1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

SDV FAQ

Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by bdraw, Jul 3, 2007.

  1. Aug 1, 2007 #161 of 2401
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    As well-meaning as folks might be, generally, it isn't clear that you should take anyone's word about what 98% of an industry will do in the future as gospel. Having said that, what is being asserted here is one of those "of course" pronouncements. Many folks with some significant insight into this issue is predicting, with very substantial levels of confidence, that analog will be history, on cable, by 2012 or 2013.

    One of the main reasons for the conversion to analog is to make room for more and enhanced services; more VOD; more HSI bandwidth; etc.
     
  2. Aug 1, 2007 #162 of 2401
    jrm01

    jrm01 New Member

    2,619
    0
    Oct 17, 2003
    Pittsburgh
    When they complete that conversion your "open" cable network will be even more open. :)
     
  3. Aug 1, 2007 #163 of 2401
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    Oops. I meant "conversion to digital" of course. :)
     
  4. Aug 1, 2007 #164 of 2401
    jblake

    jblake New Member

    340
    0
    Jan 24, 2002
    Birmingham, AL
    This may have already been asked and answered, what happens when every channel is requested at once in an SDV environment?
     
  5. Aug 1, 2007 #165 of 2401
    jrm01

    jrm01 New Member

    2,619
    0
    Oct 17, 2003
    Pittsburgh
    Yes, you're right. It has.

    It's kind of like designing a highway for rush hour traffic. What happens if everyone gets up at 6:30 and gets on the highway at 7:30 in the morning. It won't happen, so you don't design for it. You monitor the traffic flows and adjust accordingly.

    If the impossible happens for SDV, you don't get traffic jams and road rage, you get a message saying "We're sorry for the inconvenience, but the channel you have requested is not available at this time. Please try again later". Then "home rage".
     
  6. Aug 1, 2007 #166 of 2401
    jblake

    jblake New Member

    340
    0
    Jan 24, 2002
    Birmingham, AL
    Well, don't use that example because most roads are clogged daily around here :D

    If you have thousands of users on a node, serving hundreds of available channels, with half the capacity, the cable cos are setting themselves up for a very bad problem
     
  7. Aug 2, 2007 #167 of 2401
    DCIFRTHS

    DCIFRTHS I dumped SDV / cable

    2,119
    0
    Jan 6, 2000
    New York
    You are the only person who is right. We all know that. For the record, I couldn't care less what your opinion of me is.

    If you look back at the posts in this thread, your first contribution to it was directly below my post that contained the words cable and monopoly. It seems that you just do a search on these words, and then post you own pollution when you get a hit.
     
  8. Aug 2, 2007 #168 of 2401
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    Maybe if folks stop posting anti-business diatribes, I won't have the need to reply. No one is entitled an unrebutted soap-box to spread anti-business rhetoric, or anything else. You post a controversial message, like you have, and you had better expect a reply.

    For the record, my reply was not in reply to the message you linked to, but rather to your earlier message, #115.
     
  9. Aug 2, 2007 #169 of 2401
    DCIFRTHS

    DCIFRTHS I dumped SDV / cable

    2,119
    0
    Jan 6, 2000
    New York
    I am for competition being introduced into areas where the consumers only choices for Pay TV, and high speed internet, are the cable companies. Please tell me how this earns me the label of being "anti-business" and on a "soap-box".

    A reference to the post you are responding to can go a long way in helping the reader to understand what you are responding to. I expect no less from someone who doesn't like to read obfuscating posts.
     
  10. Aug 2, 2007 #170 of 2401
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    Tactics. The right way to support competition is to break down the barriers that keep new companies from building their own networks. One great example of this is the Massachusetts Cable Choice and Competition Act.

    Typically, when I don't include a quote, my intention is for my statements to stand on their own, even if in response to a specific message.
     
  11. Aug 2, 2007 #171 of 2401
    DCIFRTHS

    DCIFRTHS I dumped SDV / cable

    2,119
    0
    Jan 6, 2000
    New York
    Based on your statements, you obviously feel that the cable companies should NOT have access to the phone companies networks, and they should build their own.
     
  12. Aug 3, 2007 #172 of 2401
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    Absolutely. The Massachusetts Cable Choice and Competition Act will accelerate cable competition in Massachusetts. It will allow video providers to apply to the Department of Telecommunications and Energy for permission to offer cable TV service, rather than negotiate a license with each individual town - a lengthy process that delays competition. In addition to streamlining the process for new competitors, the bill will enable current cable providers to apply for licenses to expand their reach by entering new markets.
     
  13. Aug 3, 2007 #173 of 2401
    DCIFRTHS

    DCIFRTHS I dumped SDV / cable

    2,119
    0
    Jan 6, 2000
    New York
    Just so that I'm sure I understand what you are saying.

    Should the phone companies be required to allow access to any of their equipment? This includes the "last mile" of copper (or fiber) that is currently connected to most US businesses and residences.

    A yes or no answer would go a long way in helping me understand your point of view.
     
  14. Aug 3, 2007 #174 of 2401
    vman41

    vman41 Omega Consumer

    9,322
    9
    Jun 18, 2002
    The phone company wants to do cable, but will hypocritically lobby against the cable company being able to provide phone service. Vice versa for the cable companies WRT phone service.
     
  15. Aug 3, 2007 #175 of 2401
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    No, I'm saying that they should be required to allow access to NONE of their equipment, and similarly the cable companies should be required to allow access to NONE of their equipment. Each company should be able to build their own networks, without unreasonable interference with such competition.

    (Reasonable interference is, of course, okay. I really hated to add that sentence, but I suspect that if I didn't you'd almost surely have misread THIS message, just as you misread the previous message.)
     
  16. Aug 4, 2007 #176 of 2401
    DCIFRTHS

    DCIFRTHS I dumped SDV / cable

    2,119
    0
    Jan 6, 2000
    New York
    Do you consider pricing unreasonable interference?
     
  17. Aug 4, 2007 #177 of 2401
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    What do you mean?
     
  18. Aug 9, 2007 #178 of 2401
    MichaelK

    MichaelK New Member

    7,308
    0
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ
    I stumbled upon these 2 links with some interesting info on the subject:

    first one is Big Band networks ad for SDV- says they can get a cable company to 100HD channels in 90 days by going SDV. Has a nice primer on the subject- with a pretty color graphical explanation that really simplifies it for people who don't quite get what's going on:

    http://www.bigbandnet.com/index.php/rapid_switched_video.html?promotile=90-days

    second one is an interesting article from cable360 talking about how to respond to Directv's 150 HD channels. Has an interesting quote about HD and SDV:

    (bold added by me)

    can be found at this link:

    http://www.cable360.net/ct/strategy/businesscases/23790.html

    the cable360 article seems to imply that MPEG4 is the final answer (or part of the final answer)- try explaining that to the cablecard crowd though- maybe tivo's could handle it (assuming a standard was agreed upon that the tivo chipset could handle) but I'm guessing there's not a single TV with a cablecard slot with an MPEG4 decoder in it. Hec- probably not a single non-Tivo cablecard device with an mpeg4 decoder. (maybe a moxi?)
     
  19. Aug 12, 2007 #179 of 2401
    philipl411

    philipl411 New Member

    7
    0
    May 6, 2007
    So let me understand this, Since I am going to be moving to Austin, and TWC appears to be the only cable I can get, my series three tivo is going to be crippled?

    Tivo was well aware of SDV and made no option for a series three to work?
     
  20. Aug 13, 2007 #180 of 2401
    lrhorer

    lrhorer New Member

    6,922
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Another big reason is the FCC is requiring CATV operators to provide a la carte programming. 100% digital lineups are the only practical way to provide this.

    Why? It increases the number of channels the CATV provider can deliver almost without limit. Note SDV has been implemented here in San Antonio, but there is only 1 channel I don't get which I would like to get. In the rest I have no interest.

    Time Warner has been trying to get rid of their CATV holdings for some years. No one seems to want to buy at the price TW wants, and plans for an IPO fell through, but they're still looking for a way to get rid of non-core businesses. CATV is definitely non-core for Time Warner.

    Oh, a great deal more than that has been sunk into the issue, and a great deal more than that will be in the future.
     

Share This Page