Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by bdraw, Jul 3, 2007.
I'd check the regulation again vstone. Those tenets are specific.
Some few might not charge anything for them at all. Some providers don't charge for the use CableCARDs.
I forget about you true TiVo freaks who own 3 or 4 or more HD TiVos . I wouldn't be happy with paying more than $4/month for one, even for my single TiVo, given that I'd expect all of that to become pure gravy for the cable providers in significantly short of a year. They shouldn't lease for anything more than 1/12th of the per-unit quantity pricing. Hopefully it costs no more than a CableCARD and they allow self-install with mail-delivery .
... and SDV is just another opportunity.
I think the history of monopolies in general, cable companies specifically, and in particular my cable provider, Cablevision, is that what they charge for a service or device bears little in relation to their marginal cost and much closer to exercising monopoly profit. I can agree with you completely that the Tuning Adapter might represent to cable a low cost alternative to some high cost product standardization and development, and yet their history has made me worry that this reasonable internal strategic decision to develop the Adaptor is not indicative of a change of heart of how they view profiting on forced hardware leasing and what they think of their existing customers.
Does anyone really know what the digital STBs cost in bulk? CableCARDS? Guess at these new Tuning Adaptors ($30)? I think they pull in an annual 30 to 50% ROA (Return on Assets), before you consider the effects of the leverage they can use (which increases their internal ROI (Return on Investment). That is they are heavily Debt financed, and they can probably take advantage of some sort of lease financing arrangements from the Cisco's of the world (and their other providers) for their hardware needs. We can be sure they aren't going to let me buy any of these items seperately and lose their collective revenue streams.
While the content I subscribe to has increased in both volume (more stations) and quality (digital, 5.1 audio, HiDef), the cost of it has risen far faster. I've gone from about $17/month to $73/month in about 11 years as a customer. Yes, their content costs more to them, but I'm pretty sure they've more than passed those increases to me.
And I'm already paying about $12-$13/month just so my 2 TiVo's can access then content that I already pay for by leasing Cable's hardware! And if you saw how their STB (SciAtl 4250) slows down my Series 2 TiVo, you'd understand that they can and do interfere with the quality of the TiVo user experience.
So, I remain concerned about anywhere from 1 to 3 Tuning Adapter's costs to me just so I can continue to access the content I already pay for.
All this is before we consider the marketing opportunity of persuading customers to shift to the more expensive digital service tier at the same time, or persuading others to lease more hardware for the same service.
Again, I don't think that they'll charge much for the Tuning Adapter for reasons that I've already stated, being not that they wouldn't want to reap great profits on a small investment--every business would like to--but because their entire reason for introducing the TA is political and introducing it and charging a lot for it will defeat that purpose completely. Since nothing in your post addresses that point, which is most of my case for believing that the TA will be inexpensive, I don't have anything further to argue, but I'll recap my position anyway.
They don't have to introduce the Tuning Adapter, but if they weren't doing something like this the FCC would almost certainly order them to implement the consumer electronic industry's proposed DCR+ solution, which they don't want to do for a multitude of reasons (one of those being that it will cost them far more than giving away Tuning Adapters to their subs who need them). They could have made their Tuning Adapter counter-proposal to DCR+ and waited for the FCC to choose, but they didn't--they went ahead and developed it and are going to make it available to their subscribers (with at least TiVo adapting a product to use it) before the FCC renders their decision on the matter. To this point, it seems like a generous and surprisingly cooperative gesture, which would be ruined by any attempt to charge some unreasonably large amount for TAs. If they overcharge, both consumers and the electronics industry will cry bloody murder and the FCC will listen. Offering this thing and trying to charge any significant part of the cost of leasing a box for it fails to address the problem caused by SDV.
You're obviously free to disregard my thinking and believe what you want. There's nothing you and I or anyone else can do about it, in any case, at least until after they start offering the device (when we could possibly organize to protest the cost, if indeed it's unreasonable). If you want to sit around and spend your time impotently worrying about being charged a large amount for Tuning Adapters, don't let me stand in your way. Enjoy.
Well said. Really, if things are so horrible with the cable provider, switch to DirecTV or Dish Network, or switch to renting DVDs from Netflix or Blockbuster. Not to mention RCN, FiOS, U-verse, etc. where available. There are so many options available that competition alone, effective in every municipality in the United States, precludes an inappropriately high charge for anything cable television offers.
Fixed your statement to be more accurate. See bolded area. Often there is no non-cable option other than satellite, and unless I'm missing something TiVo S3/HD cannot be used with DirecTV, nor with Dish, though for some reason they're specifically now advertising their own DVR as "Better than TiVo!" No joke.
No, you distorted my statement into an erroneous one, and STILL attributed it to me. Please go back and fix the quote, either making it say what I wrote, or changing the attribution so it shows that you said it.
There is competition for video service providers in every municipality in the United States, without exception.
Which has nothing to do with the competitive marketplace. If you choose to limit yourself to using a TiVo that is your personal choice.
Given that this is an SDV FAQ, and the cable STB/DVR can get SDV signals, I believe that it is a valid point to consider Tivo DVRs for this purpose.
Your original quote said that " . .competition alone, effective in every municipality in the United States, precludes an inappropriately high charge for anything cable television offers."
Really, EVERY municipality?
I think that's a bit of a stretch.
I remember my parents living in a certain area of Colorado could only get cable (due to the geographic location satellite was out unless you happened to live in a very specific area that was up high enough to clear the mountains). Their BASIC "lifeline" cable was $50/month!
Only with regard to the TiVo interoperability, not with regard to competition that affects service pricing.
Yes. Otherwise, the government would treat cable companies differently, with regard to services other than lifeline cable.
There's an asterisk on those advertisements--it's a reference to CNET's Dish Network ViP622 HD DVR review which states:
They do go on further to say:
Your original quote was: There are so many options available that competition alone, effective in every municipality in the United States, precludes an inappropriately high charge for anything cable television offers.
This is inaccurate. I live in a market that essentially has one option for local programming -- Comcast. I can move to Dish or DirecTv, which I had for a couple of years, but I will still need to subscribe to Comcast for all locals except CBS (which is the only local we receive reliably OTA). Since we're number 159 on the DMA chart, neither Dish nor DirecTv will be offering locals via satellite. FIOS isn't available, nor will it be in the foreseeable future according to Verizon. I doubt that Wheeling, WV is the only market like this; much like an earlier poster, I find your assertion to be misinformed and just plain wrong. While the situation may meet whatever trumped up political definition of de jure competition is being used, de facto cable tv monopolies do in fact exist to the detriment of the consumer.
You're totally right. I need to find a TiVo forum instead of polluting this forum for...what is it again?
No, it is completely accurate.
Give me your zip code before you continue. I want to know exactly how much it would cost you to get lifeline cable, there, before we argue about the particulars.
Here, incidentally, it is $8.50 per month, total.
We live in a society of laws, and the fact that we don't like the ramifications of our legal and judicial systems doesn't mean they're anything less than the reality.
This is a TiVo forum. However, the issue was cost of service, and the cost of service is not just affected by people who have TiVo. Indeed, TiVo has very little impact on the cost of service, because there are so few people with TiVo. The US Constitution does not grant a right to TiVo. TiVo must always be considered in the context of the total environment. Blinders don't help you see the reality any more clearly.
Now that right there is an argument, I tell ya what!
The silliness of some of the participants in this thread is hilarious to behold.
Not at my house you can't. It's the HD channel I miss most.
You should send me your contact # and I can get that fixed. It is definitely available to cablecards.
That that is the beauty of a community!
The zip is 26003. As of a couple of years ago, it was $14.00/mo for lifeline; according to Comcast's website, it's now $15 /month for basic cable. To receive locals in HD with guide data, which needs to be factored in to make this apples to apples, it is an additional $5 per box.
Please don't attempt to address me as if I were an elementary school student. I have an MBA and a very firm understanding of the political, legal, and judicial systems.
Reality is what we make it. Right now for this particular matter, reality is being defined by the influence that a very strong lobby has on politicians (including judges) who don't have the technical acumen or desire (both in many cases) to fully understand the issues involved. The reality is that the more power we allow the monopolistic cable companies (yes, they do have de facto monopolies in several areas of the country; if you don't understand what that means, look it up), the less leverage with regard to what we can buy for our entertainment dollars.
Continue to trump how this is just the reality that we need to accept, and stand by to see more of your options go away. Think I am being too much of an alarmist? Look into some of the recent trends of Comcast and TWC experimenting with charging Internet fees based on usage tiers. These companies look for those affected to remain as lemmings; without the people speaking out, these companies will remain the only ones with leverage.
Oh, this is going to get good. Buckle up and enjoy the interaction...