CEA mentions TCF in FCC filing

[dt_dc]

CEA mentions TCF in FCC filing

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528834

CEA filing to FCC
Re: Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices

A visit to the web site www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/ shows the stark reality about the cable industry’s commitment to deploying CableCARDs and enabling consumer choice.

Anyway, just though ya might want to know.

Note to mods: wasn't sure what forum to post in ... put it here because it's CableCard-related ...

Edit: Same reference is also in all the following. Each is basically the same response to various group / company letters of support for the Charter / Verizon integration ban waiver application.
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528834
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528837
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528840
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528843
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528835
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528838
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528841
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528836
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528839
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528842

[ah30k]

To tell you the truth, I don't really care if the MSOs are granted a waiver for low-end STBs as long as they force the mid and high-end STBs to use removable security. Verizon requesting a total waiver across all STBs is another story.

Whoops, I guess the waiver topic is not really the subject of this thread.

[dt_dc]

Whoops, I guess the waiver topic is not really the subject of this thread.Well, it IS the subject of the filing / link ...

The issue isn't getting much discussion here. But ... this kinda makes it personel eh? ;) To tell you the truth, I don't really care if the MSOs are granted a waiver for low-end STBs as long as they force the mid and high-end STBs to use removable security. Verizon requesting a total waiver across all STBs is another story.Yah ... I dunno. Then you start having to get into exactly what is (and isn't) "high end" / "low end" ... "limited functionality" / "advanced functionality". Where's that line? HD / SD? DVR / STB? Ethernet, USB, etc / standard video output? Access to two way functionality like VOD, SDV, etc. / access to just linear channels?

I dunno.

[Dan203]

Granting the waver in any form is a slippery slope and will lead to the MSOs pushing the limits of "low end" too see what they can get away with. It's much better to just make it a cut and dry, everyone uses CableCARDs, approach.

On the plus side the fact that these MSOs are applying for specific wavers could be a sign that they don't have hopes for the FCC granting another extension to the integration ban. If that integration ban holds then next year CableCARDs are going to be a whole lot easier for consumers to deal with.

Dan

[KenS3]

Granting the waver in any form is a slippery slope and will lead to the MSOs pushing the limits of "low end" too see what they can get away with. It's much better to just make it a cut and dry, everyone uses CableCARDs, approach.
Dan

While I agree about the "slippery slope" aspect, and I'm not generally a fan of corporate monopoly in any form, I'll have to disagree with your conclusion. Cable sells to a range of customers, including folks like retirees with limited incomes who only get basic cable. No box with a slot and a separate device is going to match the cost of an integrated low-end solution. The inventory management costs for those cablecards need to be passed along, as well as the component cost for the slot driving hardware and the packaging (case and interface circuitry, not to mention the little plastic case they come in) of the circuits on the separate card, and there are other factors that affect such pricing also, not all under the control of the cable companies.

It may seem that there shouldn't be a major component cost difference between a box capable of basic service and a more advanced one, but those boxes come from third parties who need to recover development costs (and make a profit). And they do that by factoring in volume. Low-function high-volume hardware costs a lot less than devices with greater functionality sold in smaller volumes, far more than component costs would lead you to believe. I've had a bit of experience with this with CPE routers for an Internet provider, where a 4x wholesale price difference between two nearly-identical boxes isn't uncommon, if one supports higher-capability services than the other.

And while boxes and cable cards may last a very long time, they're probably limited in how long an interval they can depreciate them over (by their accountants and the SEC). In my (non-cable) experience, service price gets set from the hardware depreciation, even if the hardware lasts longer (or shorter!) than accountants believe it will. The excess (shortage) isn't factored in except as a modifer to the company's overall overhead costs (which does affect prices, but only indirectly). If a cable-card costs $100 (hardware + packaging, inventory, etc), and gets depreciated over 5 years, it's still adding at least $1.67/month to the bill, without considering cost-of-money or unrecovered damage/loss costs for equipment broken or not returned after service cancellations. While the hardware will eventually cost much less as development is paid off and manufacturing scale kicks in, or if improved designs with lower cost are developed, packaging and distribution costs will keep it well above zero.

Selling a one-size-fits-all solution means the separate components, plus the manufacturers inability to separate the low-end from the high-end in their pricing, will raise the cost of basic service for those who can least afford it (or, if the cable company is prevented by regulators from raising it, they'll find a way to recover the costs as "overhead" from everyone else). Either way, customers will pay more for that hardware.

Maybe this "downloadable security" stuff the cable companies are pushing will solve this, although it seems to me that it would just add the cost in another form if the low-end boxes still need high-end decryption hardware that they don't use.

So, to me, a waiver for "simple" devices makes sense, despite the "slippery slope" aspect. Defining "simple" is the hard part. I agree that advanced services like VOD don't belong there, but since that's a cash-cow for the cable companies, I doubt they'd agree.

[Maeglin]

"Simple" in my book for a device that would even qualify as a potential CableCARD host (ruling out analog-only boxes) would be single tuner with no HD or DVR capabilities, much like the cheap Motorola box I had before getting an S3. It had PPV and VOD, but no actual display on the box beyond 2 LEDs (no buttons either) and only RF, composite and stereo audio out on the back. A card and the matching slot hardware would have taken up at least half of the internal volume of the thing.

[Dan203]

While I agree about the "slippery slope" aspect, and I'm not generally a fan of corporate monopoly in any form, I'll have to disagree with your conclusion. Cable sells to a range of customers, including folks like retirees with limited incomes who only get basic cable.

In almost all markets "basic cable" is analog only and does not require the use of any STB. In fact in most markets there is also a "lifeline" service available which provides access to the local broadcast channels via cable for a nominal fee (less then $15/mo) so that those without access to an antenna can still get "free" TV.

Digital cable is a premium service, and customers who can't afford an extra $5/mo to cover the cost of this new technology shouldn't be subscribing to it in the first place.

Dan

[nrc]

Cable companies complain that CC are too expensive for deployment in "low end" boxes when it's that kind of mass deployment that is needed to bring the cost of CC down. As soon as cable providers are forced to use CC they'll force the cost issue with suppliers and CC boxes won't cost substanitally more than a normal box now.

It's all smoke and mirrors to keep competition locked out. The FCC needs to cram it down their throats and make them stop their foot dragging.

[nyjklein]

In almost all markets "basic cable" is analog only and does not require the use of any STB. In fact in most markets there is also a "lifeline" service available which provides access to the local broadcast channels via cable for a nominal fee (less then $15/mo) so that those without access to an antenna can still get "free" TV.

Digital cable is a premium service, and customers who can't afford an extra $5/mo to cover the cost of this new technology shouldn't be subscribing to it in the first place.

Dan

I think many cable providers are trying to go all digital to recover bandwidth. To do this they have to supply cable boxes to basic customers that used to not need a box for analog. Since they can't charge these customers for the box, the providers want VERY cheap boxes.

Nonetheless, I'm against the waiver unless it somehow clearly limits the deployment of waivered boxes to basic services that the customers aren't charged for.

[bicker]

I haven't read the waiver request... is there a clear definition of what a low-end STB is? I could see granting the waiver for no more than 98 channels, no pay-per-view, no on-demand, and no pay-per-channel (HBO, Showtime, etc.), and only where analog channels are NOT provided at all.

[pkscout]

"Simple" in my book for a device that would even qualify as a potential CableCARD host (ruling out analog-only boxes) would be single tuner with no HD or DVR capabilities, much like the cheap Motorola box I had before getting an S3. It had PPV and VOD, but no actual display on the box beyond 2 LEDs (no buttons either) and only RF, composite and stereo audio out on the back. A card and the matching slot hardware would have taken up at least half of the internal volume of the thing.

I would add to this no PPV or VOD. The only "simple" box I feel should get approved is one that gives you a EPG and a way to tune a single digital (non-HD) channel. Anything else in my book is advanced. If you let cable operators give folks PPV or VOD (which are good money makers for them), then there is no incentive to get those things working with CableCard.

[Stormspace]

I think many cable providers are trying to go all digital to recover bandwidth. To do this they have to supply cable boxes to basic customers that used to not need a box for analog. Since they can't charge these customers for the box, the providers want VERY cheap boxes.

Nonetheless, I'm against the waiver unless it somehow clearly limits the deployment of waivered boxes to basic services that the customers aren't charged for.

I'm completely against any sort of box that prevents the use of basic services. By adding a box in this way every added feature from PIP to VCR recording will be eliminated because these devices have no means of controlling the box. Cable is going to have to keep it's basic service analog for a long time or it's going to lose customers.

[winpitt]

Granting the waver in any form is a slippery slope and will lead to the MSOs pushing the limits of "low end" too see what they can get away with. It's much better to just make it a cut and dry, everyone uses CableCARDs, approach.

On the plus side the fact that these MSOs are applying for specific wavers could be a sign that they don't have hopes for the FCC granting another extension to the integration ban. If that integration ban holds then next year CableCARDs are going to be a whole lot easier for consumers to deal with.

Dan

Dream on. The ban holding will have no real effect on that side. There is way too much hw out there and too little cablecard. With little real demand for cablecard so the overwhelming majority will still be non-cc devices - meaning that support will still be focused on something else. Also, demanding everyone to use cc and abandon anything else is just plain wrong - no matter what people think. It won't happen. With no real 2-way cc standard, that would mean the loss of huge interactive based revenue for MSOs which nobody will tolerate - including the FCC.

[AbMagFab]

Dream on. The ban holding will have no real effect on that side. There is way too much hw out there and too little cablecard. With little real demand for cablecard so the overwhelming majority will still be non-cc devices - meaning that support will still be focused on something else. Also, demanding everyone to use cc and abandon anything else is just plain wrong - no matter what people think. It won't happen. With no real 2-way cc standard, that would mean the loss of huge interactive based revenue for MSOs which nobody will tolerate - including the FCC.

Dream on.

Force the CC issue, and you'll quickly see a CC 2.0 standard. That's the whole point. The cable companies are dragging their feet because they don't want to level the playing field at all.

The FCC needs to actually do something useful, instead of fining people for farting.

[winpitt]

Dream on.

Force the CC issue, and you'll quickly see a CC 2.0 standard. That's the whole point. The cable companies are dragging their feet because they don't want to level the playing field at all.

The FCC needs to actually do something useful, instead of fining people for farting.

Nope. The FCC is not going to force the MSOs to drop their current architecture and adopt CC - which means that they are still going to have non-cc devices deployed as the majority of their user population.

Then consider that really nobody but TiVo has a strong vested interest in this fight because they rely on the MSOs to deliver content. TiVo is the only competition left in the DVR space.

This isn't about "leveling the playing field". The Cablecos spent the money to roll out infrastructure and develop against it. While neither you nor I like it, you can't blame them for not wanting to have to support yet another technology which will both potentially increase their cost to deliver while reducing revenue.

To thing otherwise is to allow our bias to drive the discussion rather than logic.

[winpitt]

Cable companies complain that CC are too expensive for deployment in "low end" boxes when it's that kind of mass deployment that is needed to bring the cost of CC down. As soon as cable providers are forced to use CC they'll force the cost issue with suppliers and CC boxes won't cost substanitally more than a normal box now.

It's all smoke and mirrors to keep competition locked out. The FCC needs to cram it down their throats and make them stop their foot dragging.

Now that is an incredibly narrow minded position. Providers currently have a huge inventory and large deployed base as well as extensive R&D (with partners such as Moto and SA) to maintain and deliver on that base. They have no choice but to continue that work, but you think that adding CC R&D, development and service should just be "eaten" by them because it's great for you but the average consumer doesn't give a hoot?

There is a huge amount of change that would need to take place, all of it quite expensive. And, if it falls your way the current Telecommunications Act of 1996 would mean that 100% of those costs could - and probably would - be passed onto the consumer. Further, if any of the new "state" or "federal" franchise laws are passed, it would result in both yet higher costs as well as some areas no longer having service delivered - because they would no longer be required to do so.

[winpitt]

Dream on.

Force the CC issue, and you'll quickly see a CC 2.0 standard. That's the whole point. The cable companies are dragging their feet because they don't want to level the playing field at all.

The FCC needs to actually do something useful, instead of fining people for farting.

Uh, it's not the cablecos that have stalled 2.0. It's the device manufacturers who cannot agree on the standard. That's been widely know for well over 18 months. Very very very similar to the also current BluRay vs HD-DVD fiasco.

[Bodshal]

The FCC needs to actually do something.I cut out some of what you said just to get to the real requirement. :)

Chris.

[pkscout]

I'm completely against any sort of box that prevents the use of basic services. By adding a box in this way every added feature from PIP to VCR recording will be eliminated because these devices have no means of controlling the box. Cable is going to have to keep it's basic service analog for a long time or it's going to lose customers.

Lose customers to who? Every other competitor (satellite, UVerse, FIOS) requires a box for the most basic things. Only OTA ATSC doesn't require a box (although it can require a huge butt ugly antenna). I guess if in addition to going digital they did everything as unencrypted QAM or ATSC then you could get away without a box with cable, but I think all the other services will require a box.

[dt_dc]

In almost all markets "basic cable" is analog only and does not require the use of any STB. In fact in most markets there is also a "lifeline" service available which provides access to the local broadcast channels via cable for a nominal fee (less then $15/mo) so that those without access to an antenna can still get "free" TV.

Digital cable is a premium service, and customers who can't afford an extra $5/mo to cover the cost of this new technology shouldn't be subscribing to it in the first place.Which is why the push to all-digital is a key point for the waiver applicants. While Charter and Comcast are a little more vaugue on the issue ... some providers are more specific:BendBroadband Filing to FCC

Re: In the Matter of BendBroadband's Request for Waiver of 47 CFR76.1204(a)(1)

In 2005, BendBroadband became one of the first cable operators in the nation to complete a network-wide transition to digital simulcast, allowing it to provide 100% all digital services to all of its digital cable customers. And if this waiver request is granted, the company plans to move to an entirely all-digital network by 2008 and reclaim the spectrum now used for analog channels for even more HD and VOD, increased broadband capacity, and other new digital services.

[winpitt]

Look, the bottom line here is that we here on the site really want inexpensive and reliable cablecard because we have a vested interest for the S3. Apart from a small handful of people who want cablecard so that they can hang their cc equipped plasma on a wall, nobody else cares.

What the FCC is interested in is getting the content to a pure digital (not pure HD) transport. That frees up capacity, reducing a problem for them.

What the consumer is interested in is getting inexpensive, reliable, quality content with features/functions.

Cablecard DOES add cost for the MSO. It increases complexity in the delivery system as there are then different issues where you would need to consider 3rd party devices, cablecard, software, MSO provisioning/service software, portal software, network related and content related issues. Today SD/HD is provided by a restricted set of HW per MSO/region, allowing for reduced service and R&D costs.

Yes, we want it - badly. But you can't just try to hammer the cableco's.

[Stormspace]

Look, the bottom line here is that we here on the site really want inexpensive and reliable cablecard because we have a vested interest for the S3. Apart from a small handful of people who want cablecard so that they can hang their cc equipped plasma on a wall, nobody else cares.

What the FCC is interested in is getting the content to a pure digital (not pure HD) transport. That frees up capacity, reducing a problem for them.

What the consumer is interested in is getting inexpensive, reliable, quality content with features/functions.

Cablecard DOES add cost for the MSO. It increases complexity in the delivery system as there are then different issues where you would need to consider 3rd party devices, cablecard, software, MSO provisioning/service software, portal software, network related and content related issues. Today SD/HD is provided by a restricted set of HW per MSO/region, allowing for reduced service and R&D costs.

Yes, we want it - badly. But you can't just try to hammer the cableco's.

There's always the argument that if all the MSO's are developing for the same standard there will be economies and innovation gained since the control mechanism doesn't get redesigned with each new device.

[winpitt]

There's always the argument that if all the MSO's are developing for the same standard there will be economies and innovation gained since the control mechanism doesn't get redesigned with each new device.

But that is exactly the misunderstanding. If you look at this from an engineering and service perspective, you need to consider the following:

1) Cablecard functionality is first enabled by 3rd party devices, each with individual and specific hardware/software specifications and manufacturers. So the first thing is that the Cableco will have to spend resources supporting potentially defective 3rd party HW or poorly implemented firmware on the device side. Beyond their ability to control. For this, just look at the S3 issues as a guide. Cableco's have to spend cust svc, tech support and truck rolls to try and resolve issues that in many cases have ended up being acknowledged as TiVo bugs. Not criticizing TiVo, but am acknowledging that while the Cablecos get little revenue out as an upside they have to spend service/support.

2) Cablecard functionality is then enabled by the CableCo head-end/distribution software, which consists of wide variations of each. Meaning that for example even across Comcast there are multiple system types out there of yet further revision leves, and even further service portal versions. If you are at all familiar for example with IT ERP implementations, you must also recognize that trying to get everyone on the same version of software or portal is not even remotely practical. Such deployments are "Big Bang" deployments and would be unbelieveably disruptive to the customer base. Not to mention incredibly expensive.

3) Then you either have to assume that they'll need to continue supporting the existing architecture (ie, SA or Moto boxes) or they'll need to write off millions upon millions of dollars of HW and try to then deploy CC only systems. Huge cost, huge disruption - and with absolutely no upside. Only cost.

4) Then you have to consider that while there is no 2.0 bi-directional CC standard yet, that any such standard would then finally limit what each provide would be capable of doing - since new yet to be determined services would not necessarily be even thought of during the standards development. So, you'd end up yet again with proprietary implementations of the "standard" or an inability to deliver new services.

5) Then you need to consider that this not only affects the MSOs (Cableco's) but also affects people like TI, SA, and Moto. It also completely disrupts their product line and attaches those same costs directly to them.

This is not even close to being a free-market. We need to face that we're a minority of the consumer population but we're demanding something that would have a dramatic effect on everyone else - and after reviewing the above comments would certainly have a pretty dramatic affect on costs. It sucks to be us, but that's life.

[dt_dc]

I haven't read the waiver request... is there a clear definition of what a low-end STB is?Not really ...

Most of the waiver applicants are providing a specific list of equipment they're looking to get a waiver for. For example, from Charter's application:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518400205

Motorola DCT-700
Scientific Atlanta 1840
Scientific Atlanta 940
Pace DC501p
Motorola DCT2500e
Scientific Atlanta 3200
Pace DC511p

Specs on these can be found in their attachment:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518400206

The common thread is SD-only digital-capable "interactive" (ie, 2-way, supports VOD, EPGs, iPPV, SDV, etc). Beyond that ... some also support analog channels (for plants that haven't implemented digital simulcast yet) ... some don't. Some other minor differences (some have front panels, some don't ... some support SVideo some don't ... etc.) The Pace boxes include USB ... which some CEA members had issue with.

[bicker]

To thing otherwise is to allow our bias to drive the discussion rather than logic. :up: Absolutely on-target.

[bicker]

The common thread is SD-only digital-capable "interactive"I would like the FCC to consider interactivity to be a disqualifier for waiver. The regulation exists to serve a specific public interest, and waivers should only be granted when the waiver itself substantially serves a public interest, not the MSO's personal interest. Any advantage to the MSO should be coincidental, and the advantage to the public should be obtainable through no other means (i.e., a means that perhaps is less advantageous to the MSO).

Having said that, that criterion is not very likely to be considered by the FCC. They have several interests that they have to balance against each other: The general public's, the government's, and the industry. We television viewers tend to think every entity should be working in our personal interest, when in reality we typically get no better than one-vote-in-three with regard to any of these decisions.

[winpitt]

I would like the FCC to consider interactivity to be a disqualifier for waiver. The regulation exists to serve a specific public interest, and waivers should only be granted when the waiver itself substantially serves a public interest, not the MSO's personal interest. Any advantage to the MSO should be coincidental, and the advantage to the public should be obtainable through no other means (i.e., a means that perhaps is less advantageous to the MSO).

Having said that, that criterion is not very likely to be considered by the FCC. They have several interests that they have to balance against each other: The general public's, the government's, and the industry. We television viewers tend to think every entity should be working in our personal interest, when in reality we typically get no better than one-vote-in-three with regard to any of these decisions.

You're right. And to be yet further clear, that "general public" part is a lot bigger than us here on this site who have/want S3's that need Cablecard. Personally from an engineering perspective instituting mandatory cablecard in reality gives a strategic and cost advantage to Dish and Direct. They'd have far less complexity and service costs.

[Dan203]

Dream on. The ban holding will have no real effect on that side. There is way too much hw out there and too little cablecard. With little real demand for cablecard so the overwhelming majority will still be non-cc devices - meaning that support will still be focused on something else. Also, demanding everyone to use cc and abandon anything else is just plain wrong - no matter what people think. It won't happen. With no real 2-way cc standard, that would mean the loss of huge interactive based revenue for MSOs which nobody will tolerate - including the FCC.

That's NOT true! The cable companies can use CableCARD and OCAP to create CC1.0 based STBs with full support for bi-directional services such as PPV, VOD and SDV. There is absolutely no reason for them to get out of the mandate, other then money.

Dan

[winpitt]

That's NOT true! The cable companies can use CableCARD and OCAP to create CC1.0 based STBs with full support for bi-directional services such as PPV, VOD and SDV. There is absolutely no reason for them to get out of the mandate, other then money.

Dan

And you are absolutely incorrect. There is already a very large deployed set of non-cc devices which still require support. CC2.0 is required for interactive.

I guess the cableco's "could" use Cablecard and discard all their existing devices. Remember that OCAP (while there is some commitment to as of Jan 06) is NOT a design parameter of existing devices, and that there is very little support on the device side at this time.

I suppose that they could also park satelites above everyone's house, or start giving away brand new OCAP compliant digital TVs too. But that would be equally as illogical.

The one part that you are correct about is that it IS about money. That being, the cost to deploy, service and maintain customers. Because we have a vested interest we want them to adopt this technology which has increased costs. But to proclaim that those costs don't exist or that it's easy/cheap is a gross mis-representation of reality.

[Dan203]

What the FCC is interested in is getting the content to a pure digital (not pure HD) transport. That frees up capacity, reducing a problem for them.

This is a completely seperate issue. The FCC cares about freeing up the airwaves, and as such wants all broadcast channels to go digital, but they could care less if cable companies were all digital or not. In fact the big digital switchover of 2009 does NOT require cable companies to go digital. It only effect OTA stations.

You also seem to be under the impression that the CableCARD mandate is a choice. When in fact, provided the FCC doesn't grant yet anotehr extension, on July 1st 2007 cable companies will no longer be able to deploy non-CableCARD equipment to any customer. That means that all the boxes in the field can stay in the field, but if they break or are upgraded for any reason, then they will be replaced by CableCARD equipment. And all new installs will be CableCARD equipment. If that doesn't give them incentive to get CableCARDs working reliably then their business is doomed to fail.

Dan

[Dan203]

And you are absolutely incorrect. There is already a very large deployed set of non-cc devices which still require support. CC2.0 is required for interactive.

I guess the cableco's "could" use Cablecard and discard all their existing devices. Remember that OCAP (while there is some commitment to as of Jan 06) is NOT a design parameter of existing devices, and that there is very little support on the device side at this time.

What are you talking about? CC2.0 is absolutely NOT required for cable companies to deploy a CableCARD based STB that supports interactive content. As a matter of fact neither is OCAP. The intergration ban only mandates that they seperate encryption from the rest of the box. They could actually create an entirely proprietary box just like they are using now, as long as they are using CableCARDs for the encryption/decryption. In fact dt_dc posted a link a while back where both Motorola and SA have designed just such devices for if the 2007 deadline holds.

Dan

[winpitt]

This is a completely seperate issue. The FCC cares about freeing up the airwaves, and as such wants all broadcast channels to go digital, but they could care less if cable companies were all digital or not. In fact the big digital switchover of 2009 does NOT require cable companies to go digital. It only effect OTA stations.

You also seem to be under the impression that the CableCARD mandate is a choice. When in fact, provided the FCC doesn't grant yet anotehr extension, on July 1st 2007 cable companies will no longer be able to deploy non-CableCARD equipment to any customer. That means that all the boxes in the field can stay in the field, but if they break or are upgraded for any reason, then they will be replaced by CableCARD equipment. And all new installs will be CableCARD equipment. If that doesn't give them incentive to get CableCARDs working reliably then their business is doomed to fail.

Dan

First of all I understand both points. For the first I was referring to the fact that (because somebody else on the thread had brought up bandwidth, SD, and HD) with respect to delivering content the elimination of Analog is the most important thing on the FCC's mind. Also consider that your cableco in many cases gets that content via analog signal and then propogates it via cable to subs.

For the second what I was alluding to is that there is really no reason why the FCC would not allow the situation to continue as there is increasing pressure from several fronts to not enforce the cablecard standard.

More importantly, if the waiver is not granted that only means that they need to deliver "something" via cablecard. Meaning that they would again focus on a very restrictive product line pre-populated with cablecards. It really has minimal effect on 3rd party devices using cablecards, as configurations, specifications, versions would all be different.

Also, you should recognize that since there is just about no agreement whatsoever on 2.0, and since there is a great deal of revenue and competition tied into interactive services, MSOs may well even choose to ignore and further fight in court in order to protect revenue. Frankly, that's exactly what I expect them to do. They're playing "nice" now, and will eventually take the gloves off. It's very unlikely that when it then gets litigious, we'll see changes by Jul 07.

[winpitt]

What are you talking about? CC2.0 is absolutely NOT required for cable companies to deploy a CableCARD based STB that supports interactive content. As a matter of fact neither is OCAP. The intergration ban only mandates that they seperate encryption from the rest of the box. They could actually create an entirely proprietary box just like they are using now, as long as they are using CableCARDs for the encryption/decryption. In fact dt_dc posted a link a while back where both Motorola and SA have designed just such devices for if the 2007 deadline holds.

Dan

The word proprietary is what eliminates this from reality. See my last post.

[bilbo]

I think the FCC should grant Verizon and Charter these waivers...

But I think that the FCC should state that the non-Cable Card devices should be "rented" to the end-users (VZ and Charter's customers) at no additional charge.

Not that it would ever happen, but I think it would be a good example of a Win-Win-Win conflict resolution. The MSO's would win {they wouldn't have to implement CableCard across the board}; the fixed-income elderly would win (they could "rent" inexpensive boxes for no additional fee (beyond what their usual programming costs); and I guess I would win since I came up with the solution.

Of course, there is no way that is going to happen. I am really not sure why the MSO's are so opposed to CableCard in the first place. They should see a steady annual increase in rental money (for CableCards or set-top boxes with CC's in them) for the next 5-10 years as a result of the conversion to digital (in 2009?).

[Dan203]

The word proprietary is what eliminates this from reality. See my last post.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4323142

dt_dc is in the cable industry and if you do a search for his posts you'll see that he's much more knowledgeable on the subject then either me or you. If you choose not to believe his comments, then you're obviously not as smart as you think you are.

Dan

[ZeoTiVo]

But that is exactly the misunderstanding. If you look at this from an engineering and service perspective, you need to consider the following:

1) Cablecard functionality is first enabled by 3rd party devices, each with individual and specific hardware/software specifications and manufacturers. So the first thing is that the Cableco will have to spend resources supporting potentially defective 3rd party HW or poorly implemented firmware on the device side. Beyond their ability to control. For this, just look at the S3 issues as a guide.
the bulk of the problems on this forum were the result of the cable companies not knowing how to identify the hostid and provision the cards correctly from their headend. The only real problem they had on the S3 was dealing with getting two cable cards working. Those that followed the directions for how to do the two cards had no problems with that.
Cablelabs was put in place to ensure cosistency of cable card integration among 3rd party devices.

if the MSOs had been forced last year or this year to put out new equipment using cable card then you can be assurred that the DVRs from the cable co would have had a steady supply of multi stream CC1.0 cards and the install hassles for S3 would have been way down. And PPV and VOD would still be very active on the cable company DVRs in a proprietary format. I think the MSOs have signalled they are ready to fight it out over the CC2.0 standard that would force CEAs to put a lot of extra hardware in a 3rd party device and then have no control over the software loaded in by MSOs via the 2.0 standards java environment.

your argumenrts in this thread are just not based in reality



PS - it is easy to define a simple STB not needing a cable card as one the cable company does not charge a fee for ;)

[Stormspace]

I think the FCC should grant Verizon and Charter these waivers...

But I think that the FCC should state that the non-Cable Card devices should be "rented" to the end-users (VZ and Charter's customers) at no additional charge.

Not that it would ever happen, but I think it would be a good example of a Win-Win-Win conflict resolution. The MSO's would win {they wouldn't have to implement CableCard across the board}; the fixed-income elderly would win (they could "rent" inexpensive boxes for no additional fee (beyond what their usual programming costs); and I guess I would win since I came up with the solution.

Of course, there is no way that is going to happen. I am really not sure why the MSO's are so opposed to CableCard in the first place. They should see a steady annual increase in rental money (for CableCards or set-top boxes with CC's in them) for the next 5-10 years as a result of the conversion to digital (in 2009?).

If they let you get the box for free, they'll just recoup the expense in increased rates elsewhere, so that wouldn't work.

[winpitt]

the bulk of the problems on this forum were the result of the cable companies not knowing how to identify the hostid and provision the cards correctly from their headend. The only real problem they had on the S3 was dealing with getting two cable cards working. Those that followed the directions for how to do the two cards had no problems with that.
Cablelabs was put in place to ensure cosistency of cable card integration among 3rd party devices.

if the MSOs had been forced last year or this year to put out new equipment using cable card then you can be assurred that the DVRs from the cable co would have had a steady supply of multi stream CC1.0 cards and the install hassles for S3 would have been way down. And PPV and VOD would still be very active on the cable company DVRs in a proprietary format. I think the MSOs have signalled they are ready to fight it out over the CC2.0 standard that would force CEAs to put a lot of extra hardware in a 3rd party device and then have no control over the software loaded in by MSOs via the 2.0 standards java environment.

your argumenrts in this thread are just not based in reality



PS - it is easy to define a simple STB not needing a cable card as one the cable company does not charge a fee for ;)

However the 2005 report (available online) shows that the largest issue with cablecard is quality and compliance - which you would force the Cableco to spend money in supporting - while they have no control over it. So, cannot agree with you. The only hassles that would "possibly" have been avoided in reality for the S3 were the cablecos "forced" to adopt a new platform at their own cost would be a pre-defined rate structure for multi-cablecard device, or as you mention the potential availability of a multi-stream (not interactive) device.

The bottom line here is that while you and I both want cablecard (preferably 2.0) you want to force cablco's to eat the cost and I personally don't think that's right. It most certainly increases their COGS and service/support costs for some time.

[Stormspace]

However the 2005 report (available online) shows that the largest issue with cablecard is quality and compliance - which you would force the Cableco to spend money in supporting - while they have no control over it. So, cannot agree with you. The only hassles that would "possibly" have been avoided in reality for the S3 were the cablecos "forced" to adopt a new platform at their own cost would be a pre-defined rate structure for multi-cablecard device, or as you mention the potential availability of a multi-stream (not interactive) device.

The bottom line here is that while you and I both want cablecard (preferably 2.0) you want to force cablco's to eat the cost and I personally don't think that's right. It most certainly increases their COGS and service/support costs for some time.

I don't disagree with your analysis, but from my point of view the consumer has been playing catch up with cable for a long time and eating the costs involved in each upgrade. Cable ready sets, to digital boxes, and now cable card. Each time the CEA introduced a device to recieve the channels the cable co's transmitted a new STB was introduced that made the technology obsolete. How many people purchased cable ready TV's only to have to rent a box when digital came out, or how many PIP sets were obsoleted? Cable Card is the answer to allowing us to actually use the features on our sets and recorders and I frankly don't mind if this one time cable companies are having to eat some costs if they really are. I bet we see rate increases over the next year as Cable Companies pass along costs for upgrading to us, if they haven't already increased rates in anticipation for the integration ban.

edit: Meanwhile they are working on SDV to obsolete cable card devices.

[winpitt]

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4323142

dt_dc is in the cable industry and if you do a search for his posts you'll see that he's much more knowledgeable on the subject then either me or you. If you choose not to believe his comments, then you're obviously not as smart as you think you are.

Dan

Have read his comments and his posts. Nowhere do I see him saying that there are not increased costs associated for the cablecos to implement cablecard across the board. To the contrary, in that specific thread he states the opposite. That there are in fact increased costs. A lot of money involved.

Two items of equal import that I didn't bring up before and you haven't mentioned are SDV (which also gets in the way), and the fact that you yourself questioned the differentiation between a cableco provided box and a TiVo assuming a universal platform such as OCAP. Or did I perhaps read it wrong?

The funny thing is that I don't think I'm all that smart :). This to me seems like just plain common sense. Anyone with basic business understanding and a middling of technical grasp of these products ought to get it.

[bicker]

When in fact, provided the FCC doesn't grant yet anotehr extension, on July 1st 2007 cable companies will no longer be able to deploy non-CableCARD equipment to any customer. That means that all the boxes in the field can stay in the field, but if they break or are upgraded for any reason, then they will be replaced by CableCARD equipment.I think I'll hope, very hard, that my 3416 doesn't break after July 1, at least until until they have the new equipment pretty-much well under control.

[winpitt]

I don't disagree with your analysis, but from my point of view the consumer has been playing catch up with cable for a long time and eating the costs involved in each upgrade. Cable ready sets, to digital boxes, and now cable card. Each time the CEA introduced a device to recieve the channels the cable co's transmitted a new STB was introduced that made the technology obsolete. How many people purchased cable ready TV's only to have to rent a box when digital came out, or how many PIP sets were obsoleted? Cable Card is the answer to allowing us to actually use the features on our sets and recorders and I frankly don't mind if this one time cable companies are having to eat some costs if they really are. I bet we see rate increases over the next year as Cable Companies pass along costs for upgrading to us, if they haven't already increased rates in anticipation for the integration ban.

Ah, but there's the rub. YOU are paying because YOU buy a TiVo. The general DVR public does not pay because they just turn in the old device at no cost and get a replacement. Instituting cablecard does not eliminate those charges. It just moves them physically, while introducing some amount of complexity. So from my perspective, the consumer has not been eating any of these costs - but forcing the integration ban will change that. Just my perception.

[Stormspace]

Ah, but there's the rub. YOU are paying because YOU buy a TiVo. The general DVR public does not pay because they just turn in the old device at no cost and get a replacement. Instituting cablecard does not eliminate those charges. It just moves them physically, while introducing some amount of complexity. So from my perspective, the consumer has not been eating any of these costs - but forcing the integration ban will change that. Just my perception.

Instituting Cable Card will allow consumers to use their devices, TV's and Recorders, without requiring a STB. If anything once the integration ban is put into place more devices should be available to let people buy their own CC device. Phone companies said the same thing back in the day and now you can buy phone handsets cheaply and with more features than ever. It's good for the economy and everyone when you get more than one entity working on technology. Besides I'm not convinced that it will cost the Cable Companies more to provide CC devices, it's not like they are going to replace them wholesale once the ban is in place. It will be a gradual shift as people buy their own boxes, TV's, and recorders or change their services with the cable co's.

[Dan203]

winpitt - me and you seem to be on a different page here. I never said it wouldn't cost more money. This whole argument started when I replied to this portion of your original post...

Also, demanding everyone to use cc and abandon anything else is just plain wrong - no matter what people think. It won't happen. With no real 2-way cc standard, that would mean the loss of huge interactive based revenue for MSOs which nobody will tolerate - including the FCC.

Specifically the bolded portion. You say that "it wont happen" because the MSOs wouls lose 2-way features. I was simply pointing out that forcing them to use CableCARDs does NOT cause them to lose 2-way features even if CableCARD 2.0 is not ready by the time the ban goes into effect. As the post I linked to shows, both Motorola and SA have STBs that use CableCARDs for authorization but maintain the current proprietary technology that allows 2-way features to exist.

I also maintain that even if this most basic of change was forced onto the MSOs their support for CableCARDs would get better for everyone, including TiVo users, because the backend portion which controls the CableCARD technology is universal and if they were forced to use it on their own STBs then they would learn the system and be better at installing them into all devices. Including TiVos.

Dan

[MichaelK]

Look, the bottom line here is that we here on the site really want inexpensive and reliable cablecard because we have a vested interest for the S3. Apart from a small handful of people who want cablecard so that they can hang their cc equipped plasma on a wall, nobody else cares.

What the FCC is interested in is getting the content to a pure digital (not pure HD) transport. That frees up capacity, reducing a problem for them.

What the consumer is interested in is getting inexpensive, reliable, quality content with features/functions.

Cablecard DOES add cost for the MSO. It increases complexity in the delivery system as there are then different issues where you would need to consider 3rd party devices, cablecard, software, MSO provisioning/service software, portal software, network related and content related issues. Today SD/HD is provided by a restricted set of HW per MSO/region, allowing for reduced service and R&D costs.

Yes, we want it - badly. But you can't just try to hammer the cableco's.

the only problem is the LAW that congress passed over 10 years ago instructed the FCC to ensure that 3rd party devices to tune cable would be readily availible in retial channels.

(Man- do the cable company's actually pay you to be on that franchise board?)

The FCC's plan to make that happen was the whole POD (eg cablecard). Then the FCC themselves decided that the way to make the cablecard thing work would be to force cable to use it themselves so that they would become widespread and therefore cheap and common enough to be reliable for all.

The law MANDATES that the FCC do something and this is the plan they came up with.

Doesn't mean they wont change their mind and issue all these waivers in the hope that cable gets OCAP next summer anyway. But that's the history of it.

[nyjklein]

I also maintain that even if this most basic of change was forced onto the MSOs their support for CableCARDs would get better for everyone, including TiVo users, because the backend portion which controls the CableCARD technology is universal and if they were forced to use it on their own STBs then they would learn the system and be better at installing them into all devices. Including TiVos.

Dan

And I'll add a related thought I've been having lately. It seems the two predominant manufacturers of the actual Cablecards are Scientific Atlanta and Motorola. They happen to also be the two dominant providers of cable STBs. Somehow, I think that when they're forced to depend on those Cablecards for the functionality of their own STBs, the quality of the Cablecard hardware and firmware will "mysteriously" improve.

[dt_dc]

dt_dc is in the cable industryJust to clarify something ...

I'm not in the cable industry ... just another software guy. Now, in the past, I have written software aimed at MVPDs (including middleware and iTV apps for STBs) ... but I currently have absolutely nothing to do with that space. I do keep an eye on the sector for various reasons. But now ... nope, I'm happily developing software that has no connection with the cable industry.

[TechDreamer]

Not only should the Cable Companies not be allowed a waiver, they should be fined for the ten years they have been out of compliance with CableCard. The waiver would only be legitimate if the Cable Companies had shown a record of good faith regarding implementation. The high cost of any current implementation is their own damn fault.

[sjcbulldog]

It seems that the basic point is that competition is necessary. While the cable companies have control on the box that allows me to view HD content, PPV, VOD, or even basic digital channels, that my only choices as a consumer is to switch from cable TV to satellite. While this provides for some choice, for most people switching between cable TV to satellite is very disruptive and effectively limits the choice available.

There are several arguments that are made for the STBs with respect to the cable companies. The strongest one is that boxes like the TiVo S3 eliminate the VOD/PPV revenue that the get today. It seems that if the cable companies had really wanted to address this issue that the standard could have been extended to support bi-directional communications. The path back to the cable companies form your set top box does not need encryption (at least not high performance encryption you would need for HD video, just enough encryption to make sure the information about VOD/PPV was valid and not intercepted). As far as that goes, the cable companies could define a standard for STB style boxes that use IP and a cable modem. This capability could be built into the box, or if your box (TiVo S3) does not include this, you get a cable modem that ties to a USB port on the TiVo and you have your reverse path to the cable companies. If you do not have high speed internet through your cable company, the modem can be tied directly to the TiVo and limited to the VOD/PPV application. If you do have high speed internet, your home network could be used.

The basic point is that technical solutions do exist to the problems that the cable companies are voicing. It seems that their complaints are not geniune and what they really want is to try and maintain their existing monopoly. As long as there is a monopoly at the STB we will continue to have boxes that look like the Comcast DVR boxes. It the cable companies want their STB as the DVR in people homes, build a better box. As much as I like my S3, I have to believe that if Comcast parternered with Motolorla to build a DVR that was as capable as the TiVo box, they would be sucessful (as long as both companies were truly committed to the project.) If the box I could get from Comcast out performed the box from TiVo, then my next box would be from comcast. Comcast would win by out performing TiVo, not by having some inherient monopoly.

So, given the stampede by the cable companies to support cable cards to date, I think that the FCC/Congress should grant zero waivers of any kind. All STBs should be required to use cable cards to insure the fundamental technology for competition is truly deployed. If CableCard 2.0 is released, cable companies should be required to continue compatibility with CableCard 1.0 as well to insure that competition is not squelched by a transition to new technology every 2 - 3 years effectively making third party boxed useless. Given an effectively level playing field, comcast can compete like most other companies have to do.

Note, I used the name comcast in here, but I really mean all of the cable companies.

just my $0.02 worth
sjcbulldog

[bicker]

While this provides for some choice, for most people switching between cable TV to satellite is very disruptive and effectively limits the choice available."Disruptive" -- "Effectively limits" -- these things don't really matter much. The law doesn't mandate absolute competition without consideration of any other considerations. Read the judicial rulings -- the law requires just a measure of competition. The issue with STBs is very specific, and even if the regulations concerning this were recinded/struck down, it wouldn't result in a situation which would be anti-competitive. CableCard is not necessary to ensure there is competition in the subscription television service industry. There is enough competition between broadcast, cable and satellite to satisfy anti-trust laws.

[winpitt]

Instituting Cable Card will allow consumers to use their devices, TV's and Recorders, without requiring a STB. If anything once the integration ban is put into place more devices should be available to let people buy their own CC device. Phone companies said the same thing back in the day and now you can buy phone handsets cheaply and with more features than ever. It's good for the economy and everyone when you get more than one entity working on technology. Besides I'm not convinced that it will cost the Cable Companies more to provide CC devices, it's not like they are going to replace them wholesale once the ban is in place. It will be a gradual shift as people buy their own boxes, TV's, and recorders or change their services with the cable co's.

Look, it's not worth arguing about since the comment that "you're not convinced that it will cost the Cable...." shows that you either can't or don't want to deal with the reality. From an R&D and support perspective there is absolutely no possible way that it cannot cost more. Period. Agreed that there would be a gradual shift - which means supporting more of multiple systems at the same time.

[winpitt]

the only problem is the LAW that congress passed over 10 years ago instructed the FCC to ensure that 3rd party devices to tune cable would be readily availible in retial channels.

(Man- do the cable company's actually pay you to be on that franchise board?)

The FCC's plan to make that happen was the whole POD (eg cablecard). Then the FCC themselves decided that the way to make the cablecard thing work would be to force cable to use it themselves so that they would become widespread and therefore cheap and common enough to be reliable for all.

The law MANDATES that the FCC do something and this is the plan they came up with.

Doesn't mean they wont change their mind and issue all these waivers in the hope that cable gets OCAP next summer anyway. But that's the history of it.

Uh, NO - I don't get a darned thing from the cableco- and frankly an on the board because I do not trust them and feel they need scrutiny. But that does not mean that they should be penalized or treated differently than you would have your business treated either. It's a 2 way street. You want it to be one way.

There are LOTS of things that the FCC is supposed to do. For example, the 2004 ruling that local authorities cannot supervise broadband service when delivered via cable under a franchise agreement. Has the FCC ever done ANYTHING to oversee that service since then? No. Never. Not the service component.

My point continues to be that there is heavy and increased pressure to not force unilateral adoption of this technology, and that there has been (with the exclusion of those of us on this board having vested interests due to the S3) just about zero interest in cablecard from the consumer. My point is that those two factors will likely result in an unwillingness to enforce the integration ban.

[winpitt]

Not only should the Cable Companies not be allowed a waiver, they should be fined for the ten years they have been out of compliance with CableCard. The waiver would only be legitimate if the Cable Companies had shown a record of good faith regarding implementation. The high cost of any current implementation is their own damn fault.

That is a completely nonsensical statement without basis. I'd like to ask what kind of work you do. The reason is that anyone with a reasonable modicum of sense and understanding of the integration and hw/sw development process will understand that the non-integrated approach is more complex and has a higher base cost with more opportunities for failure. If you consider this from a Six-Sigma perspective, and conduct a FMEA you'll see this immediately within about a second.

While I desperately want cablecards to work flawlessly I can also see the other side of the coin. And that is that those of you wanting to hammer the cableco's for this are treating cable in a way that you would absolutely not tolerate your own business to be treated.

[winpitt]

"Disruptive" -- "Effectively limits" -- these things don't really matter much. The law doesn't mandate absolute competition without consideration of any other considerations. Read the judicial rulings -- the law requires just a measure of competition. The issue with STBs is very specific, and even if the regulations concerning this were recinded/struck down, it wouldn't result in a situation which would be anti-competitive. CableCard is not necessary to ensure there is competition in the subscription television service industry. There is enough competition between broadcast, cable and satellite to satisfy anti-trust laws.

You are completely right. And to take this a step further I'll again point out that the integration ban effectively gives DirecTV and Dishnet a strategic advantage.

Actually, the whole "competition" thing is hogwash. Are people now going to tell the FCC to force Verizon to use SIM cards for cellular technology? Not having them is "disruptive" when compared to using SIMs on the Cingular network.

It's also similar (slightly) to the complete falsehood that elimination of local or state franchise agreements increases competition in the video delivery market. Franchise agreements have been non-exclusive by law since 1996.

Let's be honest. This issue is hot around here because we support the S3. If we didn't, we wouldn't give a crap about cablecards. The rest of the world doesn't.

[winpitt]

It seems that if the cable companies had really wanted to address this issue that the standard could have been extended to support bi-directional communications. The path back to the cable companies form your set top box does not need encryption (at least not high performance encryption you would need for HD video, just enough encryption to make sure the information about VOD/PPV was valid and not intercepted). sjcbulldog

Since other communications are either now - or planned using the digital boxes (messaging, etc) encryption should be considered mandatory.

[MichaelK]

You are completely right. And to take this a step further I'll again point out that the integration ban effectively gives DirecTV and Dishnet a strategic advantage.
....

I would actually disagree- if cable were to embrace cablecard and come up with a 2-way cablecard standard palletable to the CEA then basically every TV made would have a cablecard slot. To get pay tv from cable people would only need to call for a card (and if they were so widespread you could probably pick them up at the co and slap them in yourself). That's a HUGE advantage over DBS that would require STB's.

I've never seen the rational for the law that tells the FCC to ensure 3rd party boxes are availible at retail. For all we know some congressman's wife bitched at him all the time that they had an ugle cable box connected to teh 3 grand tv that the lobbiest gave him. I am not sure it has anythign to do with competition in the pay tv market place.

[winpitt]

I would actually disagree- if cable were to embrace cablecard and come up with a 2-way cablecard standard palletable to the CEA then basically every TV made would have a cablecard slot. To get pay tv from cable people would only need to call for a card (and if they were so widespread you could probably pick them up at the co and slap them in yourself). That's a HUGE advantage over DBS that would require STB's.

I've never seen the rational for the law that tells the FCC to ensure 3rd party boxes are availible at retail. For all we know some congressman's wife bitched at him all the time that they had an ugle cable box connected to teh 3 grand tv that the lobbiest gave him. I am not sure it has anythign to do with competition in the pay tv market place.

Well you're actually saying two things would have to happen. First, that the integration ban would need to be enforced, and second cableco's would have to not just support within the tenets of the law but actually embrace it. Since they'd still have to support all the currently deployed fleet, and since R&D for maintenance of existing will still need to happen.

[nrc]

Let's be honest. This issue is hot around here because we support the S3. If we didn't, we wouldn't give a crap about cablecards. The rest of the world doesn't.

No, actually the cable industry's business practice of requiring the consumer to rent a box that poorly duplicates the functionality in their TV has bothered me for a long time. Slow adoption of cable card doesn't mean that consumers don't want the functionality it provides. It simply demonstrates that most of them don't understand that it's available or what it means and that the cable companies have done their best cripple it and discourage consumers. If you ask consumers if they would like to be able to just plug their TV into cable without a box and have it work the vast majority of them would say yes.

Catching up on this thread I see a pattern in your posts. They all seem to boil down to "I reject your reality and substitute my own." If you want to believe the cable company eyewash that's your purgative, I don't buy it.

The cable companies control the economics of CC deployment. As soon as it becomes in their best interest to make it economical, it will become economical. The claim that a simple plugin card costs them $75 is a perfect example. Comparable bits of CE gear can be purchased for $10.

Support costs? Cable companies are charging a service visit for what should be a 15 minute CC installation. Unless their installers are Doctors they shouldn't be losing any money on that.

Most of the problems that people have experienced have been related to cable company reluctance, lack of preparation, inexperience, or incompetence. The cable industry controls device certification, so if a device causes problems in the field, whose fault is it?

[winpitt]

No, actually the cable industry's business practice of requiring the consumer to rent a box that poorly duplicates the functionality in their TV has bothered me for a long time. Slow adoption of cable card doesn't mean that consumers don't want the functionality it provides. It simply demonstrates that most of them don't understand that it's available or what it means and that the cable companies have done their best cripple it and discourage consumers. If you ask consumers if they would like to be able to just plug their TV into cable without a box and have it work the vast majority of them would say yes.

Catching up on this thread I see a pattern in your posts. They all seem to boil down to "I reject your reality and substitute my own." If you want to believe the cable company eyewash that's your purgative, I don't buy it.

The cable companies control the economics of CC deployment. As soon as it becomes in their best interest to make it economical, it will become economical. The claim that a simple plugin card costs them $75 is a perfect example. Comparable bits of CE gear can be purchased for $10.

Support costs? Cable companies are charging a service visit for what should be a 15 minute CC installation. Unless their installers are Doctors they shouldn't be losing any money on that.

Most of the problems that people have experienced have been related to cable company reluctance, lack of preparation, inexperience, or incompetence. The cable industry controls device certification, so if a device causes problems in the field, whose fault is it?

Wow! Did YOU miss the point! I'm not a cable hack and really want an alternative. Support costs are just related to visits for initial installs? Wow! Unbelieveable!

3rd party devices are NOT certified by the MSOs. The cablecards are. NOT the 3rd party devices, such as TV's, and the S3.

It seems to me that your "boiling down" of my position is way off. I'm looking at actual reality. Not what people think the FCC "should" do. Not what people think is "fair". Not what just impacts "me" personally. Or you. Seems to me that you got it backward. I'm just recognizing the complexities and costs that some others don't seem willing to accept.

[JohnBrowning]

No, actually the cable industry's business practice of requiring the consumer to rent a box that poorly duplicates the functionality in their TV has bothered me for a long time. Slow adoption of cable card doesn't mean that consumers don't want the functionality it provides. It simply demonstrates that most of them don't understand that it's available or what it means and that the cable companies have done their best cripple it and discourage consumers. If you ask consumers if they would like to be able to just plug their TV into cable without a box and have it work the vast majority of them would say yes.



+1!!!

[winpitt]

If you ask consumers if they would like to be able to just plug their TV into cable without a box and have it work the vast majority of them would say yes.


And if you ask consumers further what would they prefer more,

1) Lower cost, more content and features with a cableco DVR and no TiVo
2) Higher cost, TiVo Service which has better features than cableco DVR
3) No DVR, higher cost and no STB at all

The vast majority of them would say (and have with their wallet)

1

That's just the economics. If at some point in utopia there was no additional cost by fully implementing CC then I agree that it becomes a moot point.

[Stormspace]

And if you ask consumers further what would they prefer more,

1) Lower cost, more content and features with a cableco DVR and no TiVo
2) Higher cost, TiVo Service which has better features than cableco DVR
3) No DVR, higher cost and no STB at all

The vast majority of them would say (and have with their wallet)

1

That's just the economics. If at some point in utopia there was no additional cost by fully implementing CC then I agree that it becomes a moot point.

First, there isn't one cable DVR with more features than a second or third generation TiVo. Second generation devices with the exception of HD provide a better experience and value than competing cable products for the vast majority of users. Third generation devices provide the same or a little more features over the cable DVR (Not enough to justify 800 bucks) however I'm cautiously pessimistic about features returning to the S3. :)

Second, CC television sets were produced in mass as soon as the CC standard was approved, however these sets cost 200-300 more than competing products. Cost to the consumer is the primary reason for the slow adoption of the standard, not that they don't want it. Cable companies foot dragging is the sole reason for the high cost of CC capable sets. If the Cable Companies had pushed adoption through when they were supposed to then prices for these devices would be lower. This foot dragging is costing everyone money at present, so if the Cable Companies have to share the pain then so be it.

[nyjklein]

You are completely right. And to take this a step further I'll again point out that the integration ban effectively gives DirecTV and Dishnet a strategic advantage.

Actually, the whole "competition" thing is hogwash. Are people now going to tell the FCC to force Verizon to use SIM cards for cellular technology? Not having them is "disruptive" when compared to using SIMs on the Cingular network.


I'm sorry, your profile doesn't say where you leave. In many metropolitan areas, a large portion of the population live in high rise apartment/condos where satellite is physically, not an option. Thus, the cable provider has an effective monopoly. So to argue that cablecards give DirecTV and Dishnet a strategic advantage is REALLY stretching it.

Further, your analogy to Verizon Wireless and SIM based phones is also faulty for two reasons. Verizon has effective competition in almost all of its markets from at least one and usually three or more providers. Secondly, the major providers that do use SIMs lock their handsets. For most people, they can't take a phone they bought for Cingular, put in a T-Mobile SIM and go merrily on they're way.

[winpitt]

I'm sorry, your profile doesn't say where you leave. In many metropolitan areas, a large portion of the population live in high rise apartment/condos where satellite is physically, not an option. Thus, the cable provider has an effective monopoly. So to argue that cablecards give DirecTV and Dishnet a strategic advantage is REALLY stretching it.

Further, your analogy to Verizon Wireless and SIM based phones is also faulty for two reasons. Verizon has effective competition in almost all of it's markets from at least one and usually three or more providers. Secondly, the major providers that do use SIMs lock their handsets. For most people, they can't take a phone they bought for Cingular, put in a T-Mobile SIM and go merrily on they're way.

Whoa, I didn't say that there aren't constraints! Absolutely in some areas a significant portion of the population cannot use DBS. Actually, in a lot more than metro areas due to geographical and in some cases lease/coop restrictions. My point is that for those markets that already exist DBS would potentially have a strategic advantage with respect to price/support over cable. It is certainly not stretching it. By the same token, there are areas where cable is also not an option for geographic reasons and the same argument holds true there.

The analogy to Verizon was not completely inaccurate. My point was absolutely not that a SIM based product can move from one vendor to another (though by unlocking the phone this can be done and has been done. Note the introduction of the Treo 600/650 and how users were unlocking the phones and registering them on alternative networks). It was more that the SIM allows personalized content and authorization to move from unit to unit within a carrier. BTW, Verizon or anyone else who wishes can currently enter any video market to compete.

[Gregor]

<snip>
3rd party devices are NOT certified by the MSOs. The cablecards are. NOT the 3rd party devices, such as TV's, and the S3.

<snip>

Most certainly 3rd party devices are certified by Cable Labs, which is owned and operated by the MSOs.

[winpitt]

First, there isn't one cable DVR with more features than a second or third generation TiVo. Second generation devices with the exception of HD provide a better experience and value than competing cable products for the vast majority of users. Third generation devices provide the same or a little more features over the cable DVR (Not enough to justify 800 bucks) however I'm cautiously pessimistic about features returning to the S3. :)

Second, CC television sets were produced in mass as soon as the CC standard was approved, however these sets cost 200-300 more than competing products. Cost to the consumer is the primary reason for the slow adoption of the standard, not that they don't want it. Cable companies foot dragging is the sole reason for the high cost of CC capable sets. If the Cable Companies had pushed adoption through when they were supposed to then prices for these devices would be lower. This foot dragging is costing everyone money at present, so if the Cable Companies have to share the pain then so be it.

Agreed with your first point completely. No argument. I never said that cableco DVRs were equal to TiVo with respect to features. But, the general public first and foremost wants basic DVR service at a low cost.

As for your second point, I strongly disagree. NOBODY is going out "looking" for cablecard compatible products to any extent. You hear NOTHING about it. That is NOT due to pricing. Pricing was an issue with HD adoption most certainly, but you heard a lot of noise about it - as well as SD. We are probably the largest consumer group that even knows cablecard exists because we want to use a device that requires it. Now, you could make the argument that nobody knows about it because the providers have dragged their feet I guess, but providers were dragging their feet with HD content also and you most DEFINITELY heard about that! Again, outside of a very very very very small population, the consumer base doesn't even know that cablecard exists.

[Stormspace]

As for your second point, I strongly disagree. NOBODY is going out "looking" for cablecard compatible products to any extent. You hear NOTHING about it. That is NOT due to pricing. Pricing was an issue with HD adoption most certainly, but you heard a lot of noise about it - as well as SD. We are probably the largest consumer group that even knows cablecard exists because we want to use a device that requires it. Now, you could make the argument that nobody knows about it because the providers have dragged their feet I guess, but providers were dragging their feet with HD content also and you most DEFINITELY heard about that! Again, outside of a very very very very small population, the consumer base doesn't even know that cablecard exists.

If you look I think you'll see that most CC sets introduced in the past few years were HD sets. If there were SD sets with CC the 200-300 price difference over the 99.00 set would have killed them.

[winpitt]

Most certainly 3rd party devices are certified by Cable Labs, which is owned and operated by the MSOs.

Cablelabs is not "owned and operated by the MSOs. MSO's are "members".

The certification process can be viewed at http://www.cablelabs.com/certqual/guidelines/certification.html

Again, it is understandably complicated (as noted by that page itself) by the interoperability requirements of multiple vendors.

[winpitt]

If you look I think you'll see that most CC sets introduced in the past few years were HD sets. If there were SD sets with CC the 200-300 price difference over the 99.00 set would have killed them.

You are establishing a correlation where there is none.

Nobody was even asking for a cc equipped DTV.

Frankly, almost nobody is using the cc slot in their such equipped HDTV (in terms of percentage).

You can only establish a correlation if you can show that purchases were made or not made specifically due to cc capability. The problem is that there is no research, marketing study or market analysis that shows this to be the case.

You can certainly make the argument that perhaps more people would use cc as an aside if more devices were capable of using them, I suppose. But you cannot show that pricing or availability was even a remote factor. By all accounts, it appears to be a non-factor.

[dt_dc]

I've never seen the rational for the law that tells the FCC to ensure 3rd party boxes are availible at retail. For all we know some congressman's wife bitched at him all the time that they had an ugle cable box connected to teh 3 grand tv that the lobbiest gave him. I am not sure it has anythign to do with competition in the pay tv market place.Chuckle ...

The cynic in me would point out that one of the primary authors of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was Thomas Bliley, who as the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee had considerable influence on its content and passage. Bliley represented the 7th district of Virginia ... a district that includes the Circuit City corporate headquarters (not to mention a heck of alot of executives and employees, Circuit City was one of the top employers in the Richmond area at the time although they've been slipping lately).

"Consumer choice" and "competitive markets" sound nice ... but ... one of the biggest beneficiaries of "retail availiability of navigation devices from unaffiliated vendors" would seem to be electronics retailers (especially given the vagueness of anything else beyond that).

But ... that's just the cynic in me (and others):
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6261142.html
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6260410.html?industryid=43675
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DIZ/is_48_12/ai_80191763/pg_2
etc.

Circuit City sure seemed appreciative of the "provision introduced by Rep. Tom Bliley":
http://www.opencable.com/downloads/clips-CCity.txt

For those who love a villian ... Bliley was also one of the main proponents of the DMCA.

Cable didn't seem to mind ... in 2006 the VCTA (Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association) inducted Bliley into the Virginia Cable Hall of Fame:
http://www.vcta.com/documents/2006%20Virginia%20Cable%20Hall%20of%20Fame%20Press%20Release .doc

[Stormspace]

You are establishing a correlation where there is none.

Nobody was even asking for a cc equipped DTV.

Frankly, almost nobody is using the cc slot in their such equipped HDTV (in terms of percentage).

You can only establish a correlation if you can show that purchases were made or not made specifically due to cc capability. The problem is that there is no research, marketing study or market analysis that shows this to be the case.

You can certainly make the argument that perhaps more people would use cc as an aside if more devices were capable of using them, I suppose. But you cannot show that pricing or availability was even a remote factor. By all accounts, it appears to be a non-factor.

I'm not making that statement up. I did read somewhere that HDTV adoption was slow due in part to the additional cost of adding in CC support so HD manufacturers were offering non CC and tunerless sets to get the price down. It was either Cnet or Wired, I'll have to dig to find it.

[MichaelK]

Chuckle ...

The cynic in me would point out that one of the primary authors of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was Thomas Bliley, who as the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee had considerable influence on its content and passage. Bliley represented the 7th district of Virginia ... a district that includes the Circuit City corporate headquarters (not to mention a heck of alot of executives and employees, Circuit City was one of the top employers in the Richmond area at the time although they've been slipping lately).

"Consumer choice" and "competitive markets" sound nice ... but ... one of the biggest beneficiaries of "retail availiability of navigation devices from unaffiliated vendors" would seem to be electronics retailers (especially given the vagueness of anything else beyond that).

But ... that's just the cynic in me (and others):
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6261142.html
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6260410.html?industryid=43675
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DIZ/is_48_12/ai_80191763/pg_2
etc.

Circuit City sure seemed appreciative of the "provision introduced by Rep. Tom Bliley":
http://www.opencable.com/downloads/clips-CCity.txt

For those who love a villian ... Bliley was also one of the main proponents of the DMCA.

Cable didn't seem to mind ... in 2006 the VCTA (Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association) inducted Bliley into the Virginia Cable Hall of Fame:
http://www.vcta.com/documents/2006%20Virginia%20Cable%20Hall%20of%20Fame%20Press%20Release .doc


in this day and age- it's as likely as anything else.

I'm wondering how many plasma tv's he received as "gifts" from CC...

[bicker]

And if you ask consumers further what would they prefer more,

1) Lower cost, more content and features with a cableco DVR and no TiVo
2) Higher cost, TiVo Service which has better features than cableco DVR
3) No DVR, higher cost and no STB at all

The vast majority of them would say (and have with their wallet)

1

That's just the economics. If at some point in utopia there was no additional cost by fully implementing CC then I agree that it becomes a moot point.Absolutely correct.

[nrc]

Cablelabs is not "owned and operated by the MSOs. MSO's are "members".
Heh. "I reject your reality and substitue my own." Cable Labs was founded by cable operators. Its members are cable operators. It is completely controlled by cable operators. The cable operators run it and they're responsible for the certification process. They have only themselves to blame if they certify devices that that cause support problems.

The extra cost of CC would be negligible if the cable companies weren't set against it. Aside from the physical hardware to plug it in (which amounts to very little on a mass production piece) there is nothing there that isn't needed by a cable box anyway.

[MichaelK]

yeah- that is funny "they are only members"

from there own website here:

http://www.cablelabs.com/about/companies/

To be a member of CableLabs, a company must be a cable television system operator (as defined by the Cable Act)—CableLabs charter admits cable operators worldwide. A cable operator as defined by the Cable Act, is a person or persons who provide video programming using closed transmission paths and uses public-rights-of-way. This definition does not include open video systems, MMDS (multichannel multipoint distribution service), or DBS (direct broadcast satellite).


some more fun here:

Founded in 1988 by members of the cable television industry, Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. (CableLabs®) is a nonprofit research and development consortium that is dedicated to pursuing new cable telecommunications technologies and to helping its cable operator members integrate those technical advancements into their business objectives.

[bicker]

The extra cost of CC would be negligible if ...And those conditionals make the rest of the sentence meaningless to consumers facing the decision winpitt alluded to earlier:
1) Lower cost, more content and features with a cableco DVR and no TiVo
2) Higher cost, TiVo Service which has better features than cableco DVR
3) No DVR, higher cost and no STB at all
The vast majority of them would say (and have with their wallet)
1

[jfh3]

Cablelabs is not "owned and operated by the MSOs. MSO's are "members".

The certification process can be viewed at http://www.cablelabs.com/certqual/guidelines/certification.html

Again, it is understandably complicated (as noted by that page itself) by the interoperability requirements of multiple vendors.

And just who do you think provides the funding for CableLabs? That's right, the "members".

Perhaps the MSO's don't technically own CableLabs, but in reality they do.

[Gregor]

And just who do you think provides the funding for CableLabs? That's right, the "members".

Perhaps the MSO's don't technically own CableLabs, but in reality they do.

Thank you. That was my point.

[BobCamp1]

Cable Labs was founded by cable operators. Its members are cable operators. It is completely controlled by cable operators. The cable operators run it and they're responsible for the certification process. They have only themselves to blame if they certify devices that that cause support problems.


There isn't a single product that passes a certification process that also has at least one problem. Just ask Microsoft.

Testing minimizes risk somewhat. Limiting the products allowed with your service minimize risk more. It allows you to focus your testing and customer support on just those products.

The FCC is doing all this to allow others to make set-top boxes. But what if there is no profit to be made in this market? Tivo is losing money almost every quarter. It doesn't look profitable, so why would anyone enter this market? Why should the cable companies be forced to spend money to put in a technology that no one will use?

I like Tivo. But I can see the cable comapnie's point of view as well.

[MichaelK]

There isn't a single product that passes a certification process that also has at least one problem. Just ask Microsoft.

Testing minimizes risk somewhat. Limiting the products allowed with your service minimize risk more. It allows you to focus your testing and customer support on just those products.

The FCC is doing all this to allow others to make set-top boxes. But what if there is no profit to be made in this market? Tivo is losing money almost every quarter. It doesn't look profitable, so why would anyone enter this market? Why should the cable companies be forced to spend money to put in a technology that no one will use?

I like Tivo. But I can see the cable comapnie's point of view as well.


the LAW passed in 1996 actaully says not a darn thing about cablecards. It just says third party devices should be readily availible at retail. That basically means there should be one standard accorss cabel that all the tv and recorder people can built too. THere is no reason the standard needs to be more expensive.

I dont know as much about it as many here- but if i recall cable (as in the NCTA which IS cable) that cablelabs should be the one to develop the standard technology since they knew more than anyone else. Other gorups aregued that a neutral party like the IEEE should develop the standard. Cable talked the FCC into allowign cablelabs to be in charge.

I dont even know that anyone said it had to be a card- again if I recall correctly (and anyone feel free to jump in here and correct me)- cablelabs/ncta decided on cablecards so that they wouldn't need to make drastic changes to their headends.

They could have figured out downloadable security (something like OCAP) - 10 years ago but these are the choices that cable talked the FCC into.

If there is a market for cable boxes sold to the MSO's then there should be a market for cable boxes at retail. But the probelm is still there is no "final" (as in build it today and it will be future porrf for more than a couple years) standard to built on. (or the standard is just beginning to get mature to that point now with OCAP).

Myself- I think the rules should apply to DBS, FIOS, everyone. IF one standard accross all systems is desireable then so be it. Let it be like phones.

I dont see how making a universal standard for phones has created big issues for the telco's.

[nrc]

And those conditionals make the rest of the sentence meaningless to consumers facing the decision winpitt alluded to earlier:

The rest of the sentence is meaningless to you because you and he choose to believe the cable company rhetoric and assume the choices he's offering are the only viable ones. It's very likely that opening the STB market will ultimately result in lower costs and more features and services for consumers.

[nrc]

There isn't a single product that passes a certification process that also has at least one problem. Just ask Microsoft.

You don't need to eliminate all problems. You only need to limit them to the point where they're no greater than the problems that you'd have with any STB.

[MichaelK]

The rest of the sentence is meaningless because you and he choose to believe the cable company rhetoric and assume the choices he's offering are the only viable ones. It's very likely that opening the STB market will ultimately result in lower costs and more features and services for consumers.


exactly.

IN 1970 you coud get one of 2 phones from the local bell system telco. A black one or a white one. Both cost you a monthly rental fee.

then around 1976 the FCC said they had to make it so third party equipment could work. The third party equipment needs to meet certain criteria but the telco is not allowed refuse to play nice with it.

Today you can buy thousands of differnt models of phones with hundreds of differnt feature combinations. And they work on POTS, Cable, FIOS, or third party voip.

why is that a bad thing? Has it ruined the telephone companies?

[bicker]

The rest of the sentence is meaningless to you because you and he choose to believe the cable company rhetoric and assume the choices he's offering are the only viable ones.No, it is meaningless to anyone, because you cannot watch television on "viable" choices. :rolleyes: You can only watch television on actual choices.

It's very likely that opening the STB market will ultimately result in lower costs and more features and services for consumersThat is what you "choose to believe". Regardless of whether that is even true, again, you cannot watch television on options that will be available "ultimately" -- you can only watch television on options that are available now. That will govern the general public's perspective.

Until customer need fosters a profitable model for what you are dreaming of, expecting it to come about (given the current pro-business political climate, in both political parties) is irrational.

You don't need to eliminate all problems. You only need to limit them to the point where they're no greater than the problems that you'd have with any STB.This is absolutely true. Until the alternatives are better than the currently available options, the alternatives don't stand much of a chance.

[nrc]

No, it is meaningless to anyone, because you cannot watch television on "viable" choices. :rolleyes: You can only watch television on actual choices. Feel free to read the discussion and join in. The point is whether there would be other options for consumers if cable companies would stop dragging their feet.

[bicker]

I actually am participating in the discussion. I'm not sure how, with your incredible insight and intelligence, that you missed that fact. :rolleyes:

"The point" is that there is no reason for cable companies to give you want you want unless it is comparable to the most profitable options available. You grumble about what options would be available -- you can have anything you want if enough people were willing to pay enough for it. If your aim (as is that of many CableCard enthusiasts) is to reduce your contribution to the cable companies' revenue, don't expect cable company management to work especially hard to serve your desires. Winpitt outlined the choices available: basically lower price and lesser service, or higher price and better service. To expect lower price and better service is unreasonable and an unfair restraint of business. You can try to get your government regulations enforced the way you want them, but it hasn't been working has it? Ask yourself "why". Ask yourself why we continually put people in to positions of power who are strictly pro-business.

[MichaelK]

I actually am participating in the discussion. I'm not sure how, with your incredible insight and intelligence, that you missed that fact. :rolleyes:

"The point" is that there is no reason for cable companies to give you want you want unless it is comparable to the most profitable options available. You grumble about what options would be available -- you can have anything you want if enough people were willing to pay enough for it. If your aim (as is that of many CableCard enthusiasts) is to reduce your contribution to the cable companies' revenue, don't expect cable company management to work especially hard to serve your desires. Winpitt outlined the choices available: basically lower price and lesser service, or higher price and better service. To expect lower price and better service is unreasonable and an unfair restraint of business. You can try to get your government regulations enforced the way you want them, but it hasn't been working has it? Ask yourself "why". Ask yourself why we continually put people in to positions of power who are strictly pro-business.

I would answer- of course it makes no sense for cable's profit motives. But that is NOT the driver. THe drive is the LAW.

And if the spirit of the law was achieved at some point- wouldn't it be a better place for the consumers instead of picking "black" or "white" to lease, they could buy a tv or box with any subset of a myriad of features at some point in the future?

I dont know that was the reason the law was made (sounds like there may have been other reasons for sure)- but that would sure be a positive that would come out of it if the FCC ever got around to seeing that the law was enacted.

Reality is for the vast majority of the country that cable is a government granted monopoly. I dont see a problem with the government stepping up and putting on some restrictions on such bueiness entities to make the consumer's life better in the end. I dont think the government needs to step in and destroy such businesses (like they did by destroying the former ATT for no real positives to the consumer telephone market). But putting a few rules in place that might cost the business a small bit of their profit so the consumers can have somethign better i think is fine- just like the FCC ruling that you could buy any phone you want did and the LAW passed by congress that people should be able to buy any TV or box they want and it should work with cable should and can do.

Some of the posts above frame this that it's a battle about set top boxes and that tivo is the only company that would care. That's not true- there should be NO set top boxes. TV's, vcr's, dvd recorders, DVR''s, DVHS, whatever should all be able to just hook to the cable and work as the consumer wants- just like I can buy a $3 phone, a nice $20, a one-2-3-4 line, a phone systems, an ansering machine, a football phone form sports illustrated- whatever - I can hook it all to my stupid Rj11/14 outlet on the telco network and it just works.

What's wrong with that?

[bicker]

I would answer- of course it makes no sense for cable's profit motives. But that is NOT the driver. THe drive is the LAW. The law is never the driver. The law is always a reflection of what society wants. And the law is not a static description of something on paper -- the law includes the enforcement, or lack thereof. As I said before, you can try to get your government regulations enforced the way you want them, but it hasn't been working has it? Ask yourself "why". Ask yourself why we continually put people in to positions of power who are strictly pro-business.

And if the spirit of the law was achieved at some point- wouldn't it be a better place for the consumers instead of picking "black" or "white" to lease, they could buy a tv or box with any subset of a myriad of features at some point in the future?I wouldn't look too closely for the "spirit of the law" -- you might be very disappointed. The spirit of the law was as likely as not to have been to pay not much more than lip-service.

I dont see a problem with the government stepping up and putting on some restrictions on such bueiness entities to make the consumer's life better in the end.I do. And for perhaps other reasons, a majority of people in this country want government doing as little as it has been doing. Accept that, or change it, but don't ignore it.

[MichaelK]

The law is never the driver. The law is always a reflection of what society wants. ....

I doubt that in a major way- Laws today are more a reflection of what lobbyists for special interests want.


The law is never the driver. The law is always a reflection of what society wants. And the law is not a static description of something on paper -- the law includes the enforcement, or lack thereof. As I said before, you can try to get your government regulations enforced the way you want them, but it hasn't been working has it? Ask yourself "why". Ask yourself why we continually put people in to positions of power who are strictly pro-business.
....

not sure what that has to do with it- But i'd say the reason pro-business works is that the vast majority of people work for or own a business. So they want their business to do well. No rocket science. But still the government at times steps in and creates laws to reign in business. There are tons and tons of restrictions on business- cant pollute so much, generally cant harm your workers, cant do this, cant do that.




...
I wouldn't look too closely for the "spirit of the law" -- you might be very disappointed. The spirit of the law was as likely as not to have been to pay not much more than lip-service.
....

actually that's a very good point. I was speaken about my hope for what the spirit is. But you are 100% correct- who knows what it really was. As I posted above some congressman's wife might have been annoyed at the cablebox sitting on the big screen tv gift they got from a lobbyist. dt_dc posted that some might speculate it the spirit was to enrich retailers pockets (specifically circuit city). So you have a point there.


......I do. And for perhaps other reasons, a majority of people in this country want government doing as little as it has been doing. Accept that, or change it, but don't ignore it.

I can accept that you feel that way. I'm not sure a majority of the country believes that 100% of the time. For example a majority of the country likes to bitch that the free market doesn't work everytime the price of gas spikes. I think a majority dont want the goverment stepping in to do things that they dont like but have no beef when it's somethign they think is good. It's like everyone hates incumbents and then votes their own guy back in. Everyone want's someone else taxed untill they are the someone else. I would agree that most people would want less government- but very few want NO government.

Myself, as I said above I dont like the government getting involved for much at all- I think it's destructive and the government generally screws up everything they touch. I think they destroyed ATT and in the process destroyed bell labs, moved thousands and thousands of jobs out of the country, caused great upheaval in lives of many people. And all for what- so now instead of a monopoly we have a duooploy with the new ATT and verizon. Yeah that made sense.

IF it was my line of work i too wouldn't want to have the government step in and put some onerous requirment on my firm to make changes.

But honestly I think this isn't some instant change that can have devastating effects and when it is done, if done correctly can help consumers AND the cable business. Doing things instantly is disruptive to individual companies and can ruin people- things like instantly making on line gambling illegal after years of permitting it- that can have some terrible effects. But cable has been given 10 years to make this happen and essentially has been put in the driver's seat to make the change happen in a way that works for them. The FCC ordained cablelabs to create the system. They didn't put in some other biased group or even a neutral third party like the IEEE to come up with the system. Cable could have done whatever they want. Cable has squandered that oppurtunity. If there were a system someday (who knows if it will ever happen) where you could plug any approved device into cable and it would work as well as a cable company box it could certainly be beneficial to cable. DBS would have a huge hurdle if just plugging in your tv worked. There would be many more devices connected to the cable wires- and since they are starting to move to programming fees per box/outlet instead of per account there would be more revenue becasue of that.

People have posted other pluses for cable of such a system. They could get out of the money loosing business of hardware. I'd need to read a pile more regs but I think they are not even premitted to profit from equipment leases if that equipment can also get basic cable. Others have posted how if ever done this will break the grip of moto and SA over the cableco's and those 2 would have to compete based upon market forces with everyone else and not just becasue some cable company already spend 10 million on moto they are wed to them. That's actually already happeneing with Panasonic and others selling OCAP boxes to comcast and the other players. I'd bet that comcast got a better deal from panny then they have ever seen from moto or SA.

I dont see the harm in it, or any long term down negative. It seems all you can come up with is you hate government.

What downsides do you see to a system like phones where you could plug in any approved device into the coax?

[sjcbulldog]

You know, I am just getting back to this thread since I posted back a few days and it seems to be really heating up. My previous comments were not intended to reflect that the law is, but rather what I would like as a consumer using the cable TV services. I did not make that clear so I will try to do that here.

I want exacly what MichaelK talked about in his earlier post. I want the ability to go to my local Fry's, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc and buy a box that plugs into the coax. The selection of boxes shoud be driven by tradeoffs of cost versus capability as dicticated by a market for boxes, not programming. The capabilities of the boxes should be driven by the market and should include (at the high end) everything the set top box from the cable company can do (including VOD/PPV).

I think CC as they exist today have adoption problems because there is no solution today that uses CCs that does not leave something on the table. Today it VOD/PPV. If you call comcast and tell them you want to give up your set top box for cable cards, they immediately have a script that they read that tells you about all the things your are going to miss. Specifically they talk about their guide as well as VOD/PPV.

The CC 2.0 specification is supposed to fix this. If this, as a solution provides true competition at the box level, then I will buy the Tivo Series 4 when it comes out to support CC 2.0. However, my (limited) reading of the CC 2.0 specification looks like another play by the cable companies to keep control of the box in their hands versus allowing for true competition. Much of the innovation that occurs today in consumer electronics is at the software/firmware level. Creating a platform that limits the ability for the box maker to innovate in this way by pushing the software back to the cable companies turns the box business into a manufacturing war and does not lead to market driven innovation. If the CC 2.0 specification means that TiVo supplies hardware, but the software/guide/DVR interaction all still comes from the cable company, that is a mistake.

Plain and simple, I want a standard where any consumer electronics company can decide to get into the business of building a piece of equipment based on the market and not have the market controlled by the service/programming providers.

Just my $0.02 worth
sjcbulldog

[bicker]

I doubt that in a major way- Laws today are more a reflection of what lobbyists for special interests want. I don't buy into the argument that the vast majority of us are just sheep. I think we know who we're electing to office, who's going to be making and enforcing our laws, and though we may grumble when they do what we put them there to do, we have to acknowledge that we did it. Take responsibility for our actions, and even our inactions, as citizens, rather than hiding behind craven excuses like, "The lobbyists made me do it."

not sure what that has to do with it- Simple: So many people try to hang their hats on the rules that brought about CableCard, yet seem not to understand that the lack of enforcement of what they think those rules require is as much as statement of what our society wants (perhaps "today") as the original statement of rules were (perhaps "back then").

But i'd say the reason pro-business works is that the vast majority of people work for or own a business.And/or have their retirements savings invested in businesses.

So they want their business to do well. No rocket science. But still the government at times steps in and creates laws to reign in business. Or create laws that don't reign in business, as in this case. Without enforcement, the law is a suggestion, nothing more. And who gets to determine whether a law gets enforced? Well, it isn't one-sided. There are checks and balances. And when a law isn't enforced the way one side wants it to be, despite those checks and balances, then perhaps those folks' perspective on that law isn't an accurate account of how society views the importance of what they think should be happening.

I can accept that you feel that way. I'm not sure a majority of the country believes that 100% of the time.Regardless of what I believe, voters are not moving towards a consumer-focused legislature.

[poppagene]

CEA mentions TCF in FCC filing

What does the Council of Economic Advisors have to do with Twin Cities Federal and the FCC?

[MichaelK]

I don't buy into the argument that the vast majority of us are just sheep. I think we know who we're electing to office, who's going to be making and enforcing our laws, and though we may grumble when they do what we put them there to do, we have to acknowledge that we did it. Take responsibility for our actions, and even our inactions, as citizens, rather than hiding behind craven excuses like, "The lobbyists made me do it."
....

you have better faith in the system and the voters than I do. How can everyone hate incumbants and then vote them all back in? There is a disconnect.

But that aside and not to drag this thread off topic-

I've asked a few times and besides going into your views on governement you still haven't said what would be so bad and anti-business about having a real system where I can buy any one of hundreds of boxes and plug it in to a coax and have it work?

Did it harm the phone company?

Obviously not always, but frequently innovation and new paradigms make businesses stronger. The movie studios wanted to keep their system closed but lost the betamax case. They were forced to allow those new devices and what happened? Their business boomed creating a second market for their product which in some cases dwarfs the take at the box office.

I would argue that an open system with vigorous competition might create some losers that cant handle the new competition but as a whole it grows those industries so the people that adapt well are much better off for it. I'd think that many economists would agree with that- no?

[bicker]

you have better faith in the system and the voters than I do.It's not faith -- it's trust.

How can everyone hate incumbants and then vote them all back in? There is a disconnect.When you see a scenario like that, people don't actually "hate incumbants" (or whatever), but rather are simply complaining. People don't necessarily have to believe what they say (i.e., complaining for the sake of expressing frustration, rather than expressing sufficient dissatisfaction to make a different choice), or what they're saying is not necessarily related to what you're interpreting it to mean (i.e., that because they "hate" something means that they don't support it as the best available option). That's the disconnect.

I've asked a few times and besides going into your views on governement you still haven't said what would be so bad and anti-business about having a real system where I can buy any one of hundreds of boxes and plug it in to a coax and have it work?Have you finally stopped beating your wife?

(I'm not going to answer your loaded questions. Ask the question without the baggage or move on.)

I would argue that an open system with vigorous competition might create some losers that cant handle the new competition but as a whole it grows those industries so the people that adapt well are much better off for it. I'd think that many economists would agree with that- no?Absolutely, but what's good for new entrants into an industry may be bad for those who have already made substantial investments, and unfair business regulation is, well, unfair. Who determines what is fair and unfair? See my earlier messages.

[winpitt]

I'm not making that statement up. I did read somewhere that HDTV adoption was slow due in part to the additional cost of adding in CC support so HD manufacturers were offering non CC and tunerless sets to get the price down. It was either Cnet or Wired, I'll have to dig to find it.

Please show where you read that HD adoption is even remotely related to CC availability. To be very frank, that would be the first and only time that it's ever appeared. It has been the conclusion of countless publications, market trend analysis and analysts that HD adoption was slow because of:

1) Price.
2) Lack of relevant content across broad markets.
3) Consumer confusion about what "HD" really means, and therefore a lack of perceived value (ie, people not satisfied because their analog content doesn't look "great" on that $5000 plasma.

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3386931

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5366749.html

http://www.jupiterresearch.com/bin/item.pl/research:vision/1211/id=96705/

The list could go on and on and on.....

[winpitt]

If you look I think you'll see that most CC sets introduced in the past few years were HD sets. If there were SD sets with CC the 200-300 price difference over the 99.00 set would have killed them.

Uh, that's too basic to even consider! Of COURSE! CC is DIGITAL. Were you expecting manufacturers to add that functionality to units where margins are narrower? When NOBODY was asking for it? Seems like the dumbest business plan in the world to me!

[Stormspace]

Please show where you read that HD adoption is even remotely related to CC availability. To be very frank, that would be the first and only time that it's ever appeared. It has been the conclusion of countless publications, market trend analysis and analysts that HD adoption was slow because of:

1) Price.
2) Lack of relevant content across broad markets.
3) Consumer confusion about what "HD" really means, and therefore a lack of perceived value (ie, people not satisfied because their analog content doesn't look "great" on that $5000 plasma.

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3386931

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5366749.html

http://www.jupiterresearch.com/bin/item.pl/research:vision/1211/id=96705/

The list could go on and on and on.....

Well, if the article I read holds any water the 200-300 difference in CCHD and non CCHD would be a factor in #1 above.

[winpitt]

And just who do you think provides the funding for CableLabs? That's right, the "members".

Perhaps the MSO's don't technically own CableLabs, but in reality they do.

Nope. There is a BIG distinction.

[winpitt]

exactly.

IN 1970 you coud get one of 2 phones from the local bell system telco. A black one or a white one. Both cost you a monthly rental fee.

then around 1976 the FCC said they had to make it so third party equipment could work. The third party equipment needs to meet certain criteria but the telco is not allowed refuse to play nice with it.

Today you can buy thousands of differnt models of phones with hundreds of differnt feature combinations. And they work on POTS, Cable, FIOS, or third party voip.

why is that a bad thing? Has it ruined the telephone companies?

Actually, you are comparing something that is not relevant. Those devices are analog and not digital. They are based on an overly mature technology having decades of experience.

Then in the same paragraph you bring up VoIP, FiOS, etc - which are completely different technologies. However, those voice services rely on guess what? A VERY accepted, proven and experienced standard called TCP/IP. NOT a new, relatively immature and inexperienced product with different implementations.

If you truly want to compare, then you would have to have forced Ma Bell to go to a completely digital system and then adopt for example Lucent Definity switching infrastructure (as it was being developed) and at the same time allow for anyone to install a Definity switch and still have to support it.

We cannot make such high level generalizations to compare this issue to.

[winpitt]

Heh. "I reject your reality and substitue my own." Cable Labs was founded by cable operators. Its members are cable operators. It is completely controlled by cable operators. The cable operators run it and they're responsible for the certification process. They have only themselves to blame if they certify devices that that cause support problems.

The extra cost of CC would be negligible if the cable companies weren't set against it. Aside from the physical hardware to plug it in (which amounts to very little on a mass production piece) there is nothing there that isn't needed by a cable box anyway.

Uh, can you please describe "negligible" costs? Can you explain how the cost of supporting two simultaneous platforms is "negligable"? Do you know their margins? And you somehow know that the cost on a hardware level is "very little"? Do you understand product development lifecycles?

No.

The truth is that we want this stuff, but many of us are unwilling to accept that there is non-reimbursed cost associated to this for the Cableco's. And that furthremore, the consumer would rather have lower costs or better/more content instead - or actually maybe just more HD content as an example.

[winpitt]

There isn't a single product that passes a certification process that also has at least one problem. Just ask Microsoft.

Testing minimizes risk somewhat. Limiting the products allowed with your service minimize risk more. It allows you to focus your testing and customer support on just those products.

The FCC is doing all this to allow others to make set-top boxes. But what if there is no profit to be made in this market? Tivo is losing money almost every quarter. It doesn't look profitable, so why would anyone enter this market? Why should the cable companies be forced to spend money to put in a technology that no one will use?

I like Tivo. But I can see the cable comapnie's point of view as well.

Absofrigginlutely. That is completely my point. We all like TiVo. We "believe" there is a technical advantage to the open cablecard standard. There is no advantage for the MSOs in doing this. Consumers could give a rats behind about it.

Trying to impose our will on the cablecos in this situation has a name. It's called communism. It is CERTAINLY not called capitalism.

[winpitt]

Well, if the article I read holds any water the 200-300 difference in CCHD and non CCHD would be a factor in #1 above.

Again - show me ANY report that even remotely suggests that the lack of CC was a factor in HDTV adoption. Just one. Please.

And, BTW - my toshiba DLP had CC slot, OTA tuner, and media readers. The total price for all 3 of those items above the exact same model without those 3 was $200 - 2 years ago. That's $200 for CC, Compactflash, SD, OTA Tuner.

[Stormspace]

Again - show me ANY report that even remotely suggests that the lack of CC was a factor in HDTV adoption. Just one. Please.

I'm still looking. :)

However in my search I did find one that while it doesn't mention CC specifically it does mention sets with a tuner and it's an old article.

http://www.wired.com/news/holidays/0,1882,48765,00.html

Edwards said that only about 10 percent of the people who buy a high-definition monitor without a tuning device also plunk down the $500 or so for a tuner to get broadcasts in HD format. Many put off buying them because they're concerned that the tuners will be outdated if the United States adopts a new standard for digital broadcasts or are waiting for broadcasters to offer more programs in high definition, he said.

I'm still looking for that other article, however since I read it back in January/February I may have some trouble finding it.

I'm done looking. The article specifically mentioned that CE manufacturers were removing CC support from HD sets to make them more competitive since there wasn't a demand for them anyway. Also, given the fact that I cannot find the article it was either a)A minority opinion b)An obscure source or c)An article written in plain english that is alluding my search. I'll keep my eyes open for it but I've spent all the time I'm going to for you. :)

Another Article mentioning CC and it's affect on price.

3. CableCard-equipped sets are more expensive--for now.
Do a little comparative shopping, and you can see that CableCard adds to your bill at the checkout counter. Take the Pioneer PDP-4340HD vs. the 4345HD, two identical plasmas except for the CableCard feature. The 4345HD costs almost $1,000 more. But as CableCards become standard DTV equipment (in 2005), the price differential may begin to shrink. Samsung's new DLP line, for instance, will transition from its current non-CableCard configuration (such as the 50-inch HLP5063W) to a CableCard-enabled version, the HLP5067W, without a likely price spike. And all Sony Grand WEGA LCD rear-projection TVs now come with CableCard. But don't think that you must use it just because you have it.

The inference here is that once CC become more mainstream prices will drop.

The balance of the Article goes on to expand on the issues with CC that can be directly related to the foot dragging of the cable companies.

That should change with time, but for now you may actually know more about your problem than the customer support staff.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-8900_7-5581176-1.html

OK, found it.

Although this is another spec-related issue, bear with us for a second. Many current HDTVs have a feature called DCR or Digital Cable Ready, which allows them to display digital cable and HDTV cable signals without having to plug into a cable box. You just plug the cable from the wall into the back of the TV and slide in the authorization card (a.k.a. CableCard)--suddenly you're watching standard- or high-def digital cable. Unfortunately, the current system has its share of problems. CableCards can be scarce, and getting one installed can be even more of a hassle than a run-of-the-mill cable install. Once it's in, the CableCard still doesn't let you utilize the cable company's EPG, nor does it let you order pay-per-view

These issues with CableCard are two reasons why we'll be hearing at least something about two-way CableCards, which will require new iDCR-compliant televisions, at CES 2006. iDCR, or Interactive Digital Cable Ready, will allow the TV to communicate upstream with the cable provider, enabling EPGs, PPV, and other less desirable features, such as the ability for the cable provider or the content owner to restrict delivery of HD content over copy-protected digital outputs and even shut off or downconvert the outputs of unprotected analog outputs. While cable companies and TV manufacturers work out the kinks, the next generation of HDTVs will probably be built without iDCR compatibility. Given the slow pace of the talks and the high stakes involved, we don't expect to see any iDCR HDTVs hit the market in 2006, although Samsung will probably have an iDCR HDTV on display at its booth anyway.

http://www.cnet.com/4520-11405_1-6398232-1.html

[winpitt]

I'm still looking. :)

However in my search I did find one that while it doesn't mention CC specifically it does mention sets with a tuner and it's an old article.

http://www.wired.com/news/holidays/0,1882,48765,00.html



I'm still looking for that other article, however since I read it back in January/February I may have some trouble finding it.

I'm done looking. The article specifically mentioned that CE manufacturers were removing CC support from HD sets to make them more competitive since there wasn't a demand for them anyway. Also, given the fact that I cannot find the article it was either a)A minority opinion b)An obscure source or c)An article written in plain english that is alluding my search. I'll keep my eyes open for it but I've spent all the time I'm going to for you. :)

Another Article mentioning CC and it's affect on price.



The inference here is that once CC become more mainstream prices will drop.

The balance of the Article goes on to expand on the issues with CC that can be directly related to the foot dragging of the cable companies.



http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-8900_7-5581176-1.html

OK, found it.



http://www.cnet.com/4520-11405_1-6398232-1.html

Appreciate you looking for it. I thought I might be going even more crazy. So what I read from it is that CC support is being dropped from the sets because there is really no demand while there is additional cost. It talks about confusion over the DTV mandate which clouds users perceptions. It talks about content. It talks about some of the technical background of 1 and 2 way CC.

It doesn't anywhere allude to the lack of CC being responsible for slow HDTV growth. As a matter of fact, it indicates that fewer HDTVs are sold equipped with CC slots - yet in fact HDTV adoption is increasing. Again, seems like there is a much stronger correlation between HDTV growth and content/price - not CC.

Again, I can count on one hand the number of regular people I've talked to that even knew what CCs were. There just really isn't consumer demand except for us.

[bicker]

They are based on an overly mature technology having decades of experience. You've really hit the nail on the head.

If you truly want to compare, then you would have to have forced Ma Bell to go to a completely digital system and then adopt for example Lucent Definity switching infrastructure (as it was being developed) and at the same time allow for anyone to install a Definity switch and still have to support it.Excellent point.

[MichaelK]

...

Have you finally stopped beating your wife?

...

your a prick

[MichaelK]

...

Absolutely, but what's good for new entrants into an industry may be bad for those who have already made substantial investments, and unfair business regulation is, well, unfair. Who determines what is fair and unfair? See my earlier messages.

BTW- this is a PERFECTLY valid point. And a fine answer to the question that you felt was worthy of insulting my relationship with my wife about.

[MichaelK]

Actually, you are comparing something that is not relevant. Those devices are analog and not digital. They are based on an overly mature technology having decades of experience.

Then in the same paragraph you bring up VoIP, FiOS, etc - which are completely different technologies. However, those voice services rely on guess what? A VERY accepted, proven and experienced standard called TCP/IP. NOT a new, relatively immature and inexperienced product with different implementations.

If you truly want to compare, then you would have to have forced Ma Bell to go to a completely digital system and then adopt for example Lucent Definity switching infrastructure (as it was being developed) and at the same time allow for anyone to install a Definity switch and still have to support it.

We cannot make such high level generalizations to compare this issue to.

man you are grasping.

what the hell are you talking about.

You used to have to rent a phone from the phone company. THe FCC said people could hook up whatever they bought to the phone line, and now we have thousands of choices.

What the hell does analog, digital, or TCP/IP have anything to do with that? IN 1977 after the new rules came into place you couldn't buy a digital anything at reatil likely. First off you probably got to buy the same old phone but in 8 colors instead of the 2 rental choices.


My point to include VOIP et all in the post above was to show the the analog standard with the rj11/14 jack set in tjhe 1970's has allowed CABLE and others to walk in and hook people right to their competing phone system even though the network is vastly different. The consumer knows NOTHING about anything except there's a little square jack on their voip box and they plug their phone into it- just like hte little square jack the phone compnay can proivide. That's exactly how tv COULD be- buy a box/tv/dvr/whatever and all you know is it connects to a coax- you dont need to know who owns the coax to buy a compatiaable box or if the provider is even a cable company or a telco that connected your coax to their fiber or dsl in a box outside. To the consumer it would just work.

[MichaelK]

Uh, can you please describe "negligible" costs? Can you explain how the cost of supporting two simultaneous platforms is "negligable"? Do you know their margins? And you somehow know that the cost on a hardware level is "very little"? Do you understand product development lifecycles?

No.

The truth is that we want this stuff, but many of us are unwilling to accept that there is non-reimbursed cost associated to this for the Cableco's. And that furthremore, the consumer would rather have lower costs or better/more content instead - or actually maybe just more HD content as an example.

you are 100% right that NOW there is a problem with supporting 2 differnt systems.

But that's CABLE's fault.

the law was passed in 1996. I doubt there was a single test system with digital cable at that point in time. Cable decided to make their new digital system in a manner that wasn't compatible with the law. THey could have came up with a system earlier that they could have used and thrid party people could have used.

[HDTiVo]

your a prick
I should be reading and not skimming. :eek:

[bicker]

your a prickNice spelling you've got there.

And a fine answer to the question that you felt was worthy of insulting my relationship with my wife about.That line is a very common demonstrative of the protypical loaded question. I'm sorry you didn't understand the reference.

[Stormspace]

Nice spelling you've got there.

That line is a very common demonstrative of the protypical loaded question. I'm sorry you didn't understand the reference.

In Bickers defense, he is correct. It's a commonly used example of how a question can be worded so that there is no correct answer. I got it and didn't think anything about your relationships.

[Stormspace]

Appreciate you looking for it. I thought I might be going even more crazy. So what I read from it is that CC support is being dropped from the sets because there is really no demand while there is additional cost. It talks about confusion over the DTV mandate which clouds users perceptions. It talks about content. It talks about some of the technical background of 1 and 2 way CC.

It doesn't anywhere allude to the lack of CC being responsible for slow HDTV growth. As a matter of fact, it indicates that fewer HDTVs are sold equipped with CC slots - yet in fact HDTV adoption is increasing. Again, seems like there is a much stronger correlation between HDTV growth and content/price - not CC.

Again, I can count on one hand the number of regular people I've talked to that even knew what CCs were. There just really isn't consumer demand except for us.

My contention was that HDTV adoption was slowed by the additional cost of CC.

"...HDTV adoption was slow due in part to the additional cost of adding in CC support so HD manufacturers were offering non CC and tunerless sets to get the price down."

If cable companies had not dragged their feet CC would be more widely in use and the costs associated with it lower. Instead they are fighting tooth and nail to keep their systems proprietary, going so far as to intentionally make their networks incompatible with mandated standards.

[HDTiVo]

How about tossing the entire CC idea and implementing a compressed version of the secure HDMI interface?

[MichaelK]

How about tossing the entire CC idea and implementing a compressed version of the secure HDMI interface?

CCable )cablelabs or the NCTA or whoever) could have done that. They had years and years to make a plan. THe law was passed in 1996- I think they finally came out with the POD agreement with the CEA in what- 2003? They choose this Plan. Not the CEA (their nemesis), not the IEEE (a neutral third party) , not the FCC (the government). This is all cable’s decision coming back to bite them.

They seem to be now trying to come up with a better “plan B” in OCAP. And if it’s a nice open spec that allows others to hook into guide data and the like- that might be the perfect end result.

[Stormspace]

CCable )cablelabs or the NCTA or whoever) could have done that. They had years and years to make a plan. THe law was passed in 1996- I think they finally came out with the POD agreement with the CEA in what- 2003? They choose this Plan. Not the CEA (their nemesis), not the IEEE (a neutral third party) , not the FCC (the government). This is all cable’s decision coming back to bite them.

They seem to be now trying to come up with a better “plan B” in OCAP. And if it’s a nice open spec that allows others to hook into guide data and the like- that might be the perfect end result.

To me the cable companies at this point have lost all credibility concerning a desire to integrate. I'd much prefer that they be stuck with one change instead of trying to move on to another standard which may or may not solve issues or be compatible.

[BobCamp1]

Our local paper just had an article on HDTV in general.

The following data is for my local TWC:
# of cable subscribers -- approx. 345,000
# of HD boxes being rented -- 31,112 (9%, assuming one box per household)
# of CableCards being rented -- 600 (0.17%, assuming one card per household)

CableCards are almost non-existent. It is a Catch-22 situation, but so what? There have been plenty of similar situations where the technology did succeed. For each of these technologies, there was a sufficient demand from the consumers to break the cycle. But as long as TWC's set top boxes are inexpensive to obtain (they are free) and inexpensive to rent (they are) there will simply be no substantial demand for Cablecards. Without this demand, the Congress and FCC don't have the real power needed to force the issue.

And what's with the name calling? I reported those posts to the forum moderator.

[Stormspace]

And what's with the name calling? I reported those posts to the forum moderator.

I sent a post defending both people involved. It was a misunderstanding. There's no reason to chastise someone for reacting to a perceived defamatory remark.

[dt_dc]

CCable )cablelabs or the NCTA or whoever) could have done that. They had years and years to make a plan. THe law was passed in 1996- I think they finally came out with the POD agreement with the CEA in what- 2003? They choose this Plan. Not the CEA (their nemesis), not the IEEE (a neutral third party) , not the FCC (the government). This is all cable’s decision coming back to bite them.Umm ...

It was the FCC that guided the POD -> CableCard approach back in 1997 from their very first initiations of the Plug and Play preceedings (although you actually have to go back further as this was building on NCTA / CEMA discussions going back to 1992 / 1993). They saw the POD approach as a way to balance the Congressional mandate of CPE at retail without compromising security:http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1783770001

FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
February 20, 1997
In the Matter of Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Re: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices
CS Docket No. 97-80

In theory, it would be possible to take a typical decoder box and divide it into two seperate parts. One part would contain operational and functional components such as the tuner, the remote control circuitry, the power supply, and any other non-access control features. A second part would contain the access control features. With an interface, it would be possible to have the first part of the device available through retail outlets and the second part, containing the more sensitive access control apparatus, available only from the service provider.An approach that they would formalize into federal regulation (for cable companies) in 1998.

CEMA (before they changed names to CEA) blessed and encouraged the approach:http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1839670001

Comments of the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association
May 19, 1997
In the Matter of Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Re: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices
CS Docket No. 97-80

In practical terms for digital services, the advances made in the NRSS standard-setting process mean that MVPDs could offer as a network element a security card that could be inserted into a competitively-supplied CPE and would offer full security protection for the system. (...) The Commission should move promptly to ensure that new deployment of set-top and converter boxes follows the model of seperation between security and non-security functionalities described above.The NCTA agreed to follow the approach, although not without noting possible pitfalls:http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1834890002

Comments of the National Cable Television Association
May 16, 1997
In the Matter of Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Re: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices
CS Docket No. 97-80

The Notice states that a potential solution to the problem of assuring commercial availability of CPE while permitting MVPDs to retain control over system security would be to require MVPDs desiring to retain control over the security equipment to provide it to consumers on a seperated or unbundled basis. As the Commission describes it:
(see above)

It is important to note that, as a general matter, security would be best provided by the MVPD on an integrated, rather than a seperated, basis. Under that approach, both security and non-security functions would be "integrated" in the same cPE. Moreover, the use of integrated circuitry benefits consumers by lowering costs, permitting them to lease rather than purchase CPE, and paving the way for the introduction of new services, such as program guides. Nevertheless, to comply with the statute, cable operators will make digital CPE (without security functions) available at retail and will provide stand-alone security devices to be used in conjunction with retail boxes providing non-security functions.The NCTA actually suggested something that might (in retrospect) have been a rather sensible approach ... which would have been to implement a timetable / performance / results based regulatory approach that would have been implementation-neutral instead of relying solely on this specific idea of seperating security and navigation:http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1856440001

Comments of the National Cable Television Association
June 23, 1997
In the Matter of Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Re: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices
CS Docket No. 97-80

The Commission can fulfill the intent of Congress by concluding that the seperation of security from non-security functions in a CPE is a solution -- but not the only solution -- to reconciling the mandate for commercial availability with the directive not to jeapordize system security. While NCTA believes that seperation of security from non-security is a likely solution, the Commission need not conclude that seperation is the only method to achieve Congress's intended result. The Commission can also adopt a performance rule which mandates the time-tables for the commercial availability of various types of CPE covered by Secion 629, without specifying how that result must be achieved.Crying wolf is fun and all ... but not always accurate.

[ZeoTiVo]

That's exactly how tv COULD be- buy a box/tv/dvr/whatever and all you know is it connects to a coax- you dont need to know who owns the coax to buy a compatiaable box or if the provider is even a cable company or a telco that connected your coax to their fiber or dsl in a box outside. To the consumer it would just work. +1,000
this is what I want. I want any third party to be able to hook up to a standard connection in my house and be able to process and use the content being provided by the broadcaster. I am fine that the broadcaster gets to protect itself from people trying to steal the signal. I am fine that is should be in accordance with copyright as owned by the content owner. I am fine that the broadcaster has a way to sell their own specialized packaging of content. Ask any consumer that and they will know what that is about and like the free market of capitalism that that provides.

I could give a rats behind if it is cable card or cuneifrom read backswards that allows this. I do care that I get to choose which DVR I will use and not be forced to have just one vendor choice. I would like to be able to have this same scenario work for choosing between broadcasters and delivery methods of cable or sattellite so I can choose based on the core competency of what content the broadcaster is providing at what price.

seems like a simple end result to me as well. Everything else is just noise put out by the players in the game who have a lot of the marbles already and do not want to share them out.

[dt_dc]

although you actually have to go back further as this was building on NCTA / CEMA discussions going back to 1992 / 1993Oh, and despite my snide comments above re: Rep Bliley and Circuit City ...

You can also trace the "navigation devices" section of the 1996 Act back to the 1992 Cable Policy Act which laid the foundation for alot of cable equipment rules, including analog "cable ready" devices and got NCTA / CEAM talking about digital cable ready devices ... and a realization by most parties involved that some sort of regulation would likely eventually be needed, although some uncertainty about exactly what or how that regulation would be needed ... hence the rather broad language in the 1996 Act.

[winpitt]

man you are grasping.

what the hell are you talking about.

You used to have to rent a phone from the phone company. THe FCC said people could hook up whatever they bought to the phone line, and now we have thousands of choices.

What the hell does analog, digital, or TCP/IP have anything to do with that? IN 1977 after the new rules came into place you couldn't buy a digital anything at reatil likely. First off you probably got to buy the same old phone but in 8 colors instead of the 2 rental choices.


My point to include VOIP et all in the post above was to show the the analog standard with the rj11/14 jack set in tjhe 1970's has allowed CABLE and others to walk in and hook people right to their competing phone system even though the network is vastly different. The consumer knows NOTHING about anything except there's a little square jack on their voip box and they plug their phone into it- just like hte little square jack the phone compnay can proivide. That's exactly how tv COULD be- buy a box/tv/dvr/whatever and all you know is it connects to a coax- you dont need to know who owns the coax to buy a compatiaable box or if the provider is even a cable company or a telco that connected your coax to their fiber or dsl in a box outside. To the consumer it would just work.

No, I'm not grasping at all. You are oversimplifying in order to try and justify an undefendable position. NOBODY gets VoIP through the product delivered by the Bell spin-offs (digital). They can move their PHONE NUMBER to a VoIP system, which is based on another well defined, globally accepted, mature technology. Your argument was that some sort of standardization allowed all kinds of phones to plug in. Guess what? All kind of TVs can plug into RG6. What happens BETWEEN the RG6/Component connection and your TV and the provider is what is important.

In other words, our TVs are analogous to a phone set. So, that's already standard. They work out of the box with analog service - not digital. Just like phones.

[winpitt]

+1,000
this is what I want. I want any third party to be able to hook up to a standard connection in my house and be able to process and use the content being provided by the broadcaster. I am fine that the broadcaster gets to protect itself from people trying to steal the signal. I am fine that is should be in accordance with copyright as owned by the content owner. I am fine that the broadcaster has a way to sell their own specialized packaging of content. Ask any consumer that and they will know what that is about and like the free market of capitalism that that provides.

I could give a rats behind if it is cable card or cuneifrom read backswards that allows this. I do care that I get to choose which DVR I will use and not be forced to have just one vendor choice. I would like to be able to have this same scenario work for choosing between broadcasters and delivery methods of cable or sattellite so I can choose based on the core competency of what content the broadcaster is providing at what price.

seems like a simple end result to me as well. Everything else is just noise put out by the players in the game who have a lot of the marbles already and do not want to share them out.

Absolutely incorrect. It's not simple. If it were you could design and market the solution - or I could.

Oversimplification is a sign of a lack of understanding.

[MichaelK]

Umm ...

It was the FCC that guided the POD -> CableCard approach back in 1997 from their very first initiations of the Plug and Play preceedings (although you actually have to go back further as this was building on NCTA / CEMA discussions going back to 1992 / 1993). They saw the POD approach as a way to balance the Congressional mandate of CPE at retail without compromising security:An approach that they would formalize into federal regulation (for cable companies) in 1998.

CEMA (before they changed names to CEA) blessed and encouraged the approach:The NCTA agreed to follow the approach, although not without noting possible pitfalls:The NCTA actually suggested something that might (in retrospect) have been a rather sensible approach ... which would have been to implement a timetable / performance / results based regulatory approach that would have been implementation-neutral instead of relying solely on this specific idea of seperating security and navigation:Crying wolf is fun and all ... but not always accurate.


thank you for providing facts- it is hard to find them as a lay person.

[MichaelK]

No, I'm not grasping at all. You are oversimplifying in order to try and justify an undefendable position. NOBODY gets VoIP through the product delivered by the Bell spin-offs (digital). They can move their PHONE NUMBER to a VoIP system, which is based on another well defined, globally accepted, mature technology. Your argument was that some sort of standardization allowed all kinds of phones to plug in. Guess what? All kind of TVs can plug into RG6. What happens BETWEEN the RG6/Component connection and your TV and the provider is what is important.

In other words, our TVs are analogous to a phone set. So, that's already standard. They work out of the box with analog service - not digital. Just like phones.

I really am not following your point about voip being digital vs POTS being analog. My point is the underlying technology doesn't matter to teh end user you plug you r phone in and it works no matter what the provider's technology.

But assuming that you are saying digital is some how differnt than analog, why cant their be a digital standard then for TV's so they are analogous to a phone set?

I'm not disagreeing that the current plan is a goofy mess. My point is there is no reason that the parties involved couldn't get together and come to an agreement that would make digital tv's equal to phone sets. Cable had and has much of the power- if as an industry they came up with some other more viable equipment plan then they probably could have gotten it done (in my humble opinion). Although dt_dc points out that they asked for a different route all together. And even if the current plan is STUPID- it's been in place for years and years with roots back maybe more then a decade- this wasn't spring on cable last week- they have had time to prepare so it would be painless but they didn't.

They are supposed to break even on equipment rental by law (or regulation). They have the headend systems in place to deal with cablecards. So why not already use cablecard boxes themselves- why this waiting till the last minute? WHat would the box cost go up for moto to include the slot plus a card when comcast buys them in hundred thoussand quantities? Would it be another $60 a box in a buig quanitiy like that? So they add 2 bucks a month to their rental on their DVR's to get it back. They would still maintain a healthy lead over third parties like tivo and ahead of the DBS competitors with their large upfront payments. It doesn't sound all that painfull to me.

[MichaelK]

Absolutely incorrect. It's not simple. If it were you could design and market the solution - or I could.

Oversimplification is a sign of a lack of understanding.


winnpitt- I think you are arguing about the current implementation and many of us have moved on to be talking about the concept.

I dont work for cablelabs or the cbale companies or moto or SCIATL so of course I cant design the darn thing. But intelligent people working on the issue for 10-15 years should could have made such a thing. It's politics that have kept it from being.

Look- I've been guilty of it too- but there's no reason to be insulting. I apologize for my off handed comments earlier. SOmeone wise pointed out to me that threads that deviolve into political disagreements get heated just becasue...

I apparently some how inflamed bicker by asking what is wrong with the concept of a blug in tv that works. I'll give you guys that there are issues with the current plan. But beyond that I dont think that fundementally the concept of a tv that plugs in and works with any provider is a bad thing. I pointed out above how it could probably help the industry grow. If cable came up with it on their own they could get a huge competitive advantage to DBS.

I cant speak for the others but at this point in the conversation after having beat it to death for days- I'm basically throwing my hands up and saying the parties involved are all jerks and should have just made it work so i can plug a digital tv in and get digital cable and they didn't so I'm pissed.

How's that?

[winpitt]

I really am not following your point about voip being digital vs POTS being analog. My point is the underlying technology doesn't matter to teh end user you plug you r phone in and it works no matter what the provider's technology.

But assuming that you are saying digital is some how differnt than analog, why cant their be a digital standard then for TV's so they are analogous to a phone set?

I'm not disagreeing that the current plan is a goofy mess. My point is there is no reason that the parties involved couldn't get together and come to an agreement that would make digital tv's equal to phone sets. Cable had and has much of the power- if as an industry they came up with some other more viable equipment plan then they probably could have gotten it done (in my humble opinion). Although dt_dc points out that they asked for a different route all together. And even if the current plan is STUPID- it's been in place for years and years with roots back maybe more then a decade- this wasn't spring on cable last week- they have had time to prepare so it would be painless but they didn't.

They are supposed to break even on equipment rental by law (or regulation). They have the headend systems in place to deal with cablecards. So why not already use cablecard boxes themselves- why this waiting till the last minute? WHat would the box cost go up for moto to include the slot plus a card when comcast buys them in hundred thoussand quantities? Would it be another $60 a box in a buig quanitiy like that? So they add 2 bucks a month to their rental on their DVR's to get it back. They would still maintain a healthy lead over third parties like tivo and ahead of the DBS competitors with their large upfront payments. It doesn't sound all that painfull to me.

Hey, first off - no insult intended. Seriously. My comment to you about oversimplification may have been stronger than intended.

A few things. I think we're starting to sort of agree about this, but....

1) The point that I'm trying to make about analog vs digital is this. Today - right this minute - you cannot hook up one of those phones you're talking about (the standardization of the plug, etc) to anything other than native POTS service. There is NO standardization of digital service today. You mentioned VoIP, etc. All of those require proprietary hardware from different sources to manipulate signals on a completely different system. Your comparison is really about TCP/IP, and the OSI model in general. However, even that standard is WAY older with an entirely different process of being developed - and huge adoption. AND - nobody was "forced" to implement it. The end user does NOT plug a vonage box into a POTS line. Only to a Broadband line. Using that already widely accepted, tested, and mature IP standard. One that existed WAY before any of those products were delivered. You want this new technology, with an exponentially smaller usage, to support a product in a niche market. I want it too, but understand that it's way more complex and a very different cost and value proposition.

2) Cable TV is not "supposed" to break even by law (with respect to infrastructure upgrades and R&D). They are "allowed" to do so. Being "allowed" to do it does not mean that they can practically do it. In reality the FCC will not allow for large step function price increases. Further, they are actually prevented by law from acting as a complete group to address prices of such improvements. It violates Anti-Trust laws. Therefore, each MSO would have to invest large sums on their own, hoping that everyone would release at the same time. Then, that the public would not then decide that DBS is just a better and less expensive deal. I can promise you that at the very least, the ROI would change.

3) DBS in most cases now has no large upfront costs. That has changed. I can speak personally to this point. It's changed in the last 18 months drastically, primarily because cable providers started leasing DVRs at very low cost which really impacted subs for DBS providers.

4) You're way oversimplifying the cost of moving to different STBs. First of all, there is R&D cost from SA and Moto. Then there's the cost of change - including the logistics. The far larger issue is the inventory and support cost of managing two systems simultaneously for an extended period - and it most certainly would be extended. That's now twice the number of SW versions out there, testing, etc. That would heavily increase COGS. It most certainly seems painful to me.

[ZeoTiVo]

Absolutely incorrect. It's not simple. If it were you could design and market the solution - or I could.

Oversimplification is a sign of a lack of understanding.

I said the end goal that benefitted consumers while allowing fair competition could be simply stated. Obviously getting there is not simple in a digital world, but if the players stopped hiding their marbles and figured out how to play together then the realiziation of what congress mandated to the FCC those many years ago could come about.

Take your argument about cost. What if the cable companies had competition out there and consumers could go out and buy their own box. then the cable companies could price their STBs and DVRs more along the lines of actual cost and stop having to keep those 500$ DVRs in staock that they only add 5$ onto the bill for. Maybe Digital would go down since they would not be subsidizing DVRs over everyone's digital bill.

[Stormspace]

1) The point that I'm trying to make about analog vs digital is this. Today - right this minute - you cannot hook up one of those phones you're talking about (the standardization of the plug, etc) to anything other than native POTS service. There is NO standardization of digital service today. You mentioned VoIP, etc.

Not to disagree or anything, but most VOIP systems allow for use of regular analog phones with an adapter at the broadband end of the system. So, those handsets that we've had for all these years just keep working. There are other services that do require specialized handsets like Skype and Vonage, but the trend lately has been to leverage the analog sets in the home and make the system seemless to the user.

Cable should be the same, but whether or not some other technology other than Cablecard might be best is pointless. Cablecard is what we have, is being supported by the CEA manufacturers, and is mandated by law. Cable companies should just suck it up and comply. This foot dragging and trying to change the systems every few years to maintain their proprietary networks is tiring and a burden to the US consumer.

[winpitt]

Not to disagree or anything, but most VOIP systems allow for use of regular analog phones with an adapter at the broadband end of the system. So, those handsets that we've had for all these years just keep working. There are other services that do require specialized handsets like Skype and Vonage, but the trend lately has been to leverage the analog sets in the home and make the system seemless to the user.

Cable should be the same, but whether or not some other technology other than Cablecard might be best is pointless. Cablecard is what we have, is being supported by the CEA manufacturers, and is mandated by law. Cable companies should just suck it up and comply. This foot dragging and trying to change the systems every few years to maintain their proprietary networks is tiring and a burden to the US consumer.

Again, have to disagree and this is a sticky point to me.

The issue is NOT the end "plug in" of the analog phone. The relevant issue is that something proprietary needs to be in-between. And that it is completely reliant on an OSI model and TCP/IP that was around for YEARS of reliable, mature, broad service before any of this.

As for cable and cc, it is fundamentally different. It was a poor decision and strategy, and the law has yet to be enforced. Further, we are pretty much the only ones who care about it. Finally, you indicate that MSOs deliberately change their systems every few years to maintain proprietary networks. I disagree. That is not their purpose whatsoever. Their purpose is to deliver content and services at the lowest possible price. And, it's really not a burden to US consumers. It's a burden to us - a very very small fraction of US consumers.

[winpitt]

I said the end goal that benefitted consumers while allowing fair competition could be simply stated. Obviously getting there is not simple in a digital world, but if the players stopped hiding their marbles and figured out how to play together then the realiziation of what congress mandated to the FCC those many years ago could come about.

Take your argument about cost. What if the cable companies had competition out there and consumers could go out and buy their own box. then the cable companies could price their STBs and DVRs more along the lines of actual cost and stop having to keep those 500$ DVRs in staock that they only add 5$ onto the bill for. Maybe Digital would go down since they would not be subsidizing DVRs over everyone's digital bill.

I don't get that argument at all. First, while it is the law it's not enforced - and may never be. The ban frankly is a poor strategy, though it does benefit us in theory.

Second, the cableco's already have competition. How can you say that by (for example) having STBs and DVRs that are essentially PnP but at an additional cost, Cable would then "increase" the cost of their own device? Why would they do that? That condition exists already and has for years. Pre-S3s for example needed no cc. Yet cable saw a huge market in getting DVRs out there at no purchase price, taking market away from TiVo. Why would they change that strategy? Frankly, they would be MORE likely to continue that same strategy.

Everybody keeps talking about the advantage of enforcing the ban, etc. But, the only real use for the CC is for something like the S3 in all practicality, or for MPCs. I sure don't see a lucrative market for non-DVR STBs. And unless somebody besides cable is willing to give them away, they won't compete on a large scale.

[ZeoTiVo]

I don't get that argument at all. First, while it is the law it's not enforced - and may never be. The ban frankly is a poor strategy, though it does benefit us in theory.

Second, the cableco's already have competition. How can you say that by (for example) having STBs and DVRs that are essentially PnP but at an additional cost, Cable would then "increase" the cost of their own device? Why would they do that? That condition exists already and has for years. Pre-S3s for example needed no cc. Yet cable saw a huge market in getting DVRs out there at no purchase price, taking market away from TiVo. Why would they change that strategy? Frankly, they would be MORE likely to continue that same strategy. they continue that strategy to make sure they can as easily as possible get customers to buy PPV adn VOD or else provide the free VOD to compete on features. I doubt the 300$ DVR boxes at 5$ a month is making them any money and they instead subsidize it through overall digital cable prices.
Everybody keeps talking about the advantage of enforcing the ban, etc. But, the only real use for the CC is for something like the S3 in all practicality, or for MPCs. I sure don't see a lucrative market for non-DVR STBs. And unless somebody besides cable is willing to give them away, they won't compete on a large scale. to me the ban is about the fact that the only way universal access will work and be fair to all parties is if all parties have to use it. I think it would be great if I could hook up a TiVo - get HD, not worry about switched digital and be able to see what PPV or VOD my cable company provides adn buy it if I want. I think the cable company would think it great that I put my own upfront money down for the hardware and that hardware motivated me to upgrade to digital and HD packages.

The cable companies could then stop providing/leasing the boxes and let them be bought at best buy instead or use then as enticements for new customers - much like DirectTV did.

[MichaelK]

Sorry to digress- but can someone explain to me why more complex cablecards are needed and there isn't a simplier system of cheaper smart cards? many cable boxes already have the slots and some even use them- directv and DISH seem to have stopped the mass pirating with that system and new versions can be rolled out over time to fix issues.

Is it that the smart card slots in moto and SA devices work differnetly so the issue is that the duopoly providers dont have compatiable systems so we need to go a new route with the whole cablecard mess?

[MichaelK]

...

Everybody keeps talking about the advantage of enforcing the ban, etc. But, the only real use for the CC is for something like the S3 in all practicality, or for MPCs. I sure don't see a lucrative market for non-DVR STBs. And unless somebody besides cable is willing to give them away, they won't compete on a large scale.


are you forgetting TV's?

Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote.

I would agree 1,000% non DVR STB's with cablecard at retail is silly. But if all tv's have a CC slot then plain STB's die a quick death (benifitting consumers and the cablecompanies both)

The point of the ban, by my understanding (I'm sure dt-dc will pop in to correct me -LOL) - is to force the cable compnaies to support cablecards as well as they do their own boxes while at the same time driving down the cost of the cablecard components (cards, readers, etc) so that the compnoents can be cheap enough that devices such as TV's can add cablecard support without adding 100-300 dollars like they do now.

I think allowing the cable companies to continue to use their old stuff while compelling them to buy new advanced boxes (in my head HD and DVR's) only with cablecard would achieve those ends without killing the industry. THey could add one or two dollars to the costs of HD and DVR's in their systems (cc or not) to cover the cost. They would still be very competitive with DBS and only their more afflent subs with money to spend would pay the extra buck or 2 per advanced box.

I can see how the FCC comes to the comcusion that doing so would at least get everyone to a point where 1-way cablecards are in much more wide spread use, easily supported almost everywhere, and hopefully drive down CC component costs to benefit all.

I dont know how you get from there to 2-way or OCAP but it's a start (and seems the FCC feels the same way) And once you drive down the manufacturing costs and support costs then more advanced things like 2-way on that foundation become more realistic.

[bicker]

In Bickers defense, he is correct. It's a commonly used example of how a question can be worded so that there is no correct answer. I got it and didn't think anything about your relationships.In furtherance of my own defense, there is even a Latin word for it: "plurium interrogationum". It is a type of logical fallacy. That was my point -- MichaelK's question was an example of plurium interrogationum.

[bicker]

I cant speak for the others but at this point in the conversation after having beat it to death for days- I'm basically throwing my hands up and saying the parties involved are all jerks and should have just made it work so i can plug a digital tv in and get digital cable and they didn't so I'm pissed. How's that?I think this is a critical point: So often people see something, don't like it, and conclude that its "wrong". That's the problem. Sometimes things just are -- and in this case, a reflection of what our nation, as a whole, is willing to do with regard to this issue.

[MichaelK]

In furtherance of my own defense, there is even a Latin word for it: "plurium interrogationum". It is a type of logical fallacy. That was my point -- MichaelK's question was an example of plurium interrogationum.


I wasn't attempting a no-win question. I was asking an honest question asking for your opinion to try and understand if your beef was with the whole concept or just the stupid way it's been implemented.

I think at the time you were arguing the specifics of the current implementation and I was looking at the big picture (as I posted above). So I can understand how you might have though i was baiting you or something.

That said- talking smack about my wife is just plain inappropriate on a family friendly message board- no matter what point you were trying to make. There would have been about a million different examples you could have used that would be harmless.

[MichaelK]

I think this is a critical point: So often people see something, don't like it, and conclude that its "wrong". That's the problem. Sometimes things just are -- and in this case, a reflection of what our nation, as a whole, is willing to do with regard to this issue.


we could go round and round for days. I've plenty of points of why it's wrong and they aren't all "i'm a big baby and dont like it".

I simply believe it would be BETTER for the consumer and the cable companies to have an open system. Consumers would get more and better options of equipment. The pay TV indsutry would likely grow. And cable would get a big advantage of DBS.

I think the only point you have made to dispute that is it might not be fair to some of the pay tv companies. I guess the issue then becomes does that out weigh the benefits.

[bicker]

Again, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the protoypically example of plurium interrogationum.

With this link (http://www.google.com/search?q=+%22Have+you+stopped+beating+your+wife%3F%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) you can see how common the example is in common usage.

[winpitt]

are you forgetting TV's?

Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote.

I would agree 1,000% non DVR STB's with cablecard at retail is silly. But if all tv's have a CC slot then plain STB's die a quick death (benifitting consumers and the cablecompanies both)

The point of the ban, by my understanding (I'm sure dt-dc will pop in to correct me -LOL) - is to force the cable compnaies to support cablecards as well as they do their own boxes while at the same time driving down the cost of the cablecard components (cards, readers, etc) so that the compnoents can be cheap enough that devices such as TV's can add cablecard support without adding 100-300 dollars like they do now.

I think allowing the cable companies to continue to use their old stuff while compelling them to buy new advanced boxes (in my head HD and DVR's) only with cablecard would achieve those ends without killing the industry. THey could add one or two dollars to the costs of HD and DVR's in their systems (cc or not) to cover the cost. They would still be very competitive with DBS and only their more afflent subs with money to spend would pay the extra buck or 2 per advanced box.

I can see how the FCC comes to the comcusion that doing so would at least get everyone to a point where 1-way cablecards are in much more wide spread use, easily supported almost everywhere, and hopefully drive down CC component costs to benefit all.

I dont know how you get from there to 2-way or OCAP but it's a start (and seems the FCC feels the same way) And once you drive down the manufacturing costs and support costs then more advanced things like 2-way on that foundation become more realistic.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. First, more and more people are selecting the low cost cable provided DVR as opposed to just plain STBs. In particular, those who can afford sets which would theoretically have CC in the short term (regardless of the ban or not) are far more likely to have a DVR. That eliminates just plugging into the TV. Toshiba for one has (or maybe had - it didn't go anywhere) a DVR that integrated into their HD sets - my DLP has that option were I interested in it. Nobody else was.

As for what the FCC thinks, well frankly I believe with good reason that the FCC is one of the most poorly managed and ill intended organizations in existence. Though I really want CC to work, I have a great deal of heartburn with the FCC demanding that private business does something when the public at large really doesn't care, and when there is no fundamental resource issue at stake. It would benefit you and I (and TiVo) but very little else. TV manufacturers really don't care - the lack of it actually makes their lives easier. And they made the correct decision to get OUT of the time-shifting business as they saw the writing on the wall. As for having CC slots in TVs and eliminating STBs benefiting cablecos, well that's just plain crazy. It eliminates a STB which they can completely control quality, test, code, etc. Then it introduces a 3rd party device with firmware and compatibility issue potential which they would be forced to provide Tier 1 support for. I don't see the advantage for them.

Further, the cablecos (can't believe I'm defending them) get no support in "driving the cost down". They are forced theoretically to spend considerable resources to deliver something that will give them zero benefit. There is no public safety or limited resource at stake. So, to me it's just wrong from a financial perspective.

[winpitt]

Sorry to digress- but can someone explain to me why more complex cablecards are needed and there isn't a simplier system of cheaper smart cards? many cable boxes already have the slots and some even use them- directv and DISH seem to have stopped the mass pirating with that system and new versions can be rolled out over time to fix issues.

Is it that the smart card slots in moto and SA devices work differnetly so the issue is that the duopoly providers dont have compatiable systems so we need to go a new route with the whole cablecard mess?

It's simple. Direct and Dish have closed, proprietary systems. They control 100% of their system once content is provided to them.

Cable does not in reality have a single system even within providers. Comcast for example has a bunch of different systems running different software and different service portals. Cox is different from Comcast. TW is different from Cox. And so on.

[HDTiVo]

Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote.

How do you explain that about 1% of CC Slot equiped TVs actually use CCs, even though the CC is cheaper than the STB?

[dt_dc]

So why not already use cablecard boxes themselves- why this waiting till the last minute? WHat would the box cost go up for moto to include the slot plus a card when comcast buys them in hundred thoussand quantities? Would it be another $60 a box in a buig quanitiy like that? So they add 2 bucks a month to their rental on their DVR's to get it back.I know you're talking about DVRs here ...

But apply this to a "regular" low-end STB.

People already complain (loudly) when some cable company moves The Golf Channel over to digital and they have to pay $5 extra to get a digital box to keep watching The Golf Channel. Cable rip-off ... I should move to dbs ... etc. So instead of $5 we make it $7 ...

Heck, moto wouldn't have to make the box. Cable has said many many times (whether or not you believe them is another story, but anyway) ... "someone make us a somewhat competitively priced seperable security box where the price differential can start to make sense ... and we'll buy it". Panasonic, Samsung, Sony ... whoever. Anyone could make such a box to sell to the cable company. No one is doing so ... the economcs just don't make sense. Panasonic, Sony, Pace and others have all made integrated security boxes to sell to the cable company. Economics for those make sense (in part because cable insists moto and sa reaonably license their CA). But no one is stepping forward and giving cable any options in seperable security boxes ...

[jfh3]

How do you explain that about 1% of CC Slot equiped TVs actually use CCs, even though the CC is cheaper than the STB?

This one's pretty easy - anyone spending what it takes to buy a TV with a CC slot probably wants to use a DVR anyway, so putting a CC in the TV for "live" TV is pretty much pointless.

For those that don't want the DVR, it's probably an education thing - they don't know what a CableCARD is, what it can provide or where to get it.

I watched a clerk in BB tell a customer looking for a CableCARD for his new TV that "we are out of stock" before I went over and corrected him and told the customer to contact his cable company.

[winpitt]

This one's pretty easy - anyone spending what it takes to buy a TV with a CC slot probably wants to use a DVR anyway, so putting a CC in the TV for "live" TV is pretty much pointless.

For those that don't want the DVR, it's probably an education thing - they don't know what a CableCARD is, what it can provide or where to get it.

I watched a clerk in BB tell a customer looking for a CableCARD for his new TV that "we are out of stock" before I went over and corrected him and told the customer to contact his cable company.

I think you got it right the first time. That DVR growth (in particular HD) is huge, and that most people are starting to want a DVR in any case on digital sets. I do also agree about the education thing. But, that also goes to how little interest there really is. Nobody is really advertising the whole DVR thing to begin with, but growth is huge.

Other than with people like us here, there just isn't interest.

[HDTiVo]

This one's pretty easy - anyone spending what it takes to buy a TV with a CC slot probably wants to use a DVR anyway, so putting a CC in the TV for "live" TV is pretty much pointless.

For those that don't want the DVR, it's probably an education thing - they don't know what a CableCARD is, what it can provide or where to get it.

I watched a clerk in BB tell a customer looking for a CableCARD for his new TV that "we are out of stock" before I went over and corrected him and told the customer to contact his cable company.
So you agree that people do want an STB - really the DVR which is also an STB.

People have no interest in CCs per se. Michael's comment that "Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote. " is not correct, which is what I was pointing out.

People wanting an S3, which happens to be a DVR & STB that uses CCs, order CCs as just a byproduct.

That's what winpitt is saying.

[jfh3]

People have no interest in CCs per se.

This is what I agree with. I'm going to have to have some type of set top box; I just don't want my only choices to be what my cable company offers.

But the issue I was addressing is why CC use was so low until now - most people didn't care because there were no types of CC-enabled devices they were interested in. The Series 3 changed that.

[HDTiVo]

This is what I agree with. I'm going to have to have some type of set top box; I just don't want my only choices to be what my cable company offers.

But the issue I was addressing is why CC use was so low until now - most people didn't care because there were no types of CC-enabled devices they were interested in. The Series 3 changed that.
I wonder how well DVRs embedded in TVs will do.

[winpitt]

I wonder how well DVRs embedded in TVs will do.

They haven't done well yet. Toshiba has had one for more than a year. Can't remember the name but it integrates directly into my series of DLP. I couldn't find anyone who would carry it, and nobody who bought it.

On another note with respect to CC - as promised Comcast arrived yesterday at around 3pm to install the CC in my DLP as my first test of CC prior to taking the plunge for the s3. The Comcast guy was well prepared and seemed to know his way around. Unfortunately, it appears as though the version of firmware and bootstrap for my Toshiba DLP is at least 5 versions to old. Comcast called Toshiba, who is going to send new firmware. Apparently they'll send it on a SD or some other removable media card (my unit has multimedia readers) and users can flash the units. Then Comcast will be back out to try again. It works partially at the moment but I can't get the full channel lineup and not sure what other issues Comcast felt there would be. I wasn't home - my wife was.

What it does illustrate is two things. First, that there's at least one person in my local Comcast area that kinows his way around Cablecards. Second, that this is a perfect example of how 3rd party devices increase costs to Comcast as a result of something beyond the control of Comcast. I talked to the engineer on the phone while he was at my home and he was pretty good to deal with.

[ZeoTiVo]

People have no interest in CCs per se. Michael's comment that "Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote. " is not correct, which is what I was pointing out.

People wanting an S3, which happens to be a DVR & STB that uses CCs, order CCs as just a byproduct.

That's what winpitt is saying.
that iswhat I was saying as well but people do want to just plug in the STB and have it work. I further that and want choices in my STB(DVR) so I can pick out a nice 3rd party one like the S3 or the DT S2 like I have now. Not everyone will care about features and some would rather just order it all from teh cable company for assumed simplicity. People do want one remote though

[winpitt]

that iswhat I was saying as well but people do want to just plug in the STB and have it work. I further that and want choices in my STB(DVR) so I can pick out a nice 3rd party one like the S3 or the DT S2 like I have now. Not everyone will care about features and some would rather just order it all from teh cable company for assumed simplicity. People do want one remote though

Would you agree that the average consumer has no interest in picking out a 3rd party STB? I agree that people want to just plug it in and use it.

[ZeoTiVo]

Would you agree that the average consumer has no interest in picking out a 3rd party STB? I agree that people want to just plug it in and use it.
I did say in my post that some people will just get the DVR and all fronm the cable company for assumed simplicity.

This falls under the heading of how do you get people to understand the benefits of a DVR. I started with a 40 hour and was happy. Now I am recording on 4 tuners at a time some nights and have a main S2DT with 500 hours storage. I recorded the Marx brother's main movies because my kids had not seen them. Got some Halloween shows and movies as well. I know they will not knock off other stuff. But will the average consumer understand that being able to own the DVR and thus add in big hard drives makes a good thing even better?

It will get easier to put out such messages once people have DVRs. Right now I only know of one neighbor who has a DVR because I got them a deal on a TiVo. I still get lots of "what's a DVR do for you?"

[MichaelK]

How do you explain that about 1% of CC Slot equiped TVs actually use CCs, even though the CC is cheaper than the STB?


I agree that clealy it's not a motivation for everyone. But obviously all these problems, arm bending from cable, and lack of 2-way features all has an effect on that.

I would argue that the fact that 99% of the people with cc slots in their tv's dont use them tell's alot about the situation. Obviously one way cards and all the current problems are not worth the effort for many people.

[MichaelK]

I know you're talking about DVRs here ...

But apply this to a "regular" low-end STB.

People already complain (loudly) when some cable company moves The Golf Channel over to digital and they have to pay $5 extra to get a digital box to keep watching The Golf Channel. Cable rip-off ... I should move to dbs ... etc. So instead of $5 we make it $7 ...

Heck, moto wouldn't have to make the box. Cable has said many many times (whether or not you believe them is another story, but anyway) ... "someone make us a somewhat competitively priced seperable security box where the price differential can start to make sense ... and we'll buy it". Panasonic, Samsung, Sony ... whoever. Anyone could make such a box to sell to the cable company. No one is doing so ... the economcs just don't make sense. Panasonic, Sony, Pace and others have all made integrated security boxes to sell to the cable company. Economics for those make sense (in part because cable insists moto and sa reaonably license their CA). But no one is stepping forward and giving cable any options in seperable security boxes ...


I have no problem with waivers for the low end boxes at all. I just think they need to draw a line someplace and go cablecard at that point. I'd draw the line july1 and make it apply to advanced boxes defined as dvr's and hd boxes. The ecomnomics effects would be limited to the high end subs as a result.

related to that- do you have any idea how much cost premium is involved in that CC replacement from Moto that you pointed to in earlier threads? Is it hundreds or tens of dollars?

[MichaelK]

So you agree that people do want an STB - really the DVR which is also an STB.

People have no interest in CCs per se. Michael's comment that "Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote. " is not correct, which is what I was pointing out.

People wanting an S3, which happens to be a DVR & STB that uses CCs, order CCs as just a byproduct.

That's what winpitt is saying.

I dont really beleive that- why do most people have no STB? Surely some of it is they are happy with what they can get with analog cable and for that price but as dt_dc points out people get nutty when the golf channel gets removed from the analog tier and they need to start adding boxes to everything.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Myself I hate STB's that have no purpose besides tuning channels (DVR is a whole differnt can of beans). But I guess some people enjoy them for whatever reason.

[MichaelK]

They haven't done well yet. Toshiba has had one for more than a year. Can't remember the name but it integrates directly into my series of DLP. I couldn't find anyone who would carry it, and nobody who bought it.

On another note with respect to CC - as promised Comcast arrived yesterday at around 3pm to install the CC in my DLP as my first test of CC prior to taking the plunge for the s3. The Comcast guy was well prepared and seemed to know his way around. Unfortunately, it appears as though the version of firmware and bootstrap for my Toshiba DLP is at least 5 versions to old. Comcast called Toshiba, who is going to send new firmware. Apparently they'll send it on a SD or some other removable media card (my unit has multimedia readers) and users can flash the units. Then Comcast will be back out to try again. It works partially at the moment but I can't get the full channel lineup and not sure what other issues Comcast felt there would be. I wasn't home - my wife was.

What it does illustrate is two things. First, that there's at least one person in my local Comcast area that kinows his way around Cablecards. Second, that this is a perfect example of how 3rd party devices increase costs to Comcast as a result of something beyond the control of Comcast. I talked to the engineer on the phone while he was at my home and he was pretty good to deal with.


there certainly are issues with the CE devices. But there is no reason that it needs to be a HUGE cost to the cablecompany. My little independant local cablecompany (31 towns with I think 800,000 total subs) is smart enough to ask you for the model number of the device you intend to use the card in. They keep a spreadsheet or database that lists all the devices and what probelms or firmware they need. My friend called to get a CC for his panny plasma and they flagged his model number immediately. They new from their own list what firmware version he needed and told him to call panny and get the update and to call back once it was done. He called panny- the fedex'd him an SD card that he used to update his tv. Cablecard install went fine from there.

There is no reason that the largest pay tv company in the WORLD, comcast, doesn't do the same. Have an issue with a tv in tampa and share the information with all the comcast offices. IT would save them tons of time and effort. dt_dc or someone else might know but I think the number of cablecard devices is like less then 500. Chances are that a comcast office someplace has seen each and everyone of those 500 possibiliites and could report to the mothership what the status is with those devices.

[MichaelK]

It's simple. Direct and Dish have closed, proprietary systems. They control 100% of their system once content is provided to them.

Cable does not in reality have a single system even within providers. Comcast for example has a bunch of different systems running different software and different service portals. Cox is different from Comcast. TW is different from Cox. And so on.

back to smart cards.

Seriously isn't the proprietary system boil down to 2 choices? Moto's or SA's? Maybe it would have been wiser to just agree those 2 are the official choices and have every tv/box whatever have 2 slots- one for a mota smartcard or one for the SA smart card?

[HDTiVo]

I dont really beleive that- why do most people have no STB? Surely some of it is they are happy with what they can get with analog cable and for that price but as dt_dc points out people get nutty when the golf channel gets removed from the analog tier and they need to start adding boxes to everything.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Myself I hate STB's that have no purpose besides tuning channels (DVR is a whole differnt can of beans). But I guess some people enjoy them for whatever reason.
I was only talking about DVRs and in the context of people who had bought expensive TVs. Only about 1% of the CC equipped units are using CCs; a much higher % are using ordinary STBs (20%, 30%, 40%???), and the rest are using DVR STBs.

People choosing an S3 over a Cable DVR will get CCs only because they are necessary to the function of the S3 for getting the content they want. Just like most people only get ordinary STBs with cable when there is content they want that necessitates the STB, or they need to know the time. :)

[winpitt]

there certainly are issues with the CE devices. But there is no reason that it needs to be a HUGE cost to the cablecompany. My little independant local cablecompany (31 towns with I think 800,000 total subs) is smart enough to ask you for the model number of the device you intend to use the card in. They keep a spreadsheet or database that lists all the devices and what probelms or firmware they need. My friend called to get a CC for his panny plasma and they flagged his model number immediately. They new from their own list what firmware version he needed and told him to call panny and get the update and to call back once it was done. He called panny- the fedex'd him an SD card that he used to update his tv. Cablecard install went fine from there.

There is no reason that the largest pay tv company in the WORLD, comcast, doesn't do the same. Have an issue with a tv in tampa and share the information with all the comcast offices. IT would save them tons of time and effort. dt_dc or someone else might know but I think the number of cablecard devices is like less then 500. Chances are that a comcast office someplace has seen each and everyone of those 500 possibiliites and could report to the mothership what the status is with those devices.

LOTS of problems there. First of all, let's say you have a Toshiba DLP and you call in. It may or may not have the right FW. Some Tier 1 low trained low cost service rep then needs to be smart enough to talk some non-technical customer how to figure out what FW level is currently on their device. Problem? Yup. Big time. EXACTLY like in the PC world. Takes lots of time, meaning needs more reps in order to handle call volume. In other words, more cost.

Then, new features/functions are rolled out on EITHER the CC or the Toshiba device. Same problem can happen again because there is NO way to test every new update between the different devices. Will it be a problem? Maybe. Can it be? Absolutely.

Next problem? The MSO has to live with the blame and service costs for ANY issue. In other words, they inherit the problems created by the 3rd party vendors. To put it plainly - that's just wrong. If the MSOs are going to be required to support such devices, then they should be able to charge back either the consumer or the 3rd party vendor for that extra support. Do I want to pay for it? No. But they should absolutely not be legislated to eat those costs with no remedy.

[winpitt]

I did say in my post that some people will just get the DVR and all fronm the cable company for assumed simplicity.

This falls under the heading of how do you get people to understand the benefits of a DVR. I started with a 40 hour and was happy. Now I am recording on 4 tuners at a time some nights and have a main S2DT with 500 hours storage. I recorded the Marx brother's main movies because my kids had not seen them. Got some Halloween shows and movies as well. I know they will not knock off other stuff. But will the average consumer understand that being able to own the DVR and thus add in big hard drives makes a good thing even better?

It will get easier to put out such messages once people have DVRs. Right now I only know of one neighbor who has a DVR because I got them a deal on a TiVo. I still get lots of "what's a DVR do for you?"

No, what you're talking about is how do you get people to understand the benefits of a TiVo - not a DVR. They don't need a 3rd party device for DVR functionality at all. If they're not sold on DVR yet it is far more likely that they'll embrace the lower cost proposition of the MSO provided unit so that they can try before they buy - as opposed to TiVo where you need to commit up front. There is a difference.

And that difference is really why I think TiVo has a problem here and that not many other people give a darn about CC. The market in general seems to agree with the perception. The market cap for TiVo is quite small - really small. And nobody else wants in the market. Actually, everyone else has gotten out for the most part.

[winpitt]

back to smart cards.

Seriously isn't the proprietary system boil down to 2 choices? Moto's or SA's? Maybe it would have been wiser to just agree those 2 are the official choices and have every tv/box whatever have 2 slots- one for a mota smartcard or one for the SA smart card?

Not really that simple. Here's the comparison:

Dish: 1 version of software across their entire enterprise, sitting on one technology platform.

Cable: Two major technology platforms. Each of those platforms having several versions of system software. Each of those versions having been further modified by different regions of different cable providers. Then on top of that, each region of each MSO potentially having different versions of different service portals.

It's basically comparing a fully closed system to one with lots and lots of different combinations as well as custom development outside of Moto or SA.

[dt_dc]

related to that- do you have any idea how much cost premium is involved in that CC replacement from Moto that you pointed to in earlier threads? Is it hundreds or tens of dollars?The estimates from the cable companies are based on quotes from their vendors (Motorola, SciAtl). Looking at the specific examples of the (integrated) Motorola DCT-700 vs. (CableCard based) Motorola DCH-100 ...

The DCT-700 is available to cable companies for around $80.

The estimates for the DCH-100 add somewhere between $70 - $110 more depending on the quote / source. The box isn't even in production and of course volume / existing business relationships / etc. is going to make the estimate a little fuzzy ...

These boxes are the very basic digital-only SD boxes. Ie, basically what a (previously) analog customer might be moved to when switching to digital on a digital-simulcast system.

However, I think these estimates include both the box and the card.

Motorola said in one of its filings (although this were aimed at the Verizon request) that adding CableCard to their boxes (for the MVPD) is about $25 additional for the CableCard interface on the box and then $50 - $70 for the CableCard itself.

I think the MVPDs quote the 'combined' cost increase ... since ... from their stand-point they'd be leasing the customer the box and the card compared to just an integrated box.

So ... something like ...

DCT-700: $80

vs.

DCH-100: $100 + $60 for CableCard = $160

And of course, these are cable / Motorola provided estimates so take them for what you will. CEA (of course) says no, no, no ... those estimates are inflated ... difference should not be that much ... etc.

[winpitt]

dt_dc,

What are your thoughts about the complexities of MSOs supporting 3rd party devices? I believe you used to work in the industry so I'm curious. Since I'm in the tech sector (but not in any way the cable/dbs or entertainment market) this seems pretty difficult to me from a pure support perspective.

I'm thinking that if everything moves to CC and MSOs are forced to support them, then it really means that they'll need an entirely new support area to be developed. Today they only need to support their own customized SW and firmware. The introduction of 3rd party devices which would sit on their network would in practice mean that somebody at each MSO would have to "try" to track all the different devices that could potentially use CC on their network. Then, they'd need to become familiar with firmware revisions (remember, cablelabs doens't certify new firmware - only new devices. Once a device is certified it's done). That means more customer service calls - or at least more time on the phone per service call for new devices, meaning more reps required. Then, how do you deal with the cost involved with truck rolls when customers claim that firmware is up to date but it really isn't - or a corrupted firmware? What this seems like to me is that rates would have to go up so that we minority customers could get CC, but everyone would have to pay for it. In the computer arena, we're already living this nightmare (not talking about consumer electronics, but rather Enterprise networks and datacenters). And this is while we have clear standards in terms of the OSI model, and globally accepted protocols that have been around for years. I can't see much growth potential for the distribution of a CC standard or protocol outside of this industry, so there's little opportunity to recoup those early costs.

Another thought would be that since the FCC is mandating this, then the federal government should subsidize it and pay those costs.

If the FCC told Cisco that they needed to do something like this, Cisco would tell them to take a flying leap as they're smart enough to realize the possible impact.

What are your thoughts with respect to cost allocation?

[MichaelK]

Not really that simple. Here's the comparison:

Dish: 1 version of software across their entire enterprise, sitting on one technology platform.

Cable: Two major technology platforms. Each of those platforms having several versions of system software. Each of those versions having been further modified by different regions of different cable providers. Then on top of that, each region of each MSO potentially having different versions of different service portals.

It's basically comparing a fully closed system to one with lots and lots of different combinations as well as custom development outside of Moto or SA.

there's no changing your mind or getting you to even try to see the other side of the issue about the big picture.

But about smartcards I think you are wrong, I'd love to get dt_dc's explanation if he happens to know about them. But I just dont see your point- you think all the moto and SA boxes out their have differnt versions of smart card readers and software? Sure the headends might have differnet versions, but then they would issue the smart cards that work with that version of their software. The hardware for it in the STB's wouldn't change- would it? EVen assuming they would need to get all the SA headends on the same smart card version and all the Moto head ends on there's, wouldn't it be easiery to update a few thousand headends running one platform of the other then dealing with thousands of different CE versions in hundreds of millions of TV's (if this ever gets ubiqitous)

[MichaelK]

I was only talking about DVRs and in the context of people who had bought expensive TVs. Only about 1% of the CC equipped units are using CCs; a much higher % are using ordinary STBs (20%, 30%, 40%???), and the rest are using DVR STBs.

People choosing an S3 over a Cable DVR will get CCs only because they are necessary to the function of the S3 for getting the content they want. Just like most people only get ordinary STBs with cable when there is content they want that necessitates the STB, or they need to know the time. :)

to be clear - i totally agree with everyone who makes the point that at the current time this is basically for S3's and not much more.

But Ithe FCC regs and the law say nothign about CC only for high end devices and leaving behing the "normal" people (eg not us) who dont want a dvr and just want plain TV. It's so those folks dont need to get STB's (unless of course they need to know the time! ) More and more stuff is moving to digital- some of the players are talkign about going all digital (that's their excuse for not wanting cablecards in all devices). That makes tens of millions of people that dont have STB's now needing to migrate to STB's or TV's that can be plug and play.

I dont see this as being done for us with a couple car payments to buy tivo's. I think if it gets rolled out to the point that it reaches critical mass and therefore most tv's came with it, then it benefits consumers AND cable too.

anyway- i think everyone here is basically entrenched and there's not much point in trying to sway anyone's thoughts. I guess time will tell what the real story will have been.

[winpitt]

there's no changing your mind or getting you to even try to see the other side of the issue about the big picture.

But about smartcards I think you are wrong, I'd love to get dt_dc's explanation if he happens to know about them. But I just dont see your point- you think all the moto and SA boxes out their have differnt versions of smart card readers and software? Sure the headends might have differnet versions, but then they would issue the smart cards that work with that version of their software. The hardware for it in the STB's wouldn't change- would it? EVen assuming they would need to get all the SA headends on the same smart card version and all the Moto head ends on there's, wouldn't it be easiery to update a few thousand headends running one platform of the other then dealing with thousands of different CE versions in hundreds of millions of TV's (if this ever gets ubiqitous)

No - you are not representing what I said correctly. In the post you quoted I did not say any system had an advantage or was better. I answered the question as to why adopting smartcards is far easier for DBS than for cable. Nothing more. It has to do with the potential power of an ASIC based card.

In other words, no matter how you slice it DBS has it easier because they own the entire system and have complete control. Even not considering the integration ban, cable has a far more complex landscape.

There is absolutely no way you'll end up with all the headends running the same version of software. Not anytime in the reasonable future, and not without a great deal of problems. The problem is all the custom development that MSOs have done by region. There is quite a bit there.

[winpitt]

to be clear - i totally agree with everyone who makes the point that at the current time this is basically for S3's and not much more.

But Ithe FCC regs and the law say nothign about CC only for high end devices and leaving behing the "normal" people (eg not us) who dont want a dvr and just want plain TV. It's so those folks dont need to get STB's (unless of course they need to know the time! ) More and more stuff is moving to digital- some of the players are talkign about going all digital (that's their excuse for not wanting cablecards in all devices). That makes tens of millions of people that dont have STB's now needing to migrate to STB's or TV's that can be plug and play.

I dont see this as being done for us with a couple car payments to buy tivo's. I think if it gets rolled out to the point that it reaches critical mass and therefore most tv's came with it, then it benefits consumers AND cable too.

anyway- i think everyone here is basically entrenched and there's not much point in trying to sway anyone's thoughts. I guess time will tell what the real story will have been.

Well, OK there's some agreement there. But what is more cost effective? Forcing EVERYONE to adopt a new, relatively narrow niche technology? Or people wanting more content to get STBs? I'd bet a whole lot of money that John Q Public is more than happy with the STB if it gives him equal value at a lower cost. Which I think it still does.

Doesn't mean I don't want CC. After my CC install this past Thursday, the channels that DO come in on my CC are fine as far as I can tell. But I still am not getting them all yet.

As for the FCC, they don't have the capacity to enforce much of anything. Personally I think that there isn't much appetite for the fight, and that everyone involved except us and TiVo wishes the ban were never thought of.

[bicker]

there's no changing your mind or getting you to even try to see the other side of the issue about the big picture.A bit OT: Expecting to change the mind of someone advocating a perspectivce opposite of yours is pretty unreasonable. These discussions are typically for the benefit, mostly, of those who aren't sure in their positions, the "studio audience" if you will.

But Ithe FCC regs and the law say nothign about CC only for high end devices and leaving behing the "normal" people (eg not us) who dont want a dvr and just want plain TV. And that sounded good on paper, but it didn't happen. Samsung has deliberately removed CableCard as a feature from its mainstream line of HDTVs, reserving it as a "special feature" of its high-end, super-premium sets only.

[MichaelK]

No - you are not representing what I said correctly. In the post you quoted I did not say any system had an advantage or was better. I answered the question as to why adopting smartcards is far easier for DBS than for cable. Nothing more. It has to do with the potential power of an ASIC based card.

In other words, no matter how you slice it DBS has it easier because they own the entire system and have complete control. Even not considering the integration ban, cable has a far more complex landscape.

There is absolutely no way you'll end up with all the headends running the same version of software. Not anytime in the reasonable future, and not without a great deal of problems. The problem is all the custom development that MSOs have done by region. There is quite a bit there.

I dont understand your point- sorry- maybe we're talking 2 differnet things - as usual...

Cable uses smartcards. Cablevision is one of the big 6 providers and they use smart cards in all their boxes in at least some (if not all of) their systems. So I dont think it's some impossible dream that you can control access to cable with smart cards. FOr some reason Moto iand SA includes the slots on MANY of the boxes they sell.

I dont think every headend needs the same software- just a version compatible with whatever smart cards they are handing out on that system. Just like now all the ehad ends aren't using the same software- they just have the software that is compatiable with the version of cablecards they hand out.

ignore everything I've said-

how 'about this-

why is the current standaard for a PCMCIA sized device that apparently has some computing power and not just a standard for a smartcard type device with little computing power?

[MichaelK]

A bit OT: Expecting to change the mind of someone advocating a perspectivce opposite of yours is pretty unreasonable. These discussions are typically for the benefit, mostly, of those who aren't sure in their positions, the "studio audience" if you will.

....

perhaps some think these forums are the debate club, I personally dont mind learning a thing or two from what others post and enjoy learning other's point of view so maybe I can understand the world around me a little better.

For example- some time ago after insulting my family life, you mentioned that you were concerned about fairness with a government mandated system perhaps effecting new vs old players differently. Sounds like a valid point to me, and does make me think that when i form my opinions that maybe I should take that into account.

At a minimum, I like to understand the opposing point of view and do my best not to imply that the opposite view of mine is stupid or wrong but rather just different.



....

And that sounded good on paper, but it didn't happen. Samsung has deliberately removed CableCard as a feature from its mainstream line of HDTVs, reserving it as a "special feature" of its high-end, super-premium sets only.


and why is that?

but anyway- where ever we are now doesn't really matter- I think just about everyone agees there's a mess right now . Point is how do we get to the place that's best for everyone involved.

My personal opinion as stated a few times above is to enforce the ban on the high end devices- add maybe a buck a month to every advanced recei ver out there to cover the inital start up costs and then let that head start help the proice of the technology drop so that it can become ubiqitious and help both cable and the consumers.

[Stormspace]

and why is that?


Because sets with cable card cost 200-300 dollars more than other sets. Once sets don't need analog tuners any more CC shouldn't make that much difference. In the mean time CC hasn't been getting much press and MSO's have been spreading FUD about it to discourage use while filing for extension after extension. Also instead of working within the system they approved MSO's developed technology that's incompatible with CC so that CC features are lacking, ala VOD and PPV.

[MichaelK]

Because sets with cable card cost 200-300 dollars more than other sets. Once sets don't need analog tuners any more CC shouldn't make that much difference. In the mean time CC hasn't been getting much press and MSO's have been spreading FUD about it to discourage use while filing for extension after extension. Also instead of working within the system they approved MSO's developed technology that's incompatible with CC so that CC features are lacking, ala VOD and PPV.

it was a rhetorical question- but i'll take your answer.

[Stormspace]

it was a rhetorical question- but i'll take your answer.

:o

[bicker]

For example- some time ago after insulting my family lifeI never did so. You made a mistake in understanding what someone wrote in reply to you. It wasn't your fault -- you didn't know better. Learn from your mistake and get over it.

Point is how do we get to the place that's best for everyone involved.Indeed, that includes consumers and businesses, not just consumers.

[winpitt]

Because sets with cable card cost 200-300 dollars more than other sets. Once sets don't need analog tuners any more CC shouldn't make that much difference. In the mean time CC hasn't been getting much press and MSO's have been spreading FUD about it to discourage use while filing for extension after extension. Also instead of working within the system they approved MSO's developed technology that's incompatible with CC so that CC features are lacking, ala VOD and PPV.

Sets with cablecard that cost $200-300 more also include other additional features at that price point. It's not just CC that does it.

More to the point, the reason that manufacturer support is being withdrawn is because even those customers who purchase CC ready products are largely not using them. Therefore, from a supplier perspective, why add cost and features that the consumer does not want? I mean, besides us.

As for MSOs spreading FUD, well that's nuts. The truth is that they're not spreading ANYTHING about CC. Neither good nor bad. Nobody even knows it exists in general. And the reason is that there is really no supporting lobby besides us to do that. That's really the foundation of the problem.

[winpitt]

perhaps some think these forums are the debate club, I personally dont mind learning a thing or two from what others post and enjoy learning other's point of view so maybe I can understand the world around me a little better.

For example- some time ago after insulting my family life, you mentioned that you were concerned about fairness with a government mandated system perhaps effecting new vs old players differently. Sounds like a valid point to me, and does make me think that when i form my opinions that maybe I should take that into account.

At a minimum, I like to understand the opposing point of view and do my best not to imply that the opposite view of mine is stupid or wrong but rather just different.

and why is that?

but anyway- where ever we are now doesn't really matter- I think just about everyone agees there's a mess right now . Point is how do we get to the place that's best for everyone involved.

My personal opinion as stated a few times above is to enforce the ban on the high end devices- add maybe a buck a month to every advanced recei ver out there to cover the inital start up costs and then let that head start help the proice of the technology drop so that it can become ubiqitious and help both cable and the consumers.

It would take a heck of a lot more than $1 per every advanced receiver to even remotely cover intial costs. That's not even a beginning.

Would you support the government paying for the costs since the government is mandating it?

[Phantom Gremlin]

Would you support the government paying for the costs since the government is mandating it?
You keep "feeling sorry" for the poor cable companies that are so burdened by government mandates. This theme is in just about every other post of yours. I'm not arguing for or against this particular example, but your general attitude.

Well I don't feel sorry for the cable companies at all. It's the business they're in. They're "natural monopolies".

It's crazy to have two companies running electricity to your house. It's crazy to have two companies running water to your house. Etc. It's just as crazy to have two companies running coax cable to your house to give you TV service. It's idiotic.

The natural monopolies were regulated when I was growing up. They were given a reasonable rate of return on their invested capital. We got reliable electricity or phone service at a reasonable price.

That was the deal. The natural monopolies understood the deal. They understood that they were monopolists, not pigopolists. They understood that they were limited in the rates they could charge. They accepted those limitations. Of course, we didn't get innovation, since there was no incentive for that.

The natural monopolies built their infrastructure using free right of way, with government protection as statutory monopolies. But then, under pressure from wall street, they changed the rules of the game. The monopolists became pigopolists. They bought off politicians and changed the laws so that they could rape their customers with unregulated rates.

They've been very successful at their new game. And wall street has rewarded them quite handsomely for it (when viewed over the last 20 years or so, not just the last few years).

And yet they, or their apologists like you, continue to cry copious quantities of giant crocodile tears whenever they are asked to do the slightest little thing for the public good.

Well, I'm tired of hearing about it from you.

And for anyone else who wants to know a little about what a "natural monopoly" is, here is a wikipedia link. The article tries to provide a little bit of history and also tries to be relatively balanced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

[bicker]

Well, I'm tired of hearing about it from you.Your attitude is pretty tiring as well. Calling people "apologists" because they disagree with you is a pretty craven way to conduct a discussion. If you want things to change, get people to elect different leaders, enact different laws, and enforce the existing laws differently. Until then, recognize and acknowledge that your frustration with how cable companies operate is your problem, not theirs. You want control over them. They want control over themselves. Our society sides with them, not you, through both words and actions.

[winpitt]

You keep "feeling sorry" for the poor cable companies that are so burdened by government mandates. This theme is in just about every other post of yours. I'm not arguing for or against this particular example, but your general attitude.

Well I don't feel sorry for the cable companies at all. It's the business they're in. They're "natural monopolies".

It's crazy to have two companies running electricity to your house. It's crazy to have two companies running water to your house. Etc. It's just as crazy to have two companies running coax cable to your house to give you TV service. It's idiotic.

The natural monopolies were regulated when I was growing up. They were given a reasonable rate of return on their invested capital. We got reliable electricity or phone service at a reasonable price.

That was the deal. The natural monopolies understood the deal. They understood that they were monopolists, not pigopolists. They understood that they were limited in the rates they could charge. They accepted those limitations. Of course, we didn't get innovation, since there was no incentive for that.

The natural monopolies built their infrastructure using free right of way, with government protection as statutory monopolies. But then, under pressure from wall street, they changed the rules of the game. The monopolists became pigopolists. They bought off politicians and changed the laws so that they could rape their customers with unregulated rates.

They've been very successful at their new game. And wall street has rewarded them quite handsomely for it (when viewed over the last 20 years or so, not just the last few years).

And yet they, or their apologists like you, continue to cry copious quantities of giant crocodile tears whenever they are asked to do the slightest little thing for the public good.

Well, I'm tired of hearing about it from you.

And for anyone else who wants to know a little about what a "natural monopoly" is, here is a wikipedia link. The article tries to provide a little bit of history and also tries to be relatively balanced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

Pal, I'm not feeling sorry for the cable companies. There are very few businesses that I have more issues with. That doesn't mean that I believe that "my personal interests" outweigh what's right for business, and what's right for the general consumer.

Your post is idiotic, and totally misrepresents what I've said. Please find a single post where I said that I feel sorry for the MSOs, or that I'm siding with them. I just happen to believe that as a business their interests need to be considered also. Not because I give a darn about them - but because your solution will have a negative impact on the general cable customer.

You happen to believe that no matter the cost, as long as you get what you want then the h3ll with everyone else. There are lots of places (well, not that many left) that would agree with you. Like North Korea, China, and a few other locals.

[Phantom Gremlin]

You happen to believe that no matter the cost, as long as you get what you want then the h3ll with everyone else.

No I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that the natural monopolies should, in return for their privileged position, be held to different (higher) standards than ordinary companies. My post attempted to explain a bit of the history of how these natural monopolies got to where they are today.

[MichaelK]

It would take a heck of a lot more than $1 per every advanced receiver to even remotely cover intial costs. That's not even a beginning.

Would you support the government paying for the costs since the government is mandating it?


dt_dc who knows a hell of a lot more then you or I about the issue posted above with several soureces that peg the incremental cost to added cable card at perhaps as low as $70 a box just a few posts above.

Assuming a 3 year life for the boxes- would get you to around $2 extra a month per box. But as i have said above (and I belvie the regulation allows) I wouldn't force them to throw out all their deployed boxes to date- just add the CC slot to the new ADVANCED boxes. By doing that you can add a buck a month to ALL the ADVANCED boxes deployed, new or old, and easily cover the new cablecard models. By applying the buck to all subs (and I'm not sure they would be permitted otherwise under the current systems) they would easily cover the cost of new cablecard equipment untill they get to the point that they double their current non-CC advanced box deployemnt. I'd guess the current cable deployed HD and DVR numbers are into the low millions for sure. So adding a buck a box would get a few million CC boxes deployed.

Hopefully once a few million CC boxes are deployed then the price for the componenets drops a bit and the incremental cost is much less then $70 per box.

There is essentially no cost for the STB to the cable company so I dont know why you think they would get damaged. They would make back any additonal capital outlay fees in the increased costs just as the law /regulations allow/stipulate.

I dont even think that's some crazy plan - if I follow the regulations already the cable companies are supposed to aggregate their equipment costs in a basket anyhow and then divide that up evenly. So this is exactly basically how it WILL work if the ban holds up.

Now if you want to debate if it's worth it to charge the early adopting high end subs an extra dollar a month per advanced box to force a change in the techology of the whole system then I'm not sure I could have much to say. Personally I think it would be worth it and I'd be willing to kick in the few bucks each month. But I see how people could feel otherwise and I wouldnt' say they are wrong.

[MichaelK]

No I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that the natural monopolies should, in return for their privileged position, be held to different (higher) standards than ordinary companies. ....

And I would totally agree. And the government (at differnent levels) does just that all the time. They mandate the amount of investment in infrasturcture that utilities must spend to maintain reliable systems. They mandate the appointment windows that cable can give. They mandate when cable has to give service refunds. They mandate at what density cable must service a street. There are all kinds of rules for cable and other real or defacto monopolies.

Beyond monopolies, sometimes the government just steps in when it thinks it will serve the greater good. They forced the cell phone companies to add location ability for 911 calls to their handsets and networks. They wont let the cell phone compnaies shut off their costly duplicative analog networks when they want becasue the government doesn't think it's in the best interests of the public.

All that said though, I'm not sure what the big cost to cable is . The cable companies are supposed to pass on their equipment costs to the consumer. If I read the regulations and law correctly they may not make unreasonable profits on equipment and they aren't even allowed to subsidize it. Essentially they are to break even on equipment. So adding CC slots to the STB's will cost cable not a single dime out of pocket. They probably need to train their people and set up back end systems to handle CC's but since they have been mandated to have CC support for some time now that's mostly a sunk cost.

So there's not a major out of pocket that I see that hasn't already been made. Why not move forward as intended?

You can make an argument that adding a dollar a month to the cost of advanced boxes will be a competitive disadvantage. (And I think the law allows cable to claim an exemption if they have "effective competition"). But apparently the telco's need to follow the regs too. So that only gives an advantage to DBS. But if cable played it's cards right and cooperated to come up with the real end game then in short time all but the very bottom end TV's, VCR's, DVR's, DVD-R,s would all come "cable ready" it would be a significant advantage to cable compared to DBS if such a thing ever was to occur. And by the time you get to that point the CC component costs are so small that there wouldn't even be a significant cost disadvantage to offset the huge advantage of convenience that being cable ready would give.

[winpitt]

dt_dc who knows a hell of a lot more then you or I about the issue posted above with several soureces that peg the incremental cost to added cable card at perhaps as low as $70 a box just a few posts above.

Assuming a 3 year life for the boxes- would get you to around $2 extra a month per box. But as i have said above (and I belvie the regulation allows) I wouldn't force them to throw out all their deployed boxes to date- just add the CC slot to the new ADVANCED boxes. By doing that you can add a buck a month to ALL the ADVANCED boxes deployed, new or old, and easily cover the new cablecard models. By applying the buck to all subs (and I'm not sure they would be permitted otherwise under the current systems) they would easily cover the cost of new cablecard equipment untill they get to the point that they double their current non-CC advanced box deployemnt. I'd guess the current cable deployed HD and DVR numbers are into the low millions for sure. So adding a buck a box would get a few million CC boxes deployed.

Hopefully once a few million CC boxes are deployed then the price for the componenets drops a bit and the incremental cost is much less then $70 per box.

There is essentially no cost for the STB to the cable company so I dont know why you think they would get damaged. They would make back any additonal capital outlay fees in the increased costs just as the law /regulations allow/stipulate.

I dont even think that's some crazy plan - if I follow the regulations already the cable companies are supposed to aggregate their equipment costs in a basket anyhow and then divide that up evenly. So this is exactly basically how it WILL work if the ban holds up.

Now if you want to debate if it's worth it to charge the early adopting high end subs an extra dollar a month per advanced box to force a change in the techology of the whole system then I'm not sure I could have much to say. Personally I think it would be worth it and I'd be willing to kick in the few bucks each month. But I see how people could feel otherwise and I wouldnt' say they are wrong.

You've got errors all over the place here.

First of all, you (as well as a number of others) continue to blatantly ignore the SERVICE, SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE costs associated with multiple systems. If as in your post you indicate that it wouldn't be a "big bang" then that is exactly what would happen. And of course you're right that it could not be a "big bang" total replacement. Can't happen. You fail to acknowledge the differences in existing and new technology requiring multiple support processes, code versions, duplicate hardware, etc. Is it impossible? Of course not! Is it more expensive? Absolutely with no question whatsoever.

Second, you take the absolute lowest estimate for hardware PURCHASE costs as your variable for depreciation or cost allocation. Again - a mistake. "Maybe" it will be that low. Likely it will be higher. If you're going to use DT_DC's post, use the whole post and not just the very lowest number so it makes your argument look better.

Third, you are again mistaken on how providers cover costs. They are "permitted" by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to allocate those costs directly to subscribers. Unfortunately for them, they ARE in a competitive landscape and must compete with DBS (and FiOS).

Fourth, there is absolutely cost for the STBs. I have no idea where you get this notion.

Fifth, none of this even gets to the heart of this, which is 3rd party hardware using CC on MSO networks. You do not in any way reference the costs associated with this. As mentioned in previous posts, there are most certainly costs associated with that. As an example, I have still not received the firmware update for my Toshiba 46HM94 which will allow CC to work properly. It will require yet another truck roll - assuming the FW is correct - from Toshiba - who the MSO has no control over. Please don't even get into the CableLabs certification. The device only needs to be certified ONCE. After that, any firmware update is not certified by them.

[winpitt]

And I would totally agree. And the government (at differnent levels) does just that all the time. They mandate the amount of investment in infrasturcture that utilities must spend to maintain reliable systems. They mandate the appointment windows that cable can give. They mandate when cable has to give service refunds. They mandate at what density cable must service a street. There are all kinds of rules for cable and other real or defacto monopolies.

Beyond monopolies, sometimes the government just steps in when it thinks it will serve the greater good. They forced the cell phone companies to add location ability for 911 calls to their handsets and networks. They wont let the cell phone compnaies shut off their costly duplicative analog networks when they want becasue the government doesn't think it's in the best interests of the public.

All that said though, I'm not sure what the big cost to cable is . The cable companies are supposed to pass on their equipment costs to the consumer. If I read the regulations and law correctly they may not make unreasonable profits on equipment and they aren't even allowed to subsidize it. Essentially they are to break even on equipment. So adding CC slots to the STB's will cost cable not a single dime out of pocket. They probably need to train their people and set up back end systems to handle CC's but since they have been mandated to have CC support for some time now that's mostly a sunk cost.

So there's not a major out of pocket that I see that hasn't already been made. Why not move forward as intended?

You can make an argument that adding a dollar a month to the cost of advanced boxes will be a competitive disadvantage. (And I think the law allows cable to claim an exemption if they have "effective competition"). But apparently the telco's need to follow the regs too. So that only gives an advantage to DBS. But if cable played it's cards right and cooperated to come up with the real end game then in short time all but the very bottom end TV's, VCR's, DVR's, DVD-R,s would all come "cable ready" it would be a significant advantage to cable compared to DBS if such a thing ever was to occur. And by the time you get to that point the CC component costs are so small that there wouldn't even be a significant cost disadvantage to offset the huge advantage of convenience that being cable ready would give.

Actually you are quite incorrect in a number of statements above. I'll point out a few....

1) CableCos have NO mandate on cable density per street. Does not exist. Period. As a matter of fact, any proposed legislation which would move to state or federal franchise agreements totally eliminates ANY requirement for cable density or coverage - period.

2) For services related to SAFETY or BASIC SERVICES (ie, not entertainment) the government has in fact stepped in. If you want to make the argument that Cable TV is a "safety" or "basic" service, you have a tough road ahead of you. Such arguments do not apply. All that about cell phones and telecom, 911, is safety related. Just like air bags and seat belts. Not like HBO.

3) Service and support a "sunk" cost? Are you kidding?

4) Not allowed to "subsidize"? Also patently incorrect. They are "allowed" but not "required" to pass along costs. When the BUD turned into Dish and DTV, margins began to narrow. They can no longer pass along all costs of improvement - and they have not.

This thread has made me curious about something. No disrespect intended, but how many here have actually read the Telecommunications Act? I'm getting the impression that there are a lot of people operating under assumptions based on what they heard from somebody else.

[winpitt]

BTW, just an aside here since I know that people here will strongly disagree with my posts above. I just want to clarify something.

I'm most certainly not a big supporter of cableco's at all. I'm strongly opposed to changes in the legislation which would reduce requirements to Cablecos and telecom providers in delivering entertainment. That's because the effects will likely have a negative effect on reasonable services for a broad cross-section of the US. It could either delay or deny general services for many people.

On the other hand, I try to be fair and I don't believe honestly that there's a good business or legal case for imposing the integration ban whatsoever without some sort of compensation for the cableco's - and not by consumers. That same broad cross-section has demonstrated already that they really don't give a hoot about CC and (though this is just my opinion) they would not be excited about paying for something that they'll likely not use. There IS competition - in the form of DBS (though certainly not for everybody, it's big enough that it's most certainly direct competition that impacts SAC, EPS and Revenue for the MSOs). That's not even including FiOS. People here who are either ignoring or downplaying the support costs of implementing and then maintaining two systems are obviously unfamiliar with the basic concepts of Enterprise Technology. Not an insult - just an observation. Nobody with any real experience in this area in a very large enterprise could possibly ignore this. I'll chalk it up to a lack of experience.

Yes, the FCC/Government created the ban. Yet, they've yet to enforce it. And the only people even remotely interested in doing so are TiVo - and us. Even SA and Moto - who by EVERYONE's admission would theoretically profit by it, are not interested. The general public sure isn't. TV manufacturers aren't.

Is it just possible that the folks here who are so strongly in favor of enforcing the ban are quite a bit biased? Just asking - not insulting.

[ZeoTiVo]

I'm most certainly not a big supporter of cableco's at all. I'm strongly opposed to changes in the legislation which would reduce requirements to Cablecos and telecom providers in delivering entertainment. I get the impression of a very strong bias on your part leaning toward what is better for cable companies. I also wonder why you have lasted so long in posting and replying here. Someone who just felt strongly on a topic but with no other motivation would most likely not keep the debtae going so long. I have kept some threads alive myself past the useful information stage but I doubt I would go this far with it. So what motivates you to keep posting in thios thread?
Is it just possible that the folks here who are so strongly in favor of enforcing the ban are quite a bit biased? Just asking - not insulting.
Yes, certainly a pro-TiVo bias present that wants to see them get fair access to the cable stram we paid for so we can choose what to use to legally and fairly make the best use of the entertainment streamed in. So some have that pro-TiVo bias to keep them going and still I wonder what motivates you to keep posting.

[Stormspace]

Yes, certainly a pro-TiVo bias present that wants to see them get fair access to the cable stram we paid for so we can choose what to use to legally and fairly make the best use of the entertainment streamed in. So some have that pro-TiVo bias to keep them going and still I wonder what motivates you to keep posting.

I guess I'm in the minority. :) I don't like being locked out of features on TV's that may be better than those offered by the STB. I also really like the idea of a cable ready set and always have. Historically cable ready sets have sold better than non cable ready sets, just in this case the addition of a Cable Card introduces a bit of uncertainty into the equation since it hasn't gotten a lot of press from the mainstream media like the cable ready sets in the past did.

[winpitt]

I get the impression of a very strong bias on your part leaning toward what is better for cable companies. I also wonder why you have lasted so long in posting and replying here. Someone who just felt strongly on a topic but with no other motivation would most likely not keep the debtae going so long. I have kept some threads alive myself past the useful information stage but I doubt I would go this far with it. So what motivates you to keep posting in thios thread?

Yes, certainly a pro-TiVo bias present that wants to see them get fair access to the cable stram we paid for so we can choose what to use to legally and fairly make the best use of the entertainment streamed in. So some have that pro-TiVo bias to keep them going and still I wonder what motivates you to keep posting.

Well, I'd like to clear one thing up. I have no bias toward cable companies - and frankly if anything am biased against them. In fact, depending on the outcome of my current CC testing in my Toshiba DLP, I will either try an S3 or move to DirecTV. I agreed to serve on our Franchise Authority specifically because I DON'T care much for the MSOs, and wanted to at least participate in trying to oversee the quality process. Adelphia/Comcast would most certainly concur that I'm not biased toward them :) I would further take exception to some extent about the description of "fair access" and what "we paid for". We (the consumer) did NOT pay for all the investment in cable infrastucture. No more than we paid for the trucks delivering your local newspapers, or the cellular towers providing cell phone connectivity. Private Business paid for it.

I also am biased toward wanting CC to work, and most certainly wanting TiVo and the S3 to be successful. I'm frankly not encouraged that TiVo has a long term viable business case on the hardware side, and see them as really needing to aggressively focus on the software/service side.

More the the point, I try not to be hypocritical and would prefer to separate what "I want" from what is rational or beneficial to the general consumer. Please note that I've never slammed CC as a technology, nor have I ever said I don't want it to be successful. I've just tried to show that this isn't some sort of easy slam dunk.

What motivates me is the discussion and education of people. I've learned here some of the specific issues around CC, as well as potential issues found with the general product line. I've also "heard" what people feed that the TiVo strategy is - though I admit it's nothing more than hearsay. it's also to try and discuss the possibility that if the FCC forces what we want, it could very easily result in something that the general public would be very ticked off at.

In other words, if only one side of a discussion is presented, it's a pretty lopsided, irrational and inaccurate discussion.

[dt_dc]

So ... something like ...

DCT-700: $80

vs.

DCH-100: $100 + $60 for CableCard = $160Another data point on prices ...

RCN says that the DCT-700 casts them $84 and the new DCT-100 will cost them $232:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518539072

My estimates above were a bit of an amalgamation ...

You can go here:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

And search for Proceeding 97-80 for lots of other (widely varying) estimates.

Another interesting quote from the filing above:
RCN understands that our larger competitors are ordering millions of the DCT-700 low end boxes for deployment prior to the banNot surprising, of course, but anyway.

[ZeoTiVo]

I would further take exception to some extent about the description of "fair access" and what "we paid for". We (the consumer) did NOT pay for all the investment in cable infrastucture. No more than we paid for the trucks delivering your local newspapers, or the cellular towers providing cell phone connectivity. Private Business paid for it. well I would tweak that furtehr and say that private business invested in that to make a profit off the customer. So as a customer I pay for the cable entertainmnet coming into my house. The cable company gets access granted from a franchise agreement to provide me service so we had some order to the cable build out.

so given that I can not choose among TWC, Comcast or Cox or whomever based on their services I instead would like to be able to pick the DVR I use rather than just have to accept what the cable company gives me. Sat. providers have made the cable companies compete better on services but for me that is not enough.

and yes I also do not care if it is Cable Card that lets me do that - but that is what everyone is working with adn until the cable companies are told they have to do the same of course they are going to balk and having to do anything extra. And of course the average consumer is not going to think much about 3rd party access, DVRs are barely making inroads as it is. It is the age old busines problem of until the market is actually there it is hard to explain the market.

I see a day though when all kinds of services can be had via the living room entertainment system. VOD and what TiVo is doing and what Apple is doing with the mini are just the pale beginings. One thing I know for sure is I do not want to rely on the monopoly of one provider (cable or Sat. companies) having the upper hand all to themselves.

[winpitt]

well I would tweak that furtehr and say that private business invested in that to make a profit off the customer. So as a customer I pay for the cable entertainmnet coming into my house. The cable company gets access granted from a franchise agreement to provide me service so we had some order to the cable build out.

so given that I can not choose among TWC, Comcast or Cox or whomever based on their services I instead would like to be able to pick the DVR I use rather than just have to accept what the cable company gives me. Sat. providers have made the cable companies compete better on services but for me that is not enough.

and yes I also do not care if it is Cable Card that lets me do that - but that is what everyone is working with adn until the cable companies are told they have to do the same of course they are going to balk and having to do anything extra. And of course the average consumer is not going to think much about 3rd party access, DVRs are barely making inroads as it is. It is the age old busines problem of until the market is actually there it is hard to explain the market.

I see a day though when all kinds of services can be had via the living room entertainment system. VOD and what TiVo is doing and what Apple is doing with the mini are just the pale beginings. One thing I know for sure is I do not want to rely on the monopoly of one provider (cable or Sat. companies) having the upper hand all to themselves.

Some agreement here - except in large part that "DVRs are barely making inroads as it is". Not true whatsoever. DVR service is one of the largest growth markets in both DBS and cable markets.

What's more important, however, is the phrase "what I do not want", "for me that is not enough" and "I instead would like to...". I don't disagree with what you'd like or not want at all. I share those same viewpoints. What I don't agree with is that we should force a business to a) Invest significantly, b) with no expectation of any return on investment, for c) something that the average consumer doesn't care about - or frankly would likely disagree that we should demand if it's going to increase costs.

In other words - for you and I those desires are fine, but I cannot at all see that we have any right to demand (via our government) that we get it. Franchise Agreements are non-exclusive. So long as those Franchise Agreements are not moved to a state or federal level, other competitors (such as Verizon FiOS) will also build out in each area. Then there would be actual competition above and beyond what exists as a result of DBS at the moment. If at that point there is demand for the product, capitalistic competition will drive it into the market. To force this issue legally is a slippery slope and it appears that not even the FCC has any appetite for this one. Consumers sure don't.

You do pay for deliver of cable. You also pay for delivery of your newspaper. Do you believe you have a right to demand how it's delivered, making it mandated by law? How about package delivery, such as UPS, DHL or Fedex? Do you think you have the right to mandate that? Comparisons to telephone service, electricity or water do not apply. Cable service is not essential to daily life. Nobody will die (most likely :) ) as a result of not getting their cable.

One other minor point I should probably mention. Has anyone actually looked at the EPS and revenue numbers for the providers? Sure doesn't look like a cash cow to me.

[MichaelK]

You've got errors all over the place here.

First of all, you (as well as a number of others) continue to blatantly ignore the SERVICE, SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE costs associated with multiple systems. If as in your post you indicate that it wouldn't be a "big bang" then that is exactly what would happen. And of course you're right that it could not be a "big bang" total replacement. Can't happen. You fail to acknowledge the differences in existing and new technology requiring multiple support processes, code versions, duplicate hardware, etc. Is it impossible? Of course not! Is it more expensive? Absolutely with no question whatsoever.

...
.

I totally disagree with you. I believe it is you with teh error here. I guess that's how it is- we just disagree. You thinkg it's so huge major NEW undertaking and I think they aleady are basically there MOSTLY just need to get new equipment (there will be other costs I'm sure but I dont think they are major as you seem to believe. They already SERVICE AND SUPPROT AND MAINTAIN (i can yell too-LOL) cablecards they've done so for a while no since they have been required to for some time. So they already need to know how to do it and have to have their headend upgraded to handle it.






...

...
Second, you take the absolute lowest estimate for hardware PURCHASE costs as your variable for depreciation or cost allocation. Again - a mistake. "Maybe" it will be that low. Likely it will be higher. If you're going to use DT_DC's post, use the whole post and not just the very lowest number so it makes your argument look better.

...



no quibble there- feel free to quote the whole post from the big guy. I chose my words carefully (went back and edited to be clear like 5 minutes after i first posted and said "perhaps as low as" Like anything else if you were arguing against it you would be sure to use the HIGHEST number you could find to support your position that it's a waste of money. I think the fact that at least one of them has said the cost would be AS LOW AS $70 means that that is an easily achievable price and where the TOP end would likely be in the real world. We have no idea what the real proces are, but I can assure you that no cabel compnay put in the best case pricing in their filings. Once comcast puts in the order for a million CC DVR's then I'm sure the pricing will drop for them. Also, like everythign else I think the price will quickly drop as they become main stream- once MILLIONS and MILLIONS of devices are deployed the economies of scale kick in and the price will only drop.





...

Third, you are again mistaken on how providers cover costs. They are "permitted" by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to allocate those costs directly to subscribers. Unfortunately for them, they ARE in a competitive landscape and must compete with DBS (and FiOS).

....

If I'm wrong I would really like to know with the facts. As I said above I'd like to learn what the real world situation is. Maybe you could ask the lawyer for your franchise board to exaplin it in english and post back here exactly what the deal it. But the way I read the law is they MAY NOT SUBSIDIZE the cost of hardware with other revenues.

Also, I said that the real world is adding a dollar to people's bills to cover it makes them less competitvie with DBS (but not FIOS since VZ is apparently playing by the cabelcard rules too) . Hoever if you kept reading I said that I think it is there best interest to be a little less competitive now (or discoutn their programming costs by that buck) so that they can cokmpletely get a huige competetive advantage over DBS in the future. HAving most every TV, VCR, DVR, DVD-R, etc come of the line with the hardware already in it for cable. That's a huge competitive advantage in my mind.





..
...
Fourth, there is absolutely cost for the STBs. I have no idea where you get this notion.
..
.

Of couse STBs' have a cost- I'm not sure what point you are tryign here. I never intended to say STB's are free






..


Fifth, none of this even gets to the heart of this, which is 3rd party hardware using CC on MSO networks. You do not in any way reference the costs associated with this. As mentioned in previous posts, there are most certainly costs associated with that. As an example, I have still not received the firmware update for my Toshiba 46HM94 which will allow CC to work properly. It will require yet another truck roll - assuming the FW is correct - from Toshiba - who the MSO has no control over. Please don't even get into the CableLabs certification. The device only needs to be certified ONCE. After that, any firmware update is not certified by them.

That's a very valid point- now I am seeing where you are going (I think?)- your beef is that cablecard is bad and should never have been done. But the reality is the system is in place now and they have all these third party problems already. That argument should have been made 3 or 4 years agao.

THe FCC filings above are about if the integration ban should hold- should cable start buying their own CC boxes. That's what my post was about- how much cost will goign ahead with the integration ban actually cost to cable compared to sitting with the status quo now. They already have the systems in place to deal with CC- so it's basically a matter if they replace the handfull of models they have now without CC and if they add CC to those few models.

Are you arguing that none of that matters and that we should kill off cablecard entirely even though it's already out there? I'm not totally following you.

[ZeoTiVo]

What's more important, however, is the phrase "what I do not want", "for me that is not enough" and "I instead would like to...". I don't disagree with what you'd like or not want at all. I share those same viewpoints. What I don't agree with is that we should force a business to a) Invest significantly, b) with no expectation of any return on investment, for c) something that the average consumer doesn't care about - or frankly would likely disagree that we should demand if it's going to increase costs. the act of the matter as others have siad is that Cable cards are here adn in place. The major MSOs have to be able to provide, provision and support a cable card if the customer asks for one. Also you ignore the other side of having cable cards everywhere. If the TV set manufacturers knew for a fact that having a cable card slot meant they had a digital cable ready set - much like a "cable" ready set of today adn that the these cable cards were in widespread use - I bet we would watch the cable companies go all digital far ahead of any schedule without such a simple device. Loosing the analog bandwidth would be a boon for everyone, consumers and MSOs and 3rd parties alike.

my comment on DVRs niot amking much inroad yet - was more aligned to the consumers mindset - yes DVRs are a growth item for MSOs but I can name on one hand the people O know with a DVR currently. Many consumers have that mindset of "just a bigger VCR. I dont use a VCR, don't need to pay for a DVR." Now a cable card is not enabling specific added features to the user so I get your point on many consumers say why am I paying more, but at the end of the day your argument looses steam around the simple fact that today, currently I can call my Cable Company and get a cable card for my TV or a S3. They already are in service adn the integration ban is really just about making sure enough get in use to drive down costs and let 3 rd parties - and specifically TV makers feel comfortable having cable card as the way to hook up the TV with no more hassle than used no to hook the coax to the TV for the first 99 channels.

CC cost is already being dealt with by the MSOs.

[MichaelK]

Actually you are quite incorrect in a number of statements above. I'll point out a few....

1) CableCos have NO mandate on cable density per street. Does not exist. Period. As a matter of fact, any proposed legislation which would move to state or federal franchise agreements totally eliminates ANY requirement for cable density or coverage - period.
....

I belive again that you are incorrect. There are several levels of government in the US. I didn't limit what I said to the federal level.

Are you really on the franchise board in your town- or was that a joke earlier? That's a government entity-no? Does your towns franchise agreement not stipulate coverage levels for cable? Maybe all towns don't but mine sure does. Also here in NJ they just recently passed statewide franchises and the all the proposed State laws were chock full of build out requirements- if someone decides to get a statewide franchise there are certain build out benchmarks they must reach. I honestly have not read the final version that was signed into law but I'd be plenty surprised if there was none. Even if they removed all traces they were certainly debating adding them. So it's impossible to say that no place are their built out requirements. It would just be untrue.


..
2) For services related to SAFETY or BASIC SERVICES (ie, not entertainment) the government has in fact stepped in. If you want to make the argument that Cable TV is a "safety" or "basic" service, you have a tough road ahead of you. Such arguments do not apply. All that about cell phones and telecom, 911, is safety related. Just like air bags and seat belts. Not like HBO.
....

I personally wouldn't argue that cable is a safety or basic service myself but the fact that cable IS regulated by the government at many levels shows that some people think it is somethign of a necessity. Frankly if they want to charge $300 a month for my locals it's up to me to decide if I want to pay, If they dont want to service me then I can get DBS, if I dont like that they cant give me a 4 hour service window then I can go elsewhere. But all those things are regulated (at least in some jurisdictions)

..
...
3) Service and support a "sunk" cost? Are you kidding?

... .

Sorry I wasn't clear. There sure are service and support costs for cablecard just like there are for proprietary cable boxes. I dont think supporting 5 versions of proprietary boxes should cost any more then supporting 5 versions of CC boxes. There are initial start up costs to implement the systems and training to handle CC's but those costs are already sunk TODAY. The cable companies have been forced to support cablecards for some time now.

(But I would certainly agree with your point above that supporting 500 CE devices costs more then 5 proprietary STB's- but that ship has sailed- they already have to support anything that gets cablelabs approved like it or not by the current regulations)


..
...

4) Not allowed to "subsidize"? Also patently incorrect. They are "allowed" but not "required" to pass along costs. When the BUD turned into Dish and DTV, margins began to narrow. They can no longer pass along all costs of improvement - and they have not.

This thread has made me curious about something. No disrespect intended, but how many here have actually read the Telecommunications Act? I'm getting the impression that there are a lot of people operating under assumptions based on what they heard from somebody else.

The rules about subsidizing are a little fuzzy to me- so you may be correct- but could you please explain to me how:

47CFR76.923 which is the rules for what they can charge for equipment that is used to get basic (even if other channels are also purchased) talks about promotional pricing for equipment and how it may not be abused to move the cost of equipment from one group top another.

But more specifically the 1996 cable act says that the FCC shall assure that converter boxes should be commerically available to consumers and that
such regulations shall not prohibit any MVPD from also offering converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services over multichannel video programming systesm, to consumers, if the the suystems operator's charges to consumers, for such devices are separately stated and not subsidized by the charges for any such service

as found on page 85 of the acrobat version available here:
http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

So doesn't the law say that there needs to be devices we can all buy (what has come to be cable card host devices) but that cable can also rent their own devices but that they may not subsidize the cost of those boxes with any service revenues?

Is that NOT what that is saying? Was there a ruling or something that overturned that section of the 1996 law. I'm looking for help understanding- not picking a brawl.


Considering the telecommunications act of 1996 is 128 pages and the updated communications act is 320 pages with the 1992, and 1996 revisions included there's a lot to read. I think there's only about 20-30 pages dealing with cable in the 1996 law but the problem is there are likely many many many multiples of that in enabling regulations and rulings, I'm thinking most people even if they had read it all would have difficulty remembering it all unless they dealt with it every day in the course of their profession. Have you read all of 49CFR76 yourself? I'd guess there's 1 to 3 THOUSAND pages right there. IF so do you really remember it all? Again as yourself not looking to insult or start i fight- I'm curious if anyone that's not a lawyer can really keep up with it all. Myself I deal with OSHA and EPA regulations daily for work- I have a grasp of basically all the regulations those agencies have but to be honest there is very little i can spit out of the top of my head- I know exactly where to get th einfo in a matter of minutes or ever seconds but it's tought to memorize it all. So I'm farily well versed at searching CFR's and interpreting them- but as I've posted many times before the FCC ones just really seem to be tough for me to search and find the real bit I need.

[MichaelK]

BTW, just an aside here since I know that people here will strongly disagree with my posts above. I just want to clarify something.

I'm most certainly not a big supporter of cableco's at all. I'm strongly opposed to changes in the legislation which would reduce requirements to Cablecos and telecom providers in delivering entertainment. That's because the effects will likely have a negative effect on reasonable services for a broad cross-section of the US. It could either delay or deny general services for many people.

On the other hand, I try to be fair and I don't believe honestly that there's a good business or legal case for imposing the integration ban whatsoever without some sort of compensation for the cableco's - and not by consumers. That same broad cross-section has demonstrated already that they really don't give a hoot about CC and (though this is just my opinion) they would not be excited about paying for something that they'll likely not use. There IS competition - in the form of DBS (though certainly not for everybody, it's big enough that it's most certainly direct competition that impacts SAC, EPS and Revenue for the MSOs). That's not even including FiOS. People here who are either ignoring or downplaying the support costs of implementing and then maintaining two systems are obviously unfamiliar with the basic concepts of Enterprise Technology. Not an insult - just an observation. Nobody with any real experience in this area in a very large enterprise could possibly ignore this. I'll chalk it up to a lack of experience.

Yes, the FCC/Government created the ban. Yet, they've yet to enforce it. And the only people even remotely interested in doing so are TiVo - and us. Even SA and Moto - who by EVERYONE's admission would theoretically profit by it, are not interested. The general public sure isn't. TV manufacturers aren't.

Is it just possible that the folks here who are so strongly in favor of enforcing the ban are quite a bit biased? Just asking - not insulting.

I'm no cable company basher- I just disagree with some of your opinions.

I dont think it will cost significantly more (your point about delaing with hundreds or thousands of devices as opposed to 5 in house models is WELL taken- that's somethign of an issue for sure) to maintain a cablcard centric system anymore then maintianing a proprietary one. There is no reason to do both- ditch the proprietary system. I think it was short sited of cable to even set up the proprietary DIGITAL systems. THose in the know have said the cabelcard stuff has roots even before 1996. The law in 1996 just made it a fact that they better do it. So why did cable spend millions and millions over hte past 10 years implementing systems that are proprietary?

Also, I stongly disagree theat the CE companies are disenterested. If anything they have much much much more to gain then SA and Moto. STB's can be made by anyone now, not just those 2 duopolists.

[MichaelK]

... What I don't agree with is that we should force a business to a) Invest significantly, b) with no expectation of any return on investment, for c) something that the average consumer doesn't care about - or frankly would likely disagree that we should demand if it's going to increase costs....


and I guess there's the 2 issues.

Some of us thing that it would be better for consumers (even if people aren't currently aware).

And some have no problem asking a compnay with limited competition that is given a franchise to give something back in exchange.

By your logic what right do towns have to ask for public access channels? it costs the cabel compnay something with no return and the average comsumer doesn't care for it and would probably want them removed if they realized it was adding costs. The precedent is there that if the government thinks it's best then they can ask for it from cable

[MichaelK]

Actually you are quite incorrect in a number of statements above. I'll point out a few....

1) CableCos have NO mandate on cable density per street. Does not exist. Period. As a matter of fact, any proposed legislation which would move to state or federal franchise agreements totally eliminates ANY requirement for cable density or coverage - period.
....


as I posted above- I'm sure many towns absolutely have build out mandates for specific densities per street in their current franchise agreements.

I had read that all the proposed versions of the statewide law in NJ had different build out mandates but hadn't seen what the final version was- your aboslute statement above piqued my interest and got me to bother to find exactly what the law said that was passed in NJ.

I found that there are in fact a handful of build out requirements in the NJ statewide law.

There are 2 rules about which towns must be covered by a telco and when:

1) They must provide service to every county seat within 3 years of the start of their statewide franchise.

2) Within 3 years of gettign a statewide franchise they must provide service to every municipality with a density of more than 7,111 persons per square mile.

Once anyone begins offering service in a municipality under statewide franchises there are 2 rules that apply to the entire municipality:

a) They must offer service to any house or business within 150 feet of their EXISTING plant by aerial means or within 100 feet of their existing plant by underground means in any town they service.

b) The law also sets a minimum coverage density of 35 homes per square mile in any municipality that is served.

You can find the text of the bill here:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/AL06/83_.HTM

If I have time and the inclination I'll see if I cant dig up the Texas statewide law.

But as I think about it- it would be totally moronic and reckless to propose statewide or federal franchises without some protection against redlining. If you pass a statewide franchise without any build out restrictions then there's nothing to stop the phone compnay from coming in and picking the densist streets in the wealthiest towns and ignoring everyone else.

I need to read the whole law over again to see for myself but I have read several newspaper articles that stated the cable companies here can also abandon their current plethora of municiple franchises and get a statewide one to replace them all. Again, without any buildout rules like A&B above theres nothing to stop comcast from abandoning the 'poor side of the tracks' in any one town and deciding only to service the more affluent and profitable areas.

So I guess again certain statements of absolute facts are a little off..


edit:- I cant find the TX law right yet, but i discoverd that CA just passed a statewide franchise bill too. Just reviewed if quickly but looks like they DONT have subs/mile restictions. They go about stoppign redlining totally differnently then NJ. THe CA approach mandates percentages of footprint buildout for telco's. 25-35% coverage in 2 years, 40-50% coverage in 5 years. To keep them from cherry picking only rich towns to make up those percentages they have to also agree that of the homes they cover at 2 years 25% have to be low income and at 5 years 30% have to be low income- i just scanned it but it looks like there are no provisions to help the rural cusomters though. So looks like there rare other ways to prevent redlining but they may not help the less populated areas get service.

[MichaelK]

...

You can go here:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

And search for Proceeding 97-80 for lots of other (widely varying) estimates.
.

thanks for that link-

I've been trying the regular FCC search page and I can never find what I want. The link you provided is way better.

[MichaelK]

found this link from the search page dt_dc's great search link:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518523135

it's a letter from Americans for Prosperity, The institute for Liberty, REASON, AMericans for Tax reform, Citizens against government waste, & the NAtional Taxpayers union. AS one would expect, these groups have similar feelings to some in this thread that the government shouldn't mandate anything that will cost consumers something more without much benefit and as such they support waivers for the integration ban.

THeir estimate pins the cost of cable deploying STB's with CC is $2 a month. Seems in the ballpark of what I figured above- $2 more per box, but since all boxes wont have CC's immediately it would equal a buck a box until the point when CC STB's begin to outnumber the non-CC STB's. So estimates of $1-2 a month per box seem reasonable.

With those numbers, I too would give the waivers for non-HD, non-DVR boxes. But I MYSELF feel that that's a fair price to impose on the more affluent people ordering the advanced boxes so that everyone's costs can come down in the future. If others have differing opinions if that's fari, right, acceptable, whatever- that's fine. Just sharing my opinion. But I do think it's important to have some realisitc numbers so peopel can make their own informed opnions- and it seems like a buck or 2 a month is a decent ballpark number.

BTW- Tivo used their comments to question all the cable estimates as being high and baseless- made me chuckle. One of the NCTA's comments jsut reinforced my opinion that anything higher then $70 or $80 a box is BS- they point out how their standards have made cablemodems only $50 a retail. If you can make a whole cable modem and sell if for $50 at retail it makes me think the 2 duopoly equipment providers selling boxes in million unit wholesale orders can figure out how to make a cablecard slot and card for something around there.

I'm like half way through the first 100 comments and there are some interesting points in this whole mess. THere's a lot of comments about OCAP, and 2-way, and just a bunch nasty comments about Cablelabs, Cablecards, and OCAP restrictions. (NCTA responds that non of that matters in regard to these waivers- and they strictly are correct ) But all the comments makes it even more clear to me that this whole mess is a lot bigger then the current integration ban and one way cablecards and the current picture. Maybe the FCC should ditch the ban and come up with a ironclad end game for where things should be in a couple years so that all these interim things can go away and we can get to one system that works for all the parties involved. Problem is the FCC is so darned passive that doesnt seem likely...

[MichaelK]

league of rural voters estimates $2-$3 a box monthly:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518523120

[MichaelK]

black leadership forum (and also the antitax groups above) peg the annual cost at $600 million.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518523112


devide by 12 months is 50 million a month. Divided by like 60-65 million cable subs comes to less then a buck a month A SUB (not a box )- so again someplace in the 1-2 dollar a month per box is reasonable estimate even by the standards of the people opposed to it.

edit:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518523114

Hispanic federation- also opposed is quoting the 600 million annual cost with $2-3 a month per box.

[MichaelK]

my favorite quote so far from verizon:

NCTA's rading of the statute ... leads to absurd results...

too much fun.

Some intesting comments for OCAP- before picking through these comments, I was under the impression that OCAP as presently constituted was stupid- it made no sense to me that anyone would want to download cable's crappy guide or DVR software to their STB or TV. I'd think it makes much more sense to make somethign like a hook or interface for the STB or TV maker to get the guide databased from the cable company and then use the data in their own UI. But some of the comments got me to thinking- being able to download the cableco's software is a good idea for low end tv's - people could buy 13inch, 19 inch , whatever cheapo tv's that will download the cable company's software. THe people will get an IPG or whatever but the crappy TV maker doesn't need to spend a dime on programming a UI- once they figure out an OCAP interface or whatever they just drop that in all their models and away they go with cheap tv's that connect directly to the cable coming out of the wall without any STB needed for high end services.

I dont think i should only be limited to the cable companies offering- 3rd parties should be able to access to the data or whatnot, but it does make a lot of sense for the cable compnay to download thier junk for low end tv's.

[MichaelK]

from the ncta webpage with integration ban FAQ's (found here:

http://www.ncta.com/IssueBrief.aspx?contentId=3553&view=3) :



Is there a cost associated with implementing the integration ban?

Yes. Consumers will suffer an estimated $600 million per year in additional costs if the integration ban is maintained. Based on FCC filings, the price for set-top boxes will jump $72-$93 per box, which translates into a $2-$3 per box per month charge at FCC-regulated rates. By contrast, filings at the FCC show that some integrated digital cable boxes can cost as little as $70-$80, meaning a CableCARD and associated interface can cost more than an entire cable box.


later on they figure 8 million STB's a year which puts the cost at $75/box (addtional).

consider the source...

[MichaelK]

one really good point the CEA makes is that the true cost to add cablecard to boxes is impossible to tell based on moto's pricing. Moto has a vested interest to highball their Cablecard pricing to make it look like their current non CC low end boxes like the DCT-700 are the best thing to do.

I think that's a very valid point- if Moto can manipulate the FCC to grant waivers by inflating their pricing then moto gets a huge windfall be bineg able to continue to sell their proprietary STB's. If the cableco's are forced to buy boxes based on open systems like OCAP and CC then moto and SA aren't the only players. Human, panasonic, samsung, etc, etc all become competition..

So motorolla and SA very well might be manipulating everyone here for their own gains.


None of the motorolla comments (and there are several) talk costs. They dimply defer to everyone else's costs estimates in other filings....

Got somethign to hide?

[MichaelK]

last bit- (thanks again dt_dc for the great link)

seems NCTA filed for the waiver on 8/16.

If I recall there is a 90 day time limit on the proceedings? Is that correct (too lazy right now to troll the cfr's and look for that bit..)

so I guess we'll all know the answer to the requests in a couple weeks..

[winpitt]

as I posted above- I'm sure many towns absolutely have build out mandates for specific densities per street in their current franchise agreements.

I had read that all the proposed versions of the statewide law in NJ had different build out mandates but hadn't seen what the final version was- your aboslute statement above piqued my interest and got me to bother to find exactly what the law said that was passed in NJ.

I found that there are in fact a handful of build out requirements in the NJ statewide law.

There are 2 rules about which towns must be covered by a telco and when:

1) They must provide service to every county seat within 3 years of the start of their statewide franchise.

2) Within 3 years of gettign a statewide franchise they must provide service to every municipality with a density of more than 7,111 persons per square mile.

Once anyone begins offering service in a municipality under statewide franchises there are 2 rules that apply to the entire municipality:

a) They must offer service to any house or business within 150 feet of their EXISTING plant by aerial means or within 100 feet of their existing plant by underground means in any town they service.

b) The law also sets a minimum coverage density of 35 homes per square mile in any municipality that is served.

You can find the text of the bill here:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/AL06/83_.HTM

If I have time and the inclination I'll see if I cant dig up the Texas statewide law.

But as I think about it- it would be totally moronic and reckless to propose statewide or federal franchises without some protection against redlining. If you pass a statewide franchise without any build out restrictions then there's nothing to stop the phone compnay from coming in and picking the densist streets in the wealthiest towns and ignoring everyone else.

I need to read the whole law over again to see for myself but I have read several newspaper articles that stated the cable companies here can also abandon their current plethora of municiple franchises and get a statewide one to replace them all. Again, without any buildout rules like A&B above theres nothing to stop comcast from abandoning the 'poor side of the tracks' in any one town and deciding only to service the more affluent and profitable areas.

So I guess again certain statements of absolute facts are a little off..


edit:- I cant find the TX law right yet, but i discoverd that CA just passed a statewide franchise bill too. Just reviewed if quickly but looks like they DONT have subs/mile restictions. They go about stoppign redlining totally differnently then NJ. THe CA approach mandates percentages of footprint buildout for telco's. 25-35% coverage in 2 years, 40-50% coverage in 5 years. To keep them from cherry picking only rich towns to make up those percentages they have to also agree that of the homes they cover at 2 years 25% have to be low income and at 5 years 30% have to be low income- i just scanned it but it looks like there are no provisions to help the rural cusomters though. So looks like there rare other ways to prevent redlining but they may not help the less populated areas get service.

Look at HR5252 and SB2628. The federal legislation completely eliminates any build-out requirements. The only restriction is that (on the surface) they cannot discriminate for reasons of "affluency", or generally protected classes. It is impossible to oversee and by all admissions allows complete discretion by providers as to where/when they build out.

Even your examples of earlier legislation in your area would completely eliminate many existing customers - being retroactive to existing providers as well. 150 feet from the existing infrastructure is meaningless for a provider having no infrastructure in that area to begin with. Further, 150 feet to the actual structure is LONG way. As well as 35 homes per square mile. Supporting the county seat is frankly meaningless - especially in 3 years.

The bottom line here is that there is plenty of data to prove the following:

1) Prior to enacting build-out requirements, MANY groups of customers had no access. They were given access when Build-Out requirements forced the providers to do so.

2) All of the proposed new legislation essentially eliminates that build-out requirement. There may be some weak vestiges of it remaining, but it is nowhere near the existing requirement.

3) When providers are not forced to provide access in those areas they have not done so - consistently.

Summary: 1+2+3=new legislaton will disenfranchise a large group of customers. It will provide absolutely no additional "competition" in the market - none. Actually, if build-out requirements are maintained, you can be assured that the providers will still enter the market. Then, there would be true competition as they would be forced to compete equally.

Further, in those communities where this change has already taken place, there has been no cost reduction as a result of competition.

[winpitt]

and I guess there's the 2 issues.

Some of us thing that it would be better for consumers (even if people aren't currently aware).

And some have no problem asking a compnay with limited competition that is given a franchise to give something back in exchange.

By your logic what right do towns have to ask for public access channels? it costs the cabel compnay something with no return and the average comsumer doesn't care for it and would probably want them removed if they realized it was adding costs. The precedent is there that if the government thinks it's best then they can ask for it from cable

My logic is because those PEG channels are used for public education - not entertainment. And, they do not add to costs. For example, we (our municipality has 2 channels) pay for our own equipment and feed. It actually provides an advantage to cable over DBS.

Further, even in those areas where the franchise authority somehow gets free equipment for a channel or two, the actual cost of that is unbelieveably small. No comparison whatsoever for the (in relative terms) exponential increased cost of mandating the ban for all devices.

[winpitt]

found this link from the search page dt_dc's great search link:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518523135

it's a letter from Americans for Prosperity, The institute for Liberty, REASON, AMericans for Tax reform, Citizens against government waste, & the NAtional Taxpayers union. AS one would expect, these groups have similar feelings to some in this thread that the government shouldn't mandate anything that will cost consumers something more without much benefit and as such they support waivers for the integration ban.

THeir estimate pins the cost of cable deploying STB's with CC is $2 a month. Seems in the ballpark of what I figured above- $2 more per box, but since all boxes wont have CC's immediately it would equal a buck a box until the point when CC STB's begin to outnumber the non-CC STB's. So estimates of $1-2 a month per box seem reasonable.

With those numbers, I too would give the waivers for non-HD, non-DVR boxes. But I MYSELF feel that that's a fair price to impose on the more affluent people ordering the advanced boxes so that everyone's costs can come down in the future. If others have differing opinions if that's fari, right, acceptable, whatever- that's fine. Just sharing my opinion. But I do think it's important to have some realisitc numbers so peopel can make their own informed opnions- and it seems like a buck or 2 a month is a decent ballpark number.

BTW- Tivo used their comments to question all the cable estimates as being high and baseless- made me chuckle. One of the NCTA's comments jsut reinforced my opinion that anything higher then $70 or $80 a box is BS- they point out how their standards have made cablemodems only $50 a retail. If you can make a whole cable modem and sell if for $50 at retail it makes me think the 2 duopoly equipment providers selling boxes in million unit wholesale orders can figure out how to make a cablecard slot and card for something around there.

I'm like half way through the first 100 comments and there are some interesting points in this whole mess. THere's a lot of comments about OCAP, and 2-way, and just a bunch nasty comments about Cablelabs, Cablecards, and OCAP restrictions. (NCTA responds that non of that matters in regard to these waivers- and they strictly are correct ) But all the comments makes it even more clear to me that this whole mess is a lot bigger then the current integration ban and one way cablecards and the current picture. Maybe the FCC should ditch the ban and come up with a ironclad end game for where things should be in a couple years so that all these interim things can go away and we can get to one system that works for all the parties involved. Problem is the FCC is so darned passive that doesnt seem likely...

Well, I'm still saying that the cost is more than $1-2 per month because of additional support costs. In particular because of the derived additional support required to support 3rd party devices having potential quality/compliance issues (remember, I've got one of those :) ).

Beyond that, I'd say that the analogy about cable modems does not apply. Cable modems are based completely on pre-existing standards that were universally accepted well before the introduction of such devices. Specifically, that DHCP, MAC addresses, NAT, and TCP/IP were not remotely developed either by force of government will nor specifically for the purposes of an integration ban or other cable related directive. They were technologies having been deployed massively across the world well prior to cable ever getting involved. The integration ban is completely the opposite. It's essentially a virtually non-existent technology being developed for and only for the cable industry to support a very small niche market.

Beyond that I would take incredible exception to saying that the increases would only affect the more affluent people. Some folks here seem to be under a very grave misconception that the only people leasing DVRs from the cableco's are "affluent" when in fact that is not true. Specifically because of the very low incremental cost, DVRs are mainstream now for the general public - not the affluent. The S3 is certainly priced toward the affluent side of the market - which by everyone's admission here keeps it from being a direct competitor for the cableco DVRs.

[winpitt]

I belive again that you are incorrect. There are several levels of government in the US. I didn't limit what I said to the federal level.

Are you really on the franchise board in your town- or was that a joke earlier? That's a government entity-no? Does your towns franchise agreement not stipulate coverage levels for cable? Maybe all towns don't but mine sure does. Also here in NJ they just recently passed statewide franchises and the all the proposed State laws were chock full of build out requirements- if someone decides to get a statewide franchise there are certain build out benchmarks they must reach. I honestly have not read the final version that was signed into law but I'd be plenty surprised if there was none. Even if they removed all traces they were certainly debating adding them. So it's impossible to say that no place are their built out requirements. It would just be untrue.

I personally wouldn't argue that cable is a safety or basic service myself but the fact that cable IS regulated by the government at many levels shows that some people think it is somethign of a necessity. Frankly if they want to charge $300 a month for my locals it's up to me to decide if I want to pay, If they dont want to service me then I can get DBS, if I dont like that they cant give me a 4 hour service window then I can go elsewhere. But all those things are regulated (at least in some jurisdictions)

Sorry I wasn't clear. There sure are service and support costs for cablecard just like there are for proprietary cable boxes. I dont think supporting 5 versions of proprietary boxes should cost any more then supporting 5 versions of CC boxes. There are initial start up costs to implement the systems and training to handle CC's but those costs are already sunk TODAY. The cable companies have been forced to support cablecards for some time now.

(But I would certainly agree with your point above that supporting 500 CE devices costs more then 5 proprietary STB's- but that ship has sailed- they already have to support anything that gets cablelabs approved like it or not by the current regulations)

The rules about subsidizing are a little fuzzy to me- so you may be correct- but could you please explain to me how:

47CFR76.923 which is the rules for what they can charge for equipment that is used to get basic (even if other channels are also purchased) talks about promotional pricing for equipment and how it may not be abused to move the cost of equipment from one group top another.

But more specifically the 1996 cable act says that the FCC shall assure that converter boxes should be commerically available to consumers and that


as found on page 85 of the acrobat version available here:
http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

So doesn't the law say that there needs to be devices we can all buy (what has come to be cable card host devices) but that cable can also rent their own devices but that they may not subsidize the cost of those boxes with any service revenues?

Is that NOT what that is saying? Was there a ruling or something that overturned that section of the 1996 law. I'm looking for help understanding- not picking a brawl.


Considering the telecommunications act of 1996 is 128 pages and the updated communications act is 320 pages with the 1992, and 1996 revisions included there's a lot to read. I think there's only about 20-30 pages dealing with cable in the 1996 law but the problem is there are likely many many many multiples of that in enabling regulations and rulings, I'm thinking most people even if they had read it all would have difficulty remembering it all unless they dealt with it every day in the course of their profession. Have you read all of 49CFR76 yourself? I'd guess there's 1 to 3 THOUSAND pages right there. IF so do you really remember it all? Again as yourself not looking to insult or start i fight- I'm curious if anyone that's not a lawyer can really keep up with it all. Myself I deal with OSHA and EPA regulations daily for work- I have a grasp of basically all the regulations those agencies have but to be honest there is very little i can spit out of the top of my head- I know exactly where to get th einfo in a matter of minutes or ever seconds but it's tought to memorize it all. So I'm farily well versed at searching CFR's and interpreting them- but as I've posted many times before the FCC ones just really seem to be tough for me to search and find the real bit I need.

OK, a few things.

1) Yes, I am a member of our Franchise Authority. Yes, it is a non-paid local government entity. We get not a single cent of compensation of any type whatsoever. Yes, we have build-out requirements. Those build-out requirements immediately go away when our current agreement expires (they all expire and must be renewed obviously) if either State or Federal legislation is passed. If a municipality has no standing agreement at the time state or federal leglistion is passed they are immediately subject to the new law. No, in BOTH proposed federal legistions there are no provisions for Build-out requirements". None. No, the existing state-enacted franchise agreements (in other states) do not provide any real semblance of existing build-out requirements. Furthermore, such legislation (either state or federal) provides not a single penny for oversight or management of such agreements. Meaning no enforcement. Also, as for the going to DBS if costs get too high, many do not have that capability. Geographic constraints as well as legal constraints prevent DBS from being a viable option for many consumers. Certainly more do than do not, which has made DBS a viable competitor, but that doesn't mean that it will ALWAYS be an option for the general public. Additionally, DBS has no effective means to deliver broadband for those areas not supported by DSL because they are too far from the nearest equipped CO (at least within 18000 feet). True Sat delivered broadband is both expensive and has very high latency.

2) Cablecos must meet certain service levels today. That is far less difficult with proprietary and limited numbers of devices deployed by them. They support very few 3rd party devices at this time. They don't like having to support CC and I don't blame them for that. As an IT Executive, I would fight tooth and nail to not support devices/systems across my enterprise because of the high increased cost levels and the loss of control. In IT that's simply a global best practice, learned over lears of pain by the entire industry. At the heart, this is an IT discussion when approached by pure fact and not emotion.

3) What the legislation means about not "moving" costs is that they cannot for example move the cost of subsidizing high end DVRs by pushing those costs to low end STBs. It does not mean that they cannot justify subsidizing ALL products. This is actually an intersting point, as if you start to allow 3rd party devices it could have the result of forcing the cableco's to increase costs on ALL of their devices because they would not be able to legally do otherwise. I'll need to think about that one - never thought of it before.

4) I certainly haven't read all the legislation (and more importantly, the pertinent FCC findings). The FCC also has a nasty habit of publishing a "finding" which isn't technically a "law" or "act" but does govern as a pratical outcome how things work. An example is the 2001/2002 findings that removed cable delivered broadband from under the provisions of the Franchise Agreement. It further removed oversight and enforcement to the FCC - who has never since ever enforced or reviewed service related issues. Nice. I do have the advantage to continuous access to our retained consel who works with us to translate such findings so that we can try to digest it. My earlier point is that while there is certainly room for discussion of the finer points of this area, there seem to be extremely large gaps where a large number of people (here and elsewhere) have completely inaccurate understandings of communications law, franchise agreements, etc. Unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what is allowing this momentum to create state and/or federal agreements that will without a doubt disenfranchise a large number of Americans. It's an uneducated (specifically about this subject only) perception that allows providers to get their way.

But, good discussion all around on this thread.

[PPC1]

First off, I am very impressed with the knowledge of those posting on this thread. I am a lawyer, but do not practice in this area. Unless a lawyer practices in this area, there is no way they would know anything about the appliacable statutes, regulation, and regulatory orders. Since I don't practice in this area, I know substantially less about the applicable law than those others here.

Second, (despite my admitted ignorance) it seems the point here is that the MSOs have government protected monopolies, and they are using their monopoly power to squeeze out the competition for DVRs, in particular, and anything that would serve or require the functionality of a STB, in general. (I am sure a large portion of this is to maintain their revenue stream for PPV, rather than DVRs, but the effect is the same.) That is the rational of the integration ban in the FCC order-- to curb that monopoly power. To say that there will be future costs to the MSO to comply with the order is beside the point. Of course there will be costs. If the system worked now as intended, cable cards (the solution offered up by the MSOs some time ago) would work pretty effortlessly for the consumer. But they don't work effortlessly. That is because the cable companies haven't sunk the resources into making them work effortlessly. The integration ban in effect requires the MSOs to now sink money into the problem (when they have for years chosen not to do so) because the problems only experienced by a few CC equiped t.v. owners and S3 owners now becomes the cable companies problem too.

While it is only a small minority of subscribers that use CCs, if they are made to work as intended, there is no telling what products will be made available in the future to consumers.

I am certainly a free market supporter, and generally abhor government intervention. But let's face it, the government is already in the picture. Unless the governemnt is completely removed from this equation, let's not kid ourselves about the evils of government intervention, and a knee jerk reaction that less regulation is better. We have giovernent intervention in this arena. So the question is, "Can we make obviously bad government regulation less worse?"

I think the answer to that is yes, and the answer is (in this current environment we find ourselves in) by forcing the MSOs to spend the resources that they promised to do when they were granted continued government protection of their monopolies. If you want to try to curb their ability to pass that cost on to the customer, fine. (But good luck doing it.)

[MichaelK]

Look at HR5252 and SB2628. The federal legislation completely eliminates any build-out requirements. The only restriction is that (on the surface) they cannot discriminate for reasons of "affluency", or generally protected classes. It is impossible to oversee and by all admissions allows complete discretion by providers as to where/when they build out.

Even your examples of earlier legislation in your area would completely eliminate many existing customers - being retroactive to existing providers as well. 150 feet from the existing infrastructure is meaningless for a provider having no infrastructure in that area to begin with. Further, 150 feet to the actual structure is LONG way. As well as 35 homes per square mile. Supporting the county seat is frankly meaningless - especially in 3 years.

The bottom line here is that there is plenty of data to prove the following:

1) Prior to enacting build-out requirements, MANY groups of customers had no access. They were given access when Build-Out requirements forced the providers to do so.

2) All of the proposed new legislation essentially eliminates that build-out requirement. There may be some weak vestiges of it remaining, but it is nowhere near the existing requirement.

3) When providers are not forced to provide access in those areas they have not done so - consistently.

Summary: 1+2+3=new legislaton will disenfranchise a large group of customers. It will provide absolutely no additional "competition" in the market - none. Actually, if build-out requirements are maintained, you can be assured that the providers will still enter the market. Then, there would be true competition as they would be forced to compete equally.

Further, in those communities where this change has already taken place, there has been no cost reduction as a result of competition.


we're drifting off topic, but i was just replying to your post:

Actually you are quite incorrect in a number of statements above. I'll point out a few....

1) CableCos have NO mandate on cable density per street. Does not exist. Period. As a matter of fact, any proposed legislation which would move to state or federal franchise agreements totally eliminates ANY requirement for cable density or coverage - period.
....


where you said that they do not currenty exist and that any state franchises would totally eliminate them - obvioulsy you were mistaken.

interesting that the federal laws as proposed have none. Thanks for the pointers.

[MichaelK]

My logic is because those PEG channels are used for public education - not entertainment. And, they do not add to costs. For example, we (our municipality has 2 channels) pay for our own equipment and feed. It actually provides an advantage to cable over DBS.

Further, even in those areas where the franchise authority somehow gets free equipment for a channel or two, the actual cost of that is unbelieveably small. No comparison whatsoever for the (in relative terms) exponential increased cost of mandating the ban for all devices.


again- if you want to get into a disagreemnt about what the definition of the word is, is , then so be it. Dont think it matters to the big picture though...

[MichaelK]

Well, I'm still saying that the cost is more than $1-2 per month because of additional support costs. In particular because of the derived additional support required to support 3rd party devices having potential quality/compliance issues (remember, I've got one of those :) ).
....


The CEA filings are related to the costs or forcing the integration ban. So the costs are predominantly just for STB's. But I'm sure there are other costs in there too as you pointed out.

But you figure you know better then the NCTA, the cable compnaies themselves, and the various lobying groups that peg it at 600 million a year and 1-4 bucks a box?

I guess it's possible that everyone at the NCTA and the cable companies are idiots, but I'd think if they had any smarts at all they would include those other costs in their esitmates.

Again- the mandate for them to alrady support 3rd party devices is over and done with, they are already saddled with those costs. THe current debate goign on between the parties is if cable should have the costs of providing cablecard boxes themselves.


...

Beyond that, I'd say that the analogy about cable modems does not apply. Cable modems are based completely on pre-existing standards that were universally accepted well before the introduction of such devices. Specifically, that DHCP, MAC addresses, NAT, and TCP/IP were not remotely developed either by force of government will nor specifically for the purposes of an integration ban or other cable related directive. They were technologies having been deployed massively across the world well prior to cable ever getting involved. The integration ban is completely the opposite. It's essentially a virtually non-existent technology being developed for and only for the cable industry to support a very small niche market.
....

I dont follow how you figure that doscis modems are millions of years old but that cablecards are some thing invented yesterday. Both are relatively new. Even assumign it's some new terrible thing- the government didn't make it- it's a product of cable themselves. They made the standard. I actually think cable got screwed over by SA and MOTO but it wasn't the government that invented cablecard and said use it. The governement told cable come up with an open standard and this is what cable created.


A "very small niche"? there's 100 million tv receiving households in the US, Probably twice that many tv's. This is not about 3rd pary DVR's. The integration ban is about forcing cablecards on everyone. All 85 million cable TV households.



...
Beyond that I would take incredible exception to saying that the increases would only affect the more affluent people. Some folks here seem to be under a very grave misconception that the only people leasing DVRs from the cableco's are "affluent" when in fact that is not true. Specifically because of the very low incremental cost, DVRs are mainstream now for the general public - not the affluent. The S3 is certainly priced toward the affluent side of the market - which by everyone's admission here keeps it from being a direct competitor for the cableco DVRs.


that could be true- but I think you actually way way over estimate the DVR penetration. You keep saying everyone has them yada yada. That's not the case. We are the looney tune fringe here. Lets say tivo has 5 million, Dish another 5 million, Comcast another 5 million, and10 million for the rest of everyone - that's still just 25 million boxes. (And those are all geneous estimates. Seeing as how there are likley 200 million TV's in the country- it's someplace like 10% of the TV's and less then 25% of the homes. That's significant for sure but not universal.

something like 50% of cable only gets analog cable. I'd say that as a whole the 50% who have digital cable are wealthier then the 50% without.

But all that aside- I'm not sure it's anyone's right to have a low cost HD or DVR receiver. As I've said time and time again, I think that it benefits consumers long term to have an open standard. So I'm not sure that paying a 2 dollar "tax" per box now is a bad investiment if it means that in 3 years STB's would die and people could for the rest of thier lives never have to pay a fee for a plain STB again.

At this point- with ocap and all it's a big convaluted mess, and I dont really know what to do. But If the integration ban would get us all (consumers and cable) to the end gmae faster for a small current cost then I do honestly think it benefits everyone goign forward for the future.

I guess in your view plain STB's die anyway when everyone gets a DVR- and that might be a valid point. I'd need to think about it.

[MichaelK]

OK, a few things.

...

3) What the legislation means about not "moving" costs is that they cannot for example move the cost of subsidizing high end DVRs by pushing those costs to low end STBs. It does not mean that they cannot justify subsidizing ALL products. This is actually an intersting point, as if you start to allow 3rd party devices it could have the result of forcing the cableco's to increase costs on ALL of their devices because they would not be able to legally do otherwise. I'll need to think about that one - never thought of it before.
....

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

such regulations shall not prohibit any MVPD from also offering converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services over multichannel video programming systesm, to consumers, if the the systems operator's charges to consumers, for such devices are separately stated and not subsidized by the charges for any such service


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.

[winpitt]

I totally disagree with you. I believe it is you with teh error here. I guess that's how it is- we just disagree. You thinkg it's so huge major NEW undertaking and I think they aleady are basically there MOSTLY just need to get new equipment (there will be other costs I'm sure but I dont think they are major as you seem to believe. They already SERVICE AND SUPPROT AND MAINTAIN (i can yell too-LOL) cablecards they've done so for a while no since they have been required to for some time. So they already need to know how to do it and have to have their headend upgraded to handle it.

no quibble there- feel free to quote the whole post from the big guy. I chose my words carefully (went back and edited to be clear like 5 minutes after i first posted and said "perhaps as low as" Like anything else if you were arguing against it you would be sure to use the HIGHEST number you could find to support your position that it's a waste of money. I think the fact that at least one of them has said the cost would be AS LOW AS $70 means that that is an easily achievable price and where the TOP end would likely be in the real world. We have no idea what the real proces are, but I can assure you that no cabel compnay put in the best case pricing in their filings. Once comcast puts in the order for a million CC DVR's then I'm sure the pricing will drop for them. Also, like everythign else I think the price will quickly drop as they become main stream- once MILLIONS and MILLIONS of devices are deployed the economies of scale kick in and the price will only drop.

If I'm wrong I would really like to know with the facts. As I said above I'd like to learn what the real world situation is. Maybe you could ask the lawyer for your franchise board to exaplin it in english and post back here exactly what the deal it. But the way I read the law is they MAY NOT SUBSIDIZE the cost of hardware with other revenues.

Also, I said that the real world is adding a dollar to people's bills to cover it makes them less competitvie with DBS (but not FIOS since VZ is apparently playing by the cabelcard rules too) . Hoever if you kept reading I said that I think it is there best interest to be a little less competitive now (or discoutn their programming costs by that buck) so that they can cokmpletely get a huige competetive advantage over DBS in the future. HAving most every TV, VCR, DVR, DVD-R, etc come of the line with the hardware already in it for cable. That's a huge competitive advantage in my mind.

Of couse STBs' have a cost- I'm not sure what point you are tryign here. I never intended to say STB's are free

That's a very valid point- now I am seeing where you are going (I think?)- your beef is that cablecard is bad and should never have been done. But the reality is the system is in place now and they have all these third party problems already. That argument should have been made 3 or 4 years agao.

THe FCC filings above are about if the integration ban should hold- should cable start buying their own CC boxes. That's what my post was about- how much cost will goign ahead with the integration ban actually cost to cable compared to sitting with the status quo now. They already have the systems in place to deal with CC- so it's basically a matter if they replace the handfull of models they have now without CC and if they add CC to those few models.

Are you arguing that none of that matters and that we should kill off cablecard entirely even though it's already out there? I'm not totally following you.

First of all, cableco's are NOT currently supporting or maintaining CC to any real extent. Look all around this board and you see this. Specifically, they are not dedicating much resource at all to this function - which people are obviously complaining about. The vast majority (overwhelming actually) is being devoted to non CC devices. Changing this has an impact and that impact is not small.

Second, I'm arguing that frankly the ban is ridiculous and that it's very possible that the FCC could simply continue to delay. That it's possible that a more appropriate technology could/should be found. Or, that in actuality it just doesn't make sens to begin with. If we were talking about nothing more than them having to support their own boxes with CC that's one thing. The issue for me is forcing them to support everyone else's product.

Also, I take exception with your description that I'd use the "high" numbers. I'm not using any number because I have little faith. However, were I to do so I would use the entire quoted range and not specify a model using only the very lowest (which were actually corrected by DT_DC as not being fully inclusive) number.

[winpitt]

First off, I am very impressed with the knowledge of those posting on this thread. I am a lawyer, but do not practice in this area. Unless a lawyer practices in this area, there is no way they would know anything about the appliacable statutes, regulation, and regulatory orders. Since I don't practice in this area, I know substantially less about the applicable law than those others here.

Second, (despite my admitted ignorance) it seems the point here is that the MSOs have government protected monopolies, and they are using their monopoly power to squeeze out the competition for DVRs, in particular, and anything that would serve or require the functionality of a STB, in general. (I am sure a large portion of this is to maintain their revenue stream for PPV, rather than DVRs, but the effect is the same.) That is the rational of the integration ban in the FCC order-- to curb that monopoly power. To say that there will be future costs to the MSO to comply with the order is beside the point. Of course there will be costs. If the system worked now as intended, cable cards (the solution offered up by the MSOs some time ago) would work pretty effortlessly for the consumer. But they don't work effortlessly. That is because the cable companies haven't sunk the resources into making them work effortlessly. The integration ban in effect requires the MSOs to now sink money into the problem (when they have for years chosen not to do so) because the problems only experienced by a few CC equiped t.v. owners and S3 owners now becomes the cable companies problem too.

While it is only a small minority of subscribers that use CCs, if they are made to work as intended, there is no telling what products will be made available in the future to consumers.

I am certainly a free market supporter, and generally abhor government intervention. But let's face it, the government is already in the picture. Unless the governemnt is completely removed from this equation, let's not kid ourselves about the evils of government intervention, and a knee jerk reaction that less regulation is better. We have giovernent intervention in this arena. So the question is, "Can we make obviously bad government regulation less worse?"

I think the answer to that is yes, and the answer is (in this current environment we find ourselves in) by forcing the MSOs to spend the resources that they promised to do when they were granted continued government protection of their monopolies. If you want to try to curb their ability to pass that cost on to the customer, fine. (But good luck doing it.)

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.

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.

Additionally, it is quite obvious that your area of legal expertise is also not in the technology field. The reason that CC is difficult is not in fact because MSOs have not done any work - though that is clearly part of it. It is that it introduces additional variables in the form of firmware, hardware and versioning that create the potential for failure and conflict - and which cannot under any circumstances be controlled or managed by the MSOs.

Further, this is not an issue of the MSOs delivering on what "they promised". this is an issue of the MSOs delivering on what an ineffective government mandate having little serious thought behind it forced them into.

There are far more areas where the MSOs should be held accountable. This is not one of them.

[winpitt]

we're drifting off topic, but i was just replying to your post:




where you said that they do not currenty exist and that any state franchises would totally eliminate them - obvioulsy you were mistaken.

interesting that the federal laws as proposed have none. Thanks for the pointers.

Uh, no. There are no effective build-out requirements in any of the new state-wide francise agreements. I was not wrong. The requirements you mention have so many holes that you could drive a dozen trains through them. They have no value.

[winpitt]

The CEA filings are related to the costs or forcing the integration ban. So the costs are predominantly just for STB's. But I'm sure there are other costs in there too as you pointed out.

But you figure you know better then the NCTA, the cable compnaies themselves, and the various lobying groups that peg it at 600 million a year and 1-4 bucks a box?

I guess it's possible that everyone at the NCTA and the cable companies are idiots, but I'd think if they had any smarts at all they would include those other costs in their esitmates.

Again- the mandate for them to alrady support 3rd party devices is over and done with, they are already saddled with those costs. THe current debate goign on between the parties is if cable should have the costs of providing cablecard boxes themselves.

I dont follow how you figure that doscis modems are millions of years old but that cablecards are some thing invented yesterday. Both are relatively new. Even assumign it's some new terrible thing- the government didn't make it- it's a product of cable themselves. They made the standard. I actually think cable got screwed over by SA and MOTO but it wasn't the government that invented cablecard and said use it. The governement told cable come up with an open standard and this is what cable created.

A "very small niche"? there's 100 million tv receiving households in the US, Probably twice that many tv's. This is not about 3rd pary DVR's. The integration ban is about forcing cablecards on everyone. All 85 million cable TV households.

that could be true- but I think you actually way way over estimate the DVR penetration. You keep saying everyone has them yada yada. That's not the case. We are the looney tune fringe here. Lets say tivo has 5 million, Dish another 5 million, Comcast another 5 million, and10 million for the rest of everyone - that's still just 25 million boxes. (And those are all geneous estimates. Seeing as how there are likley 200 million TV's in the country- it's someplace like 10% of the TV's and less then 25% of the homes. That's significant for sure but not universal.

something like 50% of cable only gets analog cable. I'd say that as a whole the 50% who have digital cable are wealthier then the 50% without.

But all that aside- I'm not sure it's anyone's right to have a low cost HD or DVR receiver. As I've said time and time again, I think that it benefits consumers long term to have an open standard. So I'm not sure that paying a 2 dollar "tax" per box now is a bad investiment if it means that in 3 years STB's would die and people could for the rest of thier lives never have to pay a fee for a plain STB again.

At this point- with ocap and all it's a big convaluted mess, and I dont really know what to do. But If the integration ban would get us all (consumers and cable) to the end gmae faster for a small current cost then I do honestly think it benefits everyone goign forward for the future.

I guess in your view plain STB's die anyway when everyone gets a DVR- and that might be a valid point. I'd need to think about it.

Cable modems are based on previously accepted technolgy standards developed for other non-entertainment purposes having been tested and deployed for several years and was not forced by law on anyone. CC is completely different in every respect. That is quite self-evident to anyone familiar with the technology field.

The average consumer doesn't give a hoot about the ban and would be strongly opposed to paying extra for something that they do not use. We're forcing legislation for the benefit of a small minority - period. I challenge you to find a single consumer market study that shows consumers feel CC deployment is more important to cost containment and content delivery for entertainment services.

They are not currently delivering effectively on supporting 3rd party devices - and I can most certainly understand why.

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'm not overestimating DVR penetration. I'm talking about DVR growth. Those are two very different discussions.

I have difficulty believing you actually said that you're "not sure it's anyone's right to have a low cost HD or DVR receiver". So you're in effect saying it's in the consumers best interest to pay a higher price for something they aren't asking for, but that they should perhaps have to pay a premium for DVR service even though they don't now? I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like a "it's better for me, so it must be better for everyone no matter the cost" justification. No insult, but I really don't get that at all.

[winpitt]

BTW: What exactly does the ban get the consumer? The ONLY two things I see are;

CC for that extremely small percentage of TVs equipped with a slot who do not want DVR or interactive service.

TiVo S3.

So exactly why is this so important that it should be forced on everyone? I'd personally rather have pre-emptively cashed HD MOD as an example. I think that more consumers would feel the same way. Except of course that I'd like the S3 to work personally. But even though I want it to work, I'd frankly prefer if TiVo would simply partner with all the players, stop delivering their own hardware, and get the hardware from the MSO. That would be my strong preference.

[acvthree]

But even though I want it to work, I'd frankly prefer if TiVo would simply partner with all the players, stop delivering their own hardware, and get the hardware from the MSO. That would be my strong preference.

Even at the cost of significantly reduced functionality? That is what we have seen everytime the Tivo software comes under control of the MSOs (DirectTV, Comcast).

Al

[bicker]

Clearly, the best arrangement would be the stability and sound footing of deploying the technology through MSOs, along with the entire range of desired functionality. I'm sure that is what winpitt was saying.

[ZeoTiVo]

So exactly why is this so important that it should be forced on everyone? I'd personally rather have pre-emptively cashed HD MOD as an example. I think that more consumers would feel the same way. Except of course that I'd like the S3 to work personally. But even though I want it to work, I'd frankly prefer if TiVo would simply partner with all the players, stop delivering their own hardware, and get the hardware from the MSO. That would be my strong preference.

first off - if TV sets could be sold that with the CC would be digital ready while protecting the MSOs revenue generating interests - that would buy all consumers the ability to finally go all digital while still having cheap TV sets and give up the analog spectrum. I think this was the intent behind the law in the first place. Find an open standard all digital delivery mechanism that would not put TV set makers out of business. After that the idea of 3rd party use to come up with even more products was just a bonus.

So yes, we agree that consumers should not foot an extra cost just for DVR enthusiasts - but the integration ban was about a lot more than that from the start. Here in this forum it just tends to get that slant of being for DVRs. ;)

-------------
as for TiVo giving up the hardware - that is fine and choice should be available. But my choice is to have a DVR I own so that I can upgrade the size of storage or make other mods if I so choose. Also if I move I want my shows and settings to move with me and not have to start all over.

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..

[Stormspace]

first off - if TV sets could be sold that with the CC would be digital ready while protecting the MSOs revenue generating interests - that would buy all consumers the ability to finally go all digital while still having cheap TV sets and give up the analog spectrum. I think this was the intent behind the law in the first place. Find an open standard all digital delivery mechanism that would not put TV set makers out of business. After that the idea of 3rd party use to come up with even more products was just a bonus.

So yes, we agree that consumers should not foot an extra cost just for DVR enthusiasts - but the integration ban was about a lot more than that from the start. Here in this forum it just tends to get that slant of being for DVRs. ;)

-------------
as for TiVo giving up the hardware - that is fine and choice should be available. But my choice is to have a DVR I own so that I can upgrade the size of storage or make other mods if I so choose. Also if I move I want my shows and settings to move with me and not have to start all over.

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..

+1

[MichaelK]

Uh, no. There are no effective build-out requirements in any of the new state-wide francise agreements. I was not wrong. The requirements you mention have so many holes that you could drive a dozen trains through them. They have no value.

oh- ok so the definition of the word "are" requires you to use the word effective as an adjective now. ..

You stated an absolute and I pointed out how your absoulte was incorrect.

If you want to quailfy it go right ahead.

You seem to see everythign in black and white...

anyway- there is no point to this...

on with the show

[MichaelK]

First of all, cableco's are NOT currently supporting or maintaining CC to any real extent. Look all around this board and you see this. Specifically, they are not dedicating much resource at all to this function - which people are obviously complaining about. The vast majority (overwhelming actually) is being devoted to non CC devices. Changing this has an impact and that impact is not small.

Second, I'm arguing that frankly the ban is ridiculous and that it's very possible that the FCC could simply continue to delay. That it's possible that a more appropriate technology could/should be found. Or, that in actuality it just doesn't make sens to begin with. If we were talking about nothing more than them having to support their own boxes with CC that's one thing. The issue for me is forcing them to support everyone else's product.
....


interesting- so your beef is with the descisions that have already been made that they have to support third party devices. And you dont have much probelm with the current debate about if they should be forced to support CC in their own boxes.


I guess you'd need to go back in time to change that regulation.

I wouldn't dispute for a single second that maybe this technology is crappy or that a better one could be found. But this is the choice that cable made- the government told them to come up with an open system and this is what they decided on.

I just think an open system is best for everyone- cable MCO's, consumers, the economy, etc, etc. The only people it MIGHT hurt would be moto and SA by killing off their duopoly. But maybe forcing them to compete would make them learn to be more efficient and make them thrive even more.

[MichaelK]

Cable modems are based on previously accepted technolgy standards developed for other non-entertainment purposes having been tested and deployed for several years and was not forced by law on anyone. CC is completely different in every respect. That is quite self-evident to anyone familiar with the technology field....

alrighty- I'll say that cable modems are vastly different- it's really not that relavent.

Clearly having an OPEN standard has helped cable in regards to deployment of broadband. As you point out they CHOOSE an open model. So clearly they so an advantage to it.

let's put the cable card technology aside- would you agree that an open system for video would be best for just about everyone invovled? Curious what you think about that.






... ...I have difficulty believing you actually said that you're "not sure it's anyone's right to have a low cost HD or DVR receiver". So you're in effect saying it's in the consumers best interest to pay a higher price for something they aren't asking for, but that they should perhaps have to pay a premium for DVR service even though they don't now? I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like a "it's better for me, so it must be better for everyone no matter the cost" justification. No insult, but I really don't get that at all.

what dont you beleive. I also am not sure it's anyone's right to even be able to buy pay tv either. I'm not sure anyone has a right to buy vanilla ice cream, etc, etc....

For the umpteen time I am not being selfish- this is not about me- or even about just dvr users like some try to frame this. I've said like - what 30 times- that I BELIEVE that it would be best for everyone long term for their to be an open standard. I've said many times in this thread that I'm not sure cablecards are the best way to get there, that the thing is a whole big mess right now. And unless someone can point to a better plan to go forward I dont think the old plan should be abandoned.

Let me spell out the logic that I alluded to above. I think it's generally in the publics best interest to pay $2 more a month for the next 3 years (36 x 2 or 72 dollars) IF that got us to a system that killed off cable boxes so no one ever again had to spend a dime renting them. Millions of people now pay rental fees for cable boxes that are NOT DVR's. I think it MIGHT BE in everyones best interest to bite the bullet and pay a little more for a few years so that no plain STB's are ever needed again. 72 dollars today or a lifetime of rental fees for boxes? I think it's better to bite the bullet now.

If anything my argument is advanced box users such as myself should be the ones to bear that cost. If anything I'm willing to spend more MYSELF to help the greater good. That's far from selfish.

You can argue that you dont believe the math would work out for my "plan" but that's what I personally believe. I think you're estimated of the costs are way high. But everyone is entitled to an opinion. Time will tell who was closer i suppose

[MichaelK]

BTW: What exactly does the ban get the consumer? The ONLY two things I see are;

CC for that extremely small percentage of TVs equipped with a slot who do not want DVR or interactive service.

TiVo S3.

So exactly why is this so important that it should be forced on everyone? I'd personally rather have pre-emptively cashed HD MOD as an example. I think that more consumers would feel the same way. Except of course that I'd like the S3 to work personally. But even though I want it to work, I'd frankly prefer if TiVo would simply partner with all the players, stop delivering their own hardware, and get the hardware from the MSO. That would be my strong preference.


it's about the FUTURE. The FCC's logic is that forcing the integration ban will creat a FUTURE affordable market for CC ready devices for the consumer.

That's a future where there is no such thing as renting a STB just to get plain tv functions.

the issue isn't about this week or this month. It's about how do we get to a system where third party open standard devices are readily availible for purchase by consumers.

[MichaelK]

first off - if TV sets could be sold that with the CC would be digital ready while protecting the MSOs revenue generating interests - that would buy all consumers the ability to finally go all digital while still having cheap TV sets and give up the analog spectrum. I think this was the intent behind the law in the first place. Find an open standard all digital delivery mechanism that would not put TV set makers out of business. After that the idea of 3rd party use to come up with even more products was just a bonus.

So yes, we agree that consumers should not foot an extra cost just for DVR enthusiasts - but the integration ban was about a lot more than that from the start. Here in this forum it just tends to get that slant of being for DVRs. ;)

-------------
as for TiVo giving up the hardware - that is fine and choice should be available. But my choice is to have a DVR I own so that I can upgrade the size of storage or make other mods if I so choose. Also if I move I want my shows and settings to move with me and not have to start all over.

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..


:up:

+2

[MichaelK]

here's an interesting take from the courts from an early suit about the ban.

http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98-1420.html

good points on both sides.

Seems some of the commissioners thought the requirment to get 3rd party devices availible was one of the most consumer friendly things in the whole bill. But others make the argument that the integration ban might cost consumers more and therefore be unfriendly.

Seems the FCC commisioners had the same debate that is going on in this thread about if the integration ban is a good or a bad thing for consumers.

[dt_dc]

Seems the FCC commisioners had the same debate that is going on in this thread about if the integration ban is a good or a bad thing for consumers.Yes, they did. And (former) Commissioner Powell was one of the more vocal opponents of the ban.here's an interesting take from the courts from an early suit about the ban.

http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98-1420.htmlThat was the first integration ban court case. The second one (which again upheld it) is here:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1237a.pdf

[bicker]

Let's also keep in mind that "best for consumers" is barely one-half of the objective that the FCC needs to achieve. They have to find a solution that is good for consumers, good for business, inherently fair (i.e., not imposing an unfunded government mandate), and enhances the utilization of the public assets.

[MichaelK]

Let's also keep in mind that "best for consumers" is barely one-half of the objective that the FCC needs to achieve. They have to find a solution that is good for consumers, good for business, inherently fair (i.e., not imposing an unfunded government mandate), and enhances the utilization of the public assets.


while I generally agree with ALL of that. I do personally make a distinction that "unfunded government mandates" can be good for everyone involved if they are well thought out. I'm not so sure this one is. But there can be times where it makes sense.

also I would argue that in almost all cases (unles things run completely amock- which might be the case here) what is good for the consumer is generally what is good for business, and is therefore the best way to utilize the public assets.


fairness is a tough issue to get one's teeth around...


edit: thought about it more- and I think the above are just goals and common sense.

Unfortunatley tHe FCC's objective is spelled out in the law pretty clearly. They are to "adopt regulations that assure commerical availibility of ...converter boxes..." Says nothing about being wise, efficient, fair, intelligent, or anything like that. The law just says they need to do what they can to make boxes availible at retail.

And they decided that perrmitting integrated boxes was an impedement to that.

[MichaelK]

... That was the first integration ban court case. The second one (which again upheld it) is here:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1237a.pdf



thanks for the link.

Looks like Winnpitt might work for the NCTA after all. :D

The second case (like the first) is a lot about parsing words. The NCTA's newest argument is that STB's are not "converter boxes" but rather "other equipment ... used to access video programming"

They say that apparently they meant to bring it up 5 years earlier when they were arguing that "converter boxes " had a completely different meaning then "converter boxes"

How's that for parsing words?

Funny though- maybe STB's are "other equipment" cause the court refused to bother with the argument as they said the NCTA should have brought it up 5 years earlier when they argued grammar the first time.

I wonder if converter boxes are not "effective" at receiving video programming so this other equipment is needed? (ducks and runs)


Anyway the court found that the FCC's actions 'aren't arbitrary or capricious' and that there is a 'satisfactory explanation' of their actions and a 'rational connection between the facts involved and the decisions made'.


Here's a great couple of quotes from the FCC explaining their logic for the ban

"at the heart of a robust retail market for navigation devices is the reliance of cable operators on the same security technology and conditional access interface that consumer electronics manufacturer's must rely on in developing competitive navigation devices"

If cable operators “must take steps to support their own compliant equipment, it seems far more likely that they will continue to support and take into account the need to support services that will work with independently supplied and purchased equipment.”

(the bold bit is particularly ugly for cable- if the FCC continues with that logic then anything proprietary is evil and you could make an argument cable will need to work with 2-way cable cards like everyone else and that a more 'neutral' version of OCAP will need to be implemented.)

Part of that reasoning apparently stemmed from their belief that cable doesn't adequately support cablcards as is. The FCC apparently though part of the reason that so many cablecard tv's exist that don't even use cablecards is related to cable putting up road blocks and not consumer indifference as some have posted here (I'm not sure my opinion- but it's clear what the FCC thinks) .

That got me to thinking- it looks like this is almost an enforcement action or punishment for not properly supporting cablecards in the first place. I think there's something of a pattern in cable history with cable pushing the line and then the government overreacting the opposite way. Same sort of thing happened over the course of retransmission consent over the years. In that case cable pushed a little too hard over the course of like 20-30 years and now the broadcasters are in complete control of that relationship- getting to pick either retransmission consent (with some quid pro quo from cable) or demanding must carry. Makes you almost wonder that if in another 10 years the CEA wont be in complete control of the CEA-CABLE relationship.

[MichaelK]

BTW: What exactly does the ban get the consumer? The ONLY two things I see are;

CC for that extremely small percentage of TVs equipped with a slot who do not want DVR or interactive service.

TiVo S3.

So exactly why is this so important that it should be forced on everyone? I'd personally rather have pre-emptively cashed HD MOD as an example. I think that more consumers would feel the same way. Except of course that I'd like the S3 to work personally. But even though I want it to work, I'd frankly prefer if TiVo would simply partner with all the players, stop delivering their own hardware, and get the hardware from the MSO. That would be my strong preference.



you should read dt-dc's links to the court cases. You will get the FCC's reasoning at least. Maybe you disagree but it's interesting to see their logic.

The second case cable brought up costs and says that the FCC hasn't justified them. They even used some words that sound like you typed them right here in this thread . Stuff like the costs are "enormous" and will be passed onto consumers who will see "absolutely no benefit. The court disagreed.

The FCC first says theres a big disagreement between cable and the CEA on what the real world cost will be. THe FCC acknowledges there will additional costs in the short term but argues that they will drop over time as the NCTA is likely quoting low volume and first generation pricing.

The FCC argues that the costs "should be counterbalanced to a significant extent by the benefits likely to flow from a more competitive and open supply market" those benefits included the "potential savings to consumers from greater choice among navigation devices: as well as the spurring of technological innovations. And of course there was the fact that Congress regarded the commercial availability of navigation devices from independent sources as a benefit in and of itself.


oh and by the way- the BAN gets comsumers neither of the 2 things you said above. THe earlier ruling that cable has to support cacablecards already does those 2 things.

[MichaelK]

...

Here's a great couple of quotes from the FCC explaining their logic for the ban

"at the heart of a robust retail market for navigation devices is the reliance of cable operators on the same security technology and conditional access interface that consumer electronics manufacturer's must rely on in developing competitive navigation devices"

If cable operators “must take steps to support their own compliant equipment, it seems far more likely that they will continue to support and take into account the need to support services that will work with independently supplied and purchased equipment.”
....


and since this is the tivo forum- Just want to point out that the FCC actually uses the lack of m-cards for TiVo Series 3's as a an example of the issue behing the bolded section.

So maybe tivo can get cablelabs to come up with an approval for m-cards in unidirectional devices afterall....

[dt_dc]

Stuff like the costs are "enormous" and will be passed onto consumers who will see "absolutely no benefit. The court disagreed.The court didn't necessarily disagree. They just found it irrelevant.

[winpitt]

Even at the cost of significantly reduced functionality? That is what we have seen everytime the Tivo software comes under control of the MSOs (DirectTV, Comcast).

Al

That's the current implementation - possibly because TiVo is a competitor in addition to a partner. Isn't it possible that more full features solutions could be delivered? I think so.

[winpitt]

Clearly, the best arrangement would be the stability and sound footing of deploying the technology through MSOs, along with the entire range of desired functionality. I'm sure that is what winpitt was saying.

That is exactly what I'm saying. If TiVo wasn't distracted by trying to produce, sell and support hardware solutions perhaps the value proposition of delivering full functionality via an MSO would be more likely.

[winpitt]

first off - if TV sets could be sold that with the CC would be digital ready while protecting the MSOs revenue generating interests - that would buy all consumers the ability to finally go all digital while still having cheap TV sets and give up the analog spectrum. I think this was the intent behind the law in the first place. Find an open standard all digital delivery mechanism that would not put TV set makers out of business. After that the idea of 3rd party use to come up with even more products was just a bonus.

So yes, we agree that consumers should not foot an extra cost just for DVR enthusiasts - but the integration ban was about a lot more than that from the start. Here in this forum it just tends to get that slant of being for DVRs. ;)

-------------
as for TiVo giving up the hardware - that is fine and choice should be available. But my choice is to have a DVR I own so that I can upgrade the size of storage or make other mods if I so choose. Also if I move I want my shows and settings to move with me and not have to start all over.

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 again, your argument comes down completely to one thing. What YOU want. I don't believe choice is a fundamental freedom of the consumer in this case, and that the entire thing is a misrepresentation of our market.

The integration ban as it applies to non-DVR products is a sham and not even the FCC has the stomach for it.

[winpitt]

oh- ok so the definition of the word "are" requires you to use the word effective as an adjective now. ..

You stated an absolute and I pointed out how your absoulte was incorrect.

If you want to quailfy it go right ahead.

You seem to see everythign in black and white...

anyway- there is no point to this...

on with the show

No, this is not semantics. There are no build-out requirements in the new legislation. Build out requirements refer to mandatory service delivery to the entire market - not to segments. Your examples are singular rather than complete requirements.

In this case it is black and white.

[winpitt]

interesting- so your beef is with the descisions that have already been made that they have to support third party devices. And you dont have much probelm with the current debate about if they should be forced to support CC in their own boxes.


I guess you'd need to go back in time to change that regulation.

I wouldn't dispute for a single second that maybe this technology is crappy or that a better one could be found. But this is the choice that cable made- the government told them to come up with an open system and this is what they decided on.

I just think an open system is best for everyone- cable MCO's, consumers, the economy, etc, etc. The only people it MIGHT hurt would be moto and SA by killing off their duopoly. But maybe forcing them to compete would make them learn to be more efficient and make them thrive even more.

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.

[bicker]

Unfortunatley tHe FCC's objective is spelled out in the law pretty clearly. They are to "adopt regulations that assure commerical availibility of ...converter boxes..." Says nothing about being wise, efficient, fair, intelligent, or anything like that. The law just says they need to do what they can to make boxes availible at retail. 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.

[bicker]

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.This is a great point. It is unreasonable to expect one company to provide support for a flaky consumer electronics product that they don't explicitly sanction use of in their system, and don't have full control over (i.e., prohibiting modifications thereto). Try getting Microsoft to provide you technical support for Mozilla.... even though it is running on their operating system, it isn't their software, so problems with it shouldn't be their problem.

[DCIFRTHS]

Cable companies complain that CC are too expensive for deployment in "low end" boxes when it's that kind of mass deployment that is needed to bring the cost of CC down. As soon as cable providers are forced to use CC they'll force the cost issue with suppliers and CC boxes won't cost substanitally more than a normal box now.

It's all smoke and mirrors to keep competition locked out. The FCC needs to cram it down their throats and make them stop their foot dragging.

Amen! They need to cram something larger than a foot down their mouths.

There should be no exception to the ruling by the FCC. All devices made after the cut off going date should be required to use CC. I hope the the FCC has the stones to stop its coddling of the the cable providers. Additionally, if Verizon wants to compete, then there should be no exception for them either.

[DCIFRTHS]

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.

That's what Cablelabs is for? They certify equipment for use on the MSO's systems. They put standards in place for the industry to follow. I have no problem with the CC requiring only certified devices to be used on their network.

For all we know, the MSO's aren't in compliance with the latest Cablelab specs, and then the third party CE manufacturer has to pay for the technical support that the local cable provider should be paying for.

I'd be willing to bet that if you asked the engineering teams at TiVo, Samsung, SONY, Toshiba and any other manufacturer that makes a CableCARD deivce, if they had to program around bugs for specific MSOs, the answer would be yes.

[DCIFRTHS]

If cable operators “must take steps to support their own compliant equipment, it seems far more likely that they will continue to support and take into account the need to support services that will work with independently supplied and purchased equipment.”

(the bold bit is particularly ugly for cable- if the FCC continues with that logic then anything proprietary is evil and you could make an argument cable will need to work with 2-way cable cards like everyone else and that a more 'neutral' version of OCAP will need to be implemented.)

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.

Part of that reasoning apparently stemmed from their belief that cable doesn't adequately support cablcards as is. The FCC apparently though part of the reason that so many cablecard tv's exist that don't even use cablecards is related to cable putting up road blocks and not consumer indifference as some have posted here (I'm not sure my opinion- but it's clear what the FCC thinks) .

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.

That got me to thinking- it looks like this is almost an enforcement action or punishment for not properly supporting cablecards in the first place. I think there's something of a pattern in cable history with cable pushing the line and then the government overreacting the opposite way.

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:

[winpitt]

That's what Cablelabs is for? They certify equipment for use on the MSO's systems. They put standards in place for the industry to follow. I have no problem with the CC requiring only certified devices to be used on their network.

For all we know, the MSO's aren't in compliance with the latest Cablelab specs, and then the third party CE manufacturer has to pay for the technical support that the local cable provider should be paying for.

I'd be willing to bet that if you asked the engineering teams at TiVo, Samsung, SONY, Toshiba and any other manufacturer that makes a CableCARD deivce, if they had to program around bugs for specific MSOs, the answer would be yes.

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

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

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.

[winpitt]

interesting- so your beef is with the descisions that have already been made that they have to support third party devices. And you dont have much probelm with the current debate about if they should be forced to support CC in their own boxes.


I guess you'd need to go back in time to change that regulation.

I wouldn't dispute for a single second that maybe this technology is crappy or that a better one could be found. But this is the choice that cable made- the government told them to come up with an open system and this is what they decided on.

I just think an open system is best for everyone- cable MCO's, consumers, the economy, etc, etc. The only people it MIGHT hurt would be moto and SA by killing off their duopoly. But maybe forcing them to compete would make them learn to be more efficient and make them thrive even more.


What I believe is the following, and it's really quite simple. Cable - and the MSOs are publicly held or private businesses - not government entities. Unless it's for a safety, constrained resource or health issue, I believe that the market should determine "how" they deliver their services. The government should only be involved to the extent that they insure that the masses can actually get their services, and that the services as described are of expected quality.

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.

[winpitt]

it's about the FUTURE. The FCC's logic is that forcing the integration ban will creat a FUTURE affordable market for CC ready devices for the consumer.

That's a future where there is no such thing as renting a STB just to get plain tv functions.

the issue isn't about this week or this month. It's about how do we get to a system where third party open standard devices are readily availible for purchase by consumers.

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.

[winpitt]

you should read dt-dc's links to the court cases. You will get the FCC's reasoning at least. Maybe you disagree but it's interesting to see their logic.

The second case cable brought up costs and says that the FCC hasn't justified them. They even used some words that sound like you typed them right here in this thread . Stuff like the costs are "enormous" and will be passed onto consumers who will see "absolutely no benefit. The court disagreed.

The FCC first says theres a big disagreement between cable and the CEA on what the real world cost will be. THe FCC acknowledges there will additional costs in the short term but argues that they will drop over time as the NCTA is likely quoting low volume and first generation pricing.

The FCC argues that the costs "should be counterbalanced to a significant extent by the benefits likely to flow from a more competitive and open supply market" those benefits included the "potential savings to consumers from greater choice among navigation devices: as well as the spurring of technological innovations. And of course there was the fact that Congress regarded the commercial availability of navigation devices from independent sources as a benefit in and of itself.


oh and by the way- the BAN gets comsumers neither of the 2 things you said above. THe earlier ruling that cable has to support cacablecards already does those 2 things.

Well, just to be clear again - I have absolutely no relationship to, nor love for, cable MSOs. Any language or text I've used - for better or worse - came from my own limited mind.

The FCC is hardly reputable in terms of determing costs or impacts. Their explanation of how (over the long term) costs will be recouped is not only ridiculous. It is frankly unwarranted and improper. They even themselves recognize increased costs that they are forcing on MSOs.

Neither do I have any respect for Congress' handling of this mess. Anyone read Stevens (AK) speech about internet/technology legislation? BTW: He's the guy that sponsored one of the two federal bills - which is now a House Resolution.

The ban helps to "enforce" those two things I mentioned. Again, in my opinion if you ask anyone outside of this forum, they will

1) Not even have a clue what you're talking about, and
2) Not want to pay an extra penny for what the consumer at large would believe to be a relatively little value proposition.