CableWORLD Article - "MSOs can't afford to hope that first-gen DVRs will cut it" [Text View]

dt_dc

03-17-2006, 03:21 PM

maybe his Boss told him to focus on how to improve cable company offerings so that their client(s) would be happy to pay for the report :rolleyes:

look at how DBS was even treated as an outside groupMichael Grebb is a (fairly well-known) freelance writer (especially in the tech/telco area) and isn't trying to sell any report. His articles show up all over the place (Wired, Forbes, etc) including industry-specific (cable, telco, DBS, MVPD, whatever) publications.

The report is from the Carmel Group and Grebb was just using it to show a point (that cable DVRs currently enjoy a very large market share but many analysts expect offerings from telco and DBS to eat into that market share ... largely independant of standalone offerings).

And the article was written for a publication that specializes in the cable industry ... CableWORLD ... so yes, it's going to be geared towards people in the cable industry.

Beside the point ... but Grebb (IMO) is also one of the better tech/telecom freelancers ... who tends to actually have a pretty good understanding of what he's writing about (opposed to some of the other hacks who haven't a clue ... David Carnoy comes to mind).

dt_dc

03-17-2006, 03:34 PM

Somehow he forgot to mention that Comcast will offer TiVo software on some of its DVRs later this year.And why should he?

Tivo isn't a feature to cable ... Tivo is a vendor. Just another in a (very long line) of vendors.

Offering Tivo branded software isn't a feature either. It's offering pre-branded (vs. rebranded) software. Something cable deals with all the time ... but not unique to DVRs.

Another part of the Tivo deal ... offering a choice of interfaces. Well, that's also interesting but not unique to DVRs. And it's something that cable talks about frequently.

Cable talks in terms of commoditized check-marks ... and "offering Tivo software" isn't one of them.

interactiveTV

03-17-2006, 03:39 PM

maybe his Boss told him to focus on how to improve cable company offerings so that their client(s) would be happy to pay for the report :rolleyes:

look at how DBS was even treated as an outside group Yup. Must be it. Since Tivo wasn't mentioned that has to be the case. :rolleyes:

Or maybe flying monkeys told him to focus on cable? Or maybe...

Beyond silly comments about the date (it's probably the publication date and is common with print publication posted on the web but let's make hay out of it because, well it's fun) and possible conspiracy theories to sell a report to 5 cable companies -- now THAT'S a get rich quick scheme, the Panasonic product seems interesting. Also, not much Telco depolyment. I haven't been holding by breath for FIOS in NYC but projected uptick seems low.

For consumers, added features is a good thing. Now if only Blu Ray could actually launch on time..

_ITV

P.S. Thanks dt_dc for posting it.

ZeoTiVo

03-17-2006, 03:43 PM

And the article was written for a publication that specializes in the cable industry ... CableWORLD ... so yes, it's going to be geared towards people in the cable industry.

<non sarcastic - his boss told him turned off mode>
and that was all my point, that it was an article focused on cable DVRs.
Notice I did not say anything was wrong with the article, just that it had a cable company focus and should be read as such.
</non sarcastic - his boss told him turned off mode>

and the point is valid that due to competition from DBS and "other" competitors that the cable company DVR will have to improve. I agree 100%

Rob Helmerichs

03-17-2006, 03:47 PM

Well, dt, I'm not agreeing with the guy who criticized the article for not mentioning TiVo. But I'd have to say anybody who thinks TiVo isn't a feature doesn't know TiVo!

I know personally that the moment I can get a cable box with TiVo is the day I drop DirecTV once and for all...

It was an interesting article--frustratingly brief, though, I'd have liked to see more.

dt_dc

03-17-2006, 03:53 PM

Well, dt, I'm not agreeing with the guy who criticized the article for not mentioning TiVo. But I'd have to say anybody who thinks TiVo isn't a feature doesn't know TiVo!Like I said ... it's not a check-mark commoditized feature "to cable" (to the cable industry and executives at large) ...

davezatz

03-17-2006, 04:56 PM

Well, dt, I'm not agreeing with the guy who criticized the article for not mentioning TiVo. But I'd have to say anybody who thinks TiVo isn't a feature doesn't know TiVo!

Cable companies are also licensing Moxi and Microsoft... either of which are better than stock hardware vendor supplied software from what I've read. Just another vendor as dt_dc said.

dt_dc

03-17-2006, 05:00 PM

I know personally that the moment I can get a cable box with TiVo is the day I drop DirecTV once and for all...BTW, the "feature" that you're mentioning (again, to cable ... not neccesarily to you, me, and other TCF members) is not "Tivo" per se ... it's:
Brand recognition / loyalty

Which ... when you're talking about someone else's brand ... comes with its own set of advantages / disadvantages.

HDTiVo

03-17-2006, 05:08 PM

And why should he?

Tivo isn't a feature to cable ... Tivo is a vendor. Just another in a (very long line) of vendors.

Offering Tivo branded software isn't a feature either. It's offering pre-branded (vs. rebranded) software. Something cable deals with all the time ... but not unique to DVRs.

Another part of the Tivo deal ... offering a choice of interfaces. Well, that's also interesting but not unique to DVRs. And it's something that cable talks about frequently.

Cable talks in terms of commoditized check-marks ... and "offering Tivo software" isn't one of them.

The main theme of the article is that cable will have to offer DVRs with more features than their first generation ones. If TiVo software is not the most significant foreseeable addition, I don't know what could possibly be?

His most developed idea seems to be adding a bigger hard drive.

The "article" is laughably terse and incomplete. No self respecting person in the cable/sat/telco industry could possibly read that article and learn anything they didn't already know. Who is the audience?

MickeS

03-17-2006, 05:13 PM

The main theme of the article is that cable will have to offer DVRs with more features than their first generation ones. If TiVo software is not the most significant foreseeable addition, I don't know what could possibly be?

I think what dt_dc means is that TiVo is not a feature, it's a brand. You can't suggest to a cable provider that they should get the feature "TiVo". It doesn't mean anything.

Rob Helmerichs

03-17-2006, 05:17 PM

I think what dt_dc means is that TiVo is not a feature, it's a brand. You can't suggest to a cable provider that they should get the feature "TiVo". It doesn't mean anything.
It means a lot. The problem seems to be that cable providers don't know what it means.

MickeS

03-17-2006, 05:19 PM

It means a lot as a brand name. As a feature it means nothing.

HDTiVo

03-17-2006, 05:32 PM

I think what dt_dc means is that TiVo is not a feature, it's a brand. You can't suggest to a cable provider that they should get the feature "TiVo". It doesn't mean anything.
I don't understand, because that TiVo Brand software theoretically will offer right out the door ALL the FEATURES he suggested might be good ideas for Cable to add to their DVRs.

interactiveTV

03-17-2006, 07:10 PM

I don't understand, because that TiVo Brand software theoretically will offer right out the door ALL the FEATURES he suggested might be good ideas for Cable to add to their DVRs. Adding Tivo software adds drive capacity?

We also don't know what Tivo on a cable STB feature set looks like. MRV isn't set in stone either. If we're talking about Tivo the licensed software, it still has to run on the MOT or SFA boxes out there (Comcast).

And dt_dc is 100% right: Tivo is a brand. What features of Tivo S2 or S3 actually make it to what Comcast boxes is still unknown until it actually launches. We may just see intended features getting pulled at the last minute to make the year-end deadline (see Vista, etc).

Theoritically is the key word. Since we still have no idea and Tivo's demos are still closed door and the final feature set for Comcast is not yet announced, theory is all there is.

_ITV

HDTiVo

03-18-2006, 04:14 AM

From TiVo's 3Q 10Q:

9. COMCAST AGREEMENT

On March 15, 2005, the Company entered into a non-exclusive licensing and marketing agreement with Comcast STB Software DVR, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comcast Corporation, and Comcast Corporation, as guarantor of Comcast STB’s obligations under the agreement. Pursuant to this agreement, the Company has agreed to develop a TiVo-branded software solution for deployment on Comcast’s DVR platforms, which would enable any TiVo-specific DVR and networking features requested by Comcast, such as WishList ® searches, Season Pass™ recordings, home media features, and TiVoToGo™ transfers. In addition, the Company has agreed to develop an advertising management system for deployment on Comcast platforms to enable the provision of local and national advertising to Comcast subscribers.

gonzotek

03-18-2006, 07:25 AM

From TiVo's 3Q 10Q:I think it's the requested by and such as terms that justify iTV's statement. It's entirely possible the features mentioned are merely examples of what they can provide, and that Comcast will not be requesting one or all of them. I sincerely hope not, as our household would love to have to single STB with all the power of the moto hardware and the TiVo software, capable of OnDemand and PPV to boot.

HDTiVo

03-18-2006, 08:08 AM

I think it's the requested by and such as terms that justify iTV's statement. It's entirely possible the features mentioned are merely examples of what they can provide, and that Comcast will not be requesting one or all of them. I sincerely hope not, as our household would love to have to single STB with all the power of the moto hardware and the TiVo software, capable of OnDemand and PPV to boot.
In the context of discussing the article, everything is on the come; and the 10Q does expressly state that all the TiVo features are potentially available through cable software. Hauntingly similar to my saying 'theoretically' in the post in question.

I still don't understand the use of "brand" vs "feature" in the thread. No one pays extra for a Mercedes emblem on their Chevy; they pay for features they get in a Mercedes - and pay a premium price for those additional features because of the brand.

interactiveTV

03-18-2006, 08:13 AM

I think it's the requested by and such as terms that justify iTV's statement. It's entirely possible the features mentioned are merely examples of what they can provide, and that Comcast will not be requesting one or all of them. I sincerely hope not, as our household would love to have to single STB with all the power of the moto hardware and the TiVo software, capable of OnDemand and PPV to boot. Exactly. I expect Wishlist and Season Pass. I think MRV will be a toss-up that perhaps doesn't make it in the first go round or, possibly, only on certain STBs. We really don't know where KidZone development is either.

Comocast certainly wants the ad platform but anyone outside of Tivo and Comcast who knows what makes it in for the final launch at "year end 2006" which is still over 6 months away must have an amazing crystal ball and I want it.

If I were both parties, I'd go for stability first. MRV would need to use the coax network -- which Comcast STBs have ethernet on board or wireless networking? Would seem to pose a problem for TTG too. They have USB but then what? Networking drivers? Engineers can tell me better.

_ITV

gonzotek

03-18-2006, 08:32 AM

Exactly. I expect Wishlist and Season Pass. I think MRV will be a toss-up that perhaps doesn't make it in the first go round or, possibly, only on certain STBs. We really don't know where KidZone development is either.

Comocast certainly wants the ad platform but anyone outside of Tivo and Comcast who knows what makes it in for the final launch at "year end 2006" which is still over 6 months away must have an amazing crystal ball and I want it.

If I were both parties, I'd go for stability first. MRV would need to use the coax network -- which Comcast STBs have ethernet on board or wireless networking? Would seem to pose a problem for TTG too. They have USB but then what? Networking drivers? Engineers can tell me better.

_ITV
KidZone is coming much sooner than ComcasTivo, it must be in final testing now if they're planning a summer software update. KidZone is also something TiVo must be much more comfortable with, being only a software change to a hardware platform they are much more intimately familiar with. Or did you mean KidZone on the Comcast box?

The box that I understand they're initially targeting has usb, ethernet, and firewire ports all built in standard(and the last, by FCC requirement, must be enabled...that'll be interesting on the TiVo platform).
http://broadband.motorola.com/dvr/dct6412.asp
From a purely tech-specs POV, these boxes are drool-worthy.
They also have DOCSIS modems built in, but I don't know much about what Comcast (and/or TiVo on CC) does/will be doing with that. To my knowledge, only the 6412 is being developed for initially, with other platforms coming later.

So MRV wouldn't need to use the coax, although I guess it could be done that way.

marksman

03-18-2006, 11:51 AM

HDTiVo

03-18-2006, 12:06 PM

davezatz

03-18-2006, 12:12 PM

The meaning of the concept of StandAlone is muddied in the CableCard world.

Is a CC based TiVo still StandAlone? Are cable boxes integrated with "non-CableCard" features the only non-StandAlones? How does the definition change further from CC1.0 to CC2.0?

It's not muddied in my mind... a stand-alone unit is acquired independent of a cable company.

gonzotek

03-18-2006, 12:14 PM

Out of curiosity, why would anyone think that stand-alone dvrs would somehow be increasing in penetration in the next several years? Who is making any except TiVo? All other DVRs are tied to a service. It is likely a portion of current stand-alone TiVo owners will migrate to DVRs tied to services, and the new S3s, for example, will take their place. I don't think the stand-alone market is very significant for DVRs, especially moving forward. Not sure why TiVo is focused on it, to be honest.

People without cable or satellite are going to be the least likely people to buy a DVR.There are still a lot of analog cable customers and projections that they will remain a large group. An analog S2 TiVo, to go along with their analog TV, that provides "digital-like" capabilities (guide, everything else that we know makes TiVo nice, etc.), for less than the cableCo would charge for a similar feature-set (bump to the digital tier, then dvr fee) could be attractive. Attractive enough? I'm not qualified to offer an opinion, other than that is how I started with TiVo myself.

TiVo will, by sometime next year, have a satellite solution(albeit without any current corporate customers), integrated-cable-STB solution, standalone HD S3 solution, and 'lowest-common denominator' S2 solution to offer corporations and individuals. I don't know exactly how 'focused' TiVo is on any of these (other than a guess the DirecTiVo isn't high on the list).

HDTiVo

03-18-2006, 12:21 PM

It's not muddied in my mind... a stand-alone unit is acquired independent of a cable company.
In my mind StandAlone has negative connotations involving an additional box and less capabilities (ie. PPV/VOD) than the integrated Cable STB.

With CC, there is no additional box, and potentially no sacrifice of capabilities.

ChuckyBox

03-18-2006, 03:16 PM

Out of curiosity, why would anyone think that stand-alone dvrs would somehow be increasing in penetration in the next several years? Who is making any except TiVo?
The whole idea behind Cablecard is to allow consumers to have a choice in access devices. I don't have access to the Carmel group report, so I can't say how they categorized the DVR types, but the standalone numbers seem strangely low. TiVo intends to continue expansion in the analog world, and there are competing devices, from PC-based solutions to DVD recorders with hard drives. TiVo, Microsoft, LG/Microsoft, etc., all have designs on the digital market too, and one assumes we'll see a lot of innovation from them all. The idea that standalone DVR penetration will remain flat for the next four years is a bit suspect.

dt_dc

03-20-2006, 12:36 PM

I don't understand, because that TiVo Brand software theoretically will offer right out the door ALL the FEATURES he suggested might be good ideas for Cable to add to their DVRs.I dunno ... I wasn't invited to the secret back room at CES ...

Like I said in the first post ... it's an opinion piece. But, an interesting one because it's an opinion that you do NOT hear in cable very often (that spending $$$ to differentiate their DVR offering may be justified). To do more you'd have to prove that the additional spending is justified ...

There are lots of vendors ready, willing, and able to offer all the differentiated features mentioned (and much more). Cable so far just isn't willing to bite. Moto and SciAtl will happily stick any size hard-drive a cable operator requests in their DVRs. They will happily show you their multi-room and portability / convergance solutions. Heck, they even stick in differentiating features themselves for free that cable operators won't even spend the money to support (like adding a larger hard drive yourself ... it's there and working on my cable DVR ... call the cable company and the'll either tell you the external SATA port is "not supported" or "for future use and not enabled").

Cable just has not looked to differentiate themselves. They don't see the costs as justified ...

DVR:
Recording capability (check)
All-Episodes / Season Pass-like capability (check)
Trick-play (check)
HD (check)
Dual Tuner (check)

That's (about) it. That's what cable has been willing to spend actual $$$ on to date. Sure you hear lip-service about better features / functionality. You even get a few trials and deals and demos and such. But nothing actually significant. You don't need to offer the best / Tivo-like Season Pass functionality for example ... just something. Even something basic, flakey, and buggy ...

Basically ... offer the same basic common-denominator check-mark features as your competitors ... anything additional isn't a justified cost. Yes, these base-line features will grow and evolve. And yes, you'll have to keep up with your competitors and basic customer expectations (which tend to be much lower than TCF member expectations). But there's no need to go beyond and actually differentiate.

Anyway ... I find an opinion piece (even just an opinion piece) suggesting otherwise in a cable-oriented publication interesting. Since it is contrary to what conventional wisdom inside the cable industry has been to date.

Getting back to TivoI still don't understand the use of "brand" vs "feature" in the thread. No one pays extra for a Mercedes emblem on their Chevy; they pay for features they get in a Mercedes - and pay a premium price for those additional features because of the brand.If I could foresee why people buy what they do ...

But anyway ...

Some car models come with a premium 6 speaker sound system ... some offer a premium 6 speaker Bose audio system. Deciding whether offering a premium sound system, or not, standard, or as an upgrade, is different from deciding to offer a Bose speaker system (or not).

Many people buy based purely on features ... many make brand associations (which yes, in part, are based on features).

HDTiVo

03-20-2006, 03:21 PM

I hope the article stimulates some thinking in the industry about TiVo cable software being an easy way to add functionality.

interactiveTV

03-20-2006, 03:55 PM

I hope the article stimulates some thinking in the industry about TiVo cable software being an easy way to add functionality.Well, since we need to wait another 6 months or so, I'm not sure "easy" would be the term to use. Throw in we still don't know exactly what functionality makes it to the launched product (Comcast) or how well it will work and you've made quite the presumption.

I expect it to be pretty bug free but considering that development isn't done, the product hasn't been demoed in public, and we don't know how "easy" it all is -- for that one box -- I think the industry still needs to see not only how "easy" it is to add "functionality" (which?) but how profitable it is as well.

TWC in my city offers something like 6 different DVR STBs. I don't think any are the same model Comcast is launching with.

"Easy" -- I guess -- is in the eye of the beholder.

_ITV

HDTiVo

03-20-2006, 05:40 PM

Why Slingbox chose to go retail and not through Cable...

Keep on Slingin' in the Free World (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6317053)

By Staff -- Broadcasting & Cable, 3/20/2006 7:07:00 AM

The Slingbox, an innovative device that takes a viewer's home-television signal and streams it to the Internet to allow remote viewing on a PC, has come under fire from some broadcasters and programmers for enabling out-of-market viewing of their shows.

“Those devices scare the hell out of me,” said ESPN VP Bryan Burns, speaking at a Washington tech conference last week. But Sling Media CEO Blake Krikorian dismisses such criticism as “mostly sabre-rattling.”

Krikorian isn't afraid to choose his own path. He recalls that when he was seeking funding, venture capitalists advised him not to build a box, but instead partner with a large cable operator to test Slingbox's functionality.

Krikorian thought just the opposite. If he made a deal with a cable operator, he suspected, the cable company would require Sling Media to do extensive field trials that would drain it financially. So he forged on with his plan to build his own retail device.

Krikorian said he did meet with Comcast executives CEO Brian Roberts and COO Steve Burke just before the Slingbox's launch. They questioned the wisdom of going retail and wondered why he wouldn't partner with them instead. Krikorian replied that Comcast would expect him to do 24 months of field trials, which would bankrupt him.

Burke's tongue-in-cheek response: “That's absolutely not true. We can make it quick—we'll do it in 18 months.”

Let's hope its only 18 months for TiVo Software too. :eek:

HDTiVo

03-27-2006, 09:32 AM

Cablevision to test network DVR
By Reuters
http://news.com.com/Cablevision+to+test+network+DVR/2100-1034_3-6054120.html

Story last modified Mon Mar 27 05:57:05 PST 2006

Cable operator Cablevision Systems said on Monday it plans to introduce a video recording service as early as this year that aims to replace the living room digital video recorder.
Digital video recorders made by such companies as Cisco Systems' Scientific-Atlanta and TiVo allow subscribers to pause and rewind live television programs and store programs on hard drives included on their home set-top boxes. The Cablevision service, by contrast, will store such programs on its own systems.
Cablevision said the move is designed to cut the cost of installing and fixing digital video recorders, which are prone to malfunction.
It will operate over the existing cable systems through customers' current digital set top boxes. Though the company said it had not yet priced the service it expects cost-savings to be passed on to customers.
But it is unclear how programming networks, such as Viacom's MTV or Time Warner's CNN, will react to the move. They have bristled in the past at earlier cable industry plans to record shows on their systems before negotiating new broadcasting rights.
Cablevision Chief Operating Officer Tom Rutledge told Reuters the company had informed the networks of its plans.
"In every way, it's exactly the same product as (subscribers would) get with a physical hard disk digital video recorder," Rutledge said in an interview, defending the new service's legality.
Rutledge said nothing will be recorded on Cablevision's network unless the viewer orders it from the remote control--a subtle but important difference from other failed experiments.
Earlier controversies had centered on Time Warner's Maestro service, which proposed to let viewers order up just about any show that had been previously broadcasted as the shows would have been automatically stored on its network without any prompting by viewers.
Cable networks argued that the Maestro infringed on their copyrights, unless Time Warner planned to pay networks more for the privilege.
Maestro never launched. Time Warner reworked the idea and has since created a service it calls "Startover," which lets viewers who miss parts of a live program to start from the beginning if the show is still in progress.
Cablevision's new service, called RS-DVR (remote-storage digital video recorder), will be tested in its Long Island, N.Y., market for 60 days, and will require little more than a software download directly to set-top boxes.
Cablevision said it is likely to introduce the service to its estimated 2.1 million digital cable subscribers later this year.
The Bethpage, Long Island-based Cablevision's founders are no stranger to new concepts or controversy. Cablevision Chairman Charles Dolan created the premium channel cable industry when he co-founded the first pay cable network, HBO, in the 1970s.
"We think we're going to win, to the extent there is a legal fight over this," David Ellen, a Cablevision lawyer said. "We need to clarify people's misconception over this."

MickeS

03-27-2006, 12:54 PM

Personally, I hate the idea of networked DVR after using TiVoToGo a lot. I want to be able to copy a show I like over to the PC, to burn to DVD or convert or whatever. If it had been before TiVvoToGo, I might not have cared as much. :)

I wonder how much recording space they will give users? I assume that they won't need enormous amounts, since they can distribute one recording to many users. Hopefully they'll give the users virtually unlimited recording space... that would be the one benefit I could see with these "server-DVRs" vs "client-DVRs".

HDTiVo

03-27-2006, 01:07 PM

Personally, I hate the idea of networked DVR after using TiVoToGo a lot. I want to be able to copy a show I like over to the PC, to burn to DVD or convert or whatever. If it had been before TiVvoToGo, I might not have cared as much. :)

I wonder how much recording space they will give users? I assume that they won't need enormous amounts, since they can distribute one recording to many users. Hopefully they'll give the users virtually unlimited recording space... that would be the one benefit I could see with these "server-DVRs" vs "client-DVRs".
CNBC just reported 45hrs (didn't mention HD vs SD) at under $9.95/mo (which is their DVR charge)

MickeS

03-27-2006, 01:14 PM

Well, that's pretty far from unlimited. Wouldn't be surprised if they put a time-limit on how long recordings can be kept either.

But this probably looks good to many potential customers.

HDTiVo

03-27-2006, 01:42 PM

Well, that's pretty far from unlimited. Wouldn't be surprised if they put a time-limit on how long recordings can be kept either.

But this probably looks good to many potential customers.
I think its a low price and convenient way to get it. However the actual experience is probably going to be terrible unless the STB has some significant buffering in RAM to facilitate trick play.

dt_dc

03-27-2006, 01:59 PM

Personally, I hate the idea of networked DVR after using TiVoToGo a lot. I want to be able to copy a show I like over to the PC, to burn to DVD or convert or whatever. If it had been before TiVvoToGo, I might not have cared as much. :)There's nothing about an nDVR that inherently precludes transfers or burning or other functionality. There's nothing about a client-based DVR that inherently enables these funcitons.

Honestly ... the two have nothing to do with each other.I wonder how much recording space they will give users?Reports are that the initial trial will be for 80GB of space.I assume that they won't need enormous amounts, since they can distribute one recording to many users. Hopefully they'll give the users virtually unlimited recording space... that would be the one benefit I could see with these "server-DVRs" vs "client-DVRs".No ... to avoid potential copyright issues, every user will have their own copy of any recorded shows on the network. The big holdup on nPVR trials has not been technical ... it's been legal.Rutledge said if 100 people record a popular show such as ABC's Lost, an equal number of copies of Lost will be kept on Cablevision servers. Content can't be shared, in order to stay true to the copyright issue, Rutledge said.

Although that might seem like a waste of storage it's a small price to pay, Cablevision executives say.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6318967.htmlCablevision is trying to offer their nDVR service for all networks / channels ... without permission from the networks / channels. They have to be very, very careful about copyright issues.

MickeS

03-27-2006, 02:15 PM

There's nothing about an nDVR that inherently precludes transfers or burning or other functionality. There's nothing about a client-based DVR that inherently enables these funcitons.

OK, I odn't know exactly how they work - I assumed that since no data was kept on the client, there was no way to get the data from the client to a PC (the clients are said to be regular digital cable boxes, in the article). I guess if the box has a USB port, there could be software created to transfer a show to the PC from the main server, via the STB. Although I doubt they will offer this.

to avoid potential copyright issues, every user will have their own copy of any recorded shows on the network

That's really ridiculous, as if 100 copies of something, instead of one copy shared by 100 users, actually is any practical difference. They are all in the same location, with no way to move them or access them for the user. That's like saying that radio shouldn't be allowed to play songs from the same CD for multiple listeners...

HDTiVo

03-27-2006, 02:16 PM

dt_dc:

Do you think there is any practical legal distinction between an individually owned DVR recording shows and a leased (ie. from Cable Co.) DVR recording shows?

HDTiVo

03-27-2006, 02:19 PM

That's really ridiculous...
The ridiculous is always a factor in this stuff. :D

dt_dc

03-27-2006, 04:45 PM

OK, I odn't know exactly how they work - I assumed that since no data was kept on the client, there was no way to get the data from the client to a PC (the clients are said to be regular digital cable boxes, in the article). I guess if the box has a USB port, there could be software created to transfer a show to the PC from the main server, via the STB. Although I doubt they will offer this.My cable-provided DVR box has Ethernet ports, USB, Firewire ... several ways to get content to other devices. My cable-provided standard STB has Ethernet ports, USB, Firewire ... several ways to get content to other devices. No, my cable company doesn't provide the capability to easily get content off my client-based DVR ... and I wouldn't really expect them to do so for any nDVR product they offered either. However, this isn't due to anything unique to a nDVR solution. It's the exact same technical / legal / prioritization issues that keep them offering easy ways to move content from the client-based DVR.

It's just something cable isn't focused on providing right now.That's really ridiculous, as if 100 copies of something, instead of one copy shared by 100 users, actually is any practical difference. They are all in the same location, with no way to move them or access them for the user. That's like saying that radio shouldn't be allowed to play songs from the same CD for multiple listeners...Well, a radio station can't play any songs from a CD without the artist's permission. A radio station gets permission from the artist and/or pays royalty fees regardless of whether there's one listener or 100.

If Cablevision was willing to negotiate permission with the content owners it'd be a whole 'nother ball game. Basically ... whatever the content owners and Cablevision negotiated. Not doing so ... yes Cablevision is going to have to be (very) careful and potentially jump through some weird hoops ...

Another article ... Cablevision network-DVR will test Betamax ruling (from CED magazine):
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6319407.html

dt_dc

03-27-2006, 04:51 PM

Do you think there is any practical legal distinction between an individually owned DVR recording shows and a leased (ie. from Cable Co.) DVR recording shows?Yes, there's a difference.

The legal ramifications of that difference ... well that's what layers and courts are for ... if it ever gets to that ... which it almost never does / will ...

MickeS

03-27-2006, 05:42 PM

Well, a radio station can't play any songs from a CD without the artist's permission. A radio station gets permission from the artist and/or pays royalty fees regardless of whether there's one listener or 100.

Nobody needs an artist's permission to play their songs, they just need to pay the royalty, and as I understand it they don't pay more upfront for the music than anyone going into a store to get that same CD. Somehow I doubt that the networks get the programming for free from the studios, so I maintain that it's ridiculous (even if it's their right as spelled out in various laws and contracts) for them to prevent something that the broadcaster reasonable should be allowed to do. Especially when the practical difference in the end is zero.

interactiveTV

03-27-2006, 06:30 PM

Nobody needs an artist's permission to play their songs, they just need to pay the royalty, and as I understand it they don't pay more upfront for the music than anyone going into a store to get that same CD. I don't know where your information comes from.

You do need a license.

However, effectively, almost everything you want is covered by what ASCAP (or BMI or SESAC) has the license for. Technically, the radio statio pays ASCAP a flat fee and then ASCAP divides that fee based on the percentage of songs and distributes the royalties out.

Net radio is covered by a US Copyright agreement (soundexchange).

XM and Sirius both signed deals with ASCAP.

If you're really curious, here's how the ASCAP royalty formula works: http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/royalties.html

Somehow I doubt that the networks get the programming for free from the studios, so I maintain that it's ridiculous (even if it's their right as spelled out in various laws and contracts) for them to prevent something that the broadcaster reasonable should be allowed to do. Especially when the practical difference in the end is zero. They don't "get" the programming. Broadcasters purchase a LICENSE. That license is very specific (how many times a program may be broadcast within a set time period with no alterations, etc).

Now, do the MSOs, such as Cablevision, have the legal right to put the PVR on the other side of the head-end? Interesting question. Cablevision seems to have eliminated almost every variable except physical location (no shared storage, no "pre-recording" but a consumer must schedule it, etc). The only difference here seems the actual, physical location of the PVR.

In the end, we'll deal with "in the home" type language and issues but bottom line is Cablevision certainly made the legal arguement interesting. The PRODUCT doesn't seem too interesting to me because of lag issues but that skepticism might not be warranted if they figure it out. In terms of business model, there's no installation, no truck run, and it looks great but we still have legal and quality (lag, interface, etc) to deal with.

Practical differences aren't a legal standard and broadcasters don't "get" programming, they license it and MSOs contract with broadcasters (or cable) to transmit the signal.

_ITV

MickeS

03-27-2006, 10:07 PM

ITV, I was actually aware of what you're saying, I just didn't think I needed to go into detail about that. Of course they don't "get" the programming, if you mean they get a tape and can do whatever they want with it. I was just pointing out that the difference is zero between storing one or 100 copies of it, if it'll be used by 100 users, and that the cable company is getting screwed, for absolutely no good reason.

dt_dc

03-28-2006, 12:14 PM

Nobody needs an artist's permission to play their songs, they just need to pay the royalty, and as I understand it they don't pay more upfront for the music than anyone going into a store to get that same CD.Royalty fees are based on the exclusive right of the copyright holder for public performances and transmissions. Just because the artist has negotiated this to a recurd label who has negotiated with ASCAP / BMI / SESAC / whatever ... it's still (in theory) based on artist permission.Somehow I doubt that the networks get the programming for free from the studios, so I maintain that it's ridiculous (even if it's their right as spelled out in various laws and contracts) for them to prevent something that the broadcaster reasonable should be allowed to do. Especially when the practical difference in the end is zero.Ridiculous or not ... it's a legal grey area that Cablevision is trying to feel its way around.

Honestly, I think a legal argument could certainly be made that Cablevision doesn't need to jump through the hoops they are and still stay within copyright laws. Then again, I also think a legal argument could be made that even after doing what they are doing ... it's still copyright infringement. Cablevision obviosly has their opinion ... others will have theirs.

As to the networks ... if they start offering content on-demand or on iPods or in other time / space shifted ways ... they (typically) have to pay roaylty fees to the producers.

vman41

03-28-2006, 07:31 PM

I'm not sharing the content between 1000 users, I just using a compression algorithm with very very large dictionary entries :D

jmoak

03-28-2006, 08:02 PM

HDTiVo

03-28-2006, 08:15 PM

The whole transmission thing from the cable office to the end user sounds like a can of worms.

I'm going to leave that aside for a moment, though.

What's to stop a "TiYaVohoo.com" from setting up 57 MCEs and recording every channel, while immediately replicating each show recorded to thousands of "individual hard" drives on servers, with each HD dedicated to a subscriber who pays $7/mo? Only shows "requested" by a subscriber are replicated to the sub's HD. Each show is deleted from the MCE after replication. The subscriber can download/stream/whatever "their" copy to their PC/TiVo/DMR/whatever using the internet.

HDTiVo

03-28-2006, 08:21 PM

jmoak

03-28-2006, 08:29 PM

I'd like to see the networks evolve to the repeat broadcast the same content several times a week model of the cable networks; that would help make the DVR a virtual VOD box by virtue of allowing it to grab things you want "off the air" at various opportunities - without needing multiple tuners or boxes.Cool... Late nite repeats of popular shows that local broadcasters can still insert their commercials into.

I know we skip 'em, but I bet they'd still make the local channels more money than infomercials do, not to mention the overnite ad revenue that the networks are missing out on now.

Good idea!
:)

dt_dc

03-29-2006, 01:46 AM

here's another "MSO's Are A' Hoping" story

Time Warner's Rerun-O-Rama (http://www.fool.com/news/mft/2006/mft06032816.htm?source=eptyholnk303100&logvisit=y&npu=y&bounce=y&bounce2=y)
$10 a month for a rerun channel... hehehehehehe....
:)I was working on that story for my IPVOD thread, but I think the Fool got it wrong; its not a re-run channel/network, its re-run on demand.Yes, the Time Warner "Hits" channel / discussions is geared towards On Demand.
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsArticle.aspx?type=media&storyID=nN27268648

And don't think for a second that it and the Cablevision RS-DVR stories aren't related. MVPDs and networks are trying to figure out the VOD pricing model(s). Networks want more for VOD rights ... cable wants to pay less ... round and round ...

Put another way ...
But I highly doubt that the studios and programmers will let this go on very long without (...) at least seeking a compromise that will result in revenues for both parties.

Jeff Baumgartner, Editor in Chief, CED magazine and xOD Capsule

http://www.cedmagazine.com/toc-xod/2006/20060328.html

dt_dc

03-29-2006, 01:49 AM

What's to stop a "TiYaVohoo.com" from setting up 57 MCEs and recording every channel, while immediately replicating each show recorded to thousands of "individual hard" drives on servers, with each HD dedicated to a subscriber who pays $7/mo? Only shows "requested" by a subscriber are replicated to the sub's HD. Each show is deleted from the MCE after replication. The subscriber can download/stream/whatever "their" copy to their PC/TiVo/DMR/whatever using the internet.1) Cablevision's (and the NCTA's) lawyers are probably better than TiYaVohoo's lawyers ... especially since TiYaVohoo's lawyers would have to fight the network's lawyers and the NCTA's lawyers.

2) The more equivalent model would be that TiYaVohoo would have to set up one MCE box per subscriber and run coax from each subscriber's house to their own dedicated MCE box (with dedicated hard drive). In that case, I wouldn't think there's anything stopping TiYaVohoo (except economics).

3) If cable can't legally offer an nDVR, can they legally offer a client-based DVR? Say cable took their exact same client-DVRs in your living room and made a version that goes on the side of your house where the cable comes in ... is that OK? So what if they moved it up to the central node up the street? And finally ... up to their head end ...

4) Some more interesting examples might be ...

SlingDVR.com - Turn your Slingbox into a DVR by sending the video up to a central server and allowing you to view / download at your request later.

MyExtraDVRSpace.com - For $x per month gives you yGB of space and gives you tools to automatically upload / download content from your DVRs.

HDTiVo

03-29-2006, 06:48 AM

1) Cablevision's (and the NCTA's) lawyers are probably better than TiYaVohoo's lawyers ... especially since TiYaVohoo's lawyers would have to fight the network's lawyers and the NCTA's lawyers.

:eek:

2) The more equivalent model would be that TiYaVohoo would have to set up one MCE box per subscriber and run coax from each subscriber's house to their own dedicated MCE box (with dedicated hard drive). In that case, I wouldn't think there's anything stopping TiYaVohoo (except economics).

3) If cable can't legally offer an nDVR, can they legally offer a client-based DVR? Say cable took their exact same client-DVRs in your living room and made a version that goes on the side of your house where the cable comes in ... is that OK? So what if they moved it up to the central node up the street? And finally ... up to their head end ...

This is the thing I didn't go into earlier. In the cable example, sending the sub's recorded video down the cable pipe is quite similar to how the original network broadcast happend; ie. it went down the cable from the headend to the house as a digital channel. The Cable Co basically creates another channel, "private" to the sub, for the nDVR replay. The argument of the studios' lawyers might be that it is still a channel, travels over the same shared network as others' programming, and should fall under the same agreements with networks and regulations that regular channels follow.

It seems complicated for a Cable Co because of this nature to argue otherwise. A Telco might have a better chance with its switched network. TiYaVohoo doesn't have the baggage that comes with the legal/regulatory status of a Cable Co's network.

4) Some more interesting examples might be ...

SlingDVR.com - Turn your Slingbox into a DVR by sending the video up to a central server and allowing you to view / download at your request later.

MyExtraDVRSpace.com - For $x per month gives you yGB of space and gives you tools to automatically upload / download content from your DVRs.

These sound do-able, especially if the nDVR is OK. SlingDVR.com is further "advantaged" legally by the current "downres" nature of the product.

Also TiYaVohoo would have to take steps to only record what the sub actually gets via cable/sat/etal. and only record N things simultaneously, where N is what the sub could do itself. I assume the Cable nDVR does the same.

HDTiVo

03-29-2006, 07:06 AM

Wonder if the nDVR, or other remote (private) content usage will factor into today's hearing?

Digital Content Distribution Hearings Slated (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319854.html?display=Breaking+News)

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 3/28/2006 4:32:00 PM

The House Subcommittee on Commerce Trade and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing March 29 on digital video content distribution, followed by one the following day concentrating on digital audio.

The hearings will deal with the tension between protecting digital content--considered key to the switch to digital delivery--and the "fair use" rights of consumers

Witnesses for the hearing will be Blake Krikorian, CEO, Sling Media; John Feehery, EVP, Motion Picture Association of America; Jim Denney, VP, product marketing, TiVo; Stevan Mitchell, VP of IP policy, Entertainment Software Association.

"Those who create digital content have certain rights to protect their work while consumers have certain rights to 'fair use' of that digital content," said Subommittee Chairman Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) in announcing the hearings.

"The ease in transferring large files has made the theft of copyrighted works a major concern to the content industry. In these hearings, we will examine the intersection of the content industry with the consumer electronics industry."

Hearing Webcast (http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/03292006hearing1829/hearing.htm)

MickeS

03-29-2006, 10:39 AM

Wonder if the nDVR, or other remote (private) content usage will factor into today's hearing?

Since Krikorian is there, it would be odd if it didn't.

HDTiVo

03-30-2006, 10:23 AM

Coverage of yesterday's hearing...

Alternate TV Takes the Hill (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6320236.html?display=Breaking+News)

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 3/29/2006 10:45:00 AM

It was digital TV repurposing day on Capitol Hill as members of the House Commerce Subcommittee heard from executives from DVR maker TiVo and TV-on-computer company Sling Media (creator of the Slingbox).

The committee, which has held a series of hearings on fair use and digital rights management, said it wanted to hear about some of the content-delivery systems currently in use from the supply and consumer side as the Congress tries to balance fair use rights with content protection, which will happen either through legislation--to loosen or tighten copyright protections--or by spurring industry to reach a marketplace solution.

Sling Media CEO Blake Krikorian argued that his product represented "place shifting," a new phase in TV viewing that met the needs of an increasingly mobile populace for TV on other than their home reciever.

Jim Denney, VP, product marketing, for TiVo, played up the legislator-friendly KidZone aspect of his recorder, which allows parents to limit recording to family-friendly shows. He said his company was absolutely opposed to piracy, but said viewers must be able to make copies for personal use. He argued against any legislation, advocating for fair use and marketplace solutions to digital content protection.

Committee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) asked Krikorian whether his "place shifting" technology might not mean that a consumer would elect not to get cable in a second home by simply watching the TV in his first via the Slingbox, something that would not please the cable companies.

Krikorian said it was possible, but said that he thought, realistically, the second home would probably have a TV, like an HDTV, rather than rely on a computer or other device. Kirkorian said he felt the Slingbox was "additive," and that it would help make broadcasters more relevant in the fact of compeititon from other delivery systems. "It gives broadcasters a longer leash to reach more people in more places," he said.

Krikorian asked the committee to think about the "two guys or gals in a garage" and protect fair use, rather than forcing those innovators to have to clear some regulatory hurdle. He also called for broadcasters to push for open standards when they do deals to repurpose their content, saying letting one company, like Apple, control an interoperable standard, was not good for the market. Denney seconded that concern.

EE-Times coverage. (http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=184416953)