CEA mentions TCF in FCC filing

[winpitt]

You think this is a bad thing? If so, why? I see it as a good thing. A more "neutral" version is good for the consumer. Why would anyone buy a box that displays the same interface as the cable company box? There would be no value added to the third party box, no market for it, and therefore no incentive to build it.

From my own experience, and from what others have said, many do make it hard to get a CableCARD. I had a salesman tell me that the S3 wasn't worth purchasing because it used CableCARDS. "Too much of a hassle to deal with all of that, and they usually don't work." he said. Let's face it, at the very least, the use of CableCARDS is discouraged.

Sometimes it's best to keep both feet behind the line because when that one toe crosses over, you can't complain that your foot gets blown off. Maybe a good spankin' is what the cable companies need :eek:

I think it's a bad thing, and so would you if you didn't want to "buy" a device - like the majority of consumers do not want to "buy" a device. MANY people are extremely happy that they can now get reasonably priced DVR service from their MSO with no upfront cost, no obligation and low monthly rates. You would eliminate that. You are taking your own personal desires and attempting to legislate the entire country with them. That's just selfish.

You say a "salesman" discouraged the S3 and cablecard. Was it a cableco salesman? If not, why are you blaming the MSOs for somebody else simply saying that CC is a pain in the rear? If so, why do you blame the MSO for not liking the support issue?

Here's a great question: I'd challenge somebody to tell me that the S3 (like any other new product) doesn't have software bugs. Some of those bugs are completely unrelated to CC, and only related to TiVo software/hardware. Yet, the cableco is in many cases being forced to be involved in the support process - at their own cost. Why is that right - except for the obvious reason that we want our S3s to work I mean? If somebody is going to state that no MSO is having to support S3 related defects at their own cost, step up and do so. Otherwise, please explain why they should eat the costs.

I'd like to ask what kind of business you're in? I ask that because it seems to me that you're applying a far different standard to the MSOs than you would allow for yourself. I certainly wouldn't tolerate your logic in my business. I would frankly tell you to move on and find another company willing to sell their soul.

[winpitt]

Currently I have one cable provider I can use at my house, currently they offer me one choice in a DVR and I do not even get a say in the size of the hard drive. It is utterly absurd to say that being limited to that one choice is best for the consumers. Lets not even get started on the UI and season passes, etc..

And why is that choice absurd? Do you think you should have a choice in every single consumer product? No matter the cost? Not whether or not you should purchase it, but that there should be mandatory different versions? Why? I don't see any such constitutional requirement. Perhaps I should force my local municipal weekly newspaper to deliver content on the web. After all, I don't like the fact that I need to handle their low quality paper material. Should I demand a law to force them to deliver that way? In a manner that I can receive the content through a provider of my choice? Perhaps ALL newspapers should be forced to do so at their own cost. But then I suppose we'd have to block delivery of foreign newspapers since they can't be forced to comply.

You currently have one provider because no other provider wants to compete. Partially because profit margins are so darned low in this area. This used to be a high profit industry but is far from that now.

In other words, you want mandated technology to be enforced by the government at the expense of the provider so you can have freedom of choice.

Very interesting debate subject. I can't even figure out whether that's socialism, communism, or simply a dictatorship. It's most certainly not capitalism.

[Brainiac 5]

You currently have one provider because no other provider wants to compete. Partially because profit margins are so darned low in this area. This used to be a high profit industry but is far from that now.In the past, I don't think it was practical for another provider to compete in most markets. One company could lay cable in a given area and pay for it with the revenues they got from having 100% of the cable subscribers there. Two companies laying cable in the same area would have all the expenses of that scenario but would split the customers/revenue between them, making it a lot more difficult to be profitable. I think the reason we're seeing multiple cable companies in more places now is that the same company can now offer phone, internet, and cable, making things more profitable - previously, at least phone and cable were already pofitable enough on their own to pay for the infrastructure.

(I should also note, it is not enough for another provider to "want to compete." They have to get permission from the franchise authority in order to offer service.)

As for profit, I'm not an expert, but I took a look at Comcast's most recent earnings statement (I picked Comcast because they're my cable company :) ). Their net income from continuing operations so far this year is 1.806 billion vs. 0.721 billion for the same time last year. Where do you read that profit margins are down? I admit that I'm not very familiar with the subject, but I hadn't gotten that impression from the things I'd read.

In other words, you want mandated technology to be enforced by the government at the expense of the provider so you can have freedom of choice.I can't speak for the other poster, but for me, the answer is yes. The expense to the provider is part of the cost of being in this business.

The government mandates all kinds of technology - for instance, for copy protection; I don't think that's going to go away.

Very interesting debate subject. I can't even figure out whether that's socialism, communism, or simply a dictatorship. It's most certainly not capitalism.I'm in favor of capitalism, but it doesn't solve all problems, which is why we don't have pure capitalism in the United States. We have a minimum wage, we constrain monopolies, and yes, we regulate things like cable television. The local government grants certain companies the right to offer cable television, and in return, they must abide by rules that are decided by the government.

[classicsat]

The government mandates all kinds of technology - for instance, for copy protection; I don't think that's going to go away.

DRM is there to protect the interests of the rightsholders first, the uesers of the equipment and content last.

Cablecard is the other way round, it is the public, and secondly the CE industry's interest first, the content provider second.

[ZeoTiVo]

And why is that choice absurd? Do you think you should have a choice in every single consumer product? No matter the cost? Not whether or not you should purchase it, but that there should be mandatory different versions? Why? I don't see any such constitutional requirement. Perhaps I should force my local municipal weekly newspaper to deliver content on the web. After all, I don't like the fact that I need to handle their low quality paper material. .

man you just keep blowing that same note on the trumpet don't you:)

Last time I checked, anyone had access to the content that is the news and you may perhaps have noticed all the sites related to news on the web- certain information is decidely better presented on the web and of course up to the minute details are there. Still I do not want to use the bathroom in the morning with a laptop. the morning print paper is just fine there. I find HUGE benefit in having access to both forms. If regualtory rules made it hard for anyone but one entity to provide the news then yes- I would want rules to keep them innovating in delivery method. Fortunately many towns have 3 local news programs, two newspapers and access to many national outlets. The open access to the news content has provided for good competition and thus regualr and timely innovations in the methods of delivery. I the consumer comes out ahead.

As has been stated to you many times - we do not have that withe local cable company. They get a franchise and for years did not have to compete and stagnated on a clunky STB while they came up with ways to sell more content via premium channels or PPV of 3rd rate content. Then Sat. suddenly became a competitor - now we have DVRs and much better PPV content and HD cvoming along. Competition moved things along again.

TiVo could not get a phone call returned until DirectTV saw a competitive angle and then Comcast saw the light as a way to snag Sat providers. I think the patent suit and the knowledge that Cable card was slowly making progress as impetus for TiVo to get more direct cable deals. Consumers will benefit from that open competition for what box is used to gather the coming media content choices. Ypou can keep going on about overhead costs of the very standard that MSOs came up with but it is just making me laugh now. Consumers will benefit from an open access standard as everyone will have to compete to be that box. Hell Sony might come and make this product and board a wasteland for all we know but if it was because open access let them market a better product that people flocked too then so be it.

closed access = little incentive for STB innovation
open access = competition which always = faster innovation

innovation = good for consumers

[PPC1]

You are quite wrong. Cablecos do NOT have government protected monopolies. By law, every franchise agreement is non-exclusive. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever preventing anyone who wants to from entering any market. Except financial logic of course. Not to be disrespectful, but your entire foundation for your argument is based on that monopoly idea, and the fact that it's blatently incorrect destroys the rest of your point.



First off, no disrespect taken-- this is all fair debate, and obviously none was intended as a personal attack.

Second, you are correct, at least to the extent that the federal regulations (as well as the local franchising statutes in my area) pay lip service to the concept of non-exclusivity, so let me be a little more precise. Cable companies (as well as all utilities) have had a "technical monopoly." (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) by virtue of the inherint costs and practical considerations associated with running cable from the head end to each consumer's home. This monopoly power has been one foundation for the historic justification for government regulation of utilities. So the regulations come down, ostensibly to "protect the public" from this monopoly power. In the cable industry, we see "franchise" agreements, whereby cable companies have to get the approval from the local franchise authority to offer cable in any given geographical territory. Yes, I admit, the laws claim that franchises are to be non-exclusive, and in theory, anyone that wants to compete can apply for a franchise. But the hoops companies have to jump through to get a franchise have the effect of increasing even higher the barrier for other companies to compete in a particular geographic region, and thereby protecting through government action the natural monopoly of the existing cable company. Thus, while the government may not have created the monopoly, there clearly is government protection of the market of existing cable company monopoly. You can't seriously think that the franchise system is not inherintly restrictive of competition-- that's the whole point of requiring a franchise-- to restrict entry into the market place to only those companies that choose to, and of course, are able to meet what ever hoops the local franchise wants to set up. That gives a tremendous advantage to the encumbent cable company.

So, while it is true that the regs give lip service to "non-exclusivity" that does not equtate to the proposition that the governent does not protect the cable monopoly of the local MSO.

Example: Our franchise has been actively seeking Verizon business, but they have refrained because they think they can get a better deal if some new legislation is passed. That is in fact the opposite of the government mandating a monopoly or protecting one. It's business - pure and simple.



This example does not prove your point. It actually supports the point that I make above. Verizon doesn't want to jump through your franchise's hoops, so they choose not to compete in your area. Your franchise authority (perhaps unwittingly) has further helped protect the regional monopoly of your local cable company. It may be "business- pure and simple" to avoid competing in an area that is not economically advantageous due to government regulation, but that is not the same thing as a free market.

[DCIFRTHS]

Uh, No. Cablelabs only certifies the initial device - not subsequent firmware updates or hardware revisions.

I think you are wrong on this one. Maybe someone that knows for sure can chime in.


Further, the 3rd party manufacturer does not pay for the support provided by the MSO.

Huh?




Finally, you would rely on what 3rd party device manufacturers say to determine MSO compliance? Hmmm. I'm still waiting on my firmware update from Toshiba.

If I purchased a product from a CE company, and they didn't support it, I wouldn't buy from them again. Unfortunately, your particular situation sucks.

[DCIFRTHS]

I think it's a bad thing, and so would you if you didn't want to "buy" a device - like the majority of consumers do not want to "buy" a device. MANY people are extremely happy that they can now get reasonably priced DVR service from their MSO with no upfront cost, no obligation and low monthly rates. You would eliminate that. You are taking your own personal desires and attempting to legislate the entire country with them. That's just selfish.

Why would opening up the technology to third parties stop your cable provider from leasing you a box just as they always have? Are you saying cost is the issue? If so, then your desire for no price increase is an attempt at stopping technology and innovation from moving forward. Now that's selfish.

You say a "salesman" discouraged the S3 and cablecard. Was it a cableco salesman?

It was a salesman in Best Buy. The only motivation I see for him discouraging a sale is that he was speaking from an experience he had, or from things he has heard. I can't remember the last time a salesman discouraged an $800.00 sale.

If not, why are you blaming the MSOs for somebody else simply saying that CC is a pain in the rear? If so, why do you blame the MSO for not liking the support issue?

There's no way to deny that the cable industry, as a whole, has made it difficult for the consumer, to rent, and get information on CableCARDS. Who else would I blame? TiVo? Toshiba? Panasonic? SONY?


Here's a great question: I'd challenge somebody to tell me that the S3 (like any other new product) doesn't have software bugs. Some of those bugs are completely unrelated to CC, and only related to TiVo software/hardware. Yet, the cableco is in many cases being forced to be involved in the support process - at their own cost. Why is that right - except for the obvious reason that we want our S3s to work I mean? If somebody is going to state that no MSO is having to support S3 related defects at their own cost, step up and do so. Otherwise, please explain why they should eat the costs.

I was forced to pay over $40.00 dollars for the installation of my CableCARDS. I could have done it myself. I am paying for the support I get from my cable company.

I'd like to ask what kind of business you're in? I ask that because it seems to me that you're applying a far different standard to the MSOs than you would allow for yourself. I certainly wouldn't tolerate your logic in my business. I would frankly tell you to move on and find another company willing to sell their soul.

The cable companies are tying to protect their interests, and I am not saying they are wrong for that. I would do the same if I were a cable company. As an example, if my child committed an unspeakable act against another human being, I would still defend them to the end. Would I be right? Since this is my child, yes. Would this benefit society and the victim, no. We all do what's in our best interest. Is that your point? If it is, then your argument is based on having some connection, whether it's direct or because you work in a company that is the same position the cable companies are...or you could just be sympathetic to monopolies.

[dt_dc]

Uh, No. Cablelabs only certifies the initial device - not subsequent firmware updates or hardware revisions.I think you are wrong on this one. Maybe someone that knows for sure can chime in.Technically CableLabs doesn't "Certify" any UDCPs (Unidirectional Digital Cable Products). They do "Verify" them. They run them against a test-suite that was developed / negotiated by cable and CE companies.

However, once a company goes through this process with CableLabs once ... they can self-verify UDCPs. Ie, they can run a UDCP against the test suite themselves and send CableLabs a letter and get their keys. They don't ever have to go through the CableLabs verification process again. CableLabs certainly doesn't 'certify' any future hardware / firmware revisions.

In fact, the S3 was self-verified by Tivo. The TCD648250A was verified by CableLabs. But the S3 as released (TCD648250B) was self-verified by Tivo. It was never verified, certified, tested, or even looked at by CableLabs.http://www.cablelabs.com/downloads/CertificationDefinitions.pdf

“Verified” Label Label
• “Verified” means that the OpenCable Unidirectional Digital Cable Product (UDCP) has been tested against the Joint Test Suite (JTS).
• “Verified” applies only to UDCPs (Unidirectional Digital Cable Product) tested against the JTS. The JTS is a technical document resulting from compromise and negotiation
• Verified devices have not been tested against any CableLabs Specifications.
• Once verified, a manufacturer may ‘self-verify’ additional UDCPs:
– Self-verification relates to common platforms or models of previously verified UDCP devices
– Self-verified products are not subject to independent verification or testing by CableLabshttp://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/OC_PNP.pdf

Tivo TCD648250B Self-verifiedNow, all that being said ... all manufactures that make a CableCard product must sign the DFAST (or CHILA) licensing agreement ... which is really the main thing that governs what a CableCard host must (and must not) do ... and allows CableLabs to revoke your keys if you violate the DFAST / CHILA licensing agreement.

[MichaelK]

No, this is not semantics. ....


what do you mean by "is" though?

Also I think we'd need to have your definition of "not" please to determine your true meaning here.

[MichaelK]

And again you completely disregard the cost of service by the MSO to support issues caused by 3rd party vendors. That is the very largest problem I see with this, and it doesn't affect SA or MOTO. It affects the MSOs - which really ultimately means it negatively affects the general consumer.


where do you get that I discount it- about 3 times alraedy i said you have a valid point.

But it's completely irrelevent to the BAn- the costs to support tons of third party devices are already forced upon cable by the earlier decisions. Implementing the ban or not will not change the fact that cabel already MUST support 3rd party devices. I dont see anythign from cable dsiputing that anywhere...

[MichaelK]

The law doesn't say that the converter boxes actually have to work as well as the cable company boxes, or provide the same features, or even carry all the same channels. An argument can be made that the intention should be to support commercially available converter boxes solely for the must-carry service.



could be- but no one has made that argument yet.

edit: thought about it some more- I think that wont work.- If I recall- the law says that any equipment used to get cable services must be availible at retail . So if there's a box needed for PPV then Congress envisioned that you have the right to buy such a box at retail.

So I think that having a box with limited functionality availible at retail while having full featured boxes rentable from cable is illegal.

If not illegal then the FCC's comments about cable needing to support thrid party things by following the open standard themselves (using the refusal to give TiVo M-cards for the S3 as an example) shows the FCC had no intenttion of allowing better services from cable but not on third party boxes (dont know if the CURRENT FCC feels the same way as the one that made the arguments earlier- but since hte court case is from earlier this yuear I suspect they have the same views as stated in that case.)

[MichaelK]

You think this is a bad thing? If so, why? I see it as a good thing. A more "neutral" version is good for the consumer. Why would anyone buy a box that displays the same interface as the cable company box? There would be no value added to the third party box, no market for it, and therefore no incentive to build it. ...

I think it IS a good thing.

I do wonder though if maybe it's a little further then the law says.

[MichaelK]

...

You use the term "open system" when in fact there is far more you use to describe it. Your statement sounds great - but is flawed from the consumers point of view when you consider that quality will likely drop and costs will certainly increase. In other words, what you believe is contrary to what the general consumer believes.


that's mint.


competition will RAISE prices and decrease quality. Can you please provide examples over the course of history how competion raised prices and caused quality to drop.

In other words what YOU believe is contrary to what every economist believes.

[MichaelK]

In my opinion, rubbish. Those extra "services" will likely be delivered via IP and not via encrypted CC supported devices. Read the news this morning? MS to deliver HD content on demand via IP?

I have zero confidence that the integration ban will create anything whatsoever in the way of a future affordable market for CC ready devices. There is NO development for other than STB or DVR devices based on CC, and new technology will clearly leapfrog CC.


could be you are correct- but SO FAR the FCC doesn't believe so- if they did they would sanction downloadable security as the end game and drop any mention of the integration ban.

[MichaelK]

I think it's a bad thing, and so would you if you didn't want to "buy" a device - like the majority of consumers do not want to "buy" a device. MANY people are extremely happy that they can now get reasonably priced DVR service from their MSO with no upfront cost, no obligation and low monthly rates. You would eliminate that. You are taking your own personal desires and attempting to legislate the entire country with them. That's just selfish. ....


I think the MAJORITY today doesn't want to lease a box at all- not a dvr or anything. Your desire is to lease a low cost DVR from cable. It seems seems very selfish of you to want to force your wants on people that dont want to have a DVR or be botherred with a cable box just to get HBO becasue it's encryted or toon disney becasue it's on the digital tier.

basically to keep your cable DVR rental cheap you are willing to force tens of millions of people to have to rent cable boxes in future years.

[bicker]

I'm in favor of capitalism, but it doesn't solve all problems, which is why we don't have pure capitalism in the United States. We have a minimum wage, we constrain monopolies, and yes, we regulate things like cable television. The local government grants certain companies the right to offer cable television, and in return, they must abide by rules that are decided by the government.Only to the extent that the people want such regulation. Look at who we just elected to Congress.... these aren't your father's Democrats. They're mostly pro-business Democrats. There really is very little support for government regulation these days. The world has moved on -- moved away from a consumer-focused model to a more balanced model, which acknowledges that many consumers are also investors.

[bicker]

could be- but no one has made that argument yet.I just did. :) [I]edit: thought about it some more- I think that wont work.- If I recall- the law says that any equipment used to get cable services must be availible at retail . So if there's a box needed for PPV then Congress envisioned that you have the right to buy such a box at retail. Sorry, but what you think Congress envisioned isn't law. The law doesn't require what you're suggesting here. Read the law. Don't read INTO the law.

[Phantom Gremlin]

MSOs are already not cash cows and everyone here is pretending they're the best investment in the world - expecting them to foot the cost for us - the minority.
I don't know what reality you live in, but it's certainly different from mine.

In my reality, Comcast (the biggest MSO) is investing billions of dollars in infrastructure (in pursuit of the "triple play") and at the same time is finding the free cash flow to buy back billions of dollars in stock.

Here is summary of most recent quarterly results from their own investor relations web site.

http://www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=118591&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=921791&highlight=

It's no wonder their stock is skyrocketing. Everything that follows in italics is cut/paste snippets directly from above page.

Revenue increased 12% to $6.6 billion in the third quarter of 2006 as demand for our video, voice and high-speed Internet services accelerated. The rollout of our Triple Play offering contributed to the record-setting RGU net additions for the quarter.

Operating Cash Flow (as defined in Table 7) grew 15% to $2.6 billion in the third quarter of 2006 resulting in an Operating Cash Flow margin of 39.6%, an increase from the 38.5% reported in the same quarter of 2005.

Operating Income increased 46% to $1.2 billion in the third quarter of 2006 due to strong results at Comcast Cable, including record-setting RGU additions as described above. Similarly, consolidated operating income increased 27% to $3.4 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2006.

Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities increased to $5.1 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 from $3.9 billion in 2005 due primarily to stronger operating results and changes in operating assets and liabilities.

Free Cash Flow (described further on Table 4) increased $812 million to $2.2 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 compared to $1.4 billion in 2005

Comcast repurchased $493 million or 15 million shares of its Class A Special Common Stock during the third quarter of 2006. On a year-to-date basis, Comcast repurchased $1.9 billion or 64 million shares, reducing the number of shares outstanding by 3%.


So don't cry me a river about how the MSOs are struggling. Bull****!

[Phantom Gremlin]

You currently have one provider because no other provider wants to compete. Partially because profit margins are so darned low in this area. This used to be a high profit industry but is far from that now.

You keep repeating variations of this same false claim. You're quite wrong. Profit margins are quite high now. It's probably why Verizon is investing so heavily in FIOS. See my previous message for details about Comcast.

[Brainiac 5]

Only to the extent that the people want such regulation. Look at who we just elected to Congress.... these aren't your father's Democrats. They're mostly pro-business Democrats. There really is very little support for government regulation these days. The world has moved on -- moved away from a consumer-focused model to a more balanced model, which acknowledges that many consumers are also investors.I mostly agree with this - there has been a trend toward less regulation for decades now. I was just trying to point out that we do not live in a purely capitalist society - there are rules about business and commerce just like there are rules about all kinds of things. (And the specific things I mentioned are not going away any time soon - they're talking about raising the minimum wage; there continue to be restrictions on monopolies; and I don't think all regulations on cable TV will go away, either.)

By the way, in area of content providers, when did we have a consumer-focused model? :) I wish... :) :)

[MichaelK]

I just did. :) Sorry, but what you think Congress envisioned isn't law. The law doesn't require what you're suggesting here. Read the law. Don't read INTO the law.


I dont think I'm reading into the law- but no one seems to have ruled to say one way or the other but here's the exact quote and people can decide on their own what they think it means:

"the commission shall... adopt regulations to assure commercial availability to consumers of multichannel video programming(MVP) and other services offered over MVP systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used be consumers to access MVP and other services offered over MVP systems..."



Sure sounds to me like they are saying that whatever equipment is needed to get any service cable offers needs to be available commercially.

I guess YOU and others might read into that that “multichannel video programming” and “other services” some how excludes cable only channels but I don’t see that.

Reading it again for like the 10th time actually makes me wonder if cable didn’t decide on the open DOCSIS standard so that cable modems would be available at retail because they thought broadband was an “other service”….

Here’s the definition from section 602 of the communications act as amended by the act of 1996 for video programming:


(20) the term ''video programming'' means programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station.


I guess no place does it say that you have to give everyone all the channels but on the flip side I see nothing that points to your argument that somehow if applies only to must carry channels.

[MichaelK]

on the subject plain STB's subsidizing DVR's-

I found the specific section and it says

(7) AGGREGATION OF EQUIPMENT COSTS.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--The Commission shall allow cable operators, pursuant to any rules promulgated under subsection (b)(3), to aggregate, on a franchise, system, regional, or company level, their equipment costs into broad categories, such as converter boxes, regardless of the varying levels of functionality of the equipment within each such broad category. Such aggregation shall not be permitted with respect to equipment used by subscribers who receive only a rate regulated basic service tier.

So it almost does sound like they can subsidize DVR boxes with fees from other boxes (so long as they are no boxes required to get the basic tier- but since in most cases regulate basic is unencrytped analog I would doubt there are very many instances of people with regulated basic and boxes)

Sort of helps explain why cable can just charge $5-$15 for a DVR and some how makes out but DBS is charging so much more. It seems like cable is subsidizing DVR's with plain digital STB fees?

I honestly don't KNOW - but i think you are still reading that wrong. again it says:




subsidized by charges for any such service . I'd think that includes multichannel video programming and other services delivered over the MPVD system. I dont see how that's limited to just subsidizing from other equipment. Unless there's a regulation, ruling, or "finding" (that's special- thanks for that pointer) that says otherwise that I havne't stumbled upon.


I'm not sure they need to spread the cost to everyone if they only used CC boxes for HD and DVR's.
BUT....
THis is were I get lost.

I think the 'basket' that all the reqs talk about allow them to compartmentalize things if they choose. But again I cant follow it totally. I think the basic jist is the line item for equipment rental at the end of the year should be break even- sub items of that can be profits or losses but the entire 'basket' has to be break even.

Actually I think the whole basket thing does exactly what you are sayign they cant do. That is they can use the low end STB fees to subsidize the DVR boxes if they decide to?

but I really dont know and would like to understand the whole equipment rental pricing thing better as I think it has a huge implication to what makes sense here goign forward.

[bicker]

I mostly agree with thisI'll take it! :) - there has been a trend toward less regulation for decades now. I was just trying to point out that we do not live in a purely capitalist society - there are rules about business and commerce just like there are rules about all kinds of things.However, less and less does that kind of thing show up in things that are essentially non-essential. While your local television channels might be considered essential, as long as they're available via analog SD, that's about where the official concern about what is being offered will end.

By the way, in area of content providers, when did we have a consumer-focused model? :) I wish... :) :)E/I is almost exclusively a product of consumer-focus.

[winpitt]

man you just keep blowing that same note on the trumpet don't you:)

Last time I checked, anyone had access to the content that is the news and you may perhaps have noticed all the sites related to news on the web- certain information is decidely better presented on the web and of course up to the minute details are there. Still I do not want to use the bathroom in the morning with a laptop. the morning print paper is just fine there. I find HUGE benefit in having access to both forms. If regualtory rules made it hard for anyone but one entity to provide the news then yes- I would want rules to keep them innovating in delivery method. Fortunately many towns have 3 local news programs, two newspapers and access to many national outlets. The open access to the news content has provided for good competition and thus regualr and timely innovations in the methods of delivery. I the consumer comes out ahead.

As has been stated to you many times - we do not have that withe local cable company. They get a franchise and for years did not have to compete and stagnated on a clunky STB while they came up with ways to sell more content via premium channels or PPV of 3rd rate content. Then Sat. suddenly became a competitor - now we have DVRs and much better PPV content and HD cvoming along. Competition moved things along again.

TiVo could not get a phone call returned until DirectTV saw a competitive angle and then Comcast saw the light as a way to snag Sat providers. I think the patent suit and the knowledge that Cable card was slowly making progress as impetus for TiVo to get more direct cable deals. Consumers will benefit from that open competition for what box is used to gather the coming media content choices. Ypou can keep going on about overhead costs of the very standard that MSOs came up with but it is just making me laugh now. Consumers will benefit from an open access standard as everyone will have to compete to be that box. Hell Sony might come and make this product and board a wasteland for all we know but if it was because open access let them market a better product that people flocked too then so be it.

closed access = little incentive for STB innovation
open access = competition which always = faster innovation

innovation = good for consumers

And we'll just have to disagree. You are in favor of charging one business additional costs when there is no value add for them, just in order to provide some sort of vague "open" advantage - which again CONSUMERS JUST DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT!

[winpitt]

First off, no disrespect taken-- this is all fair debate, and obviously none was intended as a personal attack.

Second, you are correct, at least to the extent that the federal regulations (as well as the local franchising statutes in my area) pay lip service to the concept of non-exclusivity, so let me be a little more precise. Cable companies (as well as all utilities) have had a "technical monopoly." (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) by virtue of the inherint costs and practical considerations associated with running cable from the head end to each consumer's home. This monopoly power has been one foundation for the historic justification for government regulation of utilities. So the regulations come down, ostensibly to "protect the public" from this monopoly power. In the cable industry, we see "franchise" agreements, whereby cable companies have to get the approval from the local franchise authority to offer cable in any given geographical territory. Yes, I admit, the laws claim that franchises are to be non-exclusive, and in theory, anyone that wants to compete can apply for a franchise. But the hoops companies have to jump through to get a franchise have the effect of increasing even higher the barrier for other companies to compete in a particular geographic region, and thereby protecting through government action the natural monopoly of the existing cable company. Thus, while the government may not have created the monopoly, there clearly is government protection of the market of existing cable company monopoly. You can't seriously think that the franchise system is not inherintly restrictive of competition-- that's the whole point of requiring a franchise-- to restrict entry into the market place to only those companies that choose to, and of course, are able to meet what ever hoops the local franchise wants to set up. That gives a tremendous advantage to the encumbent cable company.

So, while it is true that the regs give lip service to "non-exclusivity" that does not equtate to the proposition that the governent does not protect the cable monopoly of the local MSO.



This example does not prove your point. It actually supports the point that I make above. Verizon doesn't want to jump through your franchise's hoops, so they choose not to compete in your area. Your franchise authority (perhaps unwittingly) has further helped protect the regional monopoly of your local cable company. It may be "business- pure and simple" to avoid competing in an area that is not economically advantageous due to government regulation, but that is not the same thing as a free market.

Just to be clear, your post highlights that you don't have a clue how this works. Our franchise provided NO "hoops" for Verizon to jump through. None. Our only requirement is that they commit to providing that service to the same communities within our municipality as cable does. Nothing whatsoever about pricing, channel selection, restriction of channels, PEG, equipment, etc. Nothing. Your comment that we have somehow further helped to protect the "monopoly" couldn't be further from the truth. We have been actively communicating with our legislative representatives to promote choice.

In other words, there are NO goverment regulations that restricts such choice. Please do some research before making such blatently false statements.

[winpitt]

I think you are wrong on this one. Maybe someone that knows for sure can chime in.

Huh?

If I purchased a product from a CE company, and they didn't support it, I wouldn't buy from them again. Unfortunately, your particular situation sucks.

I am not wrong. Cablelabs does not certify all subsequent firmware. You can read it yourself on the cablelabs site.

If you purchase a product from a CE Co that doesn't support it (after of course the cableco had to do the initial support) and they still blame the cableco? Of course, that doesn't change the fact that additiona support was required at the cableco's expense. Not defending the cableco, but am stating the truth - which seems to be remarkably unwelcome.

[winpitt]

Why would opening up the technology to third parties stop your cable provider from leasing you a box just as they always have? Are you saying cost is the issue? If so, then your desire for no price increase is an attempt at stopping technology and innovation from moving forward. Now that's selfish.

It was a salesman in Best Buy. The only motivation I see for him discouraging a sale is that he was speaking from an experience he had, or from things he has heard. I can't remember the last time a salesman discouraged an $800.00 sale.

There's no way to deny that the cable industry, as a whole, has made it difficult for the consumer, to rent, and get information on CableCARDS. Who else would I blame? TiVo? Toshiba? Panasonic? SONY?

I was forced to pay over $40.00 dollars for the installation of my CableCARDS. I could have done it myself. I am paying for the support I get from my cable company.

The cable companies are tying to protect their interests, and I am not saying they are wrong for that. I would do the same if I were a cable company. As an example, if my child committed an unspeakable act against another human being, I would still defend them to the end. Would I be right? Since this is my child, yes. Would this benefit society and the victim, no. We all do what's in our best interest. Is that your point? If it is, then your argument is based on having some connection, whether it's direct or because you work in a company that is the same position the cable companies are...or you could just be sympathetic to monopolies.

OK, so a bunch of problems here.

You are saying that you're OK with increasing costs - even to the consumer, right? When the consumer is saying costs are already high? THAT is selfish. You want the S3. Period. I've already said that there is little (if any, frankly) value in terms of "progress" to be had by CC for the consumer. Only for the very fringe consumers.

The day when I start blaming another company for what an entry level Best Buy employee says is the day I need to be put in a rest home.

Who should you blame for the CC difficulties in general? That would be the consumer. You see, if there was just about any redeeming value for the consumer in CC with the exception of a very small handful of devices, then the consumer would be screaming about it. The fact is that nobody cares, because it delivers so little, impacts so few, and has such a limited potential.

Cable entertainment is exactly that - entertainment. Nothing more. You guys need to stop comparing it to scientific advances for mankind. It's entertainment. Disposable. You won't die without it. Nobody will. Rules that deal with issues such as safety, health or constrained resources just don't apply. How would you feel if your government decided that your home was right smack in the spot that they wanted to put a billboard? Something not essential or good for the safety or health of your community? So, they took your home - and gave you 80% of the value? That's essentially what your espousing.

[CrispyCritter]

In other words, there are NO goverment regulations that restricts such choice. Please do some research before making such blatently false statements.OK. I've been silent, but I've done some research. Now what do you want to claim is blatantly false?


WASHINGTON - In an effort to bring video choice and competition to citizens of Montgomery County, Maryland, Verizon today filed a federal lawsuit against the county for its unreasonable and illegal cable-franchising process and demands.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Greenbelt, asks the court to declare that Montgomery County's cable franchise process and requirements violate federal communications and antitrust law, as well as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Verizon is asking the court for a preliminary injunction invalidating Montgomery County's current cable franchising law and directing the county to negotiate a franchise with Verizon on lawful terms within 60 days. At the same time - in an effort to help speed the negotiations to resolution - Verizon is asking the court to invalidate the numerous unlawful requirements the county is attempting to impose on the company.

"Verizon regrets having to take this step, but the county's unlawful demands leave us no other choice," said John P. Frantz, Verizon vice president and associate general counsel, who is leading the company's legal team on the case. "We would prefer to reach agreement on a franchise that would offer Montgomery County consumers more choice for their cable services, but after a year of essentially fruitless negotiations, we are at an impasse."

Montgomery County's Demands Hurt Consumers, Protect Incumbent

Over the year that Verizon has been negotiating to obtain a franchise to offer its FiOS TV in Montgomery County, county officials have made numerous unlawful demands that have stymied the negotiations. For example:

* The county asserts the right to collect fees on, and otherwise regulate, Verizon's telephone and broadband Internet service, in clear violation of federal law. In addition, the county claims authority to regulate the engineering, construction, placement and maintenance of Verizon's entire fiber-optic network once the company starts offering video service, again in clear violation of federal law.
* The county is demanding that Verizon set aside roughly 65 channels of digital capacity for public, educational and governmental programming, even though the county currently has programming for only 11 channels. Verizon wants to use the channels the county is insisting the company set aside to deliver programming that county residents want to see.
* The county is demanding that Verizon pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover the fees that the county owes to its own private consultants and attorneys; federal law forbids such demands.
* The county is demanding additional cash and free services as a condition for granting a franchise; it has no right to demand such terms under established federal law.

[winpitt]

OK. I've been silent, but I've done some research. Now what do you want to claim is blatantly false?

If what you posted is true, then that local government should be prosecuted as they are clearly acting in violation of federal law. They are not acting within their guidelines. They should be heavily fined - if not jailed.

That being said, I'd like more than Verizons story to validate this as truth. But again, if it is true I'd love to see them publicly taken to task.

Additionally, this shows that Verizon already has a remedy for what appears to be corruption. They don't need excused from existing law to utilize it.

[winpitt]

that's mint.


competition will RAISE prices and decrease quality. Can you please provide examples over the course of history how competion raised prices and caused quality to drop.

In other words what YOU believe is contrary to what every economist believes.

yes. I can. And frankly you could also if you thought about it.

The reason is that this "competition" is not really competition as we know it. It isn't derived from market changes. This is really government stepping into private industry and legislating a change that consumers are not asking for. If (and that is a HUGE if) consumers were demanding CC (or frankly, any sort of similar standard that would eliminate proprietary STBs) then I would agree that it would result in true competition and change price elasticity. Since there is very little demand for this product, the equation changes fundamentally.

Please show me a market that is demanding CC. Please show me existing or planned devices that consumers will likely embrace creating a true choice. The ban does nothing more than replace an existing STB with one having CC in it. Do you really believe there will be an industry that will crop up overnight to create new STBs or devices?

The problem here is that the ban itself violates what any reasonable economist would promote.

[winpitt]

I think the MAJORITY today doesn't want to lease a box at all- not a dvr or anything. Your desire is to lease a low cost DVR from cable. It seems seems very selfish of you to want to force your wants on people that dont want to have a DVR or be botherred with a cable box just to get HBO becasue it's encryted or toon disney becasue it's on the digital tier.

basically to keep your cable DVR rental cheap you are willing to force tens of millions of people to have to rent cable boxes in future years.

No, the consumer wants the SERVICE at the lowest possible price. They most certainly do NOT want to purchase a device. Seen where DBS has gone lately? Where everything used to be a purchase process, and is now mainly leased?

The consumer wants the flexibility of not having to own or maintain the devices. if that can be done without having any box whatsoever, fine. But, since there has been little progress in that area - and since DVR services are on an extremely rapid upswing, I would humbly disagree with you.

Cablecos aren't far more successful in leasing DVRs than TiVo in selling them because of CC. It's because it's a LEASE. Absolutely no warranty issues. No committment. No upfront cost. I'm not trying to force anthing. I'm just reflecting the market and what the consumer wants.

[winpitt]

could be you are correct- but SO FAR the FCC doesn't believe so- if they did they would sanction downloadable security as the end game and drop any mention of the integration ban.

We'll see what happens going forward. I would not be surprised if the ban were not at least amended. I'm fairly confident that more waivers and delays will occur.

[winpitt]

You keep repeating variations of this same false claim. You're quite wrong. Profit margins are quite high now. It's probably why Verizon is investing so heavily in FIOS. See my previous message for details about Comcast.

Profit margins are getting higher for the big guys. Unfortunately the little guys have to deal with the same requirements IAW the ban. Many of them are negative EPS.

[winpitt]

You keep repeating variations of this same false claim. You're quite wrong. Profit margins are quite high now. It's probably why Verizon is investing so heavily in FIOS. See my previous message for details about Comcast.

Also, the point is that another provider would require significant infrastructure in order to deliver content that would both cannabalize the existing market and slash existing margins.

The name of the game is subs. There are only so many to be had.

[PPC1]

Just to be clear, your post highlights that you don't have a clue how this works. Our franchise provided NO "hoops" for Verizon to jump through. None. Our only requirement is that they commit to providing that service to the same communities within our municipality as cable does. Nothing whatsoever about pricing, channel selection, restriction of channels, PEG, equipment, etc. Nothing. Your comment that we have somehow further helped to protect the "monopoly" couldn't be further from the truth. We have been actively communicating with our legislative representatives to promote choice.

In other words, there are NO goverment regulations that restricts such choice. Please do some research before making such blatently false statements.

Admittedly, I am ignorant on many of the details in this area of law in general, and the requirements of your local franchise authority in particular. Accordingly, I am ready to be convinced otherwise, but your posts aren't doing it for me. Looking at just the facts you admit to in your posts, it is clear there is government restriction on competition in your franchise territory. The fact that you require service of the geographic region equal to that of the encumbent cable company IS a restriction on competition. Unless a particular company wants to provide service for the entire geographic region, it can't enter the market at all. Consequently, small companies that want to just compete on the margins must stay home. Go big, or don't go at all. There may be a (misguided?) reason from a public policy stand point for such a restiction. I suspect the thought process is that the franchise authority wants to ensure that cable companies don't just serve the profitable areas, and ignore the unprofitable ones. But you can't legitimately claim that this restriction isn't a protection. The whole friggin' point of requiring a franchise agreement is to exclude certain competitors that don't agree to your terms. If the franchise authority did not issue certain exclusions, what is the point of having a franchise authority? But any government restiction on would be competitors is necessarily a protection of the encumbant cable provider's regional monopoly.

Moreover, in fairness to my position, you cannot simply rely on the model in your own territory to conclusively prove that the franchise system is not anti-competitive and a protection for the existing local cable monoplies. What happens in your territory alone is just anecdotal evidence. Additionally, I don't know where your territory is (perhaps you have posted it, but I just missed it.) , so I can't research what restrictions your territory does or does not require, even if one territory were dispositive of the issue.

Finally, I certainly respect your point regarding not accepting Verizon's allegations in their complaint in the Montgomery county matter. By the same token, I can't take your allegations as to your own territory at face value, particularly given the argumentative tone of your posts. I would be curious what Verizon would have to say in response to your claim as to what your franchise authority requires.

[dt_dc]

If what you posted is true, then that local government should be prosecuted as they are clearly acting in violation of federal law. They are not acting within their guidelines. They should be heavily fined - if not jailed.

That being said, I'd like more than Verizons story to validate this as truth. But again, if it is true I'd love to see them publicly taken to task.

Additionally, this shows that Verizon already has a remedy for what appears to be corruption. They don't need excused from existing law to utilize it.With the help of a court-appointed mediator, Montgomery County and Verizon seem to have come to an agreement.

The court documents are all mostly available on-line ... and, as usual in these franchise disgreements both sides had some legitimate points.

How to treat an encumbant and new competitor "equally" / "fairly" isn't always the easiest thing to quantify.

[Brainiac 5]

And we'll just have to disagree. You are in favor of charging one business additional costs when there is no value add for them, just in order to provide some sort of vague "open" advantage - which again CONSUMERS JUST DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT!There is one aspect of this I'd like to comment on. They don't care right now, because average consumers are not obsessed with following what's happening in the industry like the people here, and are blissfully unaware of what will happen the future. But many people just have analog cable and no premium channels, so they can currently just plug their cable into the TV, VCR, or whatever, and that's it - no boxes of any kind. I was one of these until I got an S3. When and if the cable companies stop broadcasting analog and tell everyone they now have to rent a box (and probably pay an additional outlet fee) for every TV, those customers are going to be pretty ticked off. It's already started happening, as you may have read in stories about customers angry with their cable company for moving individual channels from analog to the digitial tier.

CableCARD was an attempt to deal with this problem. Of course, it actually does not solve it, but at least it goes halfway.

[dt_dc]

How to treat an encumbant and new competitor "equally" / "fairly" isn't always the easiest thing to quantify.Oh ... and then there's the regulatory distinctions between "cable service", "telecommunications service", and "information service" which were (mostly) drawn up at a time when there were more technical and corporate distinctions between them ... however now with technical and corporate changes are starting to look more arbitrary / fuzzy ...

How to distinguish between these different services, how to classify new technology and offerings under these different services, what exactly the regulatory lines are between these services, and even what exactly we should do about them is constantly an issue at the federal, state, and even local levels ... and indeed, from my reading of the court documents, was (part) of the disagreement between Verizon and Montgomery County as well.

[winpitt]

There is one aspect of this I'd like to comment on. They don't care right now, because average consumers are not obsessed with following what's happening in the industry like the people here, and are blissfully unaware of what will happen the future. But many people just have analog cable and no premium channels, so they can currently just plug their cable into the TV, VCR, or whatever, and that's it - no boxes of any kind. I was one of these until I got an S3. When and if the cable companies stop broadcasting analog and tell everyone they now have to rent a box (and probably pay an additional outlet fee) for every TV, those customers are going to be pretty ticked off. It's already started happening, as you may have read in stories about customers angry with their cable company for moving individual channels from analog to the digitial tier.

CableCARD was an attempt to deal with this problem. Of course, it actually does not solve it, but at least it goes halfway.

Really? I'm sorry - I missed all those complaints from cable customers. Yes, there have been relatively infrequent complaints. The problem is that you're putting the cart completely away from the horse. The consumer will be charged something either way if they're using CC or a proprietary STB. That doesn't change. CC doesn't fix this.

[winpitt]

Oh ... and then there's the regulatory distinctions between "cable service", "telecommunications service", and "information service" which were (mostly) drawn up at a time when there were more technical and corporate distinctions between them ... however now with technical and corporate changes are starting to look more arbitrary / fuzzy ...

How to distinguish between these different services, how to classify new technology and offerings under these different services, what exactly the regulatory lines are between these services, and even what exactly we should do about them is constantly an issue at the federal, state, and even local levels ... and indeed, from my reading of the court documents, was (part) of the disagreement between Verizon and Montgomery County as well.

You are absolutely correct about that one! The whole thing is what caused the FCC to remove broadband from other cable services and treat it completely differently in their finding of a few years ago.

[winpitt]

Admittedly, I am ignorant on many of the details in this area of law in general, and the requirements of your local franchise authority in particular. Accordingly, I am ready to be convinced otherwise, but your posts aren't doing it for me. Looking at just the facts you admit to in your posts, it is clear there is government restriction on competition in your franchise territory. The fact that you require service of the geographic region equal to that of the encumbent cable company IS a restriction on competition. Unless a particular company wants to provide service for the entire geographic region, it can't enter the market at all. Consequently, small companies that want to just compete on the margins must stay home. Go big, or don't go at all. There may be a (misguided?) reason from a public policy stand point for such a restiction. I suspect the thought process is that the franchise authority wants to ensure that cable companies don't just serve the profitable areas, and ignore the unprofitable ones. But you can't legitimately claim that this restriction isn't a protection. The whole friggin' point of requiring a franchise agreement is to exclude certain competitors that don't agree to your terms. If the franchise authority did not issue certain exclusions, what is the point of having a franchise authority? But any government restiction on would be competitors is necessarily a protection of the encumbant cable provider's regional monopoly.

Moreover, in fairness to my position, you cannot simply rely on the model in your own territory to conclusively prove that the franchise system is not anti-competitive and a protection for the existing local cable monoplies. What happens in your territory alone is just anecdotal evidence. Additionally, I don't know where your territory is (perhaps you have posted it, but I just missed it.) , so I can't research what restrictions your territory does or does not require, even if one territory were dispositive of the issue.

Finally, I certainly respect your point regarding not accepting Verizon's allegations in their complaint in the Montgomery county matter. By the same token, I can't take your allegations as to your own territory at face value, particularly given the argumentative tone of your posts. I would be curious what Verizon would have to say in response to your claim as to what your franchise authority requires.

A few things.

1) You're actually partially right but mainly wrong on your first point. The "protection" is for the consumer - not for the incumbent. And to be more technically correct, the requirement is not to match the incumbent but rather to meet the needs of the consumer in general. In other words, an incumbent could in fact have exceeded the requirement and a newcomer would not have to do so. And the reason that this is absolutely essential is because when you remove that single consumer protection, it applies equally to all providers. That means that service can be either discontinued for areas by the incumbent (taking us back to the '80s) or have additional charges applied to it for the higher cost to deliver.

2) Additionally, the second reason for a franchise agreement is to oversee quality issues and to provide a mechanism for such related issues to be remedied. That is a critical componenet, as without it you are left with absolutely no venue for satisfaction. Don't even think about the FCC being that avenue.

3) My area is SW PA. We have no statewide franchise agreeement. I'd encourage you to contact Verizon and ask them their thoughts. They would not even entertain discussions and have never to my knowledge even seen our current agreement with Adelphia/Comcast.

4) Yes, I can indeed say that the current system is not anti-competitive. What I will not say is that there are not some minorities of people who are attempting to abuse this, though it's very difficult for me to even see how this can continue considering the very large spotbeam placed on such agreements. Prior to 1996 (actually a bit before that in actuality) it was most certainly different. But there have been very distinct changes - though it appears that few are aware of it. Further, I can also say that proposed changes would in fact could definitely be anti-competitive if you don't live in a high density or high disposable income area.

[winpitt]

BTW: A couple general notes on what we're discussion;

I'd really like to see CC succeed. Having experienced some of the zero length and missed recordings on my SA8300HDs, I've been anxiously awaiting the arrival of the S3. My current testing with CC in my 46HM94 have not yet yielded any sort of acceptable results (no decryption whatsoever yet). I'm still hoping the yet to be delivered Toshiba firmware will improve this, and then it's on to S3 ordering.

The issue here isn't about what you or I want. Let's face it. We're on the very fringe of a fringe of a niche market. We're considering plunking down a heck of a lot of money on a product nobody knows exists (s3), using a technology nobody understands (cc), with a poor service record (cable). It's really about whether or not this whole CC thing - and I supposed based on recent posts - the possible changes to franchises - is the right thing for the general user. I see it this way:

Our concerns: High end DVR and other yet to be delivered 3rd party devices delivering content from cable MSOs.

John Q Public concerns: Already paying too much. Don't want to have to buy anything at all. Don't want to have to worry about when the cable guy is going to show up. Just want it to be cheap and easy.

There seems to be an obvious conflict between the two viewpoints.

[PPC1]

A few things.

1) You're actually partially right but mainly wrong on your first point.
The "protection" is for the consumer - not for the incumbent. And to be more technically correct, the requirement is not to match the incumbent but rather to meet the needs of the consumer in general.

I don't quite see what you mean when you say I am partially correct, but mainly wrong. Perhaps you can clarify.

And to be more technically correct, the requirement is not to match the incumbent but rather to meet the needs of the consumer in general.

You will have to excuse me for my prior statement that you "require service of the geographic region equal to that of the encumbent cable company: It was a paraphrase of your prior statement:

Our only requirement is that they commit to providing that service to the same communities within our municipality as cable does.



The "protection" is for the consumer - not for the incumbent.

Regardless of the intent, the protection which was once for the consumer begins to serve the incumbant.

And the reason that this is absolutely essential is because when you remove that single consumer protection, it applies equally to all providers. That means that service can be either discontinued for areas by the incumbent (taking us back to the '80s) or have additional charges applied to it for the higher cost to deliver.

Yes, this is also a predictable public policy justification for government intervention. But that doesn't change the exclusionary effect on entry into the market.

2) Additionally, the second reason for a franchise agreement is to oversee quality issues and to provide a mechanism for such related issues to be remedied. That is a critical componenet, as without it you are left with absolutely no venue for satisfaction. Don't even think about the FCC being that avenue.

Of course, if the market were in fact competitive, consumers could seek redress with their feet.



4) Yes, I can indeed say that the current system is not anti-competitive. What I will not say is that there are not some minorities of people who are attempting to abuse this, though it's very difficult for me to even see how this can continue considering the very large spotbeam placed on such agreements. Prior to 1996 (actually a bit before that in actuality) it was most certainly different. But there have been very distinct changes - though it appears that few are aware of it. Further, I can also say that proposed changes would in fact could definitely be anti-competitive if you don't live in a high density or high disposable income area.

I guess that you and I just won't agree. I see franchising requirements all across the county, and there would simply be no purpose for them if the franchise authorities did not restrict entry into the market place, hence, the technical monoplies of the incumbant local cable providers gets protected. And even if you don't conceed the government protection issue, the local cable provider does enjoy the benefits of their technical monopolies. The practical effect is people can't vote with their feet. If you took a poll here, how many people do you think would have a choice in cable providers? Of those, I suspect the vast majority of those with options are in Verizon country. Of course, Verizon has enjoyed the benefits of their own technical monopoly in the telecommunications industry that gives them a foot in the door.

[PPC1]

I see it this way:

Our concerns: High end DVR and other yet to be delivered 3rd party devices delivering content from cable MSOs.

John Q Public concerns: Already paying too much. Don't want to have to buy anything at all. Don't want to have to worry about when the cable guy is going to show up. Just want it to be cheap and easy.

There seems to be an obvious conflict between the two viewpoints.

I don't see those two concerns as necessarily in conflict. They are only now with the integration ban approaching. But had the MSOs invested the money early and over time to make cable cards work properly, then the FCC would never have gotten to the point of considering the integration ban. I will grant you that there are some problems that are generated by the CEMs, but the vast majority of the problems seem quite clearly to stem from a lack of investment into the technology by the MSOs. At the local level, the MSOs have spent next to nothing to educate their techs how to install cable cards.

How many posts have there been on this site that the S3 was the cable installer's first cable card install, and that they had no real idea what they were doing? I have read that over and over on this site. That was true in my case. This despite the fact that cable card has been out there for some time. Wouldn't you think that the cable company should have at least shown the installer a card and had them install one before sending them out in the field? If the number of cable card installs was too small to justify training all of the installers, why not a few specialists to handle all cable card installs?

Had the MSOs actually made any effort over the last several years to implement cable cards, the problems originated with the CEMs could have been identified and refered back to the source. But as it currently stands, when the typical local cable tech says that the install problem is not with them, but with the S3 (or any other CC compliant device), does anyone really believe him?

[winpitt]

I don't quite see what you mean when you say I am partially correct, but mainly wrong. Perhaps you can clarify.

You will have to excuse me for my prior statement that you "require service of the geographic region equal to that of the encumbent cable company: It was a paraphrase of your prior statement:

Regardless of the intent, the protection which was once for the consumer begins to serve the incumbant.

Yes, this is also a predictable public policy justification for government intervention. But that doesn't change the exclusionary effect on entry into the market.

Of course, if the market were in fact competitive, consumers could seek redress with their feet.

I guess that you and I just won't agree. I see franchising requirements all across the county, and there would simply be no purpose for them if the franchise authorities did not restrict entry into the market place, hence, the technical monoplies of the incumbant local cable providers gets protected. And even if you don't conceed the government protection issue, the local cable provider does enjoy the benefits of their technical monopolies. The practical effect is people can't vote with their feet. If you took a poll here, how many people do you think would have a choice in cable providers? Of those, I suspect the vast majority of those with options are in Verizon country. Of course, Verizon has enjoyed the benefits of their own technical monopoly in the telecommunications industry that gives them a foot in the door.

Well, you're right about one thing. You and I will likely never agree about this subject. You're operating out of a narrow focused utopian viewpoint that has no chance of reflecting reality. Again, no insult intended, but either you don't care about a large segment of consumers or you don't perceive the threat of disenfranchising them. It's one or the other.

The market is competitive today. Today for example, Verizon has fiber rolled out to a large number of areas where they are delivering broadband but not TV services. Why? Because they feel they can get an advantage by waiting until some potential leglislative changes which would allow them to cherry pick - meaning not deliver to areas which aren't as profitable to them. Which would also of course give the incumbent the same opportunity - to either desist delivery or to charge additional maintenance charges for service in those areas. What is stopping Verizon from delivering TV services? Nothing. Not a darned thing. I don't blame them for their actions - they're just trying to maximize earnings. We're the dumb idiots falling for it.

This is a non-essential service at heart. Mandating that there be some sort of service is in the public interest. However, mandating that it be via CC or something else is frankly crazy. I realize that it's the current policy, but from a dollars and cents perspective, it's nuts. Notice how I argue that build-out requirements are good thing, but the integration ban is not. It is consistent with views toward what's good for the consumer as opposed to what's good for just us here, or for MSOs.

[winpitt]

I don't see those two concerns as necessarily in conflict. They are only now with the integration ban approaching. But had the MSOs invested the money early and over time to make cable cards work properly, then the FCC would never have gotten to the point of considering the integration ban. I will grant you that there are some problems that are generated by the CEMs, but the vast majority of the problems seem quite clearly to stem from a lack of investment into the technology by the MSOs. At the local level, the MSOs have spent next to nothing to educate their techs how to install cable cards.

How many posts have there been on this site that the S3 was the cable installer's first cable card install, and that they had no real idea what they were doing? I have read that over and over on this site. That was true in my case. This despite the fact that cable card has been out there for some time. Wouldn't you think that the cable company should have at least shown the installer a card and had them install one before sending them out in the field? If the number of cable card installs was too small to justify training all of the installers, why not a few specialists to handle all cable card installs?

Had the MSOs actually made any effort over the last several years to implement cable cards, the problems originated with the CEMs could have been identified and refered back to the source. But as it currently stands, when the typical local cable tech says that the install problem is not with them, but with the S3 (or any other CC compliant device), does anyone really believe him?

So why should the MSOs dedicate resources to a relatively unknown and unwanted technology? I wouldn't if I were them. I don't blame them for not investing heavily into something that's not even 1% of there service requests. Would you? Really?

Should they be more proficient? Yes. But lets clear one thing up. The reason that there have been problems and there hasn't been investment is because nobody besides us really even has heard of CC. There is absolutely nothing in it for them. Nothing. If you ask the general consumer, they'd say there's nothing in it for them either.

This gets back to my question as to why any of this makes sense. Go over to AVS for example, and you'll see that this subject isn't even discussed. It's a non-topic. The ONLY place you really see this debate is here. Why? Because we're the only real segment trying to use this lame duck.

Oh, and BTW: You will never, ever eliminate all the potential problems involved in CC - no matter how much investment the MSOs make. It is not possible. Period. There is required integration between 3rd party HW, 3rd party SW/Firmware, CC, CC Firmware, Head-end MSO SW, etc - that all needs to be right. 3rd party HW and SW will always be in a state of change. Cablelabs does NOT address this. Nothing does.

[Stormspace]

3rd party HW and SW will always be in a state of change. Cablelabs does NOT address this. Nothing does.

I think the majority of the problems we've seen to date are a result of the CEA companies trying to play catch-up with the cable companies. Given the large number of different systems cable companies use the goal of a cable ready set hasn't been on the radar for several years. Lets get past the problem of how to tune in a station and get to some real innovation. As long as the CEA and MSO's aren't in line any new features offered by either will break the system. Getting them on the same page is an important step in moving forward with innovative devices and features.

[PPC1]

Well, you're right about one thing. You and I will likely never agree about this subject. You're operating out of a narrow focused utopian viewpoint that has no chance of reflecting reality. Again, no insult intended, but either you don't care about a large segment of consumers or you don't perceive the threat of disenfranchising them. It's one or the other.

I think you are arguing an issue outside the scope of my prior statements. I am not debating the benefit of government intervention, I am merely pointing out the effect. Whether I care about disenfranchising a large segment of consumers does not alter the fact that your governmental intevention effects the market, and restricts competition. This first portion of your post is simply an irrelevant statement to the issue.




The market is competitive today. Today for example, Verizon has fiber rolled out to a large number of areas where they are delivering broadband but not TV services. Why? Because they feel they can get an advantage by waiting until some potential leglislative changes which would allow them to cherry pick - meaning not deliver to areas which aren't as profitable to them. Which would also of course give the incumbent the same opportunity - to either desist delivery or to charge additional maintenance charges for service in those areas. What is stopping Verizon from delivering TV services? Nothing. Not a darned thing. I don't blame them for their actions - they're just trying to maximize earnings. We're the dumb idiots falling for it.

What is stopping them? Again, just relying on your own admissions, it appears that Verizon doesn't want to have to enter the entire region, and your franchise authority would require them to do so. Your interfering with the market. Whether or not it is intended, your interference benefits the incumbent cable company.

This is a non-essential service at heart. Mandating that there be some sort of service is in the public interest. However, mandating that it be via CC or something else is frankly crazy. I realize that it's the current policy, but from a dollars and cents perspective, it's nuts. Notice how I argue that build-out requirements are good thing, but the integration ban is not. It is consistent with views toward what's good for the consumer as opposed to what's good for just us here, or for MSOs.

Your franchise authority's whole reason for existing is to restrict competition, but you don't even recognize that you do. I could certainly understand your position if it were, "yes, we the franchise authority do interfere in the market place, which obviously restricts competition to some degree, but that restriction is fairly minimal given the incumbant cable company's pre-existing technical monopoly, and further the downside from such intervention is more than made up for by the fact that we increase through goverment intervention availability to consumers in non-proficitable geographic regions (albeit in part at the expense of those in more profitable ones) and we increase customer satisfaction by looking over the shoulder of the cable company's complaint department." But that's not what you are saying.

In terms of mandating CC or something else, that certainly is open for debate. But the cable card was the MSO offering to stave off more government regulation. If it there was a legitimate public policy to prompt the goverment to force the cable company to offer a solution to the percieved proprietary STB problem, the continued ignoring of the cable card technology hasn't remediated the driving concern.

[winpitt]

I think you are arguing an issue outside the scope of my prior statements. I am not debating the benefit of government intervention, I am merely pointing out the effect. Whether I care about disenfranchising a large segment of consumers does not alter the fact that your governmental intevention effects the market, and restricts competition. This first portion of your post is simply an irrelevant statement to the issue.

What is stopping them? Again, just relying on your own admissions, it appears that Verizon doesn't want to have to enter the entire region, and your franchise authority would require them to do so. Your interfering with the market. Whether or not it is intended, your interference benefits the incumbent cable company.

Your franchise authority's whole reason for existing is to restrict competition, but you don't even recognize that you do. I could certainly understand your position if it were, "yes, we the franchise authority do interfere in the market place, which obviously restricts competition to some degree, but that restriction is fairly minimal given the incumbant cable company's pre-existing technical monopoly, and further the downside from such intervention is more than made up for by the fact that we increase through goverment intervention availability to consumers in non-proficitable geographic regions (albeit in part at the expense of those in more profitable ones) and we increase customer satisfaction by looking over the shoulder of the cable company's complaint department." But that's not what you are saying.

In terms of mandating CC or something else, that certainly is open for debate. But the cable card was the MSO offering to stave off more government regulation. If it there was a legitimate public policy to prompt the goverment to force the cable company to offer a solution to the percieved proprietary STB problem, the continued ignoring of the cable card technology hasn't remediated the driving concern.

Sorry, but completely disagree with almost 100% of your position. There is probably no point in continuing to debate this. When somebody says that the entire point of a franchise is to restrict competition there is obviously no possibility to continue discussion.

Let's just say that we have markedly different perspectives, and that yours (IMHO) is one that if realized in reality would harm the general consumer. I will absolutely not characterize your position as being correct, but have no hope that we will be able to discuss this rationally. I've already said that there has been intervention which affects the market with respect to build-out requirements. Also, please do not continue to use the term monopoly when it clearly does not legally apply.

Do you have a solution? One that will not disenfranchise the general consumer in many markets? I've already provided one. That is, let it be and watch the market develop (as it is already doing so in many localities). In doing so you actually CREATE competition on an even playing field without ignoring a large consumer base. What's your solution? So far, I haven't heard one. All I've heard is your insistence that franchise agreements are a bad thing that prevents competition (which again I disagree with).

As for CC, it was the least bad of a very bad set of ideas. Least bad almost never means good. Certainly not in this case.

[winpitt]

I think the majority of the problems we've seen to date are a result of the CEA companies trying to play catch-up with the cable companies. Given the large number of different systems cable companies use the goal of a cable ready set hasn't been on the radar for several years. Lets get past the problem of how to tune in a station and get to some real innovation. As long as the CEA and MSO's aren't in line any new features offered by either will break the system. Getting them on the same page is an important step in moving forward with innovative devices and features.

What kind of innovative devices and features do you envision? This is a sincere and serious question.

[dt_dc]

They are only now with the integration ban approaching. But had the MSOs invested the money early and over time to make cable cards work properly, then the FCC would never have gotten to the point of considering the integration ban.The Telecom Act was passed in 1996.

The FCC opened the preceedings on how to implement the 'Commercial Availability Navigation Devices' section in February 1997. Their very first Notice of Proposed rulemaking mentioned the possibility of an 'integration ban' as a way of ensuring commercial viability without compromising security:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1783770001
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1783770002

The FCC released their first Report and Order on the subject in June 1998:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=2101780001

The first Report and Order in 1998 contained the requirement to seperate navigation from security ... and the 'integration ban'. The FCC found that the integration ban was required to meet the Congressional mandate of assuring commercial availability ... while also meeting the Congressional mandate of not compromising security.

Not sure how MSOs were supposed to act quicker than that ...

Now, the MSOs have certainly had ample time since then to prove to the FCC that the integration ban is not required to meet the FCC's Congressional mandate (and have tried to do so to the courts and the FCC). But I don't see how they could possibly have acted quickly enough to have "never have gotten to the point of considering the integration ban" since that took all of a year to consider and then another year to pass ...

[MichaelK]

No, the consumer wants the SERVICE at the lowest possible price. They most certainly do NOT want to purchase a device. Seen where DBS has gone lately? Where everything used to be a purchase process, and is now mainly leased?

The consumer wants the flexibility of not having to own or maintain the devices. if that can be done without having any box whatsoever, fine. But, since there has been little progress in that area - and since DVR services are on an extremely rapid upswing, I would humbly disagree with you.

Cablecos aren't far more successful in leasing DVRs than TiVo in selling them because of CC. It's because it's a LEASE. Absolutely no warranty issues. No committment. No upfront cost. I'm not trying to force anthing. I'm just reflecting the market and what the consumer wants.


sure-

and along those e lines they dont want to rent a box for each tv set in their house to the tune of $5/each. They dont want to have to maintain a house full of STB's.

You and I see this from a fundamentally different point of view. I think it's all about getting rid of STB's for the low end. You seem to think the point is so people can get third party STB's like TIvo. We just see it differently. I think the law, regulations, and record support my point of view., Some how you don't see it that way.

[MichaelK]

If what you posted is true, then that local government should be prosecuted as they are clearly acting in violation of federal law. They are not acting within their guidelines. They should be heavily fined - if not jailed.

That being said, I'd like more than Verizons story to validate this as truth. But again, if it is true I'd love to see them publicly taken to task.

Additionally, this shows that Verizon already has a remedy for what appears to be corruption. They don't need excused from existing law to utilize it.


the verizon in Maryland case is an example of how you see things as absolute. YOu think what happens in your town in your franchise board is universal. It is not. ANd this is just another example.

[MichaelK]

We'll see what happens going forward. I would not be surprised if the ban were not at least amended. I'm fairly confident that more waivers and delays will occur.

Funny but we actually agree on this point which is pretty mush the whole crux of the thing.

I am pretty sure that anyone that asks will get a waiver for the low end boxes. And As I've said like 10 times before in this thread I think that's the smart thing to do.

I also think verizon's argument has some merit.

I think the NCTA's argument for a huge blanket waiver just goes too far and so it wont get granted. If the NCTA had taken a reasonable stance then likely the FCC would have met them half way (or more- since as Bicker points out the governemnt is really skewed pro-business currently). I think it's just another example of cable pushing too hard and they will wind up gettting B-slapped for it (like happened with analogwith must carry/ and retransmission conset, like what happened with sub channel must carry, etc, etc ). WIll be interesting to see what happens in the next couple weeks when the FCC starts rulling on the wiaver requests. We'll see what the end result is then...

[MichaelK]

Profit margins are getting higher for the big guys. Unfortunately the little guys have to deal with the same requirements IAW the ban. Many of them are negative EPS.

does that have anything to do with cable regulation? (serious question) or just economy of scale? The current economic climate? The huge amounts needed to invest in infrastructure to compete with dbs and the telcos?

Also I would like to point out it's still possible for the little (well maybe medium) companies to do alright. My system used to be ran by RCN. They treated us as their red headed step children. Until a few years ago they literally had like 39 analog channels and one way cable modems. Then about 2.5- 3.5 years ago a private group from CT bought out the local system from RCN. 800,000 subs (so not tiny but not one of the big guns either). They spent money to upgrade like drunken sailors on shore leave. They started rebuilding everything within months of buying the system. Now we have a butt kicking triple play package and they are gaining subs and expanding all the time hiring new employees and becoming a bigger fixture around here. They got named 2006 "independent cable operator of the year". They support cable cards just fine and I haven't seen any request for waivers from them to the FCC. So I think they plan on complying with the current regs that say July, 2007 (even though I think they should at least try for the exemption for plain boxes). I love them, I wish them well, and I dont think cablecard will kill them.

[MichaelK]

BTW: A couple general notes on what we're discussion;

I'd really like to see CC succeed. Having experienced some of the zero length and missed recordings on my SA8300HDs, I've been anxiously awaiting the arrival of the S3. My current testing with CC in my 46HM94 have not yet yielded any sort of acceptable results (no decryption whatsoever yet). I'm still hoping the yet to be delivered Toshiba firmware will improve this, and then it's on to S3 ordering.

The issue here isn't about what you or I want. Let's face it. We're on the very fringe of a fringe of a niche market. We're considering plunking down a heck of a lot of money on a product nobody knows exists (s3), using a technology nobody understands (cc), with a poor service record (cable). It's really about whether or not this whole CC thing - and I supposed based on recent posts - the possible changes to franchises - is the right thing for the general user. I see it this way:

Our concerns: High end DVR and other yet to be delivered 3rd party devices delivering content from cable MSOs.
....


again this is how you choose to frame the whole thing.

there are some of us in this thread that beleive it's an oppurtunity to ditch the plain digital STB's so people can plug the cable into their tv's and get service just like they can today with analog cable.


..

John Q Public concerns: Already paying too much. Don't want to have to buy anything at all. Don't want to have to worry about when the cable guy is going to show up. Just want it to be cheap and easy.

There seems to be an obvious conflict between the two viewpoints.


and again forcing a single open standard today could solve that in the future. No need to buy ny thing fancy extra- it would just come built into like every tv. No need to rent a $5 STB to get HBO, maybe a buck or 2 a month to rent a cablecard. No need to wait around for the cable guy to show up becasue if they were 100% cablecard they would likelu allow self installs and you could pick the cards up at the local office or they could fedex them to you like DBS does today.

It's all how you choose to look at it.

[MichaelK]

The Telecom Act was passed in 1996.

The FCC opened the preceedings on how to implement the 'Commercial Availability Navigation Devices' section in February 1997. Their very first Notice of Proposed rulemaking mentioned the possibility of an 'integration ban' as a way of ensuring commercial viability without compromising security:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1783770001
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1783770002

The FCC released their first Report and Order on the subject in June 1998:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=2101780001

The first Report and Order in 1998 contained the requirement to seperate navigation from security ... and the 'integration ban'. The FCC found that the integration ban was required to meet the Congressional mandate of assuring commercial availability ... while also meeting the Congressional mandate of not compromising security.

Not sure how MSOs were supposed to act quicker than that ...

Now, the MSOs have certainly had ample time since then to prove to the FCC that the integration ban is not required to meet the FCC's Congressional mandate (and have tried to do so to the courts and the FCC). But I don't see how they could possibly have acted quickly enough to have "never have gotten to the point of considering the integration ban" since that took all of a year to consider and then another year to pass ...


cant speak for the original poster , but i think he's trying to say (or at least what I would say is): They new they had to un-integrate in 1998 and it seems they are unable to make that a low cost reality 9 years later in July of 2007. WHy aren't they further along to the end game rather then stalling for yet another delay to go 11 years or more before we get to the final open system?

I think some of this got trumped (or delayed, or diverted?) by the plug and play agreement? (I'll certainly defer to you guys in the know there). But that was in what 2000 or 2001? SO again 5-6 years to act. 8-9 to implement if the NCTA gets their latest requested delay.


<rhetorical on>

Why in this day and age of moore's law and plummeting technology costs that it still will add such a large chunk to the costs of the hardware?

I'll 1 million percent agree that i'm totally inept understanding the technology involved but it just seems like a bad situation that it costs so much. To An ignorant layman it just looks can buy so much more powerfull computer hardware for a fraction of the cablecard costs for the host hardware and the card itself. You can but a PC for $500, you'll probably be able to buy a low end vista media pc for a grand before long, yet it costs ~80 to add cablecard support? Just seems high.

Just seems like some poor decsions where made all along the way. Maybe a simplier or different system would have been better (I asked above about maybe cheaper smart cards like cablevision uses in their STB's- why not figure out a standard based on smart cards in 2000? )Sounds like at this point that downloadable security is the way to go, but why is that so far off still? CAble is a HUGE industry with scores and scores of millions of customers. Why didn't the players (cable and the cea) get together sooner and act like grownups and figure out the end game and implement it by now?

In the same period of time the wireless phone industry has moved from analog to several varients of 2g digital to 3g digital. Digital handsets of today are a franction of the cost and size of their analog predecesors with hundreds or thousands of times the computing power. The service that the phones are used for has thrieved, prices have plummeted, and the market has probably grown exponentially. 10 years ago sprint was building their inital network, now they have a crazy speed EVDO nework covering most people. How did the wireless business team with the headset people to achieve so much and cable and the CEA are still not sure even of the roadmap they want to follow?

Since it hasn't happened we're stuck with this bad situation that doesn't really seem to have a good way out.

[Brainiac 5]

Really? I'm sorry - I missed all those complaints from cable customers. Yes, there have been relatively infrequent complaints. The problem is that you're putting the cart completely away from the horse. The consumer will be charged something either way if they're using CC or a proprietary STB. That doesn't change. CC doesn't fix this.The complaints are relatively infrequent right now, when it's just a channel here or there. But I'm guessing that someday cable operators will discontinue analog cable entirely, at which time the complaints will likely be much more numerous.

As for CC not fixing it, you're absolutely right, that's why I said it went halfway. In theory, it's cheaper to have a CableCARD, and you only have one device (say the TV) to operate.

What you say in your other posts is also true, CableCARD is not a very good technology. The problem is, I think it's too late to go with anything else. How long ago was the mandate that resulted in CableCARD? Wasn't it like ten years ago? If the FCC said to come up with something better, wouldn't it be another ten years? And it wasn't hopeless, they could have designed something good, but they decided on CableCARD instead.

Concerning the cable companies supporting third party products, I've been wondering something. Why don't the techs that come to your house have a CableCARD device they can try a card in? For instance, a cable box like the ones that would be required by the integration ban? If the CableCARD works in their box, plugged into the same cable where you'd plug your TV or TiVo or whatever, then the problem is in your device and they can leave it at that. I'm not sure why they don't have any way to perform this simple troubleshooting step.

[bicker]

What you say in your other posts is also true, CableCARD is not a very good technology. The problem is, I think it's too late to go with anything else. It is only "too late" as long as the government says it is too late.

[PPC1]

Sorry, but completely disagree with almost 100% of your position. There is probably no point in continuing to debate this. When somebody says that the entire point of a franchise is to restrict competition there is obviously no possibility to continue discussion.

Isn't entry into the market restricted to those with franchise agreements? Don't applicant's have to meet your conditions to get a franchise agreement? Don't you exclude from the market those that don't agree to your terms?


Let's just say that we have markedly different perspectives, and that yours (IMHO) is one that if realized in reality would harm the general consumer.

Again, this is not the issue. I never once said get rid of the franchise authorities. I never once said get rid of government intervention. Go back and read my first post that set you off. My original point was, like it or not, there is government regulation of the industry (part of which has the effect of protecting the local franchise's market share, (I would go so far as to say "monopoly") so when it comes to discussing the regulations, let's not kid our selves about that any effort toward reducing the regulation would get us to a free market. The point is, unless you completely remove all government regulation, let's make the regulation work.



Also, please do not continue to use the term monopoly when it clearly does not legally apply.

In my area, I have ONE cable service provider available to me. THAT is a monopoly, in every sence of the word. Take a poll here. I am sure that I am not the only one to have only one cable option.


As for CC, it was the least bad of a very bad set of ideas. Least bad almost never means good. Certainly not in this case. I agree with this completely. But if it was the least bad option 10 years ago, has anything changed?

[winpitt]

The complaints are relatively infrequent right now, when it's just a channel here or there. But I'm guessing that someday cable operators will discontinue analog cable entirely, at which time the complaints will likely be much more numerous.

As for CC not fixing it, you're absolutely right, that's why I said it went halfway. In theory, it's cheaper to have a CableCARD, and you only have one device (say the TV) to operate.

What you say in your other posts is also true, CableCARD is not a very good technology. The problem is, I think it's too late to go with anything else. How long ago was the mandate that resulted in CableCARD? Wasn't it like ten years ago? If the FCC said to come up with something better, wouldn't it be another ten years? And it wasn't hopeless, they could have designed something good, but they decided on CableCARD instead.

Concerning the cable companies supporting third party products, I've been wondering something. Why don't the techs that come to your house have a CableCARD device they can try a card in? For instance, a cable box like the ones that would be required by the integration ban? If the CableCARD works in their box, plugged into the same cable where you'd plug your TV or TiVo or whatever, then the problem is in your device and they can leave it at that. I'm not sure why they don't have any way to perform this simple troubleshooting step.

They do. And they did. An excellent example is this. About 2 weeks ago a Comcast technician arrived at my home to install a CC in my Toshiba 46HM94. The Toshiba is just under 2 yrs old. He was not able to get the CC to decrypt anything. He had a unit with him that he was able to take that same CC and install it, and watch it decrypt all channels. He then looked at the firmware in my Toshiba, and found that it was relatively outdated. He then called Toshiba (from my home), who confirmed that there may be a firmware conflict and recommended flashing new firmware. The firmware has not yet been delivered. However, at this point Comcast has already rolled one truck. They are going to have to roll another truck. They had to spend the time trying to troubleshoot what appears to be a 3rd party defect not capable of being controlled by Comcast. This cost them money, time and resource. It will cost them more if I'm to continue trying to use CC. The problem is that you leave off when they determine it's a 3rd party issue. What happens then? Do you expect the user to just give up? Do you really think that will work? Do you expect the consumer to pay for the cost? The problem is that around this forum people simply dismiss this and say it should be the cost of doing business, and the MSO just needs to suck it up.

That is a very dangerous position to take. It essentially allows all the 3rd party vendors to ignore quality issues in terms of sw development, leaving all the cost to the MSO.

[winpitt]

Isn't entry into the market restricted to those with franchise agreements? Don't applicant's have to meet your conditions to get a franchise agreement? Don't you exclude from the market those that don't agree to your terms?

Again, this is not the issue. I never once said get rid of the franchise authorities. I never once said get rid of government intervention. Go back and read my first post that set you off. My original point was, like it or not, there is government regulation of the industry (part of which has the effect of protecting the local franchise's market share, (I would go so far as to say "monopoly") so when it comes to discussing the regulations, let's not kid our selves about that any effort toward reducing the regulation would get us to a free market. The point is, unless you completely remove all government regulation, let's make the regulation work.

In my area, I have ONE cable service provider available to me. THAT is a monopoly, in every sence of the word. Take a poll here. I am sure that I am not the only one to have only one cable option.

I agree with this completely. But if it was the least bad option 10 years ago, has anything changed?

Sorry, cannot agree with you. Just because only one provider cares to enter a market does not make it a monopoly. Nobody is being "prevented". Frankly, by your own definition, every single product or service that exists is constrained from being free competition. There is no product or service that I'm aware of that does not have some sort of obligation placed upon them, whether it be in the form of taxation, occupational health requirements, safety, etc. This is no different.

Taking a poll of how many people have more than one cable option is pointless. A better poll would be how many people could have cable or DBS. Some can have only cable. Some can have only DBS. Most can have both. That is a choice. The service we're being offered is CONTENT. The means of delivery is without consequence. No monopoly.

But of more significance is that Franchise Agreements are incredibly easy to get. There are actually (with the exception of the normal FCC requirements) few real obstacles. The largest simply have to do with rights of way, and build-out. To be clear, Franchise Fees are NOT an item of disagreement. That's because they're simply passed on (by law) to the consumer. The MSO pays none out of their pocket. Most municipalities don't even use their PEG options (which are federal and not local requirements). To be even more crystal clear - the only reason this debate even exists today is because Verizon saw a political opportunity to market changes as "increased competition" - AFTER they had already rolled out a significant amount of fiber. That opportunity would allow them to heavily increase profit margins by "cherry picking". The reality is quite simple. If no changes are made to either state or federal law, they will absolutely continue to roll out FiOS. They will be profitable. They will also provide services to far more people, serving the greater good. They will THEN truly provide competition on an even playing field. Anyone who thinks they'll just stop laying cable is a few bricks shy of a full load. That ship has already sailed. So, the only people to gain from changes to this legislation are - Verizon and ATT. People who think that the only reason they got - or will get - FiOS is because Franchise agreements are moved to either state or federal level simply have little awareness of the situation and the facts.

The only possible dispute to this is for somebody to explain what Verizon will do with all the fiber already installed if changes to the law are not made. If you can somehow convince yourself that they'll just abandon it, well, OK. That's a really tough argument to try and make.

[Stormspace]

Why didn't the players (cable and the CEA) get together sooner and act like grownups and figure out the end game and implement it by now?

I know you were being rhetorical but...

The cable industry is made up of numerous small entities and getting them all to agree on a standard that the CEA could implement would have been impossible or a short term solution if anything. Look at the state of cable ready sets prior to digital. How many years were we forced to use STB's before these were available? Even then sets handled the upper channels differently or not above a certain number.

The ONLY way to get both of these organizations on the same page was through regulation. CC is good for everyone and for innovation. Does this mean that cutting edge cable technology might be slowed? Yes it does. It also means that cutting edge reception equipment can also be developed without fear of the standard changing, or an entire region being incompatible because an MSO prefers one system over another.

[winpitt]

I know you were being rhetorical but...

The cable industry is made up of numerous small entities and getting them all to agree on a standard that the CEA could implement would have been impossible or a short term solution if anything. Look at the state of cable ready sets prior to digital. How many years were we forced to use STB's before these were available? Even then sets handled the upper channels differently or not above a certain number.

The ONLY way to get both of these organizations on the same page was through regulation. CC is good for everyone and for innovation. Does this mean that cutting edge cable technology might be slowed? Yes it does. It also means that cutting edge reception equipment can also be developed without fear of the standard changing, or an entire region being incompatible because an MSO prefers one system over another.

Do not agree with the statement that CC is good for everyone and for innovation. Actually, kind of think that it's actually bad for almost everyone (except us) and for innovation. I don't see that "cutting edge reception equipment can be developed without fear of the standard changing....". I do agree that advances will certainly be slowed.

I'm still waiting on what those new innovations will be as a result of CC - very seriously. I'm still having difficulty seeing CC as an avenue for anything really. Again, except for those of us wanting a TiVo S3 - myself included.

[Stormspace]

Do not agree with the statement that CC is good for everyone and for innovation. Actually, kind of think that it's actually bad for almost everyone (except us) and for innovation. I don't see that "cutting edge reception equipment can be developed without fear of the standard changing....". I do agree that advances will certainly be slowed.

I'm still waiting on what those new innovations will be as a result of CC - very seriously. I'm still having difficulty seeing CC as an avenue for anything really. Again, except for those of us wanting a TiVo S3 - myself included.

I don't have an S3 and don't plan on getting one. My views are strictly from a viewers perspective and what I want my TV to be able to do. It was mentioned before but Telephone equipment was expensive and limited before third parties were able to manufacture it. How do you think that would have gone if the phone company changed the standard every couple of years due to some imagined or real efficiency.

It's the same here. Stop arguing about how to deliver the signal and get on with more complex and wonderful equipment. Anything can happen with a standard in place like this since we now don't have to worry about how to get the signal, but instead worry about what to do with it.

[RoanokeHokie]

I'm still waiting on what those new innovations will be as a result of CC - very seriously. I'm still having difficulty seeing CC as an avenue for anything really.
Until cable companies can competently provide CableCARD installation, few companies will make the mistake of depending on it for their product's success. And, in the end, that's why the CEA mentioned this forum in their FCC filing. For all the TV sets that have been produced with CableCARD support, it is a decided minority that ever tried to get a CableCARD. However, almost every Series 3 owner is getting CableCARDs. That provides some good information, especially since TiVo seems to be very supportive of the cable operators. And still, there are Series 3 owners who can't get their service configured on CableCARDs, and many of those issue appear to be cable company problems, not TiVo problems.

So what other company is going to come out with a CableCARD device when the cable companies provide this level of support? This is why I think the integration ban is useful - not to push the CableCARD technology out to the low end, but to push the cable companies to train their support staff to handle CableCARDs.

The integration ban supports the innovation of solid CableCARD support from cable companies. If a cable company can demonstrate strong CableCARD support, then I think an integration waiver may be reasonable. But, to me, strong support includes:
Equivalent installation options as set-top boxes, including self-install.
Combined wait queues - no preference or penalty based on access device.
Identical or lower configuration error rate (incorrect programming package on cards, etc.)


The point isn't for the cable companies to only support CableCARD, but to provide effective support of CableCARD. If the only way to reach that point is the integration ban, then so be it. Since CableLabs developed CableCARD, I'm not willing to give them a break because of the issues of the device manufacturers - heck, I had a cable company tell me (5 years ago, admittedly) to replace my TV because it couldn't deal with the (defective) video out from a cable box. I ended up returning the box (going back to analog only) and then getting another box which worked when I upgraded again - one week later.

[winpitt]

I don't have an S3 and don't plan on getting one. My views are strictly from a viewers perspective and what I want my TV to be able to do. It was mentioned before but Telephone equipment was expensive and limited before third parties were able to manufacture it. How do you think that would have gone if the phone company changed the standard every couple of years due to some imagined or real efficiency.

It's the same here. Stop arguing about how to deliver the signal and get on with more complex and wonderful equipment. Anything can happen with a standard in place like this since we now don't have to worry about how to get the signal, but instead worry about what to do with it.

I wish you (and others) would stop bringing up the completely out of context telephone company analogy. As mentioned countless times before, there is no semblence of similarity between them. Nobody forced the phone companies to develop a new standard. Nobody. This is completely different from forcing MSOs to adopt a very narrowly focused, untested and error prone technology solution - and then to force them to assume all Tier 1 support responsibilities. There are certainly arguments that can be made here, but comparisons to telephone service is not one of them.

I'm asking a very simple question. Nobody has yet answered. What exactly are those innovations that we believe will result from the ban and the implementation of CC? I see clear innovations possible as a result of IP (which already exists) but none on behalf of CC.

[winpitt]

Until cable companies can competently provide CableCARD installation, few companies will make the mistake of depending on it for their product's success. And, in the end, that's why the CEA mentioned this forum in their FCC filing. For all the TV sets that have been produced with CableCARD support, it is a decided minority that ever tried to get a CableCARD. However, almost every Series 3 owner is getting CableCARDs. That provides some good information, especially since TiVo seems to be very supportive of the cable operators. And still, there are Series 3 owners who can't get their service configured on CableCARDs, and many of those issue appear to be cable company problems, not TiVo problems.

So what other company is going to come out with a CableCARD device when the cable companies provide this level of support? This is why I think the integration ban is useful - not to push the CableCARD technology out to the low end, but to push the cable companies to train their support staff to handle CableCARDs.

The integration ban supports the innovation of solid CableCARD support from cable companies. If a cable company can demonstrate strong CableCARD support, then I think an integration waiver may be reasonable. But, to me, strong support includes:
Equivalent installation options as set-top boxes, including self-install.
Combined wait queues - no preference or penalty based on access device.
Identical or lower configuration error rate (incorrect programming package on cards, etc.)


The point isn't for the cable companies to only support CableCARD, but to provide effective support of CableCARD. If the only way to reach that point is the integration ban, then so be it. Since CableLabs developed CableCARD, I'm not willing to give them a break because of the issues of the device manufacturers - heck, I had a cable company tell me (5 years ago, admittedly) to replace my TV because it couldn't deal with the (defective) video out from a cable box. I ended up returning the box (going back to analog only) and then getting another box which worked when I upgraded again - one week later.

So you would expect the MSOs to assume all responsibilities for defects associated with 3rd party vendors? I can provide many examples of that which exist right now. Do you believe that the MSOs should be forced to eat those costs?

If so, assuming you owned an MSO would YOU be OK with that?

A second question: Since it is highly likely (and legal) for the MSOs to pass those costs along to the consumer, are you OK with passing those costs along to consumers - who by majority would almost certainly disagree that they care about CC or the ban? Who are not complaining about anything you guys are, but ARE complaining about existing bills? Your statement that they should essentially eat costs associated with supporting 3rd party vendors ("not willing to give a break") highlights that you're most certainly not employed in the technology field - at least not at an Enterprise level. Not an insult - just an obvious observation.

Finally, let's clear something else up. CE manufacturers did NOT stop embedding CC in devices because of support issues. They did so because people didn't even know what they were for, and didn't care about them. With the singular exception of the S3 adopters, that has not changed one iota. Most certainly the providers have not earnestly sought out how to best support CC. But that's not the reason it's not popular. It's not popular because nobody cares about it except us. Why do you believe that will change? Less and less broadcast equipment (except for TVs) is "bought" and more and more is "leased". No warranty worries. No investment worries. That's the way the market is moving.

I still don't see it. Not from a market - or a technology perspective.

One other thing - and this is completely factual. The overwhelming majority of users out there are NOT cc users, and don't even know what it is, much less care about it. Support is an investment. Providers are trying to make that investment where it is best utilized. If you ask 1000 cable customers (excluding this small forum) whether they'd rather have faster STB and DVR installations and quicker turnaround, or have those same people focusing on CC, what do you think their response will be? And if you're saying they should do both, you're now arguing against others on this site who believe there is no additional support cost for CC.

To me, just another example of how singularly biased we as a group are - and in conflict with the wishes and desires of the general consumer.

[CrispyCritter]

Finally, let's clear something else up. CE manufacturers did NOT stop embedding CC in devices because of support issues. They did so because people didn't even know what they were for, and didn't care about them. You're making a very strong statement. Please back it up; I don't believe your unsupported statement for a second.

[winpitt]

You're making a very strong statement. Please back it up; I don't believe your unsupported statement for a second.

Really? I completely stand by it. Prove me wrong. Show me a single, solitary example of CC being added because of the consumer asking for it.

Show me anything that says otherwise.

Actually show me something that says the general consumer even knows what CC is.

Not even people here are arguing that support is what caused CC to not take off in CE devices.

Of course, if you don't believe me you could look at the following. In the first link, note the statement "Frustrated by the lack of consumer interest, many television manufacturers have sharply cut the number of CableCard-ready models"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/technology/03cable.html?ei=5088&en=4051c7b474d19c71&ex=1309579200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1163534836-YhEaul0C+vmj+KfoyZlcAA

or

http://www.pvrwire.com/2006/09/15/are-cablecards-doomed/

or

http://www.techliberation.com/archives/040763.php

or

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=77&article_id=1808&page_number=1&print_page=y

By all accounts, no more than 3% of all CC slot equipped devices have ever even had a CC attempted to be inserted into them.

That is a clear and unadulterated lack of consumer interest.

Let's be even more clear. I am NOT saying that MSOs have done a great job in supporting CC. I am NOT saying that MSOs haven't caused a great deal of frustration around CC.

However, you need to separate consumer interest from demonstrated support. The former deals with the likely market cap for this technology. The latter deals with adoption for that small segment who might be interested.

[Stormspace]

That is a clear and unadulterated lack of consumer interest.

Not exactly, you fail to mention that CC add 200-300 to the base price of the set. CE manufacturers have removed CC from devices to sell these already overpriced sets.

I can't believe I bought one.... ;)

Course, mine doesn't support Cable Card because I couldn't afford a tuner. If I had it would have had CC support.

[PPC1]

http://www.techliberation.com/archives/040763.php



I find it interesting that one of the articles you cite actually supports my prior posts:



But rather than repealing regulations that are currently acting as barriers to entry in that industry (such as liberalizing the cable franchise system) they've dreamed up a highly artificial "market" in which firms are only allowed to compete in ways carefully circumscribed by the regulators. Incumbents invariably find ways to subvert or co-opt such regulations, with the result that they wind up simply forcing the incumbents to jump through a lot of hoops and wasting a lot of money on lawyers and lobbyists.

[winpitt]

Not exactly, you fail to mention that CC add 200-300 to the base price of the set. CE manufacturers have removed CC from devices to sell these already overpriced sets.

I can't believe I bought one.... ;)

Course, mine doesn't support Cable Card because I couldn't afford a tuner. If I had it would have had CC support.

Nope. Even the articles I mention don't show that cost as being the issue. They do show that people who bought them (myself included - have had CC capable set for 2 years but only 2 weeks ago attempted to use it) mainly never ever tried to use it.

CC did not add $200-300 to the sets. Those sets - like the one I bought - had other additional features beside the CC capability which affected price.

The bottom line, however is because only 3% of all sets sold with CC have actually ever used CC says it all. As evidenced elsewhere, you can't blame CE manufacturers for dropping a feature that added cost while nobody was asking for it.

[winpitt]

I find it interesting that one of the articles you cite actually supports my prior posts:

Read the whole thing. Also don't construe that "liberalizing" means eliminating build-out requirements. If that single requirement were not eliminated from proposed changes, I'd feel quite differently. The reality is alas not the case.

To be honest, the only two things I care about with respect to Franchise Agreements are build-out requirements (to insure we don't disenfranchise a large percentage of the United States) and quality oversight. I could care less about Franchise Fees, etc. I guess I do care about PEG, but am not really highly charged about it.

Of course, the only thing that (for example) Verizon cares about getting removed - is build-out requirements. Let's not kid ourselves. Being biased is one thing. Being blindly biased is quite another.

[PPC1]

Read the whole thing. Also don't construe that "liberalizing" means eliminating build-out requirements. If that single requirement were not eliminated from proposed changes, I'd feel quite differently. The reality is alas not the case.

Yes, I read the whole thing. And no I don't equate "liberalizing" with eliminating build-out requirements. I refered to that only because that was a restriction that you admitted to. Perhaps if I looked, I would find others. But this is a requirment to compete market that you admitted existed.

To be honest, the only two things I care about with respect to Franchise Agreements are build-out requirements (to insure we don't disenfranchise a large percentage of the United States) and quality oversight. I could care less about Franchise Fees, etc. I guess I do care about PEG, but am not really highly charged about it.

I fully understand why you would want to impose this restriction. I am not claiming that you are evil for wanting to interfere with the marketplace for the benefit of the consumer. It is the natural monopoly character of the utility industry that drives government intervention. I fully admit that without your build-out requirement, some consumers will be left with either no service or increased service fees. Nor do I seriously contest the position that the consumer is better off with government regulation in this field. But just admit the obvious-- the build out requirement is a barrier. Like it or not, this barrier protects the incumbent. Without it, the incumbent carrier in SW PA would now be competing with Verizon.

Let's not kid ourselves. Being biased is one thing. Being blindly biased is quite another.

Yes, let's not kid ourselves.

[winpitt]

Yes, I read the whole thing. And no I don't equate "liberalizing" with eliminating build-out requirements. I refered to that only because that was a restriction that you admitted to. Perhaps if I looked, I would find others. But this is a restriction you admitted existed.

I fully understand why you would want to impose this restriction. I am not claiming that you are evil for wanting to interfere with the marketplace for the benefit of the consumer. It is the natural monopoly character of the utility industry that drives government intervention. I fully admit that without your build-out requirement, some consumers will be left with either no service or increased service fees. Nor do I seriously contest the position that the consumer is better off with government regulation in this field. But just admit the obvious-- the build out requirement is a barrier. Like it or not, this barrier protects the incumbent. Without it, the incumbent carrier in SW PA would now be competing with Verizon.

Yes, let's not kid ourselves.

I guess our difference in opinion comes at heart from this. You're saying that because there is that "requirement" (note the different term rather than barrier) the market is being affected. Well, Yes. I already said that. No differently than the requirement to pay taxes, worry about health/safety issues, etc. Again - virtually every single product or service sold in the US has some sort of requirement attached to it. That's normal.

Where I see it differently is that Verizon would clearly still enter the market regardless. This is NOT a barrier. The only reason they are delaying (and that is the correct term to use - they are definitely going to enter regardless) is because they see a potential near term windfall. Build-out requirements are NOT a barrier. They are NOT barring Verizon from entry. Verizon seeing a potential advantage by waiting is only delaying them. Have you noticed that they haven't stopped deploying? Do you really believe they will not enter the market after spending hundreds of millions of dollars installing fiber? That they would just walk away?

No. If anything, the Verizon sponsored mullti-media marketing campaign to promote "competition" as a result of adopting federal or state Franchise Agreements are the barrier. It's simple. If there was no proposed legislation, Verizon would be directly competing with the incumbent today.

Again, let's not kid ourselves :)

[winpitt]

I find it interesting that one of the articles you cite actually supports my prior posts:

BTW - truly absolutely no insult intended, but I had to chuckle that you liked that article when it isn't exactly enamored with lawyers. When I posted that link I was wondering how you'd react to it.

I was laughing with you - not at you. :)

[winpitt]

Oh, I forgot one thing. The Cable MSOs joined with Verizon on the State version of the bill that would grant Statewide franchise agreements. They also see the value in not having to service a good number of geographical areas, and the opportunity to gain additional revenues in those areas. They also see that Verizon is coming and are trying to eke out some more revenue. Doesn't seem to make sense that if they thought it was a barrier, the incumbent would also be lobbying for the change, right?

[ac3dd]

Remember when not needing a box was a selling point that they used when trying to convince people not to use satellite? Cable companies should be embracing and promoting CableCards for their own good, rather than desparately clinging onto the revenue from renting the boxes.

Many people only get analog cable because they don't want boxes strewn around to the different TVs in their house, or they don't want yet another box cluttering up the already-crowded area where the TV sits (they probably have a DVD player, amplifier, video game console, etc. already taking up space).

Lots of people don't know what CableCard is, and that's after having bought a TV with it! CableCard is still in its infancy as most of the market is concerned, and most people don't demand it because they don't know about it.

[winpitt]

Remember when not needing a box was a selling point that they used when trying to convince people not to use satellite? Cable companies should be embracing and promoting CableCards for their own good, rather than desparately clinging onto the revenue from renting the boxes.

Many people only get analog cable because they don't want boxes strewn around to the different TVs in their house, or they don't want yet another box cluttering up the already-crowded area where the TV sits (they probably have a DVD player, amplifier, video game console, etc. already taking up space).

Lots of people don't know what CableCard is, and that's after having bought a TV with it! CableCard is still in its infancy as most of the market is concerned, and most people don't demand it because they don't know about it.

Huh? "for their own good"? People getting analog only service get it because they don't want to spend more money. Not because they don't want an STB. If I owned or was employed by a cable company I'd hate CC also. Why? Forget about the potential lost revenue - I really don't care about that. That's normal business. What I do care about is the fact (and it is a fact) that they inherit quality issues from 3rd party manufacturers.

Do a quick search - even via just google - for Toshiba and Cablecard. What you'll see is a myriad of problems associated with different firmware revisions from Toshiba that have created problems - completely separate and uncontrolled by cable providers. Yet, the cable providers are in each and every case the repeated Tier 1 support element that has to continue working with consumers. It's not costing Toshiba a darned thing. It most certainly is costing the cable provider something. Why should the cableco eat the costs associated with supporting CC on a 3rd party device that didn't do a darn thing for them?

This is just an example. It's normal technology. Enterprise IT is filled with similar stories. That's why we've got the term "one throat to choke" - meaning that we'd like to partner with vendors that can provide vertical solutions eliminating such support issues. Unfortunately, cable has nowhere to go. There is absolutely no advantage to cableco's for CC. Nothing but trouble, increased cost, and lost revenue. IF - and ONLY IF - the public really had a demonstrated desire for such technology, the argument would be better. However, as it stands there just isn't any demand whatsoever, but we force the MSOs to divert their attention from more valuable and worthy endeavors for this unknown and unwanted technology (except for us - who want the S3 to work, including me).

[winpitt]

the verizon in Maryland case is an example of how you see things as absolute. YOu think what happens in your town in your franchise board is universal. It is not. ANd this is just another example.

No, what I said is that we don't need more legislation to fix what appears to be an issue where people acted illegally.

If they are acting outside the law, they should be prosecuted. To that extent I do believe in "absolutes".

When people drive illegally under the influence of alcohol you don't outlaw either drinking or driving. You enforce the existing law to prevent them from driving when intoxicated.

Verizon has this avenue, and they have certainly used it in the past.

[winpitt]

Funny but we actually agree on this point which is pretty mush the whole crux of the thing.

I am pretty sure that anyone that asks will get a waiver for the low end boxes. And As I've said like 10 times before in this thread I think that's the smart thing to do.

I also think verizon's argument has some merit.

I think the NCTA's argument for a huge blanket waiver just goes too far and so it wont get granted. If the NCTA had taken a reasonable stance then likely the FCC would have met them half way (or more- since as Bicker points out the governemnt is really skewed pro-business currently). I think it's just another example of cable pushing too hard and they will wind up gettting B-slapped for it (like happened with analogwith must carry/ and retransmission conset, like what happened with sub channel must carry, etc, etc ). WIll be interesting to see what happens in the next couple weeks when the FCC starts rulling on the wiaver requests. We'll see what the end result is then...

I think Verizons argument has zero merit. The only thing they care about in the discussion is build-out. Removing that requirement has dire effects on lots of people. They even admit that they're entering the market regardless.

Bottom line? If we as a country cave on this, it just shows that we're absolutely terrible business people and can be bought or swayed by a ridiculous story.

[winpitt]

sure-

and along those e lines they dont want to rent a box for each tv set in their house to the tune of $5/each. They dont want to have to maintain a house full of STB's.

You and I see this from a fundamentally different point of view. I think it's all about getting rid of STB's for the low end. You seem to think the point is so people can get third party STB's like TIvo. We just see it differently. I think the law, regulations, and record support my point of view., Some how you don't see it that way.

Not $5 each really. You're adding outlet charges, which don't go away. And I (nicely) challenge you to find something from consumers in general complaining about this. I can find countless articles complaining about pricing and availability. None but from small splinter groups like us complaining about STBs. People actually have moved MORE toward leasing of STBs, etc. Note the move from purchase to lease for DBS equipment.

[winpitt]

does that have anything to do with cable regulation? (serious question) or just economy of scale? The current economic climate? The huge amounts needed to invest in infrastructure to compete with dbs and the telcos?

Also I would like to point out it's still possible for the little (well maybe medium) companies to do alright. My system used to be ran by RCN. They treated us as their red headed step children. Until a few years ago they literally had like 39 analog channels and one way cable modems. Then about 2.5- 3.5 years ago a private group from CT bought out the local system from RCN. 800,000 subs (so not tiny but not one of the big guns either). They spent money to upgrade like drunken sailors on shore leave. They started rebuilding everything within months of buying the system. Now we have a butt kicking triple play package and they are gaining subs and expanding all the time hiring new employees and becoming a bigger fixture around here. They got named 2006 "independent cable operator of the year". They support cable cards just fine and I haven't seen any request for waivers from them to the FCC. So I think they plan on complying with the current regs that say July, 2007 (even though I think they should at least try for the exemption for plain boxes). I love them, I wish them well, and I dont think cablecard will kill them.

You've got a point, and there's one small independent provider here. I'd be more than willing, however, to bet that within 10 years they don't exist. Likely within 5. It is about scale and as new more advanced services (note I didn't say devices) come online, the smaller guys will be more and more unable to keep up. JMHO.

[winpitt]

again this is how you choose to frame the whole thing.

there are some of us in this thread that beleive it's an oppurtunity to ditch the plain digital STB's so people can plug the cable into their tv's and get service just like they can today with analog cable.


and again forcing a single open standard today could solve that in the future. No need to buy ny thing fancy extra- it would just come built into like every tv. No need to rent a $5 STB to get HBO, maybe a buck or 2 a month to rent a cablecard. No need to wait around for the cable guy to show up becasue if they were 100% cablecard they would likelu allow self installs and you could pick the cards up at the local office or they could fedex them to you like DBS does today.

It's all how you choose to look at it.

Highly unlikely by all involved (even CC promoters) that long term costs will actually decline. I've never seen ANY study that shows this.

[winpitt]

cant speak for the original poster , but i think he's trying to say (or at least what I would say is): They new they had to un-integrate in 1998 and it seems they are unable to make that a low cost reality 9 years later in July of 2007. WHy aren't they further along to the end game rather then stalling for yet another delay to go 11 years or more before we get to the final open system?

I think some of this got trumped (or delayed, or diverted?) by the plug and play agreement? (I'll certainly defer to you guys in the know there). But that was in what 2000 or 2001? SO again 5-6 years to act. 8-9 to implement if the NCTA gets their latest requested delay.


<rhetorical on>

Why in this day and age of moore's law and plummeting technology costs that it still will add such a large chunk to the costs of the hardware?

I'll 1 million percent agree that i'm totally inept understanding the technology involved but it just seems like a bad situation that it costs so much. To An ignorant layman it just looks can buy so much more powerfull computer hardware for a fraction of the cablecard costs for the host hardware and the card itself. You can but a PC for $500, you'll probably be able to buy a low end vista media pc for a grand before long, yet it costs ~80 to add cablecard support? Just seems high.

Just seems like some poor decsions where made all along the way. Maybe a simplier or different system would have been better (I asked above about maybe cheaper smart cards like cablevision uses in their STB's- why not figure out a standard based on smart cards in 2000? )Sounds like at this point that downloadable security is the way to go, but why is that so far off still? CAble is a HUGE industry with scores and scores of millions of customers. Why didn't the players (cable and the cea) get together sooner and act like grownups and figure out the end game and implement it by now?

In the same period of time the wireless phone industry has moved from analog to several varients of 2g digital to 3g digital. Digital handsets of today are a franction of the cost and size of their analog predecesors with hundreds or thousands of times the computing power. The service that the phones are used for has thrieved, prices have plummeted, and the market has probably grown exponentially. 10 years ago sprint was building their inital network, now they have a crazy speed EVDO nework covering most people. How did the wireless business team with the headset people to achieve so much and cable and the CEA are still not sure even of the roadmap they want to follow?

Since it hasn't happened we're stuck with this bad situation that doesn't really seem to have a good way out.

A couple interesting notes:

First of all, Moores Law is in danger of being broken as we speak. Don't know if you were aware of that. In the tech industry we're already discussion somewhat changing the definition of Moore's law to include virtual application of technology as opposed to physical power increases.

Second, you're also missing something with respect to EVDO (whether Sprint or Verizon) and EDGE. Those are closed systems, where the entire DEVICE (ie, the entire communications transciever) must be approved by the vendor - and note that specific devices are manufactured SPECIFICALLY for each service provider. Example: Treo700w is CDMA/EVDO for Verizon only. 8125 is GSM/EDGE for Cingular/ATT only. The biggest issue is that the devices have such broad application and appeal that the scale and market opportunity is immense - plus they have an 18 month lifecycle. This is so completely different from CC that it's hilarious. BTW: 3G is essentially non-existent - just as an aside.

Third, you need to become aware of the TRUE cost of IT. You mention buying (in the future) a Vista compliant machine for $1K. You should consider the cost of buying such a machine and having it being a member of your Enterprise Network. The cost of standardization, things like Group Policies, PKI infrastructure, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure there are people on this board that know what I'm saying. Just triple the cost of that machine to actually have it live on a mature and well managed large Enterprise Network - similar to what you'd consider a cableco. Then add in the cost of change management, locking down local administrative privileges, etc. Then consider that ALL of the underlying technology is built upon a globally agreed upon technology stack (the OSI model) using incredibly mature technology such as TCP/IP, Http(s), RDP, RPC, etc, etc. As opposed to a very small untested niche technology like CC. There is an incredibly large difference.

The issue is that you're comparing consumer device costs (non-enterprise networked PCs) with devices that must be supported by large enterprises. You shouldn't feel bad about it - people make that mistake all the time because of the "Best Buy" syndrome. After all, if I can buy a 100mb Ethernet Switch for $50 at Best Buy, why is Cisco charging me $7000? There is most definitely an answer.

A final note: In each of the cases you bring up, simple market economics drove the change. Not federal legislation forcing the adoption of a relatively untested technology. The difference is that there was a known and large demand for such technologies - as opposed to the situation with CC.

[ac3dd]

Huh? "for their own good"? People getting analog only service get it because they don't want to spend more money. Not because they don't want an STB.Many people I know don't want digital cable because it's another box they have to deal with. They have to deal not just with the space, but paying $5-10 per month per box, which is annoying when there are 3-4 TVs in the house. The box clutters their space AND makes them spend more money and makes them fumble with controlling 2 devices with the remote (or two). Having a separate box is also inconvenient in other areas like the bedroom.

My aunt in particular didn't have a DVD player until late last year because she didn't want another box cluttering the TV area in the living room. Eventually I bought her a DVD/VCR combo, which replaced the VCR, so she could have DVD and VCR without increasing the number of boxes. She has more money than me and could easily afford it, but she (like many other women) don't like devices cluttering their living room area.

Audio-video enthusiasts like me or you don't mind the boxes if that's what it takes to watch what we want. Millions of other people don't care about TV that much, and small annoyances will turn them off.

[Brainiac 5]

Huh? "for their own good"? People getting analog only service get it because they don't want to spend more money. Not because they don't want an STB.I can't speak for everyone else in the country, but I can say that this isn't true for me. I've stuck with analog for years, exactly because I didn't want a box. I don't want one on my TVs, and I don't want my TiVos to have to control a box with some kludged-up IR blaster.

The day the S3 came out, I ordered one, and when it arrived I upgraded to a nice digital cable plan. If it is in any way possible, I will never own a device that displays or records television and cannot tune/decode the channels by itself.

I know this is anecdotal evidence and doesn't prove anything about anyone other than me, so of course make what you will of it (if anything)...

[Brainiac 5]

First of all, Moores Law is in danger of being broken as we speak. Don't know if you were aware of that.Of course, people have been saying this for some time and it hasn't happened yet. That's not to say that this time it won't be true, but I've given up on predicting. :)

Second, you're also missing something with respect to EVDO (whether Sprint or Verizon) and EDGE. Those are closed systems, where the entire DEVICE (ie, the entire communications transciever) must be approved by the vendor - and note that specific devices are manufactured SPECIFICALLY for each service provider.Well, this isn't entirely true. In the case of companies that use GSM/GPRS/EDGE, you can go buy a phone wherever you want and stick your SIM card into it, and it's on the network. People do it all the time - they buy unlocked phones that haven't been released by any carriers in the US yet, and use them on Cingular, T-Mobile, or whatever (maybe only geeks do this, but they're people). Anyway, it works.

But on the actual subject of your reply, I agree. The reason they're not further along with making non-integrated boxes even though they've had this long is that integrated boxes are inherently cheaper. If for no other reason, then because there's only one piece of equipment to manufacture, and because they don't have to implement the box to CableCARD interface, or have separate components that talk over it if there's a cheaper alternative (which there almost certainly is).

[Justin Thyme]

Winpit... narrow market for CC blah blah blah... Gee- wonder how it got to be such a narrow market. Funny how that worked out.

Frankly, I am tired of the vertical monopoly games. I am tired of the idea that companies can build cars that require me to go to only one company for my gas. I am tired of the perpetual 2 year lock In commitment even for the most minor service change. I am tired of only being able to buy devices which mysteriously only allow me to buy services from the company I got the device from (why no wireless-G or GMRS walkie talkie on my phone). I am tired of hearing about whining to the FCC about all the technical problems after a decade- about all the overhead while these Telco and Cable/Sat providers have obscene profits.

Yeah, and I'm tired of the cable and satco games with Tivo and the FCC.

Congress has switched hands, and I as well as a number of other victims of these vertical monopolists are seriously po'd about getting locked in and squeezed hard. The FCC seriously needs a change of management, a philosophical change about the role of government in dealing with these kinds of shenagengans, and lastly, the enforcement power to carry out the 1996 Telco act.

I am not for huge government interventionism but enough is a enough- all these platforms have to be blown open so that hardware may not be used as a mechanism for excluding competition between service providers.

We can start with simple enforcement of the 1996 Telco act.

EG- As I have long stated, I think 1 decade is about long enough of a waiver for the Satcos to comply- the act said that waivers could only be temporary. One decade? Sheesh.

[bicker]

Until cable companies can competently provide CableCARD installation, few companies will make the mistake of depending on it for their product's success.Well said. And the best way to facilitate that is to make providing CableCards as profitable or more so than the alternative. That's what a lot of anti-business people fail to realize -- that the way to get a company to do what you want is to provide a profit motive to do so (because the pro-business people aren't going to let you push them into doing what you want by punishing investor-owned companies).

So what other company is going to come out with a CableCARD device when the cable companies provide this level of support? This is why I think the integration ban is useful - not to push the CableCARD technology out to the low end, but to push the cable companies to train their support staff to handle CableCARDs.And this needs to be implemented in a way that it is a net-win for the cable company, or they will object to it, and with good reason.

[winpitt]

Winpit... narrow market for CC blah blah blah... Gee- wonder how it got to be such a narrow market. Funny how that worked out.

Frankly, I am tired of the vertical monopoly games. I am tired of the idea that companies can build cars that require me to go to only one company for my gas. I am tired of the perpetual 2 year lock In commitment even for the most minor service change. I am tired of only being able to buy devices which mysteriously only allow me to buy services from the company I got the device from (why no wireless-G or GMRS walkie talkie on my phone). I am tired of hearing about whining to the FCC about all the technical problems after a decade- about all the overhead while these Telco and Cable/Sat providers have obscene profits.

Yeah, and I'm tired of the cable and satco games with Tivo and the FCC.

Congress has switched hands, and I as well as a number of other victims of these vertical monopolists are seriously po'd about getting locked in and squeezed hard. The FCC seriously needs a change of management, a philosophical change about the role of government in dealing with these kinds of shenagengans, and lastly, the enforcement power to carry out the 1996 Telco act.

I am not for huge government interventionism but enough is a enough- all these platforms have to be blown open so that hardware may not be used as a mechanism for excluding competition between service providers.

We can start with simple enforcement of the 1996 Telco act.

EG- As I have long stated, I think 1 decade is about long enough of a waiver for the Satcos to comply- the act said that waivers could only be temporary. One decade? Sheesh.

"some" of the MSOs have large profits. Others are bankrupt. Yet others are teetering on the edge.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the market. And the Telco act of 1996. What I will agree with you about is that the FCC is seriously mismanaged - and has been for more than 20 years. This is nothing recent, and removing all oversight and enforcement to them will certainly not be an improvement.

Further, scream all you want, but the facts are that CC just isn't relevant. I really don't care if you would wish to purchase devices from another company. I really don't care that I PERSONALLY want to do so as well. That's not the point whatsoever. What IS the point is that the entire fiasco provides no real advantage for the consumer.

I'm still waiting for somebody here to find me ONE SINGLE ARTICLE showing that consumers are more fed up with having STBs than they are with costs. I can point to literally hundreds complaining about rising costs. I can't find ONE from consumers (not this forum) that is complaining about STBs instead. Perhaps I'm just using the wrong keywords.

Your perspective is very dangerous, and frankly if viewed rationally without legal basis for good reason. Entertainment is non-essential. Government stepping in and deciding how non-essential services must be delivered including hardware platforms in private industry is, well, communism. Maybe not by the pure definition, but certainly the intent. Frankly, you and I shouldn't have a darned say about how it's done. You don't like it? Go to DBS. You CAN vote with your feet - today. Or, are you also saying now that even DBS must comply with this and open their systems too? Actually, how can you legally and rationally impose this standard for cable and not for DBS? Government should only insure that the service is provided fairly and equally to all consumers. Not to decide how.

Until somebody can show me some sort of proof that the majority of the consumer group really wants CC - especially knowing the downside - then it's a bad deal. It's government trying to legislate "convenience" - most certainly not competition.

Last time I checked, "convenience" wasn't mentioned anywhere in the consititution.

[winpitt]

Winpit... narrow market for CC blah blah blah... Gee- wonder how it got to be such a narrow market. Funny how that worked out.


Oh, and another thing. CC got to be a narrow market - because it always was - and likely always will be. I was comparing it to technology such as switched ethernet, since somebody mistakenly compared CC to such data and voice technology.

If you're thinking there's some sort of black helicopter consipiracy theory on behalf of cable, SA or Moto, you're sadly mistaken. Are they responsible to a large extent for support issues? Most certainly. Are they responsible for the potential market size? No friggin way.

That, my friend is pure market economics. The ONLY thing that CC can be used for at this point - or anytime in the relatively near future, are digital TVs and TiVo S3s. There are a couple outliers which are similar, such as the Toshiba internal DVR for theater TVs (Symbio), but that really uses the same CC that is in the Toshiba display. There are a couple converged devices which are being trialed as well, but they pretty much fall into the same category.

Neither cableco's nor SA/Moto is big or bad enough to somehow prevent consumers from learning about CC - if it were in fact relevant. Ipso Facto, no conspiracy. Just bad technology attempted to be forced by ridiculous policy in the face of market lunacy.

[Justin Thyme]

The internet is not in the constititution either. And yet, I have a net gigabit net card that costs me $59, that does heterogeneous transport layers and protocols.

Heh heh. Kind of funny what a decade will do. Choice one, free market. Choice two: vertical markets.

Let's go back to choice one. Like I said, with the congress in different hands and with a less cozy relationship to monopolists, perhaps that will come about.

[ac3dd]

Until somebody can show me some sort of proof that the majority of the consumer group really wants CC - especially knowing the downside - then it's a bad deal. It's government trying to legislate "convenience" - most certainly not competition.Most people don't know what CableCard is, so asking them whether they want CableCard is irrelevant.

But ask them if they want to use TVs without needing set-top boxes to get all the channels, or if they would like to buy their own box for $70 rather than perpetually pay $5-10/month to rent one, and be able to use that box with another cable provider, and most will say yes.

The DOCSIS standard has facilitated that low-cost and portability for cable modems. CableCard can do that for cable boxes.

[RoanokeHokie]

So you would expect the MSOs to assume all responsibilities for defects associated with 3rd party vendors? I can provide many examples of that which exist right now. Do you believe that the MSOs should be forced to eat those costs?

If so, assuming you owned an MSO would YOU be OK with that?

A second question: Since it is highly likely (and legal) for the MSOs to pass those costs along to the consumer, are you OK with passing those costs along to consumers - who by majority would almost certainly disagree that they care about CC or the ban? Who are not complaining about anything you guys are, but ARE complaining about existing bills? Your statement that they should essentially eat costs associated with supporting 3rd party vendors ("not willing to give a break") highlights that you're most certainly not employed in the technology field - at least not at an Enterprise level. Not an insult - just an obvious observation.
Don't quit your day job - you're not a psychic. I work for a small technology company that develops storage systems for consumer and small/medium business. Previously, though, I worked for a company that produced test and measurement equipment for telephone and cable companies, although I worked only in the telecomm group. I have worked in the enterprise space, and the same things happen everywhere.

Customers are going to pick "something" to blame, and they'll call them. This happens with my current job, where our main bit of software is a device driver for our products. They install our driver, see "something bad", and then blame us. I believe a keylogger install was even blamed on our software, and the customer asked us to pay for a year of credit monitoring for them. But as a small company, can we shoo these people away? No, because we need to make EVERY customer happy. (Kinda like what I expect of TiVo...)

Arguing about allocation of costs is a red herring, anyway. The CableCARD specification was created by the cable industry through their research group, CableLabs. I've seen the "support informaton" available from CableCARDs, and it simply seems insufficient. So who should I hold responsible when a standard doesn't provide enough support to diagnose problems: the sponsor of the creator of the standard, or the independent company which is implementing it? Obviously my small company background DOES come out here, and it why I feel that cable should take responsibility for the issues in their standard - even if the issue is simply a lack of easily understandable status for the technicians.

[winpitt]

The internet is not in the constititution either. And yet, I have a net gigabit net card that costs me $59, that does heterogeneous transport layers and protocols.

Heh heh. Kind of funny what a decade will do. Choice one, free market. Choice two: vertical markets.

Let's go back to choice one. Like I said, with the congress in different hands and with a less cozy relationship to monopolists, perhaps that will come about.

Wrong analogy.

Gig ethernet card: Based on time tested, globally accepted, widely used protocol. Almost unlimited potential in terms of market audience.

CC: Based on untested, relatively poorly accepted, incredibly low used protocol. Almost no potential ourside of initial market.

Funny what technology driven by markets do as opposed to technology mandated by ill informed government.

[winpitt]

Don't quit your day job - you're not a psychic. I work for a small technology company that develops storage systems for consumer and small/medium business. Previously, though, I worked for a company that produced test and measurement equipment for telephone and cable companies, although I worked only in the telecomm group. I have worked in the enterprise space, and the same things happen everywhere.

Customers are going to pick "something" to blame, and they'll call them. This happens with my current job, where our main bit of software is a device driver for our products. They install our driver, see "something bad", and then blame us. I believe a keylogger install was even blamed on our software, and the customer asked us to pay for a year of credit monitoring for them. But as a small company, can we shoo these people away? No, because we need to make EVERY customer happy. (Kinda like what I expect of TiVo...)

Arguing about allocation of costs is a red herring, anyway. The CableCARD specification was created by the cable industry through their research group, CableLabs. I've seen the "support informaton" available from CableCARDs, and it simply seems insufficient. So who should I hold responsible when a standard doesn't provide enough support to diagnose problems: the sponsor of the creator of the standard, or the independent company which is implementing it? Obviously my small company background DOES come out here, and it why I feel that cable should take responsibility for the issues in their standard - even if the issue is simply a lack of easily understandable status for the technicians.

No. Who you should hold resonsible is Congress and the FCC for mandating this entire mess to begin with.

What is your product based on? Is it based on previously unknown nonexistent protocols and standards that were developed at gunpoint? No.

You guys are making my point time and time again when you keep bringing up comparisons to Ethernet, compiled device drivers intended to work with globally distributed operating systems, and hugely tested hardware technologies such as SCSI, USB, SATA, etc. Those products evolved naturally as a result of consumer demand.

Here, there is no real measurable consumre demand - except again for us on the fringe. You're trying to CREATE DEMAND. You're putting the card way way in front of the horse.

It's surprising if you really were in the Enterprise space that you don't acknowledge this.

Here's another question for you - about your current job. Do you roll a truck to each of your customers? No.

[winpitt]

Most people don't know what CableCard is, so asking them whether they want CableCard is irrelevant.

But ask them if they want to use TVs without needing set-top boxes to get all the channels, or if they would like to buy their own box for $70 rather than perpetually pay $5-10/month to rent one, and be able to use that box with another cable provider, and most will say yes.

The DOCSIS standard has facilitated that low-cost and portability for cable modems. CableCard can do that for cable boxes.

Sorry, but again yet another bad example. The DOCSIS standard supercedes anything on the video side for a variety of reasons. first of all, DOCSIS relies on (again) globally accepted, widely tested, mature technologies. Those would be:

QoS
IP (and for DOCSIS 3.0, IPv6)
CDMA and TDMA (with variants)
Key enabled authentication
Full compliance with layer 1 and 2 of the OSI model

Further, DOCSIS was a natural product of relevant services that providers had financial incentives to create, as a result of customer demand.

Finally, unfortunately your predictions as to what users would prefer to do are not grounded in fact. Users mainly still use the same old leased cable modems provided by their providers. Users have demonstrated in the market their preference (by majority) to lease products as opposed to having to purchase up front. That's why you see DirecTV and Dish - as well as Cable - being quite successful in that model while turning their focus away from the direct purchase avenue.

Users want low monthly prices, no fuss, one throat to choke, and no long term obligation.

At least that's what the facts of the market have consistently demonstrated over the past 5 years. I guess it's possible that they agree with you but are choosing to make purchase and vendor selections completely in conflict, but I'd not bet on it.

Ask them whether they'd rather see their cable rate per month stay the same or drop, or whether they'd rather increase those costs and eliminate the requirement for a STB. Wanna take any bets?

[Justin Thyme]

The only thing you are pissed off about Winpitt, is that the government is requiring the industry to eat the dog food of its own creation.

Actually, the internet is a perfect response to your condescension about how we don't understand IT and the grave complexities of a network. Building a proprietary network is actually a lot more simple than creating a heterogeneous network. Homogeneous nets encourage sloppy engineering. The vendors tweak their headend servers just enough to work with the crap boxes that the local cableco is buying from SciAtl. Why should they care about cablelabs standards. So the cablecos cobble up their proprietary nets that are houses of cards that will blow over with the slightest anomalies. The idea of net with heterogeneous clients is horrifying to them.

Our phones that plug into the wall don't look all the same anymore. They aren't all made by the same company anymore. I can buy one from any of thousands of companies, with a bewildering number of features. My phone service is not more costly now. The telcos didn't go bankrupt. The sky didn't fall.

The cablecos figure they could wait out the public's patience. They figured they could drag their feet for a decade then when CCs come out, they come up with a brilliant new way to do it in software. Let me guess- when will this new way be available for companies to get their devices certified for? Another set of 18 month targets that again extend out to a decade? Let me guess the next step after that- there are problems with the rollout so the cable and satcos get to square one again by asserting that the 2006 technology is so antiquated now... Yada Yada Yada.

Guess what. It isn't going to go down that way. Time to eat your own dog food. Wise up- the political winds have shifted. Go smiling, or action will be taken.

Fines is one idea. Like customers get one free year of service for each service call attributable to CC interoperability problem with a Cablelabs certified device.

[winpitt]

The only thing you are pissed off about Winpitt, is that the government is requiring the industry to eat the dog food of its own creation.

Actually, the internet is a perfect response to your condescension about how we don't understand IT and the grave complexities of a network. Building a proprietary network is actually a lot more simple than creating a heterogeneous network. Homogeneous nets encourage sloppy engineering. The vendors tweak their headend servers just enough to work with the crap boxes that the local cableco is buying from SciAtl. Why should they care about cablelabs standards. So the cablecos cobble up their proprietary nets that are houses of cards that will blow over with the slightest anomalies. The idea of net with heterogeneous clients is horrifying to them.

Our phones that plug into the wall don't look all the same anymore. They aren't all made by the same company anymore. I can buy one from any of thousands of companies, with a bewildering number of features. My phone service is not more costly now. The telcos didn't go bankrupt. The sky didn't fall.

The cablecos figure they could wait out the public's patience. They figured they could drag their feet for a decade then when CCs come out, they come up with a brilliant new way to do it in software. Let me guess- when will this new way be available for companies to get their devices certified for? Another set of 18 month targets that again extend out to a decade? Let me guess the next step after that- there are problems with the rollout so the cable and satcos get to square one again by asserting that the 2006 technology is so antiquated now... Yada Yada Yada.

Guess what. It isn't going to go down that way. Time to eat your own dog food. Wise up- the political winds have shifted. Go smiling, or action will be taken.

Fines is one idea. Like customers get one free year of service for each service call attributable to CC interoperability problem with a Cablelabs certified device.

Hey pal, you have no idea. Do not - under any circumstances - put words in my mouth. I'm testing a CC. I'm hoping to pick up an S3. You're not only incorrect in your assumptions - you're being ignorant about is as well.

I'm NOT a friend of cable MSOs. Not for one single solitary minute. I'm NOT defending cable providers as the golden haired angels of technology.

I'm also just not emotionally biased to such an extent that I can't look logically and factually at the market. Apparently, you are. Just a perception based on your rather rude rhetoric.

Absolutely a heterogenous system is more difficult for the providers. It's more expensive to get to, and more expensive to maintain. So here's a challenge for YOU - PERSONALLY.

PLEASE try to make the argument that 3rd party vendors do not introduce significant potential for errors in the delivery of service. Have you ever heard of Six Sigma?

How about this.... Not only would customers get free service if a CC problem is found to be the responsibility of the service provider, but the opposite holds true as well. If cable rolls a truck to your location and the issue is with the 3rd party vendor, then the customer gets charged an additional fee? I sure don't want to pay it. If they did that, I'd already have paid for 2 truck rolls now for CC. And guess what? The 3rd party vendor in my case has ADMITTED that there's an issue with their firmware. Your statement about Cablelabs shows that you don't understand that process either. How about going to their site and reading up on how testing gets done? Who actually does it? What actually gets tested? Or perhaps just read a few posts above to what DT_DC posted. For the last time, Cablelabs does NOT certify every product and firmware release. That seems to be difficult to understand.

You keep pointing to the "political winds are changing". That in itself shows the fallacy of your position. You are completely ignoring the consumer and the market. You are focusing on legislation.

PLEASE continue to make the absolutely ignorant mistake of comparing encrypted entertainment content delivered by privately owned business infrastructure with analog telephone service (POTS). Doing so simply shows a fundamental inability or unwillingness to at least have a logical discussion.

I apologize if you take insult, but your ignorant tone and political bent are not necessary.

[Justin Thyme]

Calm down.

You were lecturing us about how the situation whereby we don't all speak into ma bell phones was created by communists.

You were lecturing us on how there was no demand for non mabell phones, therefore the gubmint should have stayed out of it.

Get over it. The other party won. They aren't communists. Opening up the Telco network was good. Same for video delivery networks.

BTW- yes- the law does have to do with Satellite companies to. If you'd read the Telcom act you'd know that the same requirements apply to them. The FCC granted them a waiver for complying, but the law states that waivers can only be temporary.

[PPC1]

BTW - truly absolutely no insult intended, but I had to chuckle that you liked that article when it isn't exactly enamored with lawyers. When I posted that link I was wondering how you'd react to it.

I was laughing with you - not at you. :)

No worries. I know first hand the good and the bad of the legal profession. I certainly don'tthink lawyers have a monopoly on wisdom, nor do I think that the fact that someone is lawyer means that they know anything more than anyone else.

[winpitt]

Calm down.

You were lecturing us about how the situation whereby we don't all speak into ma bell phones was created by communists.

You were lecturing us on how there was no demand for non mabell phones, therefore the gubmint should have stayed out of it.

Get over it. The other party won. They aren't communists. Opening up the Telco network was good. Same for video delivery networks.

BTW- yes- the law does have to do with Satellite companies to. If you'd read the Telcom act you'd know that the same requirements apply to them. The FCC granted them a waiver for complying, but the law states that waivers can only be temporary.

You're showing your lack of knowledge there. The telecom act is not what created this. I have read it. They are not required to open their networks to 3rd party devices. Sorry, but true.

I made no analogy for phones. I refuted the analogy. Many times. Others keep using that comparison - which I have repeatedly shown is not relevant. Communications services are considered essential services, required for safety, etc. Cable TV is an entertainment service. Try making that argument that it's essential. Show me where I ever said there was no demand for phones? Perhaps you should calm down yourself and read through the posts more carefully. You seemed to have either misred or misunderstood something. There WAS a demand for communication devices. Don't see any demand for CC - except for us again.

As for what party won, you really need to take a pill. You have no idea what side of the aisle I lean toward. That's the point. This is not partisan. It's simple business. You in particular - and some others - keep trying to make this political. The facts are not political. The proposed solution in forcing CC is.

[RoanokeHokie]

No. Who you should hold resonsible is Congress and the FCC for mandating this entire mess to begin with.

What is your product based on? Is it based on previously unknown nonexistent protocols and standards that were developed at gunpoint? No.
Hyperbole timeout for you.

You guys are making my point time and time again when you keep bringing up comparisons to Ethernet, compiled device drivers intended to work with globally distributed operating systems, and hugely tested hardware technologies such as SCSI, USB, SATA, etc. Those products evolved naturally as a result of consumer demand.
"Consumer demand" is another red herring. Let's look at the real point: documented standards at the base of development.

SCSI, USB, and SATA, or NTSC, QAM, and ATSC? Even the cable industry is based on standards, and every CableCARD-supporting device (TiVo included) handles those standards just fine. The issue is the upper software layers that make CableCARD "work". If they're implemented correctly, there are no problems. But bugs in those drivers make the entire system uncertain. Those bugs can be on the host or on the CableCARD. That's the same on Windows, where bugs can be in Microsoft drivers, your drivers, or third-party drivers. Having a standard just makes it possible to observe what's going on and assign blame.

Here, there is no real measurable consumre demand - except again for us on the fringe. You're trying to CREATE DEMAND. You're putting the card way way in front of the horse.

It's surprising if you really were in the Enterprise space that you don't acknowledge this.

Here's another question for you - about your current job. Do you roll a truck to each of your customers? No.
We also don't have an office in each city where we have customers.

As I've said, CableCARD is about supporting those who want to use it. It's about choice. Given choice, demand can build. If cable companies can effectively support that choice without the integration ban, then wonderful. But, right now, it seems the integration ban is the only method available to force cable companies into providing good CableCARD support.

[winpitt]

No worries. I know first hand the good and the bad of the legal profession. I certainly don'tthink lawyers have a monopoly on wisdom, nor do I think that the fact that someone is lawyer means that they know anything more than anyone else.

And I also don't think that lawyers have a monopoly on being shifty or devious, or that the fact that someone is a lawyer means that they know nothing.

I may be in the minority....

Just kidding :) But you have to admit, lawyer jokes are pretty good. I'm in the IT field and we've got our own (propeller head) typecasts.

[winpitt]

Hyperbole timeout for you.


"Consumer demand" is another red herring. Let's look at the real point: documented standards at the base of development.

SCSI, USB, and SATA, or NTSC, QAM, and ATSC? Even the cable industry is based on standards, and every CableCARD-supporting device (TiVo included) handles those standards just fine. The issue is the upper software layers that make CableCARD "work". If they're implemented correctly, there are no problems. But bugs in those drivers make the entire system uncertain. Those bugs can be on the host or on the CableCARD. That's the same on Windows, where bugs can be in Microsoft drivers, your drivers, or third-party drivers. Having a standard just makes it possible to observe what's going on and assign blame.


We also don't have an office in each city where we have customers.

As I've said, CableCARD is about supporting those who want to use it. It's about choice. Given choice, demand can build. If cable companies can effectively support that choice without the integration ban, then wonderful. But, right now, it seems the integration ban is the only method available to force cable companies into providing good CableCARD support.

Uh, No. The bugs aren't actually just in the "drivers". There are several layers of programming involved in delivering service. For example, using versions of the SARA system you have the embedded software, device specific firmware, and then the service portal software. As a result, there are several layers of complexity that don't exist in your (or my) environment. Trying to compare SCSI to QAM for example is a really really big stretch. The issue is most certainly not just the higher - or perhaps presentation - layer of software. Examples, the conflicts between the 3rd party device firmware itself and the CC firmware revision.

As for you not having an office in every area you serve, so what? My point is that it doesn't cost you with the same cost structure. As a matter of fact, it even more makes my point. That creates a non-linear increase in service costs which would apply to them - but not you.

Finally, you at least clarified your last point correctly. But that's the heart of this. the "people who want to use it". They are a factual very small minority, yet we're forcing the entire business into it. I don't get that, and don't agree with that.

I should also mention that I just a short while ago today realized that TiVo had changed their rate structure. It's a separate item, but in efforts to be honest it will very likely change my desire to get an S3 and a couple S2's. For me, it just is too little value for too much money, front end loaded and with a long term obligation. I'll continue to test the CC in my Toshiba in hopes to get it working, but probably will not elect to try an S3 after all. I'm now probably going to move to DirecTV.

[PPC1]

But you have to admit, lawyer jokes are pretty good.

No I don't.

But I will admit that good lawyer jokes are good. (Tautological I know, but hard to deny its true.)

[Justin Thyme]

You're showing your lack of knowledge there. The telecom act is not what created this. I have read it. They are not required to open their networks to 3rd party devices. Sorry, but true.


On the contrary, it is precisely what it stated.

FCC regs further elaborate the limitations the 1996 law imposes on MVPD's here:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf

For example, Navigation devices must be available from sources "unaffiliated" with MVPDs, that the MVPDs are prohibited from preventing navigation devices through use of patents, licensing, and other shenanegans. MVPDs may retain technology for maintaining security on their network, but that they must make a security access device available to third parties by July 1, 2000.

Um. We are still waiting..... If anyone is showing their lack of knowlege, it is you. I'm sorry, but Dan, Zeo, and many others seemed to have dealt with your nonsense well enough.

The example of Ma bell phones points out how absurd your arguments are. Sorry. I like choice. I like competition. Competition is good. You in fact are arguing for a vertical monopolist system which ironically closely resembles the way things were done in the soviet union.

If you care to illuminate yourself on the 1996 Telecom act, just scan any of the notes by DT_DC. He provides a multitude of references.

As you continually demonstrate, you clearly do not know whereof you speak neither on technical, business or legal grounds.

[ac3dd]

Winpitt is just upset that the government is telling an industry to do something, even though it was the government that established the monopolies years ago that enabled the operators in said industry to become dominant in their respective market areas. No use arguing; we're not going to dislodge Winpitt's ideology.

[winpitt]

On the contrary, it is precisely what it stated.

FCC regs further elaborate the limitations the 1996 law imposes on MVPD's here:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf

For example, Navigation devices must be available from sources "unaffiliated" with MVPDs, that the MVPDs are prohibited from preventing navigation devices through use of patents, licensing, and other shenanegans. MVPDs may retain technology for maintaining security on their network, but that they must make a security access device available to third parties by July 1, 2000.

Um. We are still waiting..... If anyone is showing their lack of knowlege, it is you. I'm sorry, but Dan, Zeo, and many others seemed to have dealt with your nonsense well enough.

The example of Ma bell phones points out how absurd your arguments are. Sorry. I like choice. I like competition. Competition is good. You in fact are arguing for a vertical monopolist system which ironically closely resembles the way things were done in the soviet union.

If you care to illuminate yourself on the 1996 Telecom act, just scan any of the notes by DT_DC. He provides a multitude of references.

As you continually demonstrate, you clearly do not know whereof you speak neither on technical, business or legal grounds.

Again, you are patently incorrect. As well as insulting. No matter how rude you attempt to be it will not make your statements any more viable or accurate.

The changes specified in section 629 were NOT part of the 1996 Act as passed in 1996. They were an Amendment. Please read thoroughly. Further, if you read closely in no place does either the Act itself or the Amendment in '98 indicate that DBS would be subject to the requirement to adopt CC. DBS was already in compliance because of the use of ASIC based "smart cards" for authentication/decryption, separate from navigation.

The continued assinine comparison to Ma Bell does in fact continue to show your inability or unwillingness to understand the technology or the market dynamics which created the changes.

I'm not against Competition. Quite the contrary. I'm about as capitalistic and free market focused as you can find. For that reason I'm opposed to the forced legislation of technology changes at the expense of private industry when the consumer base doesn't want it. Your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Justin Thyme]

Winpitt is just upset that the government is telling an industry to do something, even though it was the government that established the monopolies years ago that enabled the operators in said industry to become dominant in their respective market areas. No use arguing; we're not going to dislodge Winpitt's ideology.
I don't mind ideological perspectives. Like he, I don't like some large entity dictating to me what choices I am and am not permitted to make. Winpitt only puts the gubmint in that set. I am simply not as restrictive as he is. I don't like Apple telling me I can't buy my music from Real, and resent Apple's use of technology to reestablish iTunes' monopoly position (Jobs stated that a subsequent release would break Real's scheme to allow their music to work on iPods, and that's what happenned). Same thing. And Verizon prefers to make it very difficult for me to get my net access from Wireless G rather than their exhorbidantly priced service. They use their platform as a lock in weapon. Same thing as what has been going on with set top boxes.

What I do mind is outright falsehoods. Section 629 of the Telecom Act requires the FCC 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.

Winpitt said he read the law and that it didn't require this third party access.

Winpitt is simply making stuff up.

It doesn't matter who he really is, or what his real motives are. If the cable and satcos keep this up, then legislation will be necessary to deal with this general scheme that we have seen with iPod/MVPDs/cell phones/Microsoft. Winpitt makes me want to write my Senator.

Anyway- it's like Texaco buying Ford and then building cars that require fuel that only Texaco sells (because of patented technology of course).

It stinks.

[winpitt]

Winpitt is just upset that the government is telling an industry to do something, even though it was the government that established the monopolies years ago that enabled the operators in said industry to become dominant in their respective market areas. No use arguing; we're not going to dislodge Winpitt's ideology.

Sorry, but again you're attempting to misrepresent my position. I am all for telling an industry to do something. For example, Verizon should be told to provide universal service under the provisions of existing build-out requirements. That provides for the common good and delivers known value to satisfy known demand, and creating competition. I'm against government and narrow minded individuals telling an industry to do something that is without logic, placing the burden on private industry AND the consumer with very little positive outcome.

Mine is not an ideology. It's common market sense. Yours seems to me to be a very emotionally based self-centered desire to implement a technology that satisfies your own personal needs without concern for others.

[winpitt]

I don't mind ideological perspectives. Like he, I don't like some large entity dictating to me what choices I am and am not permitted to make. Winpitt only puts the gubmint in that set. I am simply not as restrictive as he is. I don't like Apple telling me I can't buy my music from Real, and resent Apple's use of technology to reestablish iTunes' monopoly position (Jobs stated that a subsequent release would break Real's scheme to allow their music to work on iPods, and that's what happenned). Same thing. And Verizon prefers to make it very difficult for me to get my net access from Wireless G rather than their exhorbidantly priced service. They use their platform as a lock in weapon. Same thing as what has been going on with set top boxes.

What I do mind is outright falsehoods. Section 629 of the Telecom Act requires the FCC to:


Winpitt said he read the law and that it didn't require this third party access.

Winpitt is simply making stuff up.

It doesn't matter who he really is, or what his real motives are. If the cable and satcos keep this up, then legislation will be necessary to deal with this general scheme that we have seen with iPod/MVPDs/cell phones/Microsoft. Winpitt makes me want to write my Senator.

Anyway- it's like Texaco buying Ford and then building cars that require fuel that only Texaco sells (because of patented technology of course).

It stinks.

Oh, now Apple is a monopoly too.

Unbelieveable. Is there ANYTHING you don't think is a monopoly? Don't like Apple's system with iPod? Here's a clue, DON'T BUY ONE.

Making up yet another nonsense analogy now with Texaco fuel simply highlights that you really don't understand the technology. It's nonsense. Not blaming you, but it is what it is. This is NOT about patents. Bringing that up is ludicrous.

BTW, what I explicity refered to was the integration ban as it applies to CC. THAT was the subject we were discussing. Don't try to bend the truth - or frankly just lie.

The personal attacks and Lies are what stinks.

[winpitt]

Of course, people have been saying this for some time and it hasn't happened yet. That's not to say that this time it won't be true, but I've given up on predicting. :)


As for Moore's Law, now even the Vendors are admitting it. The current discussion is whether or not form factor density can be applied as a variable to show the sustainment of Moore's law, as from its pure definition we are clearly going to violate it. Now people are starting to consider whether Teraflops per die as opposed to MIPS per cpu should be used. It's an interesting discussion. The abandonment of SPARC and RISC have an impact as well. Now THAT is a really interesting discussion. Don't think too many people predicted this 5 years ago.

[ZeoTiVo]

Hey pal, you have no idea. Do not - under any circumstances - put words in my mouth. I'm testing a CC. I'm hoping to pick up an S3. You're not only incorrect in your assumptions - you're being ignorant about is as well.

I'm NOT a friend of cable MSOs. Not for one single solitary minute. I'm NOT defending cable providers as the golden haired angels of technology.

I'm also just not emotionally biased to such an extent that I can't look logically and factually at the market. Apparently, you are. Just a perception based on your rather rude rhetoric. anyone not emotionally attached to this topic would have given it a rest a long time ago, so how come you are so attached to this topic?

The 70's called, they want their broken record back.

[Justin Thyme]

Winpitt, pardon me. Our posts seem to have crossed.

You know what? When you discover you are stuck in a hole, it is good advice to stop digging.

In your case, just stop fibbing. You may find section 629 in the link to the 1996 telecom act below. You will find the text there. No ammendment. The 1996 law as it was passed.

But of course you read that, and I don't need to tell you.

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf

Maybe you should really read it.

[Justin Thyme]

The continued assinine comparison to Ma Bell does in fact continue to show your inability or unwillingness to understand the technology or the market dynamics which created the changes. You give me unfair credit. Actually it was the FCC who made the comparison with the telco networks in explaining the rationale for the initiative. 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. source (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf) Tom Carter was an interesting character- you probably would have liked him. In 1959, he build a wireless device that allowed guys on oil rigs offshore of Texas to call their families. Basically a radio that plugged into the Telephone outlet onshore to complete the landline connection. Made about 4500 of them. Sold like hotcakes because the nearest thing from Ma bell cost a fortune. Ma bell caught wind of it and shut him down. Like any red blooded American, he stood up for his rights, mortgaged his farm and beat Ma bell in court.

Just a little history for you concerning fighting bullies that stand in the way of technology and low cost products that consumers want.

No offence, but if the drift of Zeo's rhetorical question is correct, maybe you need to think about the team you are playing for. They don't share your values.

[Brainiac 5]

As for Moore's Law, now even the Vendors are admitting it. The current discussion is whether or not form factor density can be applied as a variable to show the sustainment of Moore's law, as from its pure definition we are clearly going to violate it.I guess I'm getting off topic, but of course it depends of which "pure definition" you're using. People say all kinds of things and call it "Moore's Law." But most frequently people talk about the growth in the number of transistors on a chip, which is all about "form factor density" already. And we are not yet at the point where we can't pack more transistors on a chip.

Now people are starting to consider whether Teraflops per die as opposed to MIPS per cpu should be used.This seems to be referring to increasing processor speed, which is different. It's difficult to increase the speed of a single core (as measured in, say, MIPS) not because we can't add more transistors, but because we don't know know what to do with more transistors to achieve that. What we can do is use the additional transistors to just put more cores on the chip, which is what companies are doing.

I'll also say in advance: yes, I'm kind of nitpicking. :)

[winpitt]

I guess I'm getting off topic, but of course it depends of which "pure definition" you're using. People say all kinds of things and call it "Moore's Law." But most frequently people talk about the growth in the number of transistors on a chip, which is all about "form factor density" already. And we are not yet at the point where we can't pack more transistors on a chip.

This seems to be referring to increasing processor speed, which is different. It's difficult to increase the speed of a single core (as measured in, say, MIPS) not because we can't add more transistors, but because we don't know know what to do with more transistors to achieve that. What we can do is use the additional transistors to just put more cores on the chip, which is what companies are doing.

I'll also say in advance: yes, I'm kind of nitpicking. :)

Actually I was referring to being able to increase the number of on-die transisters as well as power output. I agree that from a theoretical viewpoint we haven't approached the absolute barrier (though as the size continues to approach the atomic level it will occur). However the original definition of Moore's law also included a cost factor reduction. The increase likelihood of out of range defects also has an impact.

This is one of the reasons that we're starting to see more and more 2, 4 and 8 cpu per socket configurations.

But, I'm nitpicking too. The general point is that I think at least we can agree that while we haven't reached it, the ever decreasing size (currently at 60nm and reductions to 30nm deemed to be overly expensive) make the breaking of Moore's Law finally a real possibility.

What we should most certainly agree on is that the velocity of change directly with respect to Moore's Law has significantly decreased, right?

One other thing - we're actually putting more cores on "die", and not really more cores on "chip" by the pure definition, right? I mean on the higher end stuff specifically. There's some pipeline optimization that's going on but I think (but am not entirely sure) that technically the multicore 4x and 8x procs are per die and not chip. Now I'm nitpicking :)

Good discussion.

[winpitt]

Winpitt, pardon me. Our posts seem to have crossed.

You know what? When you discover you are stuck in a hole, it is good advice to stop digging.

In your case, just stop fibbing. You may find section 629 in the link to the 1996 telecom act below. You will find the text there. No ammendment. The 1996 law as it was passed.

But of course you read that, and I don't need to tell you.

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf

Maybe you should really read it.

The order that you posted providing specific details on the implementation was an amendment dated 1998.

And again, I was referring to the Telecom Act of 1996 specifically as it applied to CC. Only as applied to CC and Cablelabs. No fibbing here - no matter how much you want to attempt to distort it.

[winpitt]

You give me unfair credit. Actually it was the FCC who made the comparison with the telco networks in explaining the rationale for the initiative. Tom Carter was an interesting character- you probably would have liked him. In 1959, he build a wireless device that allowed guys on oil rigs offshore of Texas to call their families. Basically a radio that plugged into the Telephone outlet onshore to complete the landline connection. Made about 4500 of them. Sold like hotcakes because the nearest thing from Ma bell cost a fortune. Ma bell caught wind of it and shut him down. Like any red blooded American, he stood up for his rights, mortgaged his farm and beat Ma bell in court.

Just a little history for you concerning fighting bullies that stand in the way of technology and low cost products that consumers want.

No offence, but if the drift of Zeo's rhetorical question is correct, maybe you need to think about the team you are playing for. They don't share your values.

Sorry, but you are again missing the point. Some people here - apparently including you - believe that it is an even comparison between having open competition for devices using POTS and implementing a completely open standard for cable. And that is purely, simply and factually not so. The point is - and was - that the competition which allowed other devices to be simply plugged into POTS were based on time tested, previously existing, globally accepted standards. On the other hand, CC is based on none of these. It is an entirely new technology that was shoved down industries throat with little or no consumer demand.

THAT is the history lesson you need to take to heart. You can get as ideological as you like. I really don't care about the ideology. I care about what the consumer will get, and how much it will cost.

To believe that you have a right to tell private business not only what kind of non-essential services they provide, but even technically how they provide it is completely in opposition to a market driven society. It holds those service providers to a different standard. I would be quite willing to bet that if you worked for one of those service providers or had invested in them, you'd have a far different perspective.

I also believe that there are other "services" (and that's what this is - non-essential service) which you use and would heatedly fight to prevent this same intervention.

Further, I'm still waiting for a description of those non-IP based innovative devices that will benefit from CC. Haven't heard a single one yet.

The future is in IP. We already have that. We're wasting valuable time and resources on a generally low value technology when it could be spent toward something that actually has a future.

[Stormspace]

The cable companies made their bed, so now they have to lay in it. If a better technology could have been implemented it's cables fault for not doing so. Can we allow every industry that fails to meet requirements due to poor planing get a pass?

Cable companies have an obligation to make their technology work and if it's buggy they aren't going to invest the resources to fix it unless their business depends on it. Otherwise we'll get another ten years of foot dragging.

[winpitt]

The cable companies made their bed, so now they have to lay in it. If a better technology could have been implemented it's cables fault for not doing so. Can we allow every industry that fails to meet requirements due to poor planing get a pass?

Cable companies have an obligation to make their technology work and if it's buggy they aren't going to invest the resources to fix it unless their business depends on it. Otherwise we'll get another ten years of foot dragging.

The cable companies were given nothing but a choice to pick the poison. They didn't make their bed in my opinion. They were victim to short sighted and frankly poorly developed political decisions, and took the least bad route available.

I'm still waiting for either the links of outraged consumers or the proposed innovations that will result from this. Haven't seen any.

[Justin Thyme]

The order that you posted providing specific details on the implementation was an amendment dated 1998.

And again, I was referring to the Telecom Act of 1996 specifically as it applied to CC. Only as applied to CC and Cablelabs. No fibbing here - no matter how much you want to attempt to distort it.
Still digging.

Here is what you wrote.

You're showing your lack of knowledge there. The telecom act is not what created this. I have read it. They are not required to open their networks to 3rd party devices. Sorry, but true.

No CC, no cablelabs. A simple and bold false statement. Up is down, right is left. blah blah blah.

[winpitt]

Still digging.

Here is what you wrote.



No CC, no cablelabs. A simple and bold false statement. Up is down, right is left. blah blah blah.

So, then an apology for not effectively communicating my intent. We had been - and have continued to discuss specifically CC. Nothing else.

I apologize for ineffectively framing my comment. My point remains. You don't seem to be able to debate it, so are resorting to semantics.

Additionally, you do so in a fundamentally ignorant tone and method. People who are unable to debate or discussion rationally frequently resort to such tactics.

[Justin Thyme]

No, you have a serious problem with coming to grips with easily verifiable facts.

Further, when confronted with the the truth, you spin further false statements, and do so with contempt for the opposing position. Nearly every post is filled with such false statements and bullying tactics.

You don't even understand what was being amended.

And you present yourself as an expert. Bah.

[winpitt]

No, you have a serious problem with coming to grips with easily verifiable facts.

Further, when confronted with the the truth, you spin further false statements, and do so with contempt for the opposing position. Nearly every post is filled with such false statements and bullying tactics.

You don't even understand what was being amended.

And you present yourself as an expert. Bah.


"Nearly every post is filled with such false statements and bullying tactics."?

Just the fact, maam. You seem quite filled with arrogance and hate. As well as some sort of "political wind" thing. I have no idea why you're so ideologically motivated, and why you insist on lying and misrepresenting.

I've consistently said that CC is a flawed technology.
I've consistently said that there are built in support and quality issues associated with CC.
I've consistently said that consumers are not demanding - or are even interested in - or even know about - CC.
I've consistently said that MSOs have not faired well with respect to CC, some of which is most certainly their fault but not the foundation.
I've consistently said that nothing in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 forces CC to be adopted by DBS.
I've consistently said that Cablelabs does NOT certify or validate all 3rd party CE devices, and no firmware updates.
I've consistently said and demonstrated that comparisons between CC as a technology and other mainstream technologies such as POTS are at the very least misleading, and more often deliberately and factually incorrect.
I've consistently maintained that the general consumer would prefer that resources be allocated in other areas.
I've consistently maintained that Cable TV is an "entertainment" service and not an "essential service" and that the only restrictions we should place on it are on quality and insuring that services are available to all.
I've consistently said that there is already effective competition in the form of cable vs DBS for the majority of our consumers.
I've consistently asked what sort of "innovations" would likely result from adoption of CC.
I've consistently maintained that the future of such innovative devices is far more likely to be via IP based transport, rather than such CC delivered content.

You've consistently attacked me as an individual rather than the points I've tried to make.
You've consistently attempted to spin the discussion away from facts, away from the technology, away from the consumer.
You've consistently failed to provide a single, solitary example of consumer outcry because of integrated STBs, or a single solitary example of an innovative technology resulting from CC deployment and adoption.
You've consistently failed in explaining away why this "critical" technology has completely flopped in the market in the face of clear, printed evidence that consumers just don't care about it.

So how about putting aside your accusations, your political rants about a new wind, and actually discussing the merits of the argument? Is that too much to ask from you? Thus far, the answer is yes.

[dt_dc]

We had been - and have continued to discuss specifically CC. Nothing else.Well if you want to get that specific / simplistic ...

I believe we were discussing the FCC 'integration ban' and the (various) applications for waivers from it.

The integration ban does not specify that cable companies must use CableCard. The integration ban precludes (certain) MVPDs from distributing equipment that integrates both conditional access and other functions in a single device. The integration ban does not preclude cable companies from using technology other than CableCard to accomplish this. The integration ban does not even force all cable companies to use the same technology to accomplish this. The integration ban does not preclude cable companies from using something like DCAS which the NCTA and many other cable companies have indicated is preferable to CableCard. The integration ban does not preclude cable companies from using certain other technical solutions that they have proposed in the past.

One could even (pretty effectively) argue that any debate on whether (or not) the integration ban should be waived (or even lifted altogether) based purely on advantages / disadvantages of CableCard would be largely extraneous. If that is the only area of debate ... well then, the integration ban should be applied and not waived since it doesn't specify CableCard at all ... even if CableCard is flawed and cable companies (and consumers) don't want it ... fine, don't use it. Use something else.

But, of course, given the history of the plug and play preceedings, the other FCC regulations enacted under the "commercial availability of navication devices" (Sec. 629) of the Telecom Act, current technical standards, current market place conditions, etc ...

Limiting a discussion of the integration ban to "specifically CableCard" and "Nothing else" would be about as artificially construed as precluding CableCard from the discussion altogether.

[winpitt]

Well if you want to get that specific / simplistic ...

I believe we were discussing the FCC 'integration ban' and the (various) applications for waivers from it.

The integration ban does not specify that cable companies must use CableCard. The integration ban precludes (certain) MVPDs from distributing equipment that integrates both conditional access and other functions in a single device. The integration ban does not preclude cable companies from using technology other than CableCard to accomplish this. The integration ban does not even force all cable companies to use the same technology to accomplish this. The integration ban does not preclude cable companies from using something like DCAS which the NCTA and many other cable companies have indicated is preferable to CableCard. The integration ban does not preclude cable companies from using certain other technical solutions that they have proposed in the past.

One could even (pretty effectively) argue that any debate on whether (or not) the integration ban should be waived (or even lifted altogether) based purely on advantages / disadvantages of CableCard would be largely extraneous. If that is the only area of debate ... well then, the integration ban should be applied and not waived since it doesn't specify CableCard at all ... even if CableCard is flawed and cable companies (and consumers) don't want it ... fine, don't use it. Use something else.

But, of course, given the history of the plug and play preceedings, the other FCC regulations enacted under the "commercial availability of navication devices" (Sec. 629) of the Telecom Act, current technical standards, current market place conditions, etc ...

Limiting a discussion of the integration ban to "specifically CableCard" and "Nothing else" would be about as artificially construed as precluding CableCard from the discussion altogether.

Sorry, but I was being exactly that specific. This whole debate started about CC and not other alternative solutions which could have been selected. Frankly, because of the S3. You don't see this debate elsewhere because nobody else cares. Further, I've debated the ban in its inception is flawed and derives very little (actually read effectively no) advantages for the consumer.

I agree that purely based on the '96 act and subsequent orders and findings associated, other means to separate access control from navigation exist. The interesting thing is that should those providers each choose independent solutions to execute on this there is very strong likelihood that their implementation costs would be higher due to a lack of scale in the procurement/production of hardware.

You did hit on one thing that we agree on. There are two separate discussions to be had. One is the merits and failures of Cablecard as a technology solution. The other is whether or not there is truly any value to the ban. They probably should be treated separately. However IMHO both are fundamentally flawed.

Since we're so fond of using analogies here, one that strikes me is this. People keep saying that "it's the law, so deal with it and don't discuss it". Well, prohibition was a law. There are lots of examples of improperly or poorly constructed items of legislation that unfortunately turned into laws in our country. That has no bearing on whether or not they are correct, or should be changed/eliminated.

What I find truly surprising here is that many of the same group of people who adamantly support forcing MSOs to go through this transition even though there is little or no evidence that it will benefit anyone other than SA or Moto (and TiVo I suppose, though with their recent business decisions I'm less and less convinced of that), those same people often oppose those same providers to have build-out requirements. In other words, they are in favor of something that benefits the few at least for quite some time, and opposed to something that benefits the majority.

Of course, that's in addition to the emotional attachment that seems to occur here. This really is a narrowly focused group. It's interesting that you can't find more than a 3 or 4 post thread over on AVS - an area where you would expect to see the S3 all over the place if in fact it's targetted toward the high end audio/video enthusiast, and not just the high end TiVo enthusiast.

BTW, I appreciate your comments.

[Justin Thyme]

So, the Consumer Electronics Industry is a narrow interest group. Up is down, left is right blah blah blah. Let’s step back and take a look at the object of Winpitt’s continued assaults, and the common thread of his assaults.

It is fundamental to this entire thread that the 1996 Telecom law states that the cable and satellite companies are required to open their networks to 3rd party devices.

Yet Winpitt stated:
They are not required to open their networks to 3rd party devices. Sorry, but true.

So which was it? True or false?

It's false.

The fundamentals are very simple. The law states that the cable and satcos must allow consumers to attach third party devices to their networks. Everyone understands the benefits of being able to buy a phone from someone other than the phone company. We have enormous choice precisely because telco's are not allowed to maintain a vertical monopoly. 10 years after the 1996 Telcom act, we are still waiting for cable and satellite companies to comply with this law.

The Consumer Electronics Association Gary Shapiro said it very well For years, consumers have been offered two choices in set-top boxes: take it or leave it.... After numerous delays, including extensions granted by the FCC and two lost court cases, the cable companies are still chaining their customers to technology of the past and requiring them to pay higher fees for the privilege of using their pre-1996 first generation technology, not to mention defying the will of Congress and the FCC. Source (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528834)

The letter was addressed to the Reason Foundation. The supporters of Reason Foundation believe in the defense of liberty. Does Reason Foundation care about the liberty of guys like Tom Carter? Of course not- guys like Carter don't contribute the big bucks. So really, Sourcewatch is wrong about them. They aren’t libertarians. Reason foundation is only using the guise of libertarian ideals to the extent that they further the goals of their corporate sponsors. All they care about is the liberty of vertical monopolists to tyrannize you and me.

It’s a move out of a playbook we have become all too familiar with over the last 12 years.

Folks on both the right and left are sick of it. If the FCC commissioners are swayed by this kind of baloney, then they need to be removed.

[ZeoTiVo]

I've consistently said that CC is a flawed technology.
I've consistently said that there are built in support and quality issues associated with CC.
I've consistently said that consumers are not demanding - or are even interested in - or even know about - CC.
I've consistently said that MSOs have not faired well with respect to CC, some of which is most certainly their fault but not the foundation.
I've consistently said that nothing in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 forces CC to be adopted by DBS.
I've consistently said that Cablelabs does NOT certify or validate all 3rd party CE devices, and no firmware updates.
I've consistently said and demonstrated that comparisons between CC as a technology and other mainstream technologies such as POTS are at the very least misleading, and more often deliberately and factually incorrect.
I've consistently maintained that the general consumer would prefer that resources be allocated in other areas.
I've consistently maintained that Cable TV is an "entertainment" service and not an "essential service" and that the only restrictions we should place on it are on quality and insuring that services are available to all.
I've consistently said that there is already effective competition in the form of cable vs DBS for the majority of our consumers.
I've consistently asked what sort of "innovations" would likely result from adoption of CC.
I've consistently maintained that the future of such innovative devices is far more likely to be via IP based transport, rather than such CC delivered content.

great now there is a skip in the record as well. Would someone please stand up and change the record?

[MichaelK]

Not $5 each really. You're adding outlet charges, which don't go away. And I (nicely) challenge you to find something from consumers in general complaining about this. I can find countless articles complaining about pricing and availability. None but from small splinter groups like us complaining about STBs. People actually have moved MORE toward leasing of STBs, etc. Note the move from purchase to lease for DBS equipment.

Good point about the outlet fees, so lets assume it's $2.50 a box- there's still a cost that I think could be reduced by mass producing CC compatibility universally. People will still need to rent a card, but I personally, honestly think that if you had 100 million tv's cablecard ready and 15 or 20 million cablecards deployed that the economies of scale plus competition would make it cheaper for the consumer in the end then renting a cable box their whole life.

In my mind people are moving to rent STB's not because they like STB's but becasue they like the additonal features or content availible from them. If there was an open system that worked then they could get hose features and content without the STB.

I honestly cant fiund a source that says people dislike STB's but I think it's just common sense. But maybe I'm a nut and people enjoy another peice of clutter in their house, with yet another remote, and enjoy the fact that some of the features in their TV's like PIP become less usefull with external STB's. So on the flip side can you point me to a source that says people enjoy STB's for the sake of having a box and not becasue they need it to get content or addtionaly feautures (which an open system would allow them with the same TV they bought at the walmart) ?

[MichaelK]

Highly unlikely by all involved (even CC promoters) that long term costs will actually decline. I've never seen ANY study that shows this.

and that's your opinion- I respectually disagree.

the CEA, Tivo, and the FCC all see it differntly- that the long term costs will be much less then the cost to implement today.

I dont see how having tens or hundreds of millions of products with one standard wont decrease the cost.

But I guess your mind is made up that it will only raise prices over time. If I held that opinion then I too would question the wisdom of it all. Time will tell- mark this thread as anothe rone to come back and check in 2, 5, and 10 years to see what really happened.

[MichaelK]

A couple interesting notes:

First of all, Moores Law is in danger of being broken as we speak. Don't know if you were aware of that. In the tech industry we're already discussion somewhat changing the definition of Moore's law to include virtual application of technology as opposed to physical power increases.....


yeah yeah yeah- they've said that for years.

My brother in law who works at the intel CPU Fab's has told me the same thing 10 times in 10 years and then miraculously they figure out how to do it one more time...

:)

Again- we'll have to check back in in a few years on this one.

The rest of your post I'll let be- I'm not in a fighting mood anymore... LOL

[MichaelK]

As for Moore's Law, now even the Vendors are admitting it. The current discussion is whether or not form factor density can be applied as a variable to show the sustainment of Moore's law, as from its pure definition we are clearly going to violate it. Now people are starting to consider whether Teraflops per die as opposed to MIPS per cpu should be used. It's an interesting discussion. The abandonment of SPARC and RISC have an impact as well. Now THAT is a really interesting discussion. Don't think too many people predicted this 5 years ago.


since we're back on moore's law

on form factor - stop thinking electrons my friend - there's othe ways to skin a cat. :D

depends on what definitions people use for sure though...

[MichaelK]

...

Further, I'm still waiting for a description of those non-IP based innovative devices that will benefit from CC. Haven't heard a single one yet.
....

I dont need innovation- I think the fact that you could get eveything availible on a STB today but by using your tv would be nice.

But who knows what innovative devices we'll see.

Maybe we'll see a sports illustrated football STB - popular mechnaics is always trying to imagine the future innnovations and they are always wrong- so trying to guess at the future isn't the easiest thing to do.