARD.

You should definitely be able to get them to issue you a CableCARD for no fee, as it would be the first one on your account. However, I strongly suspect that you would not receive the Customer-owned Equipment (COE) credit unless and until the card were activated. I believe that the card will show up on your account as a no-charge line item as soon as it is issued but that the system would not allow the COE credit to be processed until it sees the card as an activated digital device.


----------



## slowbiscuit

wco81 said:


> Well if you use the Comcast Xfinity app. on Roku, you will be paying an additional outlet fee:
> 
> Comcast will charge extra fee for watching TV on Roku boxes


And... this is why people hate Comcast. For good reason.


----------



## NashGuy

chiguy50 said:


> Firstly, as with most Comcast billing questions, be advised that YMMV since their corporate policies are not uniform and are not even uniformly implemented.
> I believe that the card will show up on your account as a no-charge line item as soon as it is issued but that the system would not allow the COE credit to be processed until it sees the card as an activated digital device.


OK, thanks, good info.


----------



## NashGuy

slowbiscuit said:


> And... this is why people hate Comcast. For good reason.


Look, I certainly don't love Comcast and understand why a lot of folks hate them. That said, I'm not sure I see why anyone would think that they would completely do away with charging extra fees for accessing their service on additional TVs, just because customer-owned equipment is being used. It's not just Comcast who does this. Isn't this common among cable co's? DirecTV and DISH both did it when I had those services in the past.

The fees for additional TVs was never really about covering the cost of the boxes used for those TVs (illustrated by the fact that Comcast refunds just $2.50 out of the $10 additional TV fee if you use your own box) -- it's just a way to make more money off of their service. Think of the extra millions that Comcast must make off of households with service for multiple TVs. Why would they throw that away by allowing all those secondary TVs to get full X1 TV service through a cheap Roku box?

The ability to have cable TV with DVR service on secondary TVs for so little incremental cost via the TiVo Mini is one of the biggest economic arguments in favor of using TiVo equipment vs. the cable company's. Of course Comcast and other cable co's don't like missing out on those additional TV service fees but there's nothing they can really do about it with the Mini thanks to the nature of the QAM/CableCARD technology involved. But don't expect that same sort of cost-savings loophole as TV goes IP. Pretty much all the OTT services have a limit on the number of concurrent streams (i.e. screens viewed) per account and some, like Netflix and the upcoming Hulu live TV service, charge a little more per month for additional streams.


----------



## Dan203

NashGuy said:


> It's not just Comcast who does this. Isn't this common among cable co's?


AFAIK Comcast is the only cable company that does this. And worse they're not even consistent about it and only do it in some regions.

The big down side for consumers here is that the whole point of buying your own equipment, and the whole point of the law, is to save people money. And if they charge an outlet fee to use your own equipment then that goal is lost.

This kind of thing is just going to further drive adoption of alternatives like PSVue and SlingTV which are significantly cheaper and work with the same devices.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Dan203 said:


> This kind of thing is just going to further drive adoption of alternatives like PSVue and SlingTV which are significantly cheaper and work with the same devices.


Exactly, they're shooting themselves in the foot with their shortsightedness here. Trying to keep getting that ripoff ADO fee while watching their customers jump ship to more enlightened providers.

The real stupidity of all this is that I can run the Xfinity app on any number of mobile devices and cast the screen to my Tivo, Chromecast, or freaking Roku without paying a fee.

Yes, it's more work and not as easy to use as a remote control to the Roku. But the point here is that they're gouging by charging the ADO on Roku. No other cable provider is doing this.

I predict this fee won't last long on Rokus.


----------



## NashGuy

Dan203 said:


> The big down side for consumers here is that the whole point of buying your own equipment, and the whole point of the law, is to save people money. And if they charge an outlet fee to use your own equipment then that goal is lost.
> 
> This kind of thing is just going to further drive adoption of alternatives like PSVue and SlingTV which are significantly cheaper and work with the same devices.


Well, it does save a bit of money, but not much -- $2.50, the same as if you were using a CableCARD device instead of a Comcast STB.

But, yes, I agree that the amount that Comcast charges to access TV on additional outlets is overpriced, but then I think that cable/satellite TV in general is overpriced for what it is, which is why I no longer have it. Fortunately OTT services are creating more competition, more choices and more price points for consumers.

My understanding is that Comcast and other MSOs make very little profit on their TV service; broadband internet is the cash cow. (And Comcast is getting into the MNVO mobile business this year too.) I wonder at what point they decide to do away with TV, if ever?


----------



## Dan203

I've been saying for a while that I think they will eventually split off their TV service into a separate company and offer it as an OTT service, then focus the infrastructure side solely on internet. With the current administration it's likely all the net neutrality stuff is going to go out the window, so they'll be able to make money on the back end of the internet portion as well.


----------



## NashGuy

You've probably already read this, but Cringely's tech predictions for 2017 touch on this:
Bob's Big Picture technology predictions for 2017 - I, Cringely


----------



## aaronwt

NashGuy said:


> I think the additional outlet fee is a charge that Comcast assesses regardless of whether you're using their STB or some other equipment (e.g. CableCARD device, Roku) at that outlet. However, Comcast has indicated that you won't be charged an equipment fee if you're using a Roku with the new Xfinity app at an outlet. So I think it will be something like: pay $9.99 for an additional outlet + $2.50 for a Comcast STB OR pay $9.99 for an additional outlet + $0.00 to use your own Roku. I think this is how the pricing works now with CableCARD devices.


Didn't Comcast say they won't charge a fee while it is in Beta? Which to me implies that once it's out of beta, a fee is fair game.


----------



## NashGuy

aaronwt said:


> Didn't Comcast say they won't charge a fee while it is in Beta? Which to me implies that once it's out of beta, a fee is fair game.


There's no charge at all while it's in beta, meaning no additional outlet fee. But as the link in my post which you replied to explains, post-beta there will be some kind of outlet fee/access fee charged for each additional TV that you use a Roku with. And while during the beta you cannot use the Roku app as your only means of accessing Comcast TV (you must also have one of their STBs or a CableCARD device in use), I've read that post-beta you will be able to do that. So I could, for instance, use a Roku instead of the single STB issued to me for service to my one TV and it sounds like I'd get a $2.50 monthly credit back on my account.


----------



## HerronScott

aaronwt said:


> Didn't Comcast say they won't charge a fee while it is in Beta? Which to me implies that once it's out of beta, a fee is fair game.


Yes as I quoted from their FAQ 12 posts up. 

Scott


----------



## Jed1

I just wanted to post this article as what I feared most is now has a real good chance of happening, a rewrite of the Telecom Act.
Wyden, Other Senators Warn That Net Neutrality Repeal Will Make SOPA Backlash Look Like A Fireside Snuggle


> From there, *the GOP has quietly been making it clear they want to push a Communications Act rewrite* that will focus on rolling back the FCC's classification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II, therefore obliterating not only net neutrality -- but the FCC's ability to act as broadband watchdog entirely. This being a new, charming post-truth era, this assault on net neutrality, broadband provider oversight and accountability will most likely be dressed up as a massive boon to job creation, broadband expansion, and the nation's puppies.
> 
> Expect it to be named something along the lines of _The Making Broadband Great Again Act of 2017_.
> 
> This bill, whether it comes as a Communications Act rewrite or some other bill, will also probably claim to put the net neutrality debate to bed by including a few net neutrality restrictions even large ISPs don't actually care about (like banning them from outright blocking websites). What it won't do is address any of the hot-button areas where the net neutrality debate is occurring right now, like zero rating, interconnection, or the use of usage caps and overage fees. Given it will certainly be written in part by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter lawyers, it will just as certainly contain other loopholes to ensure their satisfaction.


This is the act that covers CableCards and who knows what will be thrown into this rewrite as I know they are not going to stop at just broadband access. The Telecom industry scored big in this last election, the equivalent of a grand slam homerun.


----------



## jth tv

Well with the past administration, we had the merger of TWC with Charter and Charter has a $60, retail, minimum for internet. That is not some scary might happen, that is something that did happen. Some, but not all people are seeing big increases when their TWC promo pricing ends.


----------



## Dan203

What do you think is going to happen when the internet is pay for play and they are no longer required to allow 3rd party devices? You think your bill is going to go down?


----------



## slowbiscuit

No Dan, with the massive boost to competition enabled by this act we will have a cornucopia of ISPs to pick from. Just you wait.


----------



## chiguy50

slowbiscuit said:


> No Dan, with the massive boost to competition enabled by this act we will have a cornucopia of ISPs to pick from. Just you wait.


That's the invisible hand of the free market you're about to feel shoved up your rectum.

And it's going to be YUUUUGE!


----------



## Worf

Ouch!


----------



## chiguy50

Worf said:


> *Ouch!*


Apparently you forgot the lube. 

(You're going to want to stock up.)


----------



## Bigg

Jed1 said:


> This is the act that covers CableCards and who knows what will be thrown into this rewrite as I know they are not going to stop at just broadband access. The Telecom industry scored big in this last election, the equivalent of a grand slam homerun.


By the time anything goes through, CableCard is going to be on it's deathbed anyway. It doesn't work with IP video, and while Charter appears to be a few years behind Comcast on going IP, it's an eventuality for both of them. I certainly think they should keep the requirement, but CableCard is a dead man walking. Charter might just drop CableCard if it weren't mandated anymore, who knows, I doubt Comcast and Cox would, as they are already providing more support for TiVo than required by the law (On Demand).

On a related note, what on earth is Charter doing with their CPE? I saw a Charter install the other day, and they have the most generic junk out there. Comcast, Cox, and at least two of the Canadian MSOs are on X1, ABB, RCN, and a bunch of other small MSOs are on TiVo, Charter has these archaic 2-tuner DCX boxes. Why aren't they rolling out XG1s with *something* on them? I know they can run either X1 or TiVo. Comcast and Cox also have their own gateway contraptions and Wi-Fi systems, Charter just has generic junk out there.


----------



## Dan203

Yep! Charter's DVR sucks! I talked to someone from TiVo a few weeks back and they specfically said that they do better in Charter markets becuase Charter's DVRs suck so bad.


----------



## dlfl

chiguy50 said:


> That's the invisible hand of the free market you're about to feel shoved up your rectum.
> 
> And it's going to be YUUUUGE!





chiguy50 said:


> Apparently you forgot the lube.
> 
> (You're going to want to stock up.)


Compared to the visible hand of local monopoly that I endure (Spectrum, formerly TWC) I'm ready for the invisible hand of the free market. Can't possibly require any more lube than I already use.


----------



## chiguy50

dlfl said:


> Compared to the visible hand of local monopoly that I endure (Spectrum, formerly TWC) I'm ready for the invisible hand of the free market. Can't possibly require any more lube than I already use.


. . . And that's because of our modern American system of capitalism for YOU and socialism for the deep-pocketed special interests. ("Competition? We don't need no stinkin' competition!")


----------



## atmuscarella

chiguy50 said:


> . . . And that's because of our modern American system of capitalism for YOU and socialism for the deep-pocketed special interests. ("Competition? We don't need no stinkin' competition!")


Free and open markets are the desire of consumers not capitalists and to the extent they exist are enforced by Government. The whole goal of a capitalistic enterprise is to eliminate competition and form a monopoly. The only reason this doesn't happen (monopoly formation) is because of Government intervention. We are in a period where capitalistic enterprises have successfully paid politicians to favor there interests over the interests of general population. The left would have the politicians go the opposite direction, which in my opinion is just as bad. Unfortunately a balanced approach, which ends up being in the best interest of everyone in the long run, is currently considered unacceptable by both sides.


----------



## foghorn2

Stock up on cheap DVD's now, rip em and put them on a NAS and stream em with KODI. All new content is crap anyway and DVD's/BR's are cheap. And attach and antenna to your TiVO till they take that away.

We are the ones playing in to their stupid games and buying into it. Im not worried about any of this.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> Yep! Charter's DVR sucks! I talked to someone from TiVo a few weeks back and they specfically said that they do better in Charter markets becuase Charter's DVRs suck so bad.


Very interesting, especially considering Charter's lack of support for TiVo beyond the bare minimum required by law, as opposed to Cox and Comcast supporting VOD on TiVo. Maybe Cox and Comcast feel less threatened, since they really believe in X1. Charter is so behind the game, they could have done TiVo, they could have done X1, they just don't seem to have a plan. I would suspect they would go X1 since the incumbent MSOs are all buddy-buddy with each other, but if TiVo could somehow get them, it would be a MASSIVE win given the sheer size of Charter. I'd think that either way, they would go with the XG1 hardware platform, since that seems to be the cool thing these days.



foghorn2 said:


> We are the ones playing in to their stupid games and buying into it. Im not worried about any of this.


Yeah, I've looked at my viewing, and when I can get all of my stations OTA, I won't have much reason to have cable. Occasional cable news usage and sports just aren't worth it anymore, and I have way too much to watch anyway.


----------



## Pacomartin

I am a little confused about the lifting of the "integration band" in December 2015. As I understand it cable companies are still required to support CableCard but they are no longer required to include them in their set top equipment. Is it coincidence that "SlingTV" became available a few weeks after the "Integration Ban" was lifted? Or would SlingTV have been illegal under the old rules? With the exception of Sling, VUE, DirectTV Now, and Layer3, it seems like most cable companies are still using Cable CARDs. I assume the reason they haven't switched is that they are nervous about investing in technologies which may be against future FCC regulations. So they are waiting until more specific instructions are released.


----------



## lpwcomp

IP delivery systems such as Sling TV and U-Verse were never covered by the CableCARD regulations.


----------



## Pacomartin

lpwcomp said:


> IP delivery systems such as Sling TV and U-Verse were never covered by the CableCARD regulations.


I believe you, but how did the regulations get written so that they were exempt? When I look at the 1998 order, I don't see any language that automatically exempts IP delivery systems.

Report No. CS 98-11 CABLE SERVICES ACTION June 11, 1998
*COMMISSION ADOPTS "NAVIGATION DEVICES" RULES CREATING CONSUMER MARKET FOR SET TOP BOXES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT USED WITH VIDEO PROGRAMMING SYSTEMS
(CS DOCKET 97-80)*
The Commission has adopted rules providing for the commercial availability of set top boxes and other consumer equipment used to receive video signals and other services. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress directed the Commission to create rules that would allow consumers to obtain "navigation devices" -- meaning the set top boxes, remote control units and other equipment -- from commercial sources other than the service provider. This order will benefit consumers and further the Commission's goal of providing competition in the telecommunications marketplace by creating a major market for consumers to own equipment used to access video programming and other services in their homes.
Multichannel video programming distributors must separate out security functions from non-security functions by July 1, 2000. An exception is made for navigation devices that operate throughout the continental United States and are commercially available from unaffiliated sources, which includes direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers. The selection of this date is premised on the representations of the various interests involved that they will agree on relevant specifications, interfaces, and standards in a timely fashion, thus permitting the manufacture and sale of navigation devices by unaffiliated sources. For the time being, multichannel video programming distributors may continue to offer devices that have security and non-security functions integrated. The Commission believes that 2005 provides a sufficient period of time for a reasonable transition and therefore it is establishing a prohibition on the sale or lease of new integrated boxes as of January 1, 2005. In the year 2000, once separate security modules are available, the Commission will assess the state of the market to determine whether that timeframe is appropriate.

Section 629 of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 instructs the Commission to "adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability, to consumers . . . of . . . equipment used . . . to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor." Additionally, Section 629 states that Commission rules "shall not prescribe regulations . . . which would jeopardize security of . . . services offered over multichannel video programming systems, or impede the legal rights of a provider of such services to prevent theft of service."
Summary of key elements of the order:

Section 629 is broad in terms of the multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs") involved. The MVPDs covered include cable television, multichannel broadcast television, direct broadcast satellite ("DBS"), multichannel multipoint distribution service ("MMDS"), and satellite master antenna television ("SMATV"). The Commission determined that open video system operators are not covered as a consequence of the specific open video system provisions of the Communications Act which exclude open video system operators from certain regulations applicable to cable operators.
Section 629 covers not just equipment used to receive video programming, but also equipment used to access "other services offered over multichannel video programming systems." Such equipment includes televisions, VCRs, cable set-top boxes, personal computers, program guide equipment, and cable modems. The focus of Section 629, however, is on cable television set-top boxes and cable modems, devices that have historically been available only on a lease basis from the service provider.
Subscribers have the right to attach any compatible navigation device to a multichannel video programming system. We conclude that the core requirement, to make possible the commercial availability of equipment to MVPD subscribers, is similar to the _Carterfone_ principle adopted by the Commission in the telephone environment. The _Carterfone_ "right to attach" principle is that devices that do not adversely affect the network may be attached to the network. The order also notes that commercial availability is furthered only if consumers are aware of the availability of equipment from alternative sources.
Service providers are prohibited from taking actions that would prevent navigation devices that do not perform conditional access functions from being made available from retailers, manufacturers, or other unaffiliated vendors.
Cable operators and other MVPDs can take the necessary steps to guarantee the security of their systems and their programming. The order follows the provisions in the Communications Act that prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution of equipment designed to allow for the unauthorized reception of service.
Service providers must provide, upon request, technical information concerning interface parameters that are needed to permit navigation devices to operate with multichannel video programming systems.
Existing equipment rate rules applicable to cable systems not facing effective competition fulfill the statute's requirement prohibiting subsidies.
The order adopts rules implementing the statute's waiver and sunset provisions.
The Commission believes that the steps taken in this Report and Order, if implemented promptly and in good faith, will result in a broad expansion of the market for navigation devices so that they become commercially available through retail outlets. This will create incentive for innovation, choice and better prices. The Commission will monitor developments with respect to the availability of information to consumers, retailers, and manufacturers necessary to the functioning of a commercial retail market for navigation equipment, as well as developments relating to standard means of attaching and using equipment with the networks of service providers. The Commission also will monitor developments with respect to the compatibility of set-top boxes and digital televisions, and the availability of program guides. The Commission also is requiring the filing of reports at six month intervals to ensure that the CableLabs OpenCable process, a private effort by several cable companies, is progressing towards the requirement of separation of security by July 1, 2000.
Action by the Commission June 11, 1998, by Report and Order (FCC 98-116). Chairman Kennard, Commissioners Ness, Furchtgott-Roth and Tristani with Commissioner Powell dissenting and Commissioners Ness and Powell issuing statements.


----------



## Dan203

It's in a different law. DSS (i.e. DirecTV and Dish) also got an exemption. They basically limited it to terrestrial system that used QAM modulation.


----------



## HerronScott

Pacomartin said:


> believe you, but how did the regulations get written so that they were exempt? When I look at the 1998 order, I don't see any language that automatically exempts IP delivery systems





Pacomartin said:


> Section 629 is broad in terms of the multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs") involved. The MVPDs covered include cable television, multichannel broadcast television, direct broadcast satellite ("DBS"), multichannel multipoint distribution service ("MMDS"), and satellite master antenna television ("SMATV"). The Commission determined that open video system operators are not covered as a consequence of the specific open video system provisions of the Communications Act which exclude open video system operators from certain regulations applicable to cable operators


The section above defines what it applies to and IP systems like SlingTV don't fall into those categories.

Scott


----------



## Diana Collins

3rd party devices did exist for satellite reception (as add-in cards for PCs), but they never took off in the market, for many reasons.


----------



## atmuscarella

Diana Collins said:


> 3rd party devices did exist for satellite reception (as add-in cards for PCs), but they never took off in the market, for many reasons.


DishNetwork uses standard DBS same as being used for Free To Air KU band satellite broadcasts in the US. So pretty much any KU band card or STB can receive Dish broadcasts they just can not decrypt them. Direct TV uses a different broadcast tech and there are no legal over the counter cards or STBs that can receive the broadcasts.


----------



## Diana Collins

atmuscarella said:


> DishNetwork uses standard DBS same as being used for Free To Air KU band satellite broadcasts in the US. So pretty much any KU band card or STB can receive Dish broadcasts they just can not decrypt them. Direct TV uses a different broadcast tech and there are no legal over the counter cards or STBs that can receive the broadcasts.


That is the point...about 10 years ago PC cards were introduced that accepted the smartcards that they both use for decryption. For a short period of time, they would both activate those cards as well. But once DirecTV went to RIDs and Dish Network moved to a newer Nagravision CA system they stopped supporting the PC adapters.

BTW, technically the DirecTV system is called 'DBS' and the Dish system is called DVB-S (Digital Video Broadcast - Satellite), but since DBS became a generic term for direct to home satellite the nomenclature has been confused.


----------



## NashGuy

Looks like the FCC may soon eliminate the requirement that the nation's six largest cable companies provide quarterly reports on their deployment and support of CableCARDs. Not sure what, if any, impact this would have on consumers, as those companies would still be required to offer and support CableCARDs for their TV subscribers, I assume. Just another sign, I guess, that the CableCARD era is slowly winding down.

Pai to Congress: Set-Top Docket to Remain Open | Broadcasting & Cable


----------



## Mikeguy

NashGuy said:


> Looks like the FCC may soon eliminate the requirement that the nation's six largest cable companies provide quarterly reports on their deployment and support of CableCARDs. Not sure what, if any, impact this would have on consumers, as those companies would still be required to offer and support CableCARDs for their TV subscribers, I assume. *Just another sign, I guess, that the CableCARD era is slowly winding down.*
> 
> Pai to Congress: Set-Top Docket to Remain Open | Broadcasting & Cable


Or that Washington doesn't want to "burden" the telcos, despite the impact this may have on consumers?


----------



## Dan203

Or that Washington is in the pocket of the telcos and will do their bidding as long as the Rs stay in power.


----------



## JoeKustra

Pai will be on CNBC in a few minutes.


----------



## Dan203

I caught most of it and didn't hear him mention CableCARD at all.


----------



## JoeKustra

Dan203 said:


> I caught most of it and didn't hear him mention CableCARD at all.


Correct. He seems to believe all ISP's are great people and nobody will throttle content.


----------



## Dan203

JoeKustra said:


> Correct. He seems to believe all ISP's are great people and nobody will throttle content.


It's not like they're in direct competition with the biggest users of bandwidth on their networks. 

The first thing they're going to do is extort Netflix for more money forcing them to raise prices.


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> Or that Washington is in the pocket of the telcos and will do their bidding as long as the Rs stay in power.


Yeah, because things were so great under Wheeler.


----------



## wco81

Dan203 said:


> Or that Washington is in the pocket of the telcos and will do their bidding as long as the Rs stay in power.


I wonder if the next time Democrats win the WH, they will reclassify under Title II as Wheeler did a couple of years ago.

Then net neutrality and other Internet policy will just ping-pong back and forth depending on which party is in power.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Yeah, because things were so great under Wheeler.


At least under Wheeler we had net neutrality, ISPs couldn't sell your browsing history to the highest bidder, and he was trying to get a successor to CableCARD pushed through. The new administration is giving the MSOs everything they want, consumer rights be damned.

Net neutrality is the biggest concern of mine. Without it the MSOs will get to pick and choose which internet businesses succeed. We've already essentially boiled down ISPs to a half dozen huge companies, ALL of whom have video interests of their own. Do you honestly think they wont use their position to try and hurt the competition? Just wait, if they get their way then eventually services like Netflix and Hulu will cost $30-$40/mo because they have to pay fees to the ISPs just so we can actually use their services. All the while the MSOs will be offering their own video services unthrottled and free of caps because they can. There is a HUGE conflict of interest here, and the new administration doesn't seem to care.


----------



## foghorn2

I no longer care about any of this. Glad I never went with the Roamio Plus, Pro or the Bolt plus. I gave the finger to Cox. They kept raising the prices for garbage pay to watch commercials channels and making us subsidise sports fans with new fees. Google, Psvue, Sling can f off too as they bundle channels just like cable. Netflix is full of garbage too except for the new Bill Nye show.

I'm perfectly happy with Roamios in ota mode, ripped dvds in iso format on a NAS and htpcs with Kodi.

It's time to stop blaming Trump for everything. They are all bunch of greedy scumbags.


----------



## lpwcomp

I'm trying to figure out how giving priority to their own services doesn't violate their contract with *me*, the end user. Not to mention anti-trust laws.


----------



## Dan203

foghorn2 said:


> They are all bunch of greedy scumbags.


This I will absolutely agree with you on. :up:


----------



## pdhenry

The cable card mandate includes an exemption. When Comcast releases their Roku app (currently in Beta) they will no longer have to issue or support cable cards.


----------



## tim1724

lpwcomp said:


> Not to mention anti-trust laws.


Anti-trust laws don't mean a thing if nobody is going to enforce them. Don't expect Jeff Sessions to ever use them, nor any US Attorneys appointed by Trump. (Not that he's appointed any yet. But they did fire all the existing ones. So there are no US Attorneys currently.)


----------



## Mikeguy

tim1724 said:


> Anti-trust laws don't mean a thing if nobody is going to enforce them. Don't expect Jeff Sessions to ever use them, nor any US Attorneys appointed by Trump. (Not that he's appointed any yet. But they did fire all the existing ones. So there are no US Attorneys currently.)


(To be fair to the current administration (egads), it actually asked the U.S. Attys. for their letters of resignation, if I recall correctly. And that is standard practice with a new administration, as the position is a political appointment in our stupid system. In the meanwhile, if a position is open, there is an acting person in the role, just as in any company.)


----------



## lpwcomp

tim1724 said:


> Anti-trust laws don't mean a thing if nobody is going to enforce them. Don't expect Jeff Sessions to ever use them, nor any US Attorneys appointed by Trump. (Not that he's appointed any yet. But they did fire all the existing ones. So there are no US Attorneys currently.)


States have anti-trust laws too. And I really wish that people would stop giving into their severe case of TDS. Take it to the politcal forum.


----------



## atmuscarella

lpwcomp said:


> States have anti-trust laws too. And I really wish that people would stop giving into their severe case of TDS. Take it to the politcal forum.


While I am not sure what TDS stands for, everything about cable, OTA, cable cards, & the Internet is dependent on Government regulations. So those regulations and how they affect everything to do with our TiVos seem like pretty relevant topics especially seeings most all of it seem to be in a state of flux, and where it ends up is highly dependent on what the Government does or doesn't do.


----------



## lpwcomp

atmuscarella said:


> While I am not sure what TDS stands for, everything about cable, OTA, cable cards, & the Internet is dependent on Government regulations. So those regulations and how they affect everything to do with our TiVos seem like pretty relevant topics especially seeings most all of it seem to be in a state of flux, and where it ends up is highly dependent on what the Government does or doesn't do.


TDS stands for "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and it's gone way beyond what "the government" will and will not do, and is more about bashing the current administration. As I said, the FCC has been toothless for a long time. And as foghorn2 stated, they're all a bunch of crooks doing whatever they think will enable them to acquire and retain power.


----------



## Bigg

pdhenry said:


> The cable card mandate includes an exemption. When Comcast releases their Roku app (currently in Beta) they will no longer have to issue or support cable cards.


I'm pretty confident that Comcast will continue to support CableCard for QAM signals indefinitely... i.e. until they get rid of QAM signals. With a phased transition to IPTV, TiVos may be pretty useless on Comcast within a few years.

The utter and total incompetence of the current administration is going to have far-reaching effects, but I'm not sure it will do much to affect TiVos, since the current CableCard requirements simply don't cover IPTV, so CableCard just becomes obsolete anyway.


----------



## lpwcomp

Bigg said:


> The utter and total incompetence of the current administration is going to have far-reaching effects...


This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. *TAKE IT TO THE POLITICAL FORUM!!!*


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> The cable card mandate includes an exemption. When Comcast releases their Roku app (currently in Beta) they will no longer have to issue or support cable cards.


Really? Can you cite a source for that? I'm not saying that isn't true, just that I haven't read that anywhere.

Should Comcast later this year begin serving all new video customers via IPTV rather than QAM (as one recent rumor suggests), I could see the FCC allowing them to use the Roku app rather than CableCARD for new customers (effectively meaning they stop issuing CableCARDs). But I would think that would require some new ruling on the part of the FCC or Congress.


----------



## pdhenry

The law (regulation) that invokes the CableCard requirement has an exception built into it.



> (1) A multichannel video programming distributor that utilizes Navigation Devices to perform conditional access functions shall make available equipment that incorporates only the conditional access functions of such devices.
> 
> (2) The foregoing requirement shall not apply to a multichannel video programming distributor that supports the active use by subscribers of Navigation Devices that:
> 
> (i) Operate throughout the continental United States, and
> 
> (ii) Are available from retail outlets and other vendors throughout the United States that are not affiliated with the owner or operator of the multichannel video programming system.


The Comcast Roku app will accomplish this, and is consistent with the rumor that Comcast will roll out programming exclusively via IPTV to new customers by the end of the year.

They won't have to support CableCards for new customers, and I understand that they're moving as many existing customers over to X1 as they can. (X1 devices are capable of receiving IP programming.)

See Also:
Rumor: Comcast may go all-IP for new subs by year-end
Comcast May Go All IP by End of Year - Rumor | Light Reading


----------



## Mikeguy

lpwcomp said:


> TDS stands for "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and it's gone way beyond what "the government" will and will not do, and is more about bashing the current administration. As I said, the FCC has been toothless for a long time. And as foghorn2 stated, they're all a bunch of crooks doing whatever they think will enable them to acquire and retain power.





lpwcomp said:


> This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. *TAKE IT TO THE POLITICAL FORUM!!!*


Ya' mean, and with the _greatest_ of respect, like the first part of your post above? 

Silly me, but it would seem to me that we can discuss the role of he FCC and how it affects us all, and our TiVo's, without devolving into a political discussion--as the second half of your above post indeed does (but with which I don't agree--e.g. net neutrality). There are observable facts.


----------



## atmuscarella

lpwcomp said:


> TDS stands for "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and it's gone way beyond what "the government" will and will not do, and is more about bashing the current administration. As I said, the FCC has been toothless for a long time. And as foghorn2 stated, they're all a bunch of crooks doing whatever they think will enable them to acquire and retain power.


I am fairly sure every person would like the FCC to do something it does differently, that is the nature of humanity. So while I do agree I would have liked the FCC to have been more pro consumer in the past, to pretend it is not currently moving in a direction that is significantly more anti consumer is denying reality. Please notice the word I use was "anti" consumer, not less pro consumer. The changes going on now are significant and significantly bad for consumers.


----------



## idksmy

If the cable providers and ISPs are not careful, some states will begin regulating them like public utilities.

Ma Bell used to be the monopoly for land line and long distance until they were broken up.

Seems like it is the same players trying to create a monopoly for internet access and the content that traverses it.

All of this is a great example of Newton's Third Law.

People complained about cable rates (and they still do) and some companies like Netflix, Hulu, and more recently PSVue, DirecTV Now and Sling saw an opportunity. If the cable companies and ISPs react to protect their interests, different opportunities will arise as will reaction from consumers who have the ultimate control, their money.

My observation is that the market works, perhaps slowly, but it works, unless the government gets involved in picking winners and losers, which just slows things down and lines someone's pockets.


----------



## atmuscarella

idksmy said:


> ...
> 
> My observation is that the market works, perhaps slowly, but it works, unless the government gets involved in picking winners and losers, which just slows things down and lines someone's pockets.


This is a somewhat amusing statement. The question is for who does it work for - large corporations or consumers. An unregulated market always movies towards a monopoly which really works well for large corporations - not so much for consumers. In order for a market to actually work for consumers there must be adequate competition and/or heavy Government regulation.

It is impractical to have sufficient competition in the wired cable TV/Internet access world to have adequate competition to tip the scales of power towards consumers. Pretty much the same in the wireless world, we would be down to one or two providers within minutes if it were not for Government regulation.

The bottom line is really simple the only way consumers have any chance of having this market really serving them is via the proper Government regulations. The fact the so many people don't understand this is not amazing and what the large corporations bank on as they pay off our elected officials to removed any consumer protections they don't like.


----------



## mschnebly

lpwcomp said:


> This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. *TAKE IT TO THE POLITICAL FORUM!!!*


Feel free to skip on by if you don't like it. Like it or not politics is where these laws come from.


----------



## Jonathan_S

atmuscarella said:


> This is a somewhat amusing statement. The question is for who does it work for - large corporations or consumers. An unregulated market always movies towards a monopoly which really works well for large corporations - not so much for consumers. In order for a market to actually work for consumers there must be adequate competition and/or heavy Government regulation.


That depends on how easy it is for new corporations to enter or disrupt the market.

Oddly urban electric companies didn't really start to be local monopolies _until_ they became regulated.

It seems a truism that a company needs a certain minimum size to absorb the overhead of regulation compliance, and beyond even that regulations can definitely get co-opted by current market players (however few there may be) to act as a significant barrier to entry against new entrants to the market. (Look at all the car dealer associations fighting to make Tesla sell through local dealers rather than disrupting the market via direct sales. The regulations started as a way to keep the big auto makers from turning around and screwing the local dealers once they were established in an area - but now are being used against an auto maker without dealers to the benefit of the big established market players - local dealership groups)

On the other hand, it would be monumentally expensive and difficult to create a new cable company to compete with an existing local monopoly. (Beyond the basic costs of laying duplicate wires there's resistance to having to dig up roads or string more wires on poles). So cable companies have evolved to the point where only regulation (or a total disruption that renders that market irrelivant) seem likely to protect consumers from anti-competitive monopoly behavior.


----------



## idksmy

atmuscarella said:


> This is a somewhat amusing statement.


I am glad I could amuse you.

I disagree and I actually menioned specific examples, not generalities, of how competition has worked. There are alternative sources to cable TV for obtaining entertainment services.


----------



## Diana Collins

pdhenry said:


> The law (regulation) that invokes the CableCard requirement has an exception built into it.
> 
> The Comcast Roku app will accomplish this, and is consistent with the rumor that Comcast will roll out programming exclusively via IPTV to new customers by the end of the year.
> 
> They won't have to support CableCards for new customers, and I understand that they're moving as many existing customers over to X1 as they can. (X1 devices are capable of receiving IP programming.)
> 
> See Also:
> Rumor: Comcast may go all-IP for new subs by year-end
> Comcast May Go All IP by End of Year - Rumor | Light Reading


The key point in the exception is "Operate throughout the continental United States" - this does not reference the 3rd party device but rather the MVPD's own navigational devices. That clause was designed to exempt the satellite based providers (i.e. any provider that provides their service regardless of where the receiving device is located). Neither Comcast nor Verizon (who is also moving to IP distribution this year) plan to offer their IP service over the internet, instead restricting it to customers attached to their physical networks. Since I can not subscribe to the Comcast service (since I am in a Cablevision territory) they do not provide their proprietary "Navigational Devices" throughout the US. Even once they support Roku, I can't use my Roku attached to the Verizon network to receive Comcast's service. Therefore, that particular exemption does not apply (although others might).


----------



## Dan203

idksmy said:


> There are alternative sources to cable TV for obtaining entertainment services.


The catch there is that most of the alternatives to cable TV use the internet and in most markets the internet is controlled by the cable TV provider. So without net neutrality laws they can use their position to screw with the competition and promote their own video services instead.

If the TV portion of the business and the internet portion of the business were two separate entities then I don't think we'd have an issue. But because they are one company, and in a lot of places have a complete monopoly or duopoly, it gives them too much control over the fate of the alternatives.

Someone mentioned above that regulations can be turned around and used as a barrier for entry to new comers. That's exactly what the cable companies are going to do when they are allowed to charge companies for the "fast lane". They're going to use that cost to stamp out new comers and push up the prices for the alternatives that can afford it.


----------



## Diana Collins

Jonathan_S said:


> That depends on how easy it is for new corporations to enter or disrupt the market.
> 
> Oddly urban electric companies didn't really start to be local monopolies _until_ they became regulated.
> 
> It seems a truism that a company needs a certain minimum size to absorb the overhead of regulation compliance, and beyond even that regulations can definitely get co-opted by current market players (however few there may be) to act as a significant barrier to entry against new entrants to the market. (Look at all the car dealer associations fighting to make Tesla sell through local dealers rather than disrupting the market via direct sales. The regulations started as a way to keep the big auto makers from turning around and screwing the local dealers once they were established in an area - but now are being used against an auto maker without dealers to the benefit of the big established market players - local dealership groups)
> 
> On the other hand, it would be monumentally expensive and difficult to create a new cable company to compete with an existing local monopoly. (Beyond the basic costs of laying duplicate wires there's resistance to having to dig up roads or string more wires on poles). So cable companies have evolved to the point where only regulation (or a total disruption that renders that market irrelivant) seem likely to protect consumers from anti-competitive monopoly behavior.


"Urban electric companies" were also the just about the *only* kind of electric company until regulation came along. The "regulation" in this case was a bargain: the power company got the exclusive rights to distribute power over a given territory, in return for government regulation of prices and practices (i.e. they became privately owned "public utilities"). The same deal was made with cable companies and telephone companies. The only "network" that is required to be open is the copper wire telephone (POTS) network - fiber and coax networks are still classified as private networks, so any new provider would have to string their own wire, or as many are now considering, use wireless. Both are expensive to build. Comcast is now the ISP for over half the businesses in America, and many ISPs (including Comcast over much of their territory) have de facto, if not genuine, local monopolies. This will not be reversed by *less* regulation.


----------



## lpwcomp

Does an ISP's end user agreement authorize them to discriminate in this manner?


----------



## wco81

I think most other industrialized countries have unbundling so that any ISP can offer services on the same fiber or coax.

That is why the US ranks so low in OECD surveys and why you can get fiber Internet for €30-40 a month in Europe.


----------



## Dan203

lpwcomp said:


> Does an ISP's end user agreement authorize them to discriminate in this manner?


Even if they don't is there anything preventing them from just changing the end user agreement? It's not like people actually have other options, so they'd basically be forced to accept the new terms.


----------



## pdhenry

Diana Collins said:


> The key point in the exception is "Operate throughout the continental United States" - this does not reference the 3rd party device but rather the MVPD's own navigational devices.


Clause (a)(i) refers to proprietary devices but the exemption specifically refers to 3rd party devices in clause (a)(ii).

If a subscriber can receive programming via a Conditional Access device available on the open market the operator is exempt from the requirement to provide CableCards for use in customer-owned equipment.



> (a)
> 
> (1) A multichannel video programming distributor that utilizes Navigation Devices to perform conditional accessfunctions shall make available equipment that incorporates only the conditional access functions of such devices.
> 
> (2) The foregoing requirement shall not apply to amultichannel video programming distributor that supports the active use by subscribers of Navigation Devices that:
> 
> (i) Operate throughout the continental United States, and
> 
> (ii) Are available from retail outlets and other vendors throughout the United States that are not affiliated with the owner or operator of the multichannel video programming system.


"throughout the continental United States" may not mean what you think it means.


----------



## Dan203

wco81 said:


> I think most other industrialized countries have unbundling so that any ISP can offer services on the same fiber or coax.
> 
> That is why the US ranks so low in OECD surveys and why you can get fiber Internet for €30-40 a month in Europe.


In NV there is actually a law that makes it illegal for local municipalities to install competing networks. So we can't even decide as a town to run fiber to every home to offer a viable alternative to the cable company.

Here AT&T owns the copper and Charter owns the coax and there are no other options for internet then those two. And since AT&T still only offers 6Mbps DSL in most areas that's not even really a viable option for most people. So we're essentially stuck with a functional monopoly on internet and they can do or charge basically whatever they want.


----------



## Dan203

pdhenry said:


> Clause (a)(i) refers to proprietary devices but the exemption specifically refers to 3rd party devices in clause (a)(ii).
> 
> If a subscriber can receive programming via a Conditional Access device available on the open market the operator is exempt from the requirement to provide CableCards for use in customer-owned equipment.
> 
> "throughout the continental United States" may not mean what you think it means.


Is that part od STELLAR? Or the original law? Because I know Charter had to file for a special waiver to be allowed to stop offering CableCARDs and the FCC put some restrictions on it regarding the price and availability of the retail device that they were purposing. But that was before STELLAR.


----------



## Diana Collins

pdhenry said:


> Clause (a)(i) refers to proprietary devices but the exemption specifically refers to 3rd party devices in clause (a)(ii).
> 
> If a subscriber can receive programming via a Conditional Access device available on the open market the operator is exempt from the requirement to provide CableCards for use in customer-owned equipment.
> 
> "throughout the continental United States" may not mean what you think it means.


There is an "and" at the end of (i), but I suppose this will end up needing a ruling.


----------



## NashGuy

The argument in favor of greater regulation of ISPs fails to recognize pending innovations in internet delivery that are coming to market soon as Verizon, AT&T, Google and Starry have all begun trials and/or announced actual plans to deploy fixed wireless "5G" home broadband service in the coming months. That will bring increased choice to a lot of Americans (about 90% of whom currently have at least two choices for 10 Mbps or faster download speeds but less than 25% of whom have at least two choices for 25 Mbps or faster). And then there's the further-off possibility of broadband delivered by a network of low-orbit satellites. If capitalists see potential customers, they'll risk putting money into building networks to serve them (if they judge that it makes economic sense), but over-regulation disincentivizes risk-taking. That said, I do support allowing under-served municipalities (those with, say, 0 or 1 broadband providers) to form their own ISP co-ops. And I'm glad to see FCC Chairman Pai in favor of "one-touch make ready" policies (like the one we passed in Nashville in support of Google Fiber's stalled rollout here) that should promote increased competition.

As for the possible future scenario in which ISPs penalize other provider's streaming video services to such an extent that they are not commercially viable competitors to the ISP's own video service, yes, that _could_ happen, but I don't see the point in putting heavy-handed regulations in place to forestall something which may not happen either. The most relevant example so far is Netflix, which paid ISPs to access their "fast lane". Despite that, Netflix has continued to thrive, with growing subscriber numbers and hours streamed, while their subscribers have enjoyed better, more dependable delivery of their streams. Should ISPs seriously abuse their gatekeeper status to reduce consumers' streaming choices, I have no doubt there will be calls for the FCC to intervene then.


----------



## Dan203

I don't see net neutrality regulation as "heavy handed". It basically just says that they have to treat all packets, regardless of their source, equally. Which is what they've always done in the past. All this regulation does is prevent them from doing something different in the future which could potentially hinder competition and innovation. It puts no extra burden on them.


----------



## wco81

NashGuy said:


> The argument in favor of greater regulation of ISPs fails to recognize pending innovations in internet delivery that are coming to market soon as Verizon, AT&T, Google and Starry have all begun trials and/or announced actual plans to deploy fixed wireless "5G" home broadband service in the coming months. That will bring increased choice to a lot of Americans (about 90% of whom currently have at least two choices for 10 Mbps or faster download speeds but less than 25% of whom have at least two choices for 25 Mbps or faster). And then there's the further-off possibility of broadband delivered by a network of low-orbit satellites. If capitalists see potential customers, they'll risk putting money into building networks to serve them (if they judge that it makes economic sense), but over-regulation disincentivizes risk-taking. That said, I do support allowing under-served municipalities (those with, say, 0 or 1 broadband providers) to form their own ISP co-ops. And I'm glad to see FCC Chairman Pai in favor of "one-touch make ready" policies (like the one we passed in Nashville in support of Google Fiber's stalled rollout here) that should promote increased competition.
> 
> As for the possible future scenario in which ISPs penalize other provider's streaming video services to such an extent that they are not commercially viable competitors to the ISP's own video service, yes, that _could_ happen, but I don't see the point in putting heavy-handed regulations in place to forestall something which may not happen either. The most relevant example so far is Netflix, which paid ISPs to access their "fast lane". Despite that, Netflix has continued to thrive, with growing subscriber numbers and hours streamed, while their subscribers have enjoyed better, more dependable delivery of their streams. Should ISPs seriously abuse their gatekeeper status to reduce consumers' streaming choices, I have no doubt there will be calls for the FCC to intervene then.


Are they really going to go all-in on Internet for home market, given the chokehold of the cable companies?

These new delivery platforms like 5G and satellites require heavy capital investments so they're going to get into a price war situation against well-capitalized incumbents who have much lower costs and huge market shares?

Of course the wireless companies are going to invest in 5G anyways for mobile. But they typically offer what 10 or 20 GB on their "unlimited" mobile data plans before they start throttling?

Are they going to offer $50-60 5G services for the home with anything like 300 GB or 1 TB data caps?


----------



## NashGuy

wco81 said:


> Are they really going to go all-in on Internet for home market, given the chokehold of the cable companies?
> 
> These new delivery platforms like 5G and satellites require heavy capital investments so they're going to get into a price war situation against well-capitalized incumbents who have much lower costs and huge market shares?
> 
> Of course the wireless companies are going to invest in 5G anyways for mobile. But they typically offer what 10 or 20 GB on their "unlimited" mobile data plans before they start throttling?
> 
> Are they going to offer $50-60 5G services for the home with anything like 300 GB or 1 TB data caps?


Those are all good questions. What we know so far is that Google Fiber tends to charge $70 for gigabit internet and $50 for 100 Mbps, no data caps for either. I don't know why that would change as they move to a fiber/wireless hybrid deployment in Louisville (and probably here in Nashville too, where they've only connected a few MDUs with fiber so far). If anything, the price could come down given that wireless deployment costs much less than FTTH. Starry hasn't announced pricing but the CEO has it will be priced "aggressively" and that it can be deployed and scaled faster than traditional wired networks and "at a fraction of the cost." So we'll see.

For AT&T and Verizon, they're going to eventually roll out 5G for mobile devices pretty much nationwide (through all the metro areas, anyhow) and both plan to first introduce it as a fixed wireless home service that will compete with cable. So I would think it would have to be priced competitively and with data caps at least as generous as the competing cable company has (1 TB for Comcast). In essence, it will be a cheaper-to-deploy extension of their AT&T Fiber and Verizon FiOS services, but hopefully expanding way beyond their current footprints.


----------



## atmuscarella

idksmy said:


> I am glad I could amuse you.
> 
> I disagree and I actually menioned specific examples, not generalities, of how competition has worked. There are alternative sources to cable TV for obtaining entertainment services.


It's amusing because the wired cable/Internet industries and all forms of wireless can only exist because of Government regulations. We can go on all we want about how market forces will eventually work it all out but without the Government regulating the air waves and providing guaranteed access to public an private property to lay cable none of this can exist. So the only question is how the Government regulates it, not if. What regulations need to be to provide the best balance between the corporate and consumer interests is certainly up for debate and a worthwhile discussion. With significant under or over regulation not being good for the consumer.

In my opinion, especially concerning Internet access, we are currently moving in the wrong direction and tilting regulation (or the lack of them) to excessively favor the large corporations interest's over the consumer interest's. Ultimately we need regulations that allow for as much competition as possible as I believe competition does a much better job of fostering innovation and making companies more responsive to consumers, than a direct Government regulation does. Of course no large corporation in their right mind wants competition and does as much as they are allowed to by Government to eliminate it.


----------



## wco81

NashGuy said:


> Those are all good questions. What we know so far is that Google Fiber tends to charge $70 for gigabit internet and $50 for 100 Mbps, no data caps for either. I don't know why that would change as they move to a fiber/wireless hybrid deployment in Louisville (and probably here in Nashville too, where they've only connected a few MDUs with fiber so far). If anything, the price could come down given that wireless deployment costs much less than FTTH. Starry hasn't announced pricing but the CEO has it will be priced "aggressively" and that it can be deployed and scaled faster than traditional wired networks and "at a fraction of the cost." So we'll see.
> 
> For AT&T and Verizon, they're going to eventually roll out 5G for mobile devices pretty much nationwide (through all the metro areas, anyhow) and both plan to first introduce it as a fixed wireless home service that will compete with cable. So I would think it would have to be priced competitively and with data caps at least as generous as the competing cable company has (1 TB for Comcast). In essence, it will be a cheaper-to-deploy extension of their AT&T Fiber and Verizon FiOS services, but hopefully expanding way beyond their current footprints.


I'd like to see that happen, 5G from mobile carriers competing for home Internet.

But the MO of these guys is they don't compete against each other much. For instance, AT&T and Verizon didn't encroach on each other's turf and they tended to cherry-pick places where they installed Fios and the AT&T Gigapower.

I think another possibility may be that these companies will look to offer bundles, mobile and fixed wireless to the home or in the case of AT&T, mobile, fixed wireless and DirecTV to the home.

Of course Comcast is planning to get into wireless as well, to offer it in their bundles.


----------



## Dan203

My Dad has fixed wireless internet because it's the only option where he lives. It's expensive and slow. He gets like 10Mbps for like $90/mo. Not really ideal


----------



## Bigg

lpwcomp said:


> This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. *TAKE IT TO THE POLITICAL FORUM!!!*


Nice selective quote to ignore the second 2/3 of my sentence. 



NashGuy said:


> That said, I do support allowing under-served municipalities (those with, say, 0 or 1 broadband providers) to form their own ISP co-ops.


Why not any municipality? We need competition. Also, those databases are a mess and often end up showing 10 providers that aren't actually physically available, or are available in only part of a market, or are only available to businesses or something.

This is from a DSLReports post that I made about competition in the internet sphere in relation to local loop unbundling. Ultimately, we need competition and access, whereas the current FCC chair is only looking at access, and wants everyone to have access... but usually access to a monopoly.

The countries that do local loop unbundling are largely using ADSL and VDSL systems in countries with higher housing density than a lot of the US. This type of method also requires that ISPs actually invest in an FTTC type of system, which would be a massive undertaking at this point, and largely wasteful compared to just putting in fiber, except maybe in places where it is already installed, mostly within AT&T's former 22-state territory (Connecticut now being Frontier, plus 21 current AT&T states).

Local loop unbundling doesn't really get you much on HFC or xPON systems, as they are shared mediums, so all you end up doing is using a different set of servers/backbone from the CO/headend to the internet, and the last mile is the same shared network, unlike a dedicated fiber or copper system where the CLEC is just using the actual copper pair or fiber cable that the ILEC owns (I don't know of any fiber-based CLEC system in existence in the US, but in theory it could work if you want to deploy a LOT of fiber, or switch xPON drops from one ISP's feeder to another).

We are trying to solve three different issues here, access, competition, and affordability. Access should be done the way they are doing it in NY, with a reverse subsidy auction to set up networks in a technology-agnostic way. I would think the goal should be to serve every household that has both electricity and telephone access with broadband internet. I don't think that competition or open access in rural areas should be a priority, if you live out in the sticks, maybe you should expect to pay more for broadband internet, but you should at least have the option of getting it.

In terms of competition, we need to ensure one-touch-make-ready rules nationwide for new market entrants, and ensure that municipalities and public-private partnerships aren't blocked from building their own competitive systems if they want to do so. Further, we should break up Verizon and AT&T, and split off their wireline sides from their wireless sides, making sure not to dump any debt on the wireline sides like was done with Frontier and FairPoint when those territories were sold off from Verizon. The cell tower backhaul and business fiber needs to go with the wireline side to provide revenue for further building out the wireline infrastructure. This would also end the unfair competitive practices that Verizon and AT&T have been using against T-Mobile and Sprint by undercharging their wireless divisions for the fiber backhaul, and creating entrenched ILEC- or former ILEC-dominated markets for wireless service in some areas.

Concurrent with this break-up, we should provide, as a term of the formation of the new company, some basic levels of investment in the network, like upgrading all DSLAMs and RTs to VDSL2 with fiber backhaul providing at least 100/20 service (obviously distance dependent). Further, we should look closely at exclusivity and bulk deals that various apartment complexes and HOAs have made to block out other providers. Many complexes, landlords and coop boards seem to have gotten very creative at getting around the rules, and bulk deals, while sometimes quite advantageous, are also highly anti-competitive, since they effectively lock out any competition at all, even if it is technically available at the location. This is a challenging area to look at due to various overlapping laws and the way some older buildings are wired, but I think it is worth looking at, due to the sheer number of subscribers at stake. There is a possibility to really throw open competition to other providers as well, like AT&T/DirecTV or Webpass/Google.

In terms of affordability, it should naturally follow from competition, but some areas, even with the above, still wouldn't see a lot of competition, so we need to seriously look at rate-regulating the 25/3 tier, which would effectively rate regulate faster tiers as well, since a rate-regulated $50 25/3 tier would make charging $100 for a faster tier untenable for the MSO, or, conversely, if they did overcharge for faster tiers, people could simply downgrade to the 25/3 tier, and still get essential connectivity plus some at a reasonable price. Further, we should look at providing Wi-Fi service in public housing nationwide, and explore other options for providing access to lower income communities.


----------



## eherberg

Yup -- 'cause if there's one thing wireless companies have been known for ... it's affordable GB pricing of data


----------



## foghorn2

Why the flock are we using the internet to stream commercial video in the the first place? Is that really the best way to transmit video? Is that what the internet is all about now days? Its one big ClusterFlock.

I say NO! It was all fine with broadcast TV OTA, and still is. Of course they are going to kill that for sure.

And for those who want to get political and blame Trump for all this- What the hell was Shaka Zulu doing for 8 damn years? NOTHING! Acting like he was on our side and truly screwing us all in every way shape and form in favor of his doners. Mr. Comcast CumCasting on us all. No different than any other. Actually worse since he was so two faced, At least with Trump, you know what you're getting, like it or not.

Really, why worry about cable card, all the cable channels are full of crapola, repeats, infomercials. Its like radio of today, lifeless like a robot playing the reels over and over again. Then you have the 3 so called "news" channels which are no more than extensions of the political parties controlled by Wall Street. THERE IS NO NEWS ON THOSE CHANNELS! You can have a tsunami and earthquake tomorrow at the other end of the world with millions dying and they will still continue to run stories either bashing or stroking Trump ignoring the real news.

Sports on Cable, well thats dying too. How much more are we going to subsidize sports fans and multimillionaire athletes with very small brains? You can tell ESPN is dying. GOOD! Go to hell ! Were done with Roman Games!


----------



## Dan203

IP delivery is the most efficient way to offer VOD, and VOD is what people want. People don't want to have to be in front of the TV on someone elses schedule or even to have to manage "season passes" on a DVR. They want to sit down in front of the TV when they have time and watch whatever they want. 

You may be ok with OTA but most people aren't. Even if OTA offered all the content they wanted they'd still need to spend hundreds of dollars on a DVR to record it and they'd have to manage that DVR to ensure it recorded everything they wanted.


----------



## Mikeguy

VOD is just great--and then there's the cost. And that's why at least a measureable group have shed cable for OTA perhaps supplemented by the Roku's of the world, accompanied by an OTA DVR such as a Roamio OTA.


----------



## Dan203

I consider OTT services, like Netflix, Hulu, etc... to be VOD, so those are what I was really talking about. Linear TV is what really should go away. If it weren't for DVRs I'd never watch linear TV at all.


----------



## foghorn2

And YouTube, and hulu will be offering the same cable garbage bundles soon. Nutflix with lame originals and Amascam offering some paytv channels now.

Are these flockers the ones were siding with, the ones getting a free ride off the infrastructure built by the telcos and cable companies?

Why do we need to take sides? Why isn't Netflix building the infrastructure to deliver their vod? What's happening to Google fiber?


----------



## atmuscarella

foghorn2 said:


> And YouTube, and hulu will be offering the same cable garbage bundles soon. Nutflix with lame originals and Amascam offering some paytv channels now.


If the content these services provide isn't to your liking, don't sub to them and/or don't watch the content. If you are insinuating that because you don't like the content others shouldn't be able to access it, any comment I have is not allowed by this forum.



foghorn2 said:


> Are these flockers the ones were siding with, the ones getting a free ride off the infrastructure built by the telcos and cable companies?


You have been drinking to much corporate Kool-aid. I pay my ISP to provide me with access to any and all data on any and all data servers on the Internet, any data server on the Internet also pays an ISP to provide their server access to the Internet, usually based on how much data their server transmits. No one is getting a free ride.



foghorn2 said:


> Why do we need to take sides? Why isn't Netflix building the infrastructure to deliver their vod? What's happening to Google fiber?


Regarding Netflix or any other company with a data server on the Internet, that is what the Internet was setup for - one pipe providing access to all data servers. That is why the Internet is so valuable and was/is such an important advance in technology.

Regarding taking sides. Because that is how life works and because our capitalistic economic system can only function with Government regulation. I think that is worth repeating: For capitalism to function Government regulations are REQUIRED. That is why everyone has an opportunity to elect representatives that best reflect their interests and to try and effect what the Government does or doesn't do via numerous other means, to attempt to assure how the Government is regulating is in their best interests. For some unknown reason way to many people don't seem to understand this.

What I can assure everyone is that the Comcasts of the world completely understand how the system works and are working diligently to assure that Government regulations are written to protect their interests. If anyone believes that protecting large corporations interests is good for the consumer, I have a great investment for you - some former swamp land on Mars.

Also there is nothing new about this - get some American history books and see for yourself.


----------



## Dan203

foghorn2 said:


> Why isn't Netflix building the infrastructure to deliver their vod? What's happening to Google fiber?


In a LOT of places that's simply not possible. The telcos have spent the last several decades lobbying to get laws past that put huge roadblocks on anyone wanting to build new infrastructure. As mentioned above there is a law in the state of NV that actually prohibits local municipalities from building competing internet/telco infrastructure. Lobbied for by, you guessed it, the entrenched cable/telcos.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> In a LOT of places that's simply not possible. The telcos have spent the last several decades lobbying to get laws past that put huge roadblocks on anyone wanting to build new infrastructure. As mentioned above there is a law in the state of NV that actually prohibits local municipalities from building competing internet/telco infrastructure. Lobbied for by, you guessed it, the entrenched cable/telcos.


This, again, is simply not an accurate depiction of the situation, period. I truly get tired of hearing the excuses for what is in plain fact, financial realities. For example, I'd love to see the text of the NV "law" you're mentioning, as in pure fact, that would be a violation of federal law. My guess is that there are some serious liberties being taken in the description of such a law. Because such a law, is - again, a direct, clear violation of the Telecommunications Act.

The pure fact of the matter isn't that municipalities - or other telcos - are "lobbying hard" to prevent competition. It is far more simple - and far more easy to grasp if one were to take off their blinders.

The fact is that the market cap doesn't grow. Or, IOW, there is a finite market for such broadband services. Broadband (in the overwhelming majority of markets where it's relatively easy to build and deliver due to density) has reached high percentile saturation, so the only way to get a "new customer" is to take it from somebody else. Not growth in total subs, but further cannibalization of existing subs. When one considers the cost of building out infrastructure, and then (of far more consequence) maintaining that infrastructure, it's a fools errand. You'd be building out infrastructure purely on the speculation that you could "steal" enough customers from somebody else that the margin on those subs would yield long term profits that exceed the capitalization AND expense of your service. This, in the face of the ever increasing cord cutting, and the public discussion of wireless based broadband to supplant physical infrastructure. Only a pure idiot would go into that business, and they'd have to have a BUNCH of money, because only a fool would invest in it. And for every story about somebody in a rural area that doesn't have great options, the reality is even more bleak. Why don't they have options? For the same reason. That the density just doesn't justify the investment. People just don't get it. It's not that you might be able to make a little money. It's whether or not you could make more on your investment doing this than you could in investing somewhere else. If the answer is no, then investors walk away.

From somebody who actually in the past worked in this, and who worked hard to try and get additional providers. Not by working for a telco or MSO, but by working on council.


----------



## wmhjr

And for the record, when I say it's reached high percentile saturation, that doesn't mean that people are totally happy with their service or the cost. But rather, that there are fewer and fewer potential customers that don't already have broadband service in areas that aren't sparsely populated or difficult to get to as a result of terrain, etc.


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> This, again, is simply not an accurate depiction of the situation, period. I truly get tired of hearing the excuses for what is in plain fact, financial realities. For example, I'd love to see the text of the NV "law" you're mentioning, as in pure fact, that would be a violation of federal law. My guess is that there are some serious liberties being taken in the description of such a law. Because such a law, is - again, a direct, clear violation of the Telecommunications Act.


The actual law says that municipalities with less then 55,000 people are allowed to start a cable/telco, but only municipalities with less then 25,000 people are allowed to start one that includes internet access. So it doesn't technically outlaw it, but it makes it impossible for all but the smallest towns.

NRS: CHAPTER 268 - POWERS AND DUTIES COMMON TO CITIES AND TOWNS INCORPORATED UNDER GENERAL OR SPECIAL LAWS
NRS: CHAPTER 710 - UTILITIES OWNED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS


----------



## wmhjr

Wrong again. It does absolutely nothing to prevent private enterprise. Nothing.


----------



## Dan203

wmhjr said:


> Wrong again. It does absolutely nothing to prevent private enterprise. Nothing.


I wasn't talking about private enterprise. I said we had a law preventing municipal internet.

Private enterprise isn't prohibited, but there are plenty of roadblocks in place to make it virtually impossible. Especially in a town like mine where all the wiring in underground and not on poles. Just look at what happened to Google fiber. They knew how much the cost was for the labor and materials to roll out their service, but they ultimately threw in the towel because they hadn't anticipated the cost of the politics involved.


----------



## wmhjr

Dan203 said:


> I wasn't talking about private enterprise. I said we had a law preventing municipal internet.
> 
> Private enterprise isn't prohibited, but there are plenty of roadblocks in place to make it virtually impossible. Especially in a town like mine where all the wiring in underground and not on poles. Just look at what happened to Google fiber. They knew how much the cost was for the labor and materials to roll out their service, but they ultimately threw in the towel because they hadn't anticipated the cost of the politics involved.


Again. Not true. And I quoted your post that's NOT just specifically mentioning coops.

You don't like the math. Sorry. But you're dishonestly blaming things on what you'd like to portray as evil - not on facts.

Figure out how to get billions of your own. You'll find that the obstacles evaporate. If you have the money.


----------



## Bigg

wmhjr said:


> When one considers the cost of building out infrastructure, and then (of far more consequence) maintaining that infrastructure, it's a fools errand.


There are a number of successful muni ISPs around the country, as well as competitive overbuilders. Sure, some rural areas will only ever be able to support one wired ISP, but most suburban/urban areas should be able to support three. Verizon FiOS has been quite successful in terms of profitability, and it competes with 1 cable company in virtually 100% of its footprint, and 2 cable companies in parts of it.

If Comcast and Charter were charging $40/mo for broadband and had decent customer service, then competing would be a fool's errand. But given their outrageous pricing and horrible customer service, there is a HUGE market just to provide the same level of service with marginally better customer service in being "not them". If you build out fiber, which provides an easy path to gigabit, then it's even more compelling to get people to switch.



Dan203 said:


> I wasn't talking about private enterprise. I said we had a law preventing municipal internet.


Yeah, the federal government ultimately needs to get involved and make these state laws illegal. What is bizarre here is that we have the a lot of the same GOP politicians who want more power at the local level actively taking it away from municipalities.


----------



## foghorn2

Dan203 said:


> IP delivery is the most efficient way to offer VOD, and VOD is what people want. People don't want to have to be in front of the TV on someone elses schedule or even to have to manage "season passes" on a DVR. They want to sit down in front of the TV when they have time and watch whatever they want.
> 
> You may be ok with OTA but most people aren't. Even if OTA offered all the content they wanted they'd still need to spend hundreds of dollars on a DVR to record it and they'd have to manage that DVR to ensure it recorded everything they wanted.


You just made a perfect case why cable card no longer matters. It no longer needs to be regulated since a majority just want VOD, not DVR'ing anything from cable. Also the Roamio plus, pro and Bolt + will be obsolete sooner than later. That was my original point. Cable subscribers no longer need government protection as cable subscribers are using the internet for video, not QAM.

None of this is this current Admins fault. We also do not need government favoring one business over the other. Net Neutrality is all about lobbyist on the Netflix/Google side VS. ISP's and their offerings. The first leeches off the latter's infrastructure for profits. That's the issue.

Google has plenty of money to be their own ISP, they nor Netflix seem to want to invest, they just want to leech and suck. They hire lobbyists just like the isp's. Like I said, they are all a bunch of greedy scumbags. Why take sides?

I'm all for competition and more/newer infrastructure. Why didn't google/netflix start their own wireless delivery system? Whats stopping them? Why cant you just buy a roku, pay Netflix, and have Netflix stream your VOD directly? What did Netfix do wrong? I see, they want government to favor them so they can keep leeching off the ISP's, I get it.


----------



## NashGuy

A few posts back I wrote about hybrid fiber/wireless systems emerging as a new type of home broadband competitor and mentioned upstart Starry Internet as one company offering that type of service. Here's an interesting new article about them.

Low Costs, Dense Markets Critical to Starry's Success: Analyst | Multichannel

Juicy bits: they've ID'd 17 metros where they plan to roll out service if the current beta in Boston goes well; while pricing is TBD, the company discussed "price points as high as $50 per month or as low as $20, and that Starry intends to reduce friction with a self-install model".

Hopefully these guys succeed. We need all the competitors we can get and it would really be nice to have a new company emerge as a legit alternative to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Charter, etc.


----------



## wmhjr

Bigg said:


> There are a number of successful muni ISPs around the country, as well as competitive overbuilders. Sure, some rural areas will only ever be able to support one wired ISP, but most suburban/urban areas should be able to support three. Verizon FiOS has been quite successful in terms of profitability, and it competes with 1 cable company in virtually 100% of its footprint, and 2 cable companies in parts of it.
> 
> If Comcast and Charter were charging $40/mo for broadband and had decent customer service, then competing would be a fool's errand. But given their outrageous pricing and horrible customer service, there is a HUGE market just to provide the same level of service with marginally better customer service in being "not them". If you build out fiber, which provides an easy path to gigabit, then it's even more compelling to get people to switch.
> 
> Yeah, the federal government ultimately needs to get involved and make these state laws illegal. What is bizarre here is that we have the a lot of the same GOP politicians who want more power at the local level actively taking it away from municipalities.


Well since there is factually no legal obstacle preventing new entries in the market it seems like the market just doesn't agree with you. How about we make a wager on what happens? If You're right why isn't Buffet investing in new service offerings? Are you financially more experienced than all the actual money guys out there?

Like so many others you're making the fundamental mistake of not understanding market cap.


----------



## Bigg

foghorn2 said:


> None of this is this current Admins fault. We also do not need government favoring one business over the other. Net Neutrality is all about lobbyist on the Netflix/Google side VS. ISP's and their offerings. The first leeches off the latter's infrastructure for profits. That's the issue.


This is the government's fault for not forcing access for consumer devices to IPTV and DBS systems, but that ship had sailed before the orange turd got into office, so that's one of the few things that we can't legitimately blame Trump for.

The second part of your sentence is patently ridiculous. If a customer pays for Netflix and an ISP, then they have already *paid* the ISP to deliver that data to them. What Comcast and Verizon did to Netflix was almost the exact definition of racketeering, but since Comcast and Verizon aren't run by five Italian families and weren't dropping any bodies, the exact sames crimes were completely ignored by the government.

You can take the classic protection money racket that the mob ran for decades offering local businesses "protection" from an "accident", and it is entirely applicable to Comcast and Netflix; Comcast says, "Hey Netflix, we've noticed that your bits are having some accidents lately, we can make sure that they won't have any more accidents if you pay us some money". Comcast and Verizon arbitrarily made a fake problem by refusing to light up more interconnects or put in Netflix OpenConnect boxes, and then charged Netflix to "fix" the fake problem that they created. Comcast should have been prosecuted under RICO for federal Racketeering, but you need an Italian last name like Gambino or Bonnano to get hit with RICO. Roberts doesn't quite fit the bill.



wmhjr said:


> Well since there is factually no legal obstacle preventing new entries in the market it seems like the market just doesn't agree with you. How about we make a wager on what happens? If You're right why isn't Buffet investing in new service offerings? Are you financially more experienced than all the actual money guys out there?
> 
> Like so many others you're making the fundamental mistake of not understanding market cap.


1. As we have discussed, there are many laws preventing municipalities from building their own networks, so don't distract from that, which is a HUGE part of the problem.

2. The "competitors", i.e. the telcos have failed to invest in wireline infrastructure, and have basically stolen from their wireline side to prop up their wireless sides, which would be far less profitable if not for the discounted backhaul and money that they are effectively stealing from the wireline side.

3. Being a new market entrant is really hard, partly because the incumbents are effectively allowed to engage in semi-predatory pricing practices. I say "semi" because technically predatory pricing means you're selling at below cost, but Comcast and others, while not selling below cost, will deeply discount services in competitive areas in order to hurt competitors, while jacking their rates up through the roof in uncompetitive areas. They do this in major metro areas, although with small overbuilders, like in my area, they have the same pricing as everywhere else, and they just bleed customers and don't care, probably because DPUC would have a field day if they lowered prices only in the one area with another cable company, and not in the rest of the state, so they take a huge hit on penetration levels in three towns in order to be able to mlik the partial monopolies they have in dozens of other towns, with only spotty competition from Frontier's ex-AT&T VDSL system.

Further, the incumbents have put up so many nonsense barriers through laws, regulations, semi-exclusivity deals, bulk deals, and other things that it's really hard to go into a new market and be a successful overbuilder. RCN did go into some markets, and has been successful, but AFAIK, they are not doing any widespread expansion.

It's not that building new physical plant is uneconomical, it's that there are so many barriers to actually getting it done. The incumbents love regulation and government hurdles and inefficiency, so long as it benefits them.


----------



## RoamioJeff

Bigg said:


> before the orange turd got into office


Why is that necessary?

Why is it necessary to coarsen the discussion with ad hominem? I'm no fan of Trump, but Jeezus, that sort of thing just weakens one's argument and people stop reading right there.

SMH.


----------



## Mikeguy

Bigg said:


> Comcast should have been prosecuted under RICO for federal Racketeering, but you need an Italian last name like Gambino or Bonnano to get hit with RICO.


(Just a parenthetical--sorry, but: that's not the explanation, although the federal gov't early on began using RICO as a means by which to go after organized crime groups, including the so-called Italian Mafia, a major purpose for the law's original enactment. RICO has gone and been used far beyond that--in fact, people (especially defendants) routinely have assailed the law by incorrectly arguing that it's meant for the "Mafia," which the courts routinely have rejected. RICO also can be used to file civil lawsuits--you have one under it, file it.  )


----------



## wmhjr

Bigg said:


> This is the government's fault for not forcing access for consumer devices to IPTV and DBS systems, but that ship had sailed before the orange turd got into office, so that's one of the few things that we can't legitimately blame Trump for.
> 
> The second part of your sentence is patently ridiculous. If a customer pays for Netflix and an ISP, then they have already *paid* the ISP to deliver that data to them. What Comcast and Verizon did to Netflix was almost the exact definition of racketeering, but since Comcast and Verizon aren't run by five Italian families and weren't dropping any bodies, the exact sames crimes were completely ignored by the government.
> 
> You can take the classic protection money racket that the mob ran for decades offering local businesses "protection" from an "accident", and it is entirely applicable to Comcast and Netflix; Comcast says, "Hey Netflix, we've noticed that your bits are having some accidents lately, we can make sure that they won't have any more accidents if you pay us some money". Comcast and Verizon arbitrarily made a fake problem by refusing to light up more interconnects or put in Netflix OpenConnect boxes, and then charged Netflix to "fix" the fake problem that they created. Comcast should have been prosecuted under RICO for federal Racketeering, but you need an Italian last name like Gambino or Bonnano to get hit with RICO. Roberts doesn't quite fit the bill.
> 
> 1. As we have discussed, there are many laws preventing municipalities from building their own networks, so don't distract from that, which is a HUGE part of the problem.
> 
> 2. The "competitors", i.e. the telcos have failed to invest in wireline infrastructure, and have basically stolen from their wireline side to prop up their wireless sides, which would be far less profitable if not for the discounted backhaul and money that they are effectively stealing from the wireline side.
> 
> 3. Being a new market entrant is really hard, partly because the incumbents are effectively allowed to engage in semi-predatory pricing practices. I say "semi" because technically predatory pricing means you're selling at below cost, but Comcast and others, while not selling below cost, will deeply discount services in competitive areas in order to hurt competitors, while jacking their rates up through the roof in uncompetitive areas. They do this in major metro areas, although with small overbuilders, like in my area, they have the same pricing as everywhere else, and they just bleed customers and don't care, probably because DPUC would have a field day if they lowered prices only in the one area with another cable company, and not in the rest of the state, so they take a huge hit on penetration levels in three towns in order to be able to mlik the partial monopolies they have in dozens of other towns, with only spotty competition from Frontier's ex-AT&T VDSL system.
> 
> Further, the incumbents have put up so many nonsense barriers through laws, regulations, semi-exclusivity deals, bulk deals, and other things that it's really hard to go into a new market and be a successful overbuilder. RCN did go into some markets, and has been successful, but AFAIK, they are not doing any widespread expansion.
> 
> It's not that building new physical plant is uneconomical, it's that there are so many barriers to actually getting it done. The incumbents love regulation and government hurdles and inefficiency, so long as it benefits them.


I'm sorry, but I'm not going to respond to every (inaccurate) part of your novel. However, suffice it to say that I completely disagree with your premise completely. The statement "the incumbents have put up so many nonsense barriers through laws....." is a completely false, inaccurate and dishonest statement. We can start with that.

Exclusivity in agreements is a direct violation of federal law. Period. Stop saying it. It's utter BS.

The bottom line is that you don't like it, but the FACTS are that building out costs a ton of money. That there are finite customers. That the customer base has already been saturated. Therefore, only cannibalization is possible in order to get subs for a new service. If you stop trying to vilify those who don't do what you want, and instead just look at the dollars and cents, it becomes excruciatingly obvious.

Second, the idea of municipal co-ops IS a distraction. If the only way to compete is to do it via government, and if private enterprise can't compete, then guess what? It's not really competition. Where there are white spaces and where profits can exceed the cost of capital plus average investment returns, private enterprise WILL invest. The fact that they are not speaks volumes.

The best opportunity to create new competition is in the hybrid solutions. Propping up via municipal coops simply often just subsidizes costs with tax revenues. This discussion is just like the uneducated masses that somehow think franchise fees have a darned thing to do with it - ignoring the fact that the only friggin thing the MSOs do with franchise fees is pass them through from the consumer to the municipality - who could give a rats behind who the provider is. Again, this from a person who actually dealt with this stuff in a municipality with multiple providers. Facts really suck when you're trying to create villains.


----------



## Bigg

wmhjr said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm not going to respond to every (inaccurate) part of your novel. However, suffice it to say that I completely disagree with your premise completely. The statement "the incumbents have put up so many nonsense barriers through laws....." is a completely false, inaccurate and dishonest statement. We can start with that.


It is absolutely true. They've got pole attachments, they've finagled all kinds of crap in franchise agreements, look at what Google has run into with Google Fiber. They're fighting off the incumbents and the messes that they have left behind in order to put in Google Fiber.



> Exclusivity in agreements is a direct violation of federal law. Period. Stop saying it. It's utter BS.


That's technically true. But they've found so many ways around that. There are marketing exclusivity deals, bulk deals for TV, and some that even compel you to subscribe to one provider on top of your rent as a sort of bulk tack-on deal. None of these technically exclude other providers from also offering service, but often stack the cards against the second or third provider in a market from coming into a building. There are also a lot of shady deals that involve loopholes in installation for FiOS or other fiber providers to keep the cable companies as monopolies. People on DSLReports post sometimes about the sketchy stuff that goes on with MDU deals.



> The bottom line is that you don't like it, but the FACTS are that building out costs a ton of money. That there are finite customers. That the customer base has already been saturated. Therefore, only cannibalization is possible in order to get subs for a new service. If you stop trying to vilify those who don't do what you want, and instead just look at the dollars and cents, it becomes excruciatingly obvious.


I'm not vilifying anyone, I'm simply stating the facts. Overbuilding is a successful model for several providers, including WOW, RCN, and some others, and municipal networks have been mostly successful. I'm not saying that if the arbitrary incumbent-produced barriers to entry were magically eliminated tomorrow that the whole country would have an overbuilder, but certainly more fiber and overbuilding would pop up here and there, which would help the whole marketplace.



> Second, the idea of municipal co-ops IS a distraction. If the only way to compete is to do it via government, and if private enterprise can't compete, then guess what? It's not really competition. Where there are white spaces and where profits can exceed the cost of capital plus average investment returns, private enterprise WILL invest. The fact that they are not speaks volumes.


It's absolutely competition. Are you saying that the USPS doesn't compete at all with UPS and FedEx? Are you saying that they shouldn't compete just because they are a government agency? That we should just hand it over to the big corporations? If the USPS didn't exist, it would be a LOT more expensive to mail a package than it is. Why should local communities not be allowed to choose their own destiny in terms of getting broadband service? Muni broadband is not a distraction, and while it won't work everywhere, it's a great model that needs to be legalized everywhere. Protectionist state laws that serve only to protect slow incumbents have got to go. The incumbents need a kick in the butt to compete more, whether it's with faster speeds, lower prices, better service, or some combination thereof.



> The best opportunity to create new competition is in the hybrid solutions. Propping up via municipal coops simply often just subsidizes costs with tax revenues. This discussion is just like the uneducated masses that somehow think franchise fees have a darned thing to do with it - ignoring the fact that the only friggin thing the MSOs do with franchise fees is pass them through from the consumer to the municipality - who could give a rats behind who the provider is. Again, this from a person who actually dealt with this stuff in a municipality with multiple providers. Facts really suck when you're trying to create villains.


You should try getting your facts straight if you want to claim to use them. Most muni broadband projects pay for themselves, and are not taxpayer-supported. And so what if a community wants one to be taxpayer supported? I can guarantee you that no one would support a taxpayer funded muni broadband network if the existing cable and telco services were offering good service at a reasonable price. In many cases, the ones that are taxpayer supported are covering areas that currently have *NOTHING* for broadband access in many parts of the town that they are covering.


----------



## Bigg

Mikeguy said:


> (Just a parenthetical--sorry, but: that's not the explanation, although the federal gov't early on began using RICO as a means by which to go after organized crime groups, including the so-called Italian Mafia, a major purpose for the law's original enactment. RICO has gone and been used far beyond that--in fact, people (especially defendants) routinely have assailed the law by incorrectly arguing that it's meant for the "Mafia," which the courts routinely have rejected. RICO also can be used to file civil lawsuits--you have one under it, file it.  )


Yes, that is a good point, it is legally applicable to everyone, and I was not suggesting otherwise, I was simply pointing out that RICO was basically designed by the federal government to target the five families, so a prosecutor would have to take some initiative to use it elsewhere in a more fair and widely used manner.


----------



## wmhjr

Bigg said:


> It is absolutely true. They've got pole attachments, they've finagled all kinds of crap in franchise agreements, look at what Google has run into with Google Fiber. They're fighting off the incumbents and the messes that they have left behind in order to put in Google Fiber.
> 
> That's technically true. But they've found so many ways around that. There are marketing exclusivity deals, bulk deals for TV, and some that even compel you to subscribe to one provider on top of your rent as a sort of bulk tack-on deal. None of these technically exclude other providers from also offering service, but often stack the cards against the second or third provider in a market from coming into a building. There are also a lot of shady deals that involve loopholes in installation for FiOS or other fiber providers to keep the cable companies as monopolies. People on DSLReports post sometimes about the sketchy stuff that goes on with MDU deals.
> 
> I'm not vilifying anyone, I'm simply stating the facts. Overbuilding is a successful model for several providers, including WOW, RCN, and some others, and municipal networks have been mostly successful. I'm not saying that if the arbitrary incumbent-produced barriers to entry were magically eliminated tomorrow that the whole country would have an overbuilder, but certainly more fiber and overbuilding would pop up here and there, which would help the whole marketplace.
> 
> It's absolutely competition. Are you saying that the USPS doesn't compete at all with UPS and FedEx? Are you saying that they shouldn't compete just because they are a government agency? That we should just hand it over to the big corporations? If the USPS didn't exist, it would be a LOT more expensive to mail a package than it is. Why should local communities not be allowed to choose their own destiny in terms of getting broadband service? Muni broadband is not a distraction, and while it won't work everywhere, it's a great model that needs to be legalized everywhere. Protectionist state laws that serve only to protect slow incumbents have got to go. The incumbents need a kick in the butt to compete more, whether it's with faster speeds, lower prices, better service, or some combination thereof.
> 
> You should try getting your facts straight if you want to claim to use them. Most muni broadband projects pay for themselves, and are not taxpayer-supported. And so what if a community wants one to be taxpayer supported? I can guarantee you that no one would support a taxpayer funded muni broadband network if the existing cable and telco services were offering good service at a reasonable price. In many cases, the ones that are taxpayer supported are covering areas that currently have *NOTHING* for broadband access in many parts of the town that they are covering.


Again, you'd be better going into the novel producing business - particularly fiction.

My facts are straight. Your statements are filled with fallacies, falsehoods, old wives tales, and outright deception. There are SO many things wrong with all the stuff you're spewing it's impossible to even know where to start.

I could care less about co-ops personally. But they are NOT competition. Because they are not profit motivated, they cannot by definition ever really compete with the large providers. And also, to be quite clear - I'm not even concentrating on the areas which have "*NOTHING* for broadband access....". That's not competition either. Those are areas for which there is no service. Not introducing competition to an existing service. Rural, underserved areas are absolutely a problem. But let's be honest there also. The fact that they have no service has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any "obstacles" or "barriers" put up by telcos or other providers. Nothing. Period. End of story.

Municipal (or frankly, let's call it what it is - GOVERNMENT) services have a place. However, making them an option everywhere is NOT something I support. Because they can, using taxpayer funding, unfairly compete with the market. Your example of the USPS is a perfect example. You're making MY point. Because guess what? USPS gets approximately $18 BILLION in public funding and benefits every year just to compete with UPS and Fedex. Don't believe me? U.S. Post Office gets an $18 billion gift from taxpayers every year

The bottom line here is that you continue to make false allegations. The reason that more physical providers don't enter EXISTING markets that are ALREADY SERVED is NOT because of obstacles put up by municipalities, not because of obstacles put in place by incumbents, and not because of some imaginary illegal law (that doesn't exist). It is, bottom line, because in areas already served (which is the overwhelming majority of populated geographies in the US) ALREADY HAVE SERVICE. Households only need ONE service provider. So, any large investment into infrastructure and then the corresponding maintenance is a very risky venture, as it has at best the opportunity to simply take business from somebody else. Adding the cost of change to the consumer, it really means investing huge sums of capital and corresponding expense into a venture that at best "might" yield small profits in a future that may very well see a diminished focus on wired broadband delivery.

So, again - pseudo-Buffet - if you're right, where are all the "new competitors" making noise about trying to get into the market? Do you really think guys like Buffet would stand by and stay quiet if they saw an opportunity and wanted to get in? Really?


----------



## Bigg

wmhjr said:


> Again, you'd be better going into the novel producing business - particularly fiction.
> 
> My facts are straight. Your statements are filled with fallacies, falsehoods, old wives tales, and outright deception. There are SO many things wrong with all the stuff you're spewing it's impossible to even know where to start.


I'm sorry that the facts don't support your extreme right-wing government-hating agenda, but they just don't. You continue to spew out false statements. Let's deunk this latest pile of nonsense.



> I could care less about co-ops personally. But they are NOT competition. Because they are not profit motivated, they cannot by definition ever really compete with the large providers. And also, to be quite clear - I'm not even concentrating on the areas which have "*NOTHING* for broadband access....". That's not competition either. Those are areas for which there is no service. Not introducing competition to an existing service. Rural, underserved areas are absolutely a problem. But let's be honest there also. The fact that they have no service has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any "obstacles" or "barriers" put up by telcos or other providers. Nothing. Period. End of story.


You are factually wrong in some places. The telcos and cable providers in Tennessee lobbied heavily for protectionist legislation that now prevents EPB from expanding gigabit fiber into unserved areas. If it were not for this law, more areas that currently have no wireline broadband service would have gigabit fiber, or possibly ten gigabit fiber. This is a FACT.



> Municipal (or frankly, let's call it what it is - GOVERNMENT) services have a place. However, making them an option everywhere is NOT something I support. Because they can, using taxpayer funding, unfairly compete with the market. Your example of the USPS is a perfect example. You're making MY point. Because guess what? USPS gets approximately $18 BILLION in public funding and benefits every year just to compete with UPS and Fedex. Don't believe me? U.S. Post Office gets an $18 billion gift from taxpayers every year


This one is really slippery, but luckily, I know the truth here, so let me expose your misleading statement to the rest of the forum. The fact is that the USPS would be approximately revenue neutral if they used normal accounting practices that virtually every other government and business in the world uses. The reason that they are losing billions of dollars a year, on paper anyway, is that they are being forced by Congress to pre-fund retirement benefits.



> The bottom line here is that you continue to make false allegations. The reason that more physical providers don't enter EXISTING markets that are ALREADY SERVED is NOT because of obstacles put up by municipalities, not because of obstacles put in place by incumbents, and not because of some imaginary illegal law (that doesn't exist). It is, bottom line, because in areas already served (which is the overwhelming majority of populated geographies in the US) ALREADY HAVE SERVICE. Households only need ONE service provider. So, any large investment into infrastructure and then the corresponding maintenance is a very risky venture, as it has at best the opportunity to simply take business from somebody else. Adding the cost of change to the consumer, it really means investing huge sums of capital and corresponding expense into a venture that at best "might" yield small profits in a future that may very well see a diminished focus on wired broadband delivery.


There are two different issues here, one being why the telcos didn't replace their entire copper networks with PON starting circa 2004, the exception being about 2/3 of present-day Verizon under Seidenberg's visionary leadership before the two imbeciles got in there, the second being why outside providers don't get into new markets in order to compete. The incumbents have, in fact, used both laws and other mechanisms to make entry into another market really, really painful. It's not illegal for RCN to go and overbuild more Comcast areas, but Comcast makes it really hard and painful for RCN to do so. There are some areas that have three providers, like many suburbs around Boston and parts of NYC, and they're all doing very well. Part of my town has three providers, and they sort of compete with each other. There is plenty of room to compete in this market, as DSL and cable were doing until bandwidth demands far outstripped what DSL could do. All the incumbent has to do is throw up enough roadblocks to make it really, really expensive and slow for an overbuilder to get into a new market, and they probably won't go into that market.



> So, again - pseudo-Buffet - if you're right, where are all the "new competitors" making noise about trying to get into the market? Do you really think guys like Buffet would stand by and stay quiet if they saw an opportunity and wanted to get in? Really?


Why does Warren Buffet need to get involved in telecommunications?


----------



## ncbill

Isn't the pole issue still a problem for would-be municipal *or* private ISPs?

IIRC in most jurisdictions each company with an already attached wire can still require their people move their wire.

I know there are "one-touch" bills pending in some state legislatures, but I didn't think the latter approach was widespread, at least not yet.


----------



## Mikeguy

wmhjr said:


> Municipal (or frankly, let's call it what it is - GOVERNMENT) services have a place. However, making them an option everywhere is NOT something I support. Because they can, using taxpayer funding, unfairly compete with the market. Your example of the USPS is a perfect example. You're making MY point. Because guess what? USPS gets approximately $18 BILLION in public funding and benefits every year just to compete with UPS and Fedex. Don't believe me? U.S. Post Office gets an $18 billion gift from taxpayers every year


(Just a comment from the peanut gallery:

However the accounting is done, the USPS is _not_ getting money "just to compete with UPS and Fedex"--while the USPS indeed offers competing services, it also provides significant services that UPS and Fedex do not even attempt to compete with: the expensive, daily (Sundays excluded) delivery of mail to every U.S. address.)


----------



## lpwcomp

Mikeguy said:


> (Just a comment from the peanut gallery:
> 
> However the accounting is done, the USPS is _not_ getting money "just to compete with UPS and Fedex"--while the USPS indeed offers competing services, it also provides significant services that UPS and Fedex do not even attempt to compete with: the expensive, daily (Sundays excluded) delivery of mail to every U.S. address.)


We'll probably never know if a private company could compete in that area since they are prevented by law from doing so.


----------



## Bigg

lpwcomp said:


> We'll probably never know if a private company could compete in that area since they are prevented by law from doing so.


UPS and FedEX are not allowed to deliver to your mailbox, but they can deliver to your door or their own box or something. I don't think anyone wants to get into mailing junk mail and bills around though. It's actually pretty amazing that a uniformed employee of the US Federal Government goes to each and every door in the entire US every single day (except for Sundays in places Jeff Bezos hasn't paid them to operate).


----------



## lpwcomp

Bigg said:


> UPS and FedEX are not allowed to deliver to your mailbox, but they can deliver to your door or their own box or something. I don't think anyone wants to get into mailing junk mail and bills around though. It's actually pretty amazing that a uniformed employee of the US Federal Government goes to each and every door in the entire US every single day (except for Sundays in places Jeff Bezos hasn't paid them to operate).


Sorry, it's not just where they deliver, it's the contents. They simply cannot deliver regular mail. At all. The Post Office is very aggressive about enforcing the private express statutes.

There has been periodic talk about eliminating Saturday delivery.

They haven't gone "to each and every door" in a long time. A lot of housing developments have cluster mail boxes.

At one point, the post office actually wanted to be reimbursed for every email that would have previously gone by snail mail.


----------



## Mikeguy

lpwcomp said:


> Sorry, it's not just where they deliver, it's the contents. They simply cannot deliver regular mail. At all. The Post Office is very aggressive about enforcing the private express statutes.
> 
> There has been periodic talk about eliminating Saturday delivery.
> 
> They haven't gone "to each and every door" in a long time. A lot of housing developments have cluster mail boxes.
> 
> At one point, the post office actually wanted to be reimbursed for every email that would have previously gone by snail mail.


Totally off point discussion, but just to add to it  , I doubt that the private services would want to do door-to-door regular mail delivery, due to the costs.


----------



## BobCamp1

These are articles I point people to whenever the lack of ISP competition is discussed:

One big reason we lack Internet competition: Starting an ISP is really hard

Don't Blame Big Cable. It's Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition

Here's What the Lack of Broadband Competition Looks Like on a Map

If You Want To Fix U.S. Broadband Competition, Start By Killing State-Level Protectionist Laws Written By Duopolists

It should also be noted that Google Fiber only rolled out to the few places where these laws didn't exist. And Google has insanely deep pockets. Verizon FIOS rolled out only to upper-class and middle-upper-class markets, they have insanely deep pockets, and even they stopped expanding and have even sold quite a bit of it off.


----------



## Jed1

What you are really up against is a group called ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council). They basically write laws and then pass them to state legislatures to pass. This is how most restrictions are put in place on broadband expansion.
American Legislative Exchange Council
Broadband - American Legislative Exchange Council

Members of ALEC on the Federal level.
Alumni - American Legislative Exchange Council


----------



## BobCamp1

wmhjr said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm not going to respond to every (inaccurate) part of your novel. However, suffice it to say that I completely disagree with your premise completely. The statement "the incumbents have put up so many nonsense barriers through laws....." is a completely false, inaccurate and dishonest statement. We can start with that.
> 
> Exclusivity in agreements is a direct violation of federal law. Period. Stop saying it. It's utter BS.
> 
> The bottom line is that you don't like it, but the FACTS are that building out costs a ton of money. That there are finite customers. That the customer base has already been saturated. Therefore, only cannibalization is possible in order to get subs for a new service. If you stop trying to vilify those who don't do what you want, and instead just look at the dollars and cents, it becomes excruciatingly obvious.


You do realize what a kickback is, right? Kickbacks can be perfectly legal or totally illegal. So exclusivity may be a violation of law, but it happens all the time. Either money is directly exchanged under the table or campaign contributions go to local lawmakers who pass a flurry of other laws that have the indirect (but desired) effect of creating exclusivity. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are dozens of articles that say otherwise.

Yes, rollouts cost a TON of money and that too plays a significant role. But keep in mind that quite a bit of that are legal and municipality fees which are much larger than what they should be. But even worse than money is the loss of TIME. Delays generated by lawsuits make investors nervous and hesitant, and makes it difficult for somebody to get enough money to start an ISP. Because time is (also) money.

Finally, your weakest argument is that the market is already saturated. You think everybody is happy with their current ISP and would never switch even if they could. I know a LOT of people who are dissatisfied with the quality and/or the price of their Internet service and would switch in a heartbeat. For example, at least half of my neighborhood switched from TWC to FIOS within a year of its rollout.


----------



## DrewTivo

mschnebly said:


> Feel free to skip on by if you don't like it. Like it or not politics is where these laws come from.


One can have a policy discussion without having a political discussion.


----------



## DrewTivo

Mikeguy said:


> Totally off point discussion, but just to add to it  , I doubt that the private services would want to do door-to-door regular mail delivery, due to the costs.


They might entertain regular delivery, just not with the universal service obligation. A private carrier could probably serve NY city much more cheaply than USPS does, but they wouldn't want to take on the obligation of serving rural Nebraska, etc.


----------



## lpwcomp

DrewTivo said:


> They might entertain regular delivery, just not with the universal service obligation. A private carrier could probably serve NY city much more cheaply than USPS does, but they wouldn't want to take on the obligation of serving rural Nebraska, etc.


That is the claim anyway and the "justification" for the private express statutes. As I said, we'll never know.


----------



## Mikeguy

DrewTivo said:


> They might entertain regular delivery, just not with the universal service obligation. A private carrier could probably serve NY city much more cheaply than USPS does, but they wouldn't want to take on the obligation of serving rural Nebraska, etc.


Well, yes, cherry-picking what is profitable/most profitable and leaving everything else behind is a way to go.


----------



## Bigg

lpwcomp said:


> Sorry, it's not just where they deliver, it's the contents. They simply cannot deliver regular mail. At all. The Post Office is very aggressive about enforcing the private express statutes.


Interesting, I didn't know such statutes existed, I was just thinking of the express documents that FedEx carries, but that's an exception carved out in the law.



> They haven't gone "to each and every door" in a long time. A lot of housing developments have cluster mail boxes.


Ok, to your apartment or condo complex. That's still basically door to door, and is no less amazing of a service.



Jed1 said:


> What you are really up against is a group called ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council). They basically write laws and then pass them to state legislatures to pass. This is how most restrictions are put in place on broadband expansion.


Good point. I forgot about ALEC. They do all sorts of dirty work to push far-right-wing pro-business policies.


----------



## lpwcomp

It's not just condos, townhouses, and apartments that have cluster mailboxes. Some single family, detached houses with lawns and all are served by them.

OTOH, Fedex and UPS *do* deliver to the door of any dwelling.

Many years ago, the USPS went after FedEx claiming that their customers must prove that there was a delivery urgency for any documents that weren't sent via USPS and demanding that there be a minimum price for the service to discourage its use.


----------



## tim1724

lpwcomp said:


> OTOH, Fedex and UPS *do* deliver to the door of any dwelling.


No. They don't. For some rural areas and more remote areas they contract with USPS to do last-mile delivery.


----------



## RoamioJeff

tim1724 said:


> No. They don't. For some rural areas and more remote areas they contract with USPS to do last-mile delivery.


I think that the implication was that you can send something to any address using FedEx or UPS. True, they may outsource final leg. But delivery contract is between sender and FedEx/UPS.


----------



## Mikeguy

And now, having had this fun foray into the world of mail delivery, back to our regularly-scheduled programming . . . .


----------



## Bigg

lpwcomp said:


> It's not just condos, townhouses, and apartments that have cluster mailboxes. Some single family, detached houses with lawns and all are served by them.


That's irrelevant. The point is, they deliver to everyone in the whole country, whether their mailbox is on their house, in front of their house, or in a giant row of mailboxes 1000 away.



tim1724 said:


> No. They don't. For some rural areas and more remote areas they contract with USPS to do last-mile delivery.


True. I believe they do this in rural Alaska. Although they also do the drop shipping in many places that also have real UPS service.


----------



## lpwcomp

Bigg said:


> That's irrelevant. The point is, they deliver to everyone in the whole country, whether their mailbox is on their house, in front of their house, or in a giant row of mailboxes 1000 away.


How is it irrelevant when I was specifically countering this:



Bigg said:


> It's actually pretty amazing that a uniformed employee of the US Federal Government goes to _*each and every door in the entire US*_ every single day (except for Sundays in places Jeff Bezos hasn't paid them to operate).


Why the hyperbole? If you are truly amazed, then you have a very low threshold. Meanwhile, I cannot tell you the number of times that I have gotten someone else's mail in my box.

In any case, my initial point was that it's all speculation about what would happen if private companies could compete since they are legally barred from doing so.


----------



## tluxon

I was at a Customer Service Center for Comcast Xfinity in the Seattle area last night and the rep that was helping me told me they expect to be fully phased-out of CableCARD support within 18 months. I asked about people using CableCARD to receive cable on independent devices and he just glibly said, "We'll offer them one of OUR devices".


----------



## Bigg

lpwcomp said:


> How is it irrelevant when I was specifically countering this:


I'm not concerned whether it's at the house, the curb, or in the complex, but the fact that the USPS delivers to everyone six days a week is very impressive.



tluxon said:


> I was at a Customer Service Center for Comcast Xfinity in the Seattle area last night and the rep that was helping me told me they expect to be fully phased-out of CableCARD support within 18 months. I asked about people using CableCARD to receive cable on independent devices and he just glibly said, "We'll offer them one of OUR devices".


Not sure I'd go by what they're saying. Usually the front line people are pretty clueless about future plans.


----------



## RoamioJeff

tluxon said:


> I was at a Customer Service Center for Comcast Xfinity in the Seattle area last night and the rep that was helping me told me they expect to be fully phased-out of CableCARD support within 18 months. I asked about people using CableCARD to receive cable on independent devices and he just glibly said, "We'll offer them one of OUR devices".


The person in question has no clue. His area or department may not be dealing with CableCARDs in 18 months, perhaps due to some internal reorganization, but someone in Comcast most certainly will.


----------



## jmbach

As far as CableCARDs, I don't think they are going anywhere until final rule proposals are in placed and passed. I am unsure if our government can finalize anything in the next 18 months concerning the successor to the CableCARD. Does not appear that enough discussion has yet taken place between all the parties.

The latest information from 
*Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming Jan 17, 2017
*
193. In February 2016, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to propose a successor to CableCARD for device compatibility.(641) In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to require MVPDs to provide data in a published, transparent format that would allow an unaffiliated device or application to access multichannel video programming, and to support at least one content protection system that is licensable on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.(642) This proceeding remains pending.
641 STB NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 1544, para. 6.
642 Id. at 1545-56, para. 2.

Since they include Satellite and at&t uVerse in the MVPD category, I wonder if the successor to the CableCARD will include access to those services as well.


----------



## mschnebly

tim1724 said:


> No. They don't. For some rural areas and more remote areas they contract with USPS to do last-mile delivery.


Yes, they do that right here in Wisconsin. Most anything I order online is sent UPS but delivered by the USPS.


----------



## slowbiscuit

jmbach said:


> 193. In February 2016, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to propose a successor to CableCARD for device compatibility.(641) In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to require MVPDs to provide data in a published, transparent format that would allow an unaffiliated device or application to access multichannel video programming, and to support at least one content protection system that is licensable on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.(642) This proceeding remains pending.
> 641 STB NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 1544, para. 6.
> 642 Id. at 1545-56, para. 2.
> 
> Since they include Satellite and at&t uVerse in the MVPD category, I wonder if the successor to the CableCARD will include access to those services as well.


You missed the election results from last year. That replacement is dead and all that remains is to see whether anyone in the FCC or Congress cares when new IPTV approaches (apps or whatever) phase out Cablecard on a per-cableco basis.

And Tivos, obviously.


----------



## jmbach

slowbiscuit said:


> You missed the election results from last year. That replacement is dead and all that remains is to see whether anyone in the FCC or Congress cares when new IPTV approaches (apps or whatever) phase out Cablecard on a per-cableco basis.
> 
> And Tivos, obviously.


I probably did, but so did the FCC in their Annual Assessment Report in January of this year.


----------



## Bigg

I doubt there will ever be a replacement for CableCard. CableCard will live on until QAM is dead. CableCard has at least a decade or more on small MSOs and Verizon FiOS. STB competition never really worked outside of TiVo, and while I love TiVo, it's such a small niche, I'm not sure anyone really cares. Even TiVo itself has moved on, and most of their business is partnering with MSOs.


----------



## NashGuy

Bigg said:


> I doubt there will ever be a replacement for CableCard. CableCard will live on until QAM is dead. CableCard has at least a decade or more on small MSOs and Verizon FiOS. STB competition never really worked outside of TiVo, and while I love TiVo, it's such a small niche, I'm not sure anyone really cares. Even TiVo itself has moved on, and most of their business is partnering with MSOs.


A decade is a loooooong time in the fast-moving world of technology. I'm not sure I see any small cable MSOs still running a QAM-based TV service by then. I think you'll see full-scale transitions to IPTV become pretty common in the early 2020s as UHD HDR really becomes mainstream. Some small players will license bigger companies' IPTV platforms to continue running their own branded TV service, others will partner with national providers (Layer3, Hulu, etc.), and some will get out of the game completely and let their customers just go OTT.

Will there even be a working supply of CableCARDs for another decade? Are those things still being manufactured?


----------



## Bigg

NashGuy said:


> A decade is a loooooong time in the fast-moving world of technology. I'm not sure I see any small cable MSOs still running a QAM-based TV service by then. I think you'll see full-scale transitions to IPTV become pretty common in the early 2020s as UHD HDR really becomes mainstream. Some small players will license bigger companies' IPTV platforms to continue running their own branded TV service, others will partner with national providers (Layer3, Hulu, etc.), and some will get out of the game completely and let their customers just go OTT.
> 
> Will there even be a working supply of CableCARDs for another decade? Are those things still being manufactured?


True. Some may switch to IPTV by then, but others will probably still be on QAM. I'd be shocked if Verizon phased out QAM in before 2030 however, as they have zero incentive to shut it down, as it's running totally independent of the IP/internet/IPTV bandwidth, and they have millions of old boxes out there that can't do MPEG-4. That is true, some smaller MSOs may use a solution like Layer3 TV to provide their TV service, and just provide an IP pipe. Layer3 is the only one right now that can provide a full cable bundle over IP.

I think they can repurpose cablecards out of retired cable boxes and reprogram them for customer owned devices, but likely they already have enough to support a dwindling fleet of QAM-based equipment.

Comcast will be the first to move to IPTV of the major MSOs, and I'd expect that by 2020, Comcast will have at least cable HD moved over to IPTV on some systems, if not some or all cable SD or local HD channels, with only a small amount of QAM left, and TiVos only able to get that limited subset of channels. As usual, the slowest upgraded systems could be 2 or 3 years behind the fastest upgraded systems.


----------



## CharlesH

tim1724 said:


> No. They don't. For some rural areas and more remote areas they contract with USPS to do last-mile delivery.


In the other direction, in my neighborhood (a Sacramento metro suburban neighborhood), our USPS carrier is a contractor. I talked to him, and he said that it was not particularly unusual for the USPS to outsource the last mile, especially in newer developments.

Not that this has anything to do with TiVo.


----------



## Mikeguy

CharlesH said:


> In the other direction, in my neighborhood (a Sacramento metro suburban neighborhood), our USPS carrier is a contractor. I talked to him, and he said that it was not particularly unusual for the USPS to outsource the last mile, especially in newer developments.


Interesting--I would have thought that this would be easy enough for the USPS to do itself, in non-rural areas.


----------



## jmbach

Bigg said:


> True. Some may switch to IPTV by then, but others will probably still be on QAM. I'd be shocked if Verizon phased out QAM in before 2030 however, as they have zero incentive to shut it down, as it's running totally independent of the IP/internet/IPTV bandwidth, and they have millions of old boxes out there that can't do MPEG-4. That is true, some smaller MSOs may use a solution like Layer3 TV to provide their TV service, and just provide an IP pipe. Layer3 is the only one right now that can provide a full cable bundle over IP.
> 
> I think they can repurpose cablecards out of retired cable boxes and reprogram them for customer owned devices, but likely they already have enough to support a dwindling fleet of QAM-based equipment.
> 
> Comcast will be the first to move to IPTV of the major MSOs, and I'd expect that by 2020, Comcast will have at least cable HD moved over to IPTV on some systems, if not some or all cable SD or local HD channels, with only a small amount of QAM left, and TiVos only able to get that limited subset of channels. As usual, the slowest upgraded systems could be 2 or 3 years behind the fastest upgraded systems.


FWIW I just noticed that my Samsung TV has a Spectrum app that allows me to stream live TV and on demand.


----------



## wmhjr

BobCamp1 said:


> You do realize what a kickback is, right? Kickbacks can be perfectly legal or totally illegal. So exclusivity may be a violation of law, but it happens all the time. Either money is directly exchanged under the table or campaign contributions go to local lawmakers who pass a flurry of other laws that have the indirect (but desired) effect of creating exclusivity. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are dozens of articles that say otherwise.
> 
> Yes, rollouts cost a TON of money and that too plays a significant role. But keep in mind that quite a bit of that are legal and municipality fees which are much larger than what they should be. But even worse than money is the loss of TIME. Delays generated by lawsuits make investors nervous and hesitant, and makes it difficult for somebody to get enough money to start an ISP. Because time is (also) money.
> 
> Finally, your weakest argument is that the market is already saturated. You think everybody is happy with their current ISP and would never switch even if they could. I know a LOT of people who are dissatisfied with the quality and/or the price of their Internet service and would switch in a heartbeat. For example, at least half of my neighborhood switched from TWC to FIOS within a year of its rollout.


Been away for a while so didn't get back to this. Your entire argument is utterly preposterous. "Kickbacks"? Really? That's your argument? Please show me examples of where the "kickbacks" in this subject "happen all the time". Please. You can't, because you just make it up. That argument is utterly full of feces.

Second, the rollouts are NOT primarily cost based on "fees". That is yet another utterly preposterous argument. It's stupid. It's false. It's fake news.

I never ever said everybody - or even most people - are happy with their current ISP. Just like they're not happy with their car insurance. Or all kinds of things. But people ***** WAY more than they change. You yourself just killed your own argument. Your entire neighborhood had at least two choices already. Even acknowledging you're just making crap up there too. You have no idea if "half" switched, or what they've dont since. You've got no numbers. No revenue picture. No 10ks to look at. They already exercised one change. But, now imagine there are yet another vendor or two out there. There are finite customers, get it? Most potential customers already have service. So the market cap is finite, and revenues depend on "stealing" from other established vendors. It's a stupid venture, when all signs point to some sort of other services not requiring heavy infrastructure rollout.

You have some strong opinions. They are not based on facts but rather on emotion. You don't like your providers. Get it. Box checked. Too bad. That doesn't create a market. Or maybe you're just smarter than everybody else out there. Put your money where your mouth is and start a business to compete....


----------



## wtherrell

jmbach said:


> FWIW I just noticed that my Samsung TV has a Spectrum app that allows me to stream live TV and on demand.


Tried that app. Needed to catch up with Blacklist. Had to watch commercials. No fast forward available.


----------



## JoeKustra

wtherrell said:


> Tried that app. Needed to catch up with Blacklist. Had to watch commercials. No fast forward available.


The NBC app on a Roku 3 is also supplied with commercials. But at least it's free.


----------



## Dan203

Is it really "free" if they force you to watch commercials?


----------



## lpwcomp

Dan203 said:


> Is it really "free" if they force you to watch commercials?


TANSTAAFL


----------



## JoeKustra

lpwcomp said:


> TANSTAAFL





Dan203 said:


> Is it really "free" if they force you to watch commercials?


Wrong choice of words. I should have said "no subscription needed".


----------



## jmbach

wtherrell said:


> Tried that app. Needed to catch up with Blacklist. Had to watch commercials. No fast forward available.


I watched The Librarians with it. No commercials, just transient fade to black where the commercials should be. Also had no fast forward.


----------



## jmbach

wtherrell said:


> Tried that app. Needed to catch up with Blacklist. Had to watch commercials. No fast forward available.


I watched The Librarians with it. No commercials, just transient fade to black where the commercials should be. Also had no fast forward.


----------



## Dan203

Do you have a Raspberry Pi running PieHole? If so I've heard that can block the commercials from some apps.


----------



## jmbach

No I have nothing like that. My other streaming apps retain their commercials.


----------



## Dan203

Maybe the ad server was down. 

I hate using those apps because when the commercials do work they tend to play the same ones over and over


----------



## jmbach

I agree. The only good thing is that you can see when one is coming up and decide what kind of break you want to take.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Dan203 said:


> Maybe the ad server was down.
> 
> I hate using those apps because when the commercials do work they tend to play the same ones over and over


Boy you got that right, while I was waiting on a replacement Roamio I used the Roku to watch some stuff using Discovery's app. Something went haywire on their end because EVERY freaking break resulted in 6 copies of the same stupid Chevy ad being shown.

And this is an improvement? This is our streaming future vs. Tivo? UGH.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Looks like Verizon FiOS is testing out their IPTV service. QAM, CableCARD, and TiVo will probably be phased out of FiOS in the not too distant future. I'd guess 2-3 years.

Verizon IPTV Beta Testers Get Free Year of Triple Play Service


----------



## NashGuy

tarheelblue32 said:


> Looks like Verizon FiOS is testing out their IPTV service. QAM, CableCARD, and TiVo will probably be phased out of FiOS in the not too distant future. I'd guess 2-3 years.
> 
> Verizon IPTV Beta Testers Get Free Year of Triple Play Service


The inside scoop (see this forum thread, particularly posts from a leaker named Branch) seems to be that QAM-based Verizon FiOS TV, and the current Quantum STBs that support it, aren't going away any time soon. Assuming that Verizon likes what they see in the new IPTV-based service and the new STBs and ONTs that will support it, perhaps they'll deprecate QAM-based TV in a couple years, meaning that no *new* subscribers will be given the option for hardware that supports QAM TV, although it would seem to me that they would need some kind of waiver from the FCC (under current law, at least) for that to happen.

As for those subscribers who already had QAM TV service by that point (including those using TiVos), well, I wouldn't imagine that Verizon would be in a huge rush to force them all to convert over to IPTV. At some point in the future, yes, one would imagine that Verizon would want to migrate all their TV subs over to the newer platform, as they see a number of benefits to IPTV (the ability to support more channels with better PQ, including UHD 4K; cheaper, smaller STB hardware; a more flexible software platform that can be upgraded and improved quicker and easier). But unlike cable companies (e.g. Comcast), Verizon isn't incentivized to completely shut down QAM TV and convert all subs over to IPTV in order to reclaim bandwidth for internet usage since FiOS uses separate wavelengths in the fiber for IP and QAM traffic. So again, I'm not sure that Verizon will be in as big of a rush as Comcast to migrate all their TV subs over to IPTV, which is a costly endeavor since it means replacing a ton of existing STBs out in the field.

My guess is that if you're currently using a TiVo with Verizon FiOS, you'll be able to keep using it for several more years, so long as you maintain continuous service at the same address. But a lot of those TiVo users will be slowly lured over to the new IPTV service (using Verizon's own STBs) so that they can access a growing number of UHD HDR channels and a range of on-demand content that will never be accessible through their TiVos.


----------



## Dan203

I think most of us on cable are in a similar boat. Other cable companies, especially Comcast, are likely to follow this same path. So most of us will be safe for now, but with no future prospects for new units the writing is on the wall and we'll all eventually have to dump our TiVos for something else. It's kind of sad to know the end is approaching and there is nothing we can do about it.


----------



## jmbach

Dan203 said:


> I think most of us on cable are in a similar boat. Other cable companies, especially Comcast, are likely to follow this same path. So most of us will be safe for now, but with no future prospects for new units the writing is on the wall and we'll all eventually have to dump our TiVos for something else. It's kind of sad to know the end is approaching and there is nothing we can do about it.


Any reason TiVo could not modify the existing units to support IPTV?


----------



## Dan203

jmbach said:


> Any reason TiVo could not modify the existing units to support IPTV?


There is no open standard for them to do so. So unless the FCC forces the MSOs to adopt one or the MSOs cooperate with TiVo willingly, neither of which is likely, there is nothing they can do.

Once cable goes IP the only thing TiVo will be able to record without a specific MSO deal is going to be OTA.


----------



## tim1724

jmbach said:


> Any reason TiVo could not modify the existing units to support IPTV?


The cable companies are unwilling to share the necessary documentation, encryption keys, etc. with third parties. There's no incentive for them to do so. The only reason we have CableCard for QAM is that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required that third-party devices be allowed to access "multichannel video programming" and the FCC enforced that by mandating the use of CableCard. I see no chance of anything similar happening anytime soon for IPTV.


----------



## Dan203

Luckily with IPTV we have more options. There are a half dozen or so "skinny bundle" services available right now, and more slated to come online in the near future. The only issue we have there is that in most areas the cable company is the only viable provider for internet service and they're likely to use slimy tactics like caps, throttling, etc... to dissuade people from using those other services.


----------



## pdhenry

tim1724 said:


> The cable companies are unwilling to share the necessary documentation, encryption keys, etc. with third parties. There's no incentive for them to do so. The only reason we have CableCard for QAM is that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required that third-party devices be allowed to access "multichannel video programming" and the FCC enforced that by mandating the use of CableCard. I see no chance of anything similar happening anytime soon for IPTV.


The Comcast Roku app notwithstanding?


----------



## Dan203

pdhenry said:


> The Comcast Roku app notwithstanding?


That runs on the Roku, but is written and maintained by Comcast. So they have completely control over the encryption, etc... The Roku is just the platform it's running on.

One of the big fights at the CableCARD replacement thing a few years ago was apps vs API. The MSOs all wanted apps because it allowed them to control the complete "user experience". Which means regardless of the hardware everyone would still have to use their UI, be subject to their ads, their upsell for VOD, etc... The technology companies like TiVo, Google, etc... wanted an API that would allow them access to the content from within their own UIs. Even before the election the Obama appointed FCC chair was leaning toward the apps approach. Even though it would completely wipe out all competition in the way of features, usability, etc... and basically just make the 3rd party hardware a dumb box.


----------



## atmuscarella

pdhenry said:


> The Comcast Roku app notwithstanding?


Comcast didn't share anything, they built a Roku app. They did not give Roku access to their service or any control over how the service is controlled or viewed.

For IPTV to work on a TiVo like QAM cable does the IPTV provider would have to give TiVo unrestricted access to their service and allow TiVo to control the streams and how the IPTV service works and looks on TiVos.


----------



## pdhenry

Who developed and owns the various streaming apps currently on a TiVo?


----------



## Dan203

The services they're for.

TiVo did provide assistance to the developers in some cases, like the Comcast VOD app, but all the of the recent ones were developed for the generic HTML5 platform and simply run on TiVo using the Opera browser.


----------



## Bigg

Verizon's QAM will be running for at least 10 years. They hate spending much money on FiOS, and they have no bandwidth incentive to shut QAM down. The only issue is that the channel lineup may end up frozen in time, but with the cable TV market the way it is, that may not matter much. My guess is that they install CableCard users on QAM, but don't issue new QAM-based equipment themselves.


----------

