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

Supreme Court decsion may effect Tivo?

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by eboydog, Apr 21, 2014.

  1. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,029
    0
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    Interestingly enough, I hear very few people refer to their cable bill as "good value". Pretty much everyone is disgusted at the cost based on what they are actually receiving.
     
  2. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    19,159
    20
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    I would say mine is a good value compared to what it cost and the channels I had in the early 2000s with DirecTV. I pay 30% less now with FiOs than I did back then. Plus I have many more channels and many many times the number of HD channels that I had back then.

    There is no question it's a better value for me now than it was in the early 2000s
     
  3. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    The MSOs love network DVR. Everything is eventually moving to all VOD except for basically live events, and everything is moving to IP-based distribution. By putting it in the "cloud" the set tops they put in homes can be drastically cheaper than the boxes they put in homes today. Also, the storage requirements are drastically lower (the only need ONE copy of American idol instead of three million copies of it). Plus, they can insert their own ads, get better usage stats, prevent you from FF through ads, and most importantly of all, provide you with access to your recordings on any device (phone, tablet, computer, TV)
     
  4. lessd

    lessd Active Member

    7,695
    5
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    prevent you from FF through ads, That would be a killer for me, I would most likely go to all premium Ch. without ads.
     
  5. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    19,159
    20
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    But right now, the way the cloud DVRs work, is that they each have a separate recording for each DVR. They don't share recordings between people. I thought they found that it was illegal to share the recording anyway? Which was the reason that there were using individual recordings for each DVR.
     
  6. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Right, but eventually they'll get to the "utopia" of one recording for everyone. They just have to work out the licensing, which the programmers will want to do in order to get things like no fast forward through commercials. Cablevision got sued because they didn't ask for permission first.

    Eventually non-live events will just be VOD, and they'll just be made available for viewing at a predetermined time. There won't even be any recording involved.
     
  7. HerronScott

    HerronScott Active Member

    2,748
    19
    Jan 1, 2002
    Staunton, VA
    My guess is that they are still using deduplication on the backend SAN which would roughly achieve the same space savings but let each user still have their own "copy".

    Scott
     
  8. kdmorse

    kdmorse Active Member

    5,031
    7
    Jan 29, 2001
    Germantown, MD
    Logical baby steps towards the desired goal of one copy.

    First, you have one copy per consumer. Argue it's no different than if the consumer recorded it. Get folks used to that idea.

    Then, you happen to store them on a storage medium that does dynamic deduplication. It's logically the same as storing separate copies, the disk is just smart enough to detect and merge duplicate data into references. Get folks used to that idea.

    Then after some time, you change your architecture to simply save one copy. It's logically the same as saving multiple copies on deduplicating storage. And you've snuck your way across the finish line.

    How the model eventually works out bandwidth wise (+/-) I have no idea. I've read too many disparate analysis's, both here and elsewhere to have an opinion on which is right. But the storage side is absolutely obtainable over the next decade as long as it's done in baby steps.
     
  9. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,029
    0
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    If anything the networks and cable companies have shown they DON'T want to allow access across devices. They have discriminated based on device. I can't access HBO or Showtime on Roku just because Comcast chooses not to allow it. I have to assume Comcast extorted money out of other companies and Roku wouldn't pay up. There is no reason whatsoever not to allow it, other than Comcast wants to be a D***.

    The networks have engaged in the same practices by not allowing network owned Hulu to be viewed on mobile browser even though there is no technical limitation.
     
  10. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Well, obviously they will make you pay for it, but that doesn't mean it won't be an option or that the architecture to allow that to happen isn't where they're headed.
     
  11. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    If you pay a bill for teevee that you don't think is a good value, you're crazy.

    People love to complain. Talk is cheap; gauge people's true feelings by their actions.
     
  12. unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,387
    2
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    Considering that people are only averaging watching 17 channels out of the 100 or more they receive, I think they're mostly disgusted with having to pay for all the others.
     
  13. lessd

    lessd Active Member

    7,695
    5
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    I find it hard to tell, with triple play, what I pay for each service, my package starts at $139 inc HBO STZ and 100Mb/s internet. With a 2nd full tel line and 4 cable cards and all extra taxes etc. the total cost does come out to $190/month. I was paying ATT about $89 for both my land lines when I switched to Comcast many years ago.
     
  14. unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,387
    2
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    I'm pretty sure that's absolutely intentional on their part.
     
  15. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,029
    0
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
  16. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    19,159
    20
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    On FiOS it's written down on your monthly bill. There is no confusion what each product costs with the triple or quadruple play. Since they specifically break out the costs for you after showing what your bundle price is. Then they apply any discounts you have. Of course it didn't used to be this way. But it's been this way for awhile now.
     
  17. lessd

    lessd Active Member

    7,695
    5
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    Comcast does not do that but I would guess the discount depends on you getting the triple play.
     
  18. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    Which is, of course, irrational, on two levels. If 17 channels are worth $X, then surely 117 channels are worth $X (along with the fact that if neither is worth $X then of course they wouldn't be paying for cable).

    No. It doesn't. That's the point. The decrease is so slight that it is best for the industry to keep things as they are. I suspect that subscriptions would have to decrease by at least 1% to even be worthy of being discussed (the decrease is far less than that), and even then it would have to be apart from any migration to a higher cost broadband plan.

    Furthermore, remember that much of the packaging is imposed by the content distributors: "You must carry X Y and Z on the basic package if you want to offer A." So that won't change unless people cutting the cord actually stop watching A (the valuable channel, i.e., ESPN). If people get the channels through some other means, where the distributor gets roughly the same amount for A that they got for X Y Z and A through cable, it's fine by them.
     
  19. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    19,159
    20
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    A very, very large percentage of people already don't watch ESPN. Those are the people that subsidize the cost. I know personally I would love to get rid of all the extraneous ESPN Channels. I only only ever watch the main one and that is only a few times a year during football.
     
  20. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,417
    3
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Usually stuff is re-run. I suppose on a rare occasion it could be useful for that.

    That's the problem. Many VOD streams already are no-FF. And they also control when the show is available, and for how long. With TiVo, it's whenever I want it to be.

    Unlikely that it would work very well.
     

Share This Page