Contacting the FCC about SDV

[r11roadster]

I sent an email to the FCC expressing my concerns over SDV and got the following response. thought some may find it useful:

Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission and for your comments on Switched Digital Video (SDV).

To officially voice your concerns in any proceeding at the Commission, your comments should be directed to the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. At: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi, you may file your comments. The Proceeding is 97-80.

For additional information concerning filing comments, please visit this website: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/howtocomment.html.

You may petition the Commission to issue a rulemaking on this matter. Under Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1.401 (47 CFR § 1.401), "Petitions for Rule Making", any interested person may petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule or regulation.

47 CFR §§ 1.49, 1.52, and 1.419(b) provides conformance requirements for petitions for rulemaking and the method of submission, i.e., petitions are addressed to the Secretary, FCC, Washington, DC 20554, or may be submitted electronically.

47 CFR rules may be accessed from the link at: http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html.

Thank you again for your interest.

[HiDefGator]

I can't wait to see your petition to them. Does it go something like this...

"I bought a really expensive S3 from Tivo at the same time the cable companies were investing billions of dollars in new SDV infrastructure that makes my S3 obsolete. I ignored all the warnings posted on the Tivo Community forum that this was happening and now I would like you to make the cable companies stop so that I can keep using my S3."

Good luck with that.

[Pab Sungenis]

I can't wait to see your petition to them. Does it go something like this...

"I bought a really expensive S3 from Tivo at the same time the cable companies were investing billions of dollars in new SDV infrastructure that makes my S3 obsolete. I ignored all the warnings posted on the Tivo Community forum that this was happening and now I would like you to make the cable companies stop so that I can keep using my S3."

Good luck with that.

No, it's more likely a petition stating that cable companies are ignoring the integration ban by denying basic service to customers who use third party equipment.

Not VOD or PPV, but basic service.

[rdrrepair]

No, it's more likely a petition stating that cable companies are ignoring the integration ban by denying basic service to customers who use third party equipment.

Not VOD or PPV, but basic service.It seems to me that if the Cable Companies want to keep renting boxes and other devices then the way to go is to keep changing technology.

I agree that the Cable Companies could do more to support 3rd part devices - The problem is greed - they make more on renting there boxes. :mad:

Can't wait for the Series 4 boxes! :rolleyes:

[ah30k]

The cable companies do not make very much money at all off the cable box rentals. In fact, when you account for the time value of money they probably loose money. The reason they want to use cable boxes is all about control. They want to control the user interface to allow the upselling of additional services such as premium channels, VOD and impulse pay per view.

[SeanC]

The cable companies do not make very much money at all off the cable box rentals. In fact, when you account for the time value of money they probably loose money. The reason they want to use cable boxes is all about control. They want to control the user interface to allow the upselling of additional services such as premium channels, VOD and impulse pay per view.

So they don't make money off rentals, so they can make money off the box?!?

IOW, they want to make money off their box. There, now that was simple wasn't it?

[rdrrepair]

The reason they want to use cable boxes is all about control. They want to control the user interface to allow the upselling of additional services such as premium channels, VOD and impulse pay per view.You said what I meant. I should have said the PPV & Etc... - thank you for correcting me.

[hookbill]

SDV will not make the S3 obsolete. It will restrict the amount of channels we get but for the most part the popular channels will not be affected. Popular channels are not put on the switch so most everything your currently getting now will be available. Some of the God channels, discovery times, and other less popular channels will probably go over there so that's not to say you'll keep everything either. Things like TNT, FX and such shouldn't be moved to SDV.

This is how I understand it, I know many people think it's a huge conspiracy by the cable companies but I don't believe that. I've worked with them on some issues with my S3 and IMHO they want to see it work, not just turn it into a paper weight.

Oh, and ALL of my issues have been fixed by the cable company. Even issues I didn't complain about have been fixed. I'm with TW.

[ah30k]

So they don't make money off rentals, so they can make money off the box?!?

IOW, they want to make money off their box. There, now that was simple wasn't it?If the grammar were a little better, it might be more simple. I'm not sure what you are saying or to whom you are addressing your comment.

[SeanC]

I was commenting on your circular logic post.

You were commenting on a previous post wherein that poster made the comment that cable companies made money off the box.

Your post starts with saying they lose money renting the box, then concludes that they make money off PPV.

I just found it curious that you would start by disagreeing with the poster, then agreeing with them.

[ah30k]

The OP said they make money of RENTING their boxes. This is not true (cost of boxes is > revenue from rental fees). They make money off of services enabled by having the boxes in the home.

[slimoli]

You guys are forgetting that the cable companies also charge for "digital service" and "DVR service" when they rent you a cablebox. My actual 8300 cost is : 9.99 (cable box) + 5.99 (digital service) + 5.99 ( DVR service) The real total cost is close to 22 bucks a month, not counting any eventual VOD. Don't tell me that they don't make money with cable boxes because they do.

Sergio

[moyekj]

SDV will not make the S3 obsolete. It will restrict the amount of channels we get but for the most part the popular channels will not be affected. I agree it won't make the S3 obsolete and I for one would even accept having to use S3 only for OTA. However TWC Austin is being very aggressive and reportedly has 150+ channels under SDV which is way higher than I would have guessed would have been reasonable for bandwidth savings and indicating it's not only targeting less popular channels as was widely assumed. See other thread where it came up starting around this post:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4846348&&#post4846348

[HiDefGator]

SDV will not make the S3 obsolete. It will restrict the amount of channels we get but for the most part the popular channels will not be affected. Popular channels are not put on the switch so most everything your currently getting now will be available. Some of the God channels, discovery times, and other less popular channels will probably go over there so that's not to say you'll keep everything either. Things like TNT, FX and such shouldn't be moved to SDV.


You keep posting this but it doesn't seem to agree with what people that live in SDV areas are posting. Did you see the post from Austin where 150 channels are SDV? Or the post from the CES speach where they said the goal of SDV should be to do everything not just a few channels? There is no requirement or obvious reason for cable companies to not switch every digital channel they have. The more they switch the better the odds of benefit.

[rcr2]

Rental fees are a cost-recovery model with a cash-positive end for long-term customers (cost recovery is probably about 2 years for a HD set-top box, less than a year for cable/telephony modems.)

It would be disingenuous to push a position that rented boxes contribute nothing or an insignificant amount to the bottom line. Based on volume purchase price of hardware, and stickiness of an installed unit, set top boxes are sure to turn from cost recovery to revenue generating fairly quickly.

[ah30k]

Don't tell me that they don't make money with cable boxes because they do.

SergioComcast charges $11.95 for a Dual Tuner HD DVR. Period. Any other digital service fees etc would apply to those who bring their own equipment as well. You seem pretty confident that this is a profitable price point for the cable companies. If you have any data to back you up, I'd love to see it. All I have to say that it is a loss leader is circumstantial evidence from conversations with MSO employees and the fact that TiVo never turned a profit by with a similar pricing model.

[pkscout]

You guys are forgetting that the cable companies also charge for "digital service" and "DVR service" when they rent you a cablebox. My actual 8300 cost is : 9.99 (cable box) + 5.99 (digital service) + 5.99 ( DVR service) The real total cost is close to 22 bucks a month, not counting any eventual VOD. Don't tell me that they don't make money with cable boxes because they do.


The last two costs are the ones the cable company wants to keep charging. What they want to do is get out of the business of renting the physical box to you. By the time you figure the cost of the box, the cost of storing it, and the cost of installing it, the cost of servicing it, etc. they probably do just barely break even on the box rental (i.e. that 9.99 charge), and they might even lose some money.

With OCAP they can make you go buy hardware at some place like Circuit City and then continue to control the entire experience and charge you the 5.99 for digital service and 5.99 for DVR service. That's why they want OCAP. It allows them to control the end user experience. With CableCARDs you still buy the box, but the CE vendor gets to define the experience.

[hookbill]

I agree it won't make the S3 obsolete and I for one would even accept having to use S3 only for OTA. However TWC Austin is being very aggressive and reportedly has 150+ channels under SDV which is way higher than I would have guessed would have been reasonable for bandwidth savings and indicating it's not only targeting less popular channels as was widely assumed. See other thread where it came up starting around this post:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4846348&&#post4846348

I sure would like to see what channels they are that are SDV. Granted, 150 is a lot but I wouldn't consider it inconceivable since the true idea of SDV is to add more channels.

[HiDefGator]

I sure would like to see what channels they are that are SDV. Granted, 150 is a lot but I wouldn't consider it inconceivable since the true idea of SDV is to add more channels.

I think the answer is going to be almost every digital channel they offer.

[Austin_Martin]

I sure would like to see what channels they are that are SDV. Granted, 150 is a lot but I wouldn't consider it inconceivable since the true idea of SDV is to add more channels.

The entire digital simulcast lineup is sdv, as well as a&e hd, and mtv hd. And they say any added hd channels will be as well.

The limit of how many channels is almost infinite if they plan it correctly. For example if they make sure to have 100 available frequencies, and make sure to limit this to 100 outlets, then they could put the entire digital lineup on there.

The problem would come if they had 101 outlets.

[dt_dc]

I sure would like to see what channels they are that are SDV. Granted, 150 is a lot but I wouldn't consider it inconceivable since the true idea of SDV is to add more channels.You can look at Time Warner Rochester as an example:
http://www.timewarnercable.com/rochester/products/cablecard.html
http://www.timewarnercable.com/rochester/programming/hdtv/programming.html
http://www.timewarnercable.com/rochester/products/cable/digitalsportspackagepage.html?menu=Cable

PPV
Digital Simulcast channels
Boomerang
Seasonal Sports Packages (MLB Extra Innings, NBA League Pass, ESPN Gameplan, etc.)
Sleuth
Starz Comedy
Universal HD
NY Legislative Channel
A&E HD
MTV HD
Logo
Family Tier
As of 2006, all new digital services (including channels)
Any New HD channels added to the HD tier

[moyekj]

The TWC Rochester example above is disturbing enough - I bet the TWC Austin is similar if not worse. Just the fact that all digital simulcast channels are on SDV is a big deal to me since there are a few cable only channels such as SciFi and USA that look much better than their analog counterparts (and don't have to suffer through Tivo encoding to digital) and if I couldn't tune the digital versions anymore with the S3 there would not be much point me keeping digital cable anymore. At this point if SDV turns out to be successful, there is a good chance a couple of years from now my S3 will be relegated to OTA HD recording only. My cable company has already indicated plans to start SDV deployment sometime this calendar year, but no clue as to the extent it will reach.

[GoHokies!]

I can't wait to see your petition to them. Does it go something like this...

"I bought a really expensive S3 from Tivo at the same time the cable companies were investing billions of dollars in new SDV infrastructure that makes my S3 obsolete. I ignored all the warnings posted on the Tivo Community forum that this was happening and now I would like you to make the cable companies stop so that I can keep using my S3."

Good luck with that.

Actually, it has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the fact that the cable companies are doing an end around on the FCC's mandate of allowing people to watch TV without having to use a device that only the cable company can provide.

First it was cable boxes for digital channels, and the FCC mandated cable card to open the process up. Before that even got off the ground, this SDV BS was dreamed up, and further FCC action is required.

[dswallow]

A typical cable system has 125 6-MHz channels of bandwidth available.

Comcast has announced aggressive plans to reduce the analog channel usage from an average of 70 channels to half that, 35 channels, over the next 5 years (http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=105323&site=cdn). The main stumbling block are older contracts with programmers requiring carriage on an analog tier.

Every 6MHz channel is equivalent to:
10 SD digital channels
2.5 HD digital channels
10 QAM streams for VOD/PPV
increasing internet capacity (most use just one 6MHz channel today)

Just the reuse of 35 analog channels in a given cable system could allow for the addition of 350 SD channels or 87 HD channels, or a combination of the two.

There's also potential gains by the use of MPEG4 instead.

Yeah, SDV can increase the potential channel capacity by eliminating the use of bandwidth for channels not currently being watched, but reducing analog channel usage could also solve their bandwidth problems, albeit maybe for a shorter term. Though how long will it really be before there's 80+ HD channels that a single cable system would want to carry? Naturally there's interest in providing more on-demand capacity because of increased profits to the cable operator; that's probably the biggest reason that SDV is under consideration.

[jacksonian]

I bought an S3 knowing full well that my local TWC was already launching SDV. I emailed the local franchise president and asked him about it. He actually replied to me and said they weren't planning to put any HD channels on SDV at this point. So far they haven't. But if they did, then I would probably just switch to satellite because I can't stand the SARA DVR that they use.

[jacksonian]

dt_dc,
You seem to be the most knowledgeable about these issues. What do you foresee happening over the next couple of years with this issue?

2-way cable cards + a TiVo S4?
TiVo software for OCAP?
TiVo going solely to producing software for MSO's or satellite?
TiVo going under?

[GoHokies!]

I bought an S3 knowing full well that my local TWC was already launching SDV. I emailed the local franchise president and asked him about it. He actually replied to me and said they weren't planning to put any HD channels on SDV at this point. So far they haven't. But if they did, then I would probably just switch to satellite because I can't stand the SARA DVR that they use.

You do realize that your shiny new S3 won't work with satellite at all, right?

[jacksonian]

You do realize that your shiny new S3 won't work with satellite at all, right?
Of course I do. I didn't mean that I was going to use satellite with an S3. What I was saying was that there would be no reason to keep cable at that point and no matter what DVR the satellite companies gave me, it would be better than the crappy SARA DVR from TWC.

[DCIFRTHS]

I can't wait to see your petition to them. Does it go something like this...

"I bought a really expensive S3 from Tivo at the same time the cable companies were investing billions of dollars in new SDV infrastructure that makes my S3 obsolete. I ignored all the warnings posted on the Tivo Community forum that this was happening and now I would like you to make the cable companies stop so that I can keep using my S3."

Good luck with that.

Actually I would re-word your post so that it was accurate. It would go something like this...

"I bought a really expensive third party decoder at the same time the cable companies were investing billions of dollars in new SDV infrastructure that makes my third party decoder obsolete because I had faith that the FCC would enforce their ruling that the cable companies fully support third party decoding equipment, and not slowly remove functionality from them.

Why is the FCC allowing the cable companies to deploy their back-door circumvention of the FCC's mandate? The cable companies chose to spend billions of dollars developing a technology they knew would cripple existing one-way devices. Yes - the very same devices that the FCC demanded the cable companies support. Please explain the logic behind this, as there is none that I can see.

Is the FCC going to prevent the cable companies from crippling my new, very expensive device that the FCC told them they had to support? I can accept that I can't get any new features/channels with my existing device, as technology moves forward, but I not should be forced to lose existing features/channels either. If the FCC does allow the cable companies to deploy their SDV technology, and I lose channels because of this, who is going to reimburse me for my equipment? The FCC or the cable company?

Additionally, would you please tell me what function the FCC serves if it can't prevent the monopoly, that is the the cable industry, from skirting it's rules?"

[samo]

I bought a really expensive third party decoder at the same time the cable companies were investing billions of dollars in new SDV infrastructure that makes my third party decoder obsolete because I had faith that the FCC would enforce their ruling that the cable companies fully support third party decoding equipment, and not slowly remove functionality from them.
Nice rhetoric, but is factually incorrect. From cablecard primer source: (http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.html)
From the very early specifications and draft standards, the CableCARD module has been a two-way device. That is, it included the functionality to enable two-way communication on the cable plant. This two-way communication is necessary for a variety of advanced cable services including video on demand (VOD), switched digital video (SDV), interactive services and applications.

The media has frequently reported that first-generation CableCARD 1.0 modules are one-way devices1. This is simply not true. CableLabs had always intended to develop the CableCARD module and host receiver standards with two-way capability. However the manufacturers of digital TVs requested that a host standard be developed that only had one-way capability. This one-way cable-ready receiver was defined by the FCC's Plug & Play order and by the Joint Test Suite (JTS). It is the definition of this one-way receiver that lacks the ability for two-way functionality, not the CableCARD module. While the FCC defined the elements of the one-way cable-ready receiver, CableLabs continued to define specifications for two-way receivers.

When a CableCARD 1.0 module is used with a two-way receiver (e.g., Samsung HLR5067C) that card supports all the necessary two-way functionality for VOD, SDV, and other interactive services.
That means that present cable card is capable of receiving SDV. Some manufacturers like Samsung decided to include two-way functionality in their receivers (Sumsung did it and got Cable Labs approval in August 2005) and some manufacturers like TiVo decided not to include it.
If you bought your equipment from manufacturer who did not include 2 way functionality, then it is your problem. TiVo disclosed to to you that your S3 is not capable of 2 way communication, SDV has been it trial markets for 5 years now. TiVo knew about potential problem, but chose to ignore it. You could have researched the subject before you made your purchase, but you chose to ignore the possibility that you are buying the doorstop. How is it FCC concern?

[Monty2_2001]

The fact that Tivo is still selling them and still ignoring it is THEIR problem. You really think that many people know what the heck SDV is or how it will turn their fancy new Tivo into a doorstop?

Tivo should be mailing users updates and warnings. Their communication is beyond negligent here.

[GoHokies!]

Of course I do. I didn't mean that I was going to use satellite with an S3. What I was saying was that there would be no reason to keep cable at that point and no matter what DVR the satellite companies gave me, it would be better than the crappy SARA DVR from TWC.

I figured you did, but it never hurts to check. ;)

Monty2_2001,
How is Tivo ignoring this problem? What would you have them do, since there isn't a standard that exists that allows them to build a box that will work with your cable companies SDV system?

Why is Tivo responsibility for informing users of something that their (the user's) cable company may or may not be doing?

[Monty2_2001]

Imagine if Samsung was making a cell phone and selling it with only a few limited carriers. Lets say, most people only have 1 option. It's fancy and does everything you want, you plop down $600+ for it. You buy the phone, and then find out in the near future it will only work during off peak hours.

When you bought it, it was never brought up this might happen. When you signed a 2 year agreement with it, this was never mentioned either.

Now, how do you think most people would react to this?

Your answer is basically 'tough luck', isn't it.

[samo]

I figured you did, but it never hurts to check. ;)

Monty2_2001,
How is Tivo ignoring this problem? What would you have them do, since there isn't a standard that exists that allows them to build a box that will work with your cable companies SDV system?

Why is Tivo responsibility for informing users of something that their (the user's) cable company may or may not be doing?
That is factually incorrect.
Samsung got their two way TV set (http://www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2005/05_pr_samsung_082405.html) certified by Cable Labs in August 2005 (way before S3 was released). Panasonic and LG also got their 2-way units certified. Motorola already made 2-way cable card DVR unit. It means that if TiVo WANTED to include 2 way functionality using CableCard 1.0, they could. They just chose not to do it and warn customers that unit does not have 2 way functionality instead.

[Monty2_2001]

I'm still hoping some sort of ethernet or usb dongle workaround is possible. I know it probably won't be, but this is just such a pain to think about.

[CrispyCritter]

That means that present cable card is capable of receiving SDV. Some manufacturers like Samsung decided to include two-way functionality in their receivers (Sumsung did it and got Cable Labs approval in August 2005) and some manufacturers like TiVo decided not to include it.Are you really making the claim that a Samsung receiver can be simply plugged into the Rochester cable network, and it will get all the SDV channels? I have grave doubts of that.

My understanding is that the protocol for SDV communication is proprietary to each individual cable company/franchise. The cable companies refuse to standardize a protocol or to commit a franchise to using any one protocol. In such a situation, neither the S3 nor the Samsung can reliably communicate with the cable company. Do you have information to the contrary?

[ah30k]

It means that if TiVo WANTED to include 2 way functionality using CableCard 1.0, they could. They just chose not to do it and warn customers that unit does not have 2 way functionality instead.This is so NOT how it happened! You make this sound like TiVo engineers and marketers sat in a room and debated whether or not to include and and game away saying 'no, lets just take the on-way route, screw the customer'. The prevailing draft specs at the time required any two-way users to be fully OCAP compliant which would require the device to fully cede control of their UI to the cable provider. Since the UI of the TiVo is the heart and soul of the device, there was no way they were going to agree to that. As a result, they were forced into going one-way. If you agree that TiVo ceding control of the UI to the cable companies was a viable option then I'll cede that they had a CHOICE in going one or two-way.

[Monty2_2001]

ah30k, if SDV takes over digital cable in the next 2 years, and there's no satellite option, Tivo will simply cease to exist. I'm sure they know this. I dunno what their options are, but they have to do something.

[raygundan]

ah30k, if SDV takes over digital cable in the next 2 years, and there's no satellite option, Tivo will simply cease to exist. I'm sure they know this. I dunno what their options are, but they have to do something.


Well, they *do* have that deal with Comcast. I'm gonna assume that those boxes continue to work with SDV.

[Maeglin]

You guys are still putting the blame in the wrong place.

As a single-company, TiVo doesn't have much chance of swaying CableLabs into setting a standard for OCAP-less two-way communication that third parties can hook into. However, if the CEA and CableLabs will ever do anything constructive with the meetings they're supposed to be having about that (besides setting appointments for the next meeting :rolleyes: ), then maybe something will happen.

I'd rather keep the TiVo UI as well, instead of sacrificing it to make the thing an overpriced cable box.

[Maeglin]

Well, they *do* have that deal with Comcast. I'm gonna assume that those boxes continue to work with SDV.
Yes, but in that case it's only a facade. You don't have any of the features that are unique to TiVo, and only have a fraction of the storage space with no hope of upgrade.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Monty2_2001]

Yeah, that Comcast option looks pretty bad. Way worse than even the Directivos, and we saw how well those kept up with the technology..

C'mon Tivo, it's do or die really. Can you at least offer one semi-future-proof option? ie, one should last 5 years or so?

[mcukier]

I'm still hoping some sort of ethernet or usb dongle workaround is possible. I know it probably won't be, but this is just such a pain to think about.


Honestly, I'm an electrical engineer and I see NO reason why this wouldn't be possible. Unless there's some super-secret aspect of this RF-communication that I'm not aware of, there should be nothing (technology-wise) to stop Tivo from doing this.

The simplified schematic would go something like this:

Tivo --> CableCard --> "BOX" --> Cable Network

(Box would be connected to TiVo via USB/Ethernet as well)

This "BOX" would receive a packet whenever TiVo requested a channel change, and would send the appropriate signal to the node to tune that channel. The HARDWARE would be the same for every cable provider, though the "BOX" may require different firmware on a per-provider basis, depending on the protocol that's being used. Furthermore, TiVo would obviously require a software update to "learn" this protocol. I see no reason why CableLabs would have anything to say about this-- after all, it's in no way dealing with encryption, etc.

Is this practical, etc? I would say so -- if I've shelled out $800 for an S3, I would be willing to shell out another $100-$150 to keep it useful (willing, not thrilled though). Is this something TiVo is willing to do?

.... who knows. I certainly hope so, but if not there's always OTA/FiOS..... :rolleyes:

[Monty2_2001]

I bet the problem is far more political than technical. Lets hope they can work it out.

[mcukier]

I bet the problem is far more political than technical. Lets hope they can work it out.

Yeah, maybe... but survival should trump politics, and TiVo (whether the execs realize it or not) is certainly fighting for survival.

I think we can all agree that the early S3 adopters are PRECISELY the types of customers that TiVo needs to survive (loyal/fanatics)... and TiVo's handling of the SDV issue will serve (especially in my mind) as a proving ground...

[moyekj]

Tivo --> CableCard --> "BOX" --> Cable Network Conceivable yes, though I don't see cable companies jumping through hoops to get the custom firmware working for such a "BOX". Even after that hurdle it adds yet another layer of indirection and potential problems before an already flaky cableCARD based system. If you think channel changing is slow now then this system would be worse - akin to the days of IR blasting a cable box but with cableCARD added to the mix. Too much can go wrong with such a system and Mr. Murphy will be bound to ruin your day.

[mcukier]

Conceivable yes, though I don't see cable companies jumping through hoops to get the custom firmware working for such a "BOX". Even after that hurdle it adds yet another layer of indirection and potential problems before an already flaky cableCARD based system. If you think channel changing is slow now then this system would be worse - akin to the days of IR blasting a cable box but with cableCARD added to the mix. Too much can go wrong with such a system and Mr. Murphy will be bound to ruin your day.

I don't see cable companies doing anything except defining the protocol used to request a channel change. The rest is TiVo. And, most of the work they do on this "Box" could easily be translated for integration directly into the S4.... ;-)

As for your Murphy's Law reference... this is a very simple system as far as communication systems go, so I'd say your take is HIGHLY pessimistic (to say the least...). The latency added by a few ethernet packets going back and forth on a local subnet would be negligible-- so, if there's already some latency with ALL SDV systems, then yes that would still exist... but adding the above system on top of that would add negligible latency -- comparing this to an IR blaster is way off base.

I say it's highly possible technically, and would work fine. I think the only question is, like a previous poster said, political..... and that had better not stand in anyone's way!

[acvthree]

I don't see cable companies doing anything except defining the protocol used to request a channel change.

I'm trying to follow your logic here. What would be the cable companies motive for defining and publishing a protocol?

Al

[mcukier]

I'm trying to follow your logic here. What would be the cable companies motive for defining and publishing a protocol?

Al

FCC Integration Mandate, perhaps? They WILL have to define a protocol-- after all, it's not too far off when their own devices will have to run off Cable Cards. I'm certainly not expecting anything out of the goodness of their hearts-- believe me I'm aware of the "intricacies" of capitalism.

Furthermore, no publishing is necessary. This communication would not be hard to capture AT ALL (finite transactions, one for each channel....) ... so, if worse comes to worse, a "Third Party" solution will appear. Another beauty of the capitalist system -- if people will buy it, someone will build it....

[kjmcdonald]

FCC Integration Mandate, perhaps? They WILL have to define a protocol-- after all, it's not too far off when their own devices will have to run off Cable Cards. I'm certainly not expecting anything out of the goodness of their hearts-- believe me I'm aware of the "intricacies" of capitalism.

Furthermore, no publishing is necessary. This communication would not be hard to capture AT ALL (finite transactions, one for each channel....) ... so, if worse comes to worse, a "Third Party" solution will appear. Another beauty of the capitalist system -- if people will buy it, someone will build it....

A few problems.

First, the cable companies are only forced to use CableCARDs to Decrypt the video coming into their box. The integration ban does nothing to prohibit them from continuing to use non-CableCARD (well non-standard really) methods of communicating upstream. This means they're free to keep using the same proprietary upstream technology they use today, and don't have to publish anything.

Second, While someone could reverse engineer (with a lot of expensive equipment) what a Cable Box is doing in one town in america, and possibly (again with great expense) build a box to do the same thing for an S3 (assuming they could also modify the S3 software to use it without Tivo's cooperation,) that box would be useful only in that town, or surrounding towns served by that Cable network and equipment. The next town is likely to have different technology, equipment, and settings, even if it happens to be the same Cable Company running it.

-Kyle

[mcukier]

Second, While someone could reverse engineer (with a lot of expensive equipment) what a Cable Box is doing in one town in america, and possibly (again with great expense) build a box to do the same thing for an S3 (assuming they could also modify the S3 software to use it without Tivo's cooperation,) that box would be useful only in that town, or surrounding towns served by that Cable network and equipment. The next town is likely to have different technology, equipment, and settings, even if it happens to be the same Cable Company running it.

-Kyle

Is this a fact? Because, logically speaking, I would find this really hard to believe. I could see it varying from provider to provider, but it would undoubtedly be in a cable provider's best economic interest to have a standardized network protocol....

?????

[GoHokies!]

FCC Integration Mandate, perhaps? They WILL have to define a protocol-- after all, it's not too far off when their own devices will have to run off Cable Cards. I'm certainly not expecting anything out of the goodness of their hearts-- believe me I'm aware of the "intricacies" of capitalism.

Furthermore, no publishing is necessary. This communication would not be hard to capture AT ALL (finite transactions, one for each channel....) ... so, if worse comes to worse, a "Third Party" solution will appear. Another beauty of the capitalist system -- if people will buy it, someone will build it....

Except that this information has the potential to be different for every headend (of which there are probably at least thousands in the US)...

Imagine if Samsung was making a cell phone and selling it with only a few limited carriers. Lets say, most people only have 1 option. It's fancy and does everything you want, you plop down $600+ for it. You buy the phone, and then find out in the near future it will only work during off peak hours.

When you bought it, it was never brought up this might happen. When you signed a 2 year agreement with it, this was never mentioned either.

Now, how do you think most people would react to this?

Your answer is basically 'tough luck', isn't it.

Bad example - it isn't like your Tivo is going to start working only some of the time. A better example would be that any new coverage areas will be on a frequency that your phone doesn't support, but even that isn't perfect (if existing channels go SDV for example).

If it were as well publicized as SDV, you're right - my answer is "tough", and I sure wouldn't blame Samsung, I would blame the cell phone company that changed their service to be incompatable with my standards compliant phone.

[kjmcdonald]

Is this practical, etc? I would say so -- if I've shelled out $800 for an S3, I would be willing to shell out another $100-$150 to keep it useful (willing, not thrilled though). Is this something TiVo is willing to do?

.... who knows. I certainly hope so, but if not there's always OTA/FiOS..... :rolleyes:

Actually, if a standard is ever agreed to between the CE vendors and the MSO's and implemented on the Cable Networks, then yes it's possible for Tivo to try to make such a box, and update their software to use it.

I don't know how probable it is.

I don't know that Cable Labs would or wouldn't have to ot have a problem approving it.

I don't know how cost effective it would be. If the cost to tivo to design and make it, divided by the number of people willing to buy it (assume no profit for right now,) left the price at $800 would you buy it? $400? $200?

There are still alot of unknowns.


Also, There is nothing saying that FIOS won't also use SDV. OTA seems to be the only thing immune.

-Kyle

[kjmcdonald]

This is so NOT how it happened! You make this sound like TiVo engineers and marketers sat in a room and debated whether or not to include and and game away saying 'no, lets just take the on-way route, screw the customer'. The prevailing draft specs at the time required any two-way users to be fully OCAP compliant which would require the device to fully cede control of their UI to the cable provider. Since the UI of the TiVo is the heart and soul of the device, there was no way they were going to agree to that. As a result, they were forced into going one-way. If you agree that TiVo ceding control of the UI to the cable companies was a viable option then I'll cede that they had a CHOICE in going one or two-way.

Agreed.

The thing to remember is even then the standards were DRAFT and still subject to change. On top of that for this same reason the Cable Company part of the equipment equation also wasn't (and isn't) likely to be in place anytime soon.

I don't know why Tivo Engineers would spend deign and manufacturing $$$ to put Hardware and softaware in the box that wouldn't be useable in the beginning, would delay release, and may not be compatible ever.

-Kyle

[kjmcdonald]

Is this a fact? Because, logically speaking, I would find this really hard to believe. I could see it varying from provider to provider, but it would undoubtedly be in a cable provider's best economic interest to have a standardized network protocol....

?????

You have to remember that the big MSO's that exist now, were built up by buying up many much smaller Cable Companies.

They inheirited the Equipment and Plant that they purchased.

Also even recently the Big MSO's have been trading plants and customers, and therefore have inheirited the recent purchases and upgrades the last owner may have done to make it work in their standard way.

-Kyle

[legendarybc]

We need someone from TiVo to at least give us some kind of comment on SDV. Whether they are working on it or not, whether they care or not, whether they think it's even an issue... throw us a bone please!

Finally, the FCC needs to step in and enforce the right of the consumer that they should be able to watch every channel that they pay for using a 3rd party box.

[mcukier]

You have to remember that the big MSO's that exist now, were built up by buying up many much smaller Cable Companies.

They inheirited the Equipment and Plant that they purchased.

Also even recently the Big MSO's have been trading plants and customers, and therefore have inheirited the recent purchases and upgrades the last owner may have done to make it work in their standard way.

-Kyle

yes... but the SDV equipment doesn't fall under that umbrella, since it's all new... correct?

[GoHokies!]

yes... but the SDV equipment doesn't fall under that umbrella, since it's all new... correct?
Maybe, but since it's all working with different headend equipment, there can still be differences...

[kjmcdonald]

That is factually incorrect.
Samsung got their two way TV set (http://www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2005/05_pr_samsung_082405.html) certified by Cable Labs in August 2005 (way before S3 was released). Panasonic and LG also got their 2-way units certified. Motorola already made 2-way cable card DVR unit. It means that if TiVo WANTED to include 2 way functionality using CableCard 1.0, they could. They just chose not to do it and warn customers that unit does not have 2 way functionality instead.

Any word on how many Cable plants those 2 way sets are comptible with. I'd bet real money that it's no where near 100%. I'd be surprised if it's even close to 50%.

-Kyle

[kjmcdonald]

Maybe, but since it's all working with different headend equipment, there can still be differences...

Right. They have to contemplate buying SDV equipment that will work with not just the installed head-end, but also the installed STB base the customers have.

Even if they can buy the same SDV box for two different plants they may have to configure it differently to work with those plants. Different frequencies, different numbers of channels. There are a lot of variables.

Or replace it all with their company standard. That's expensive.

[dt_dc]

That means that present cable card is capable of receiving SDV. Some manufacturers like Samsung decided to include two-way functionality in their receivers (Sumsung did it and got Cable Labs approval in August 2005) and some manufacturers like TiVo decided not to include it.No two-way CableCard devices have actually been released on the market. The two-way hosts that have been developed / certified are only being used by cable companies for field-testing. Two-way devices that are currently being developed / certified will not provide two way functionality for a consumer on any cable plant in the US (outside the two or three that are being used for field tests). There is absolutely, positively, no guarauntee that a two-way host developed / certified by the current specs will actually provide two-way functionality on the majority of cable plants ... ever.

And, add on top of that ... getting back to the original thread ... Tivo can not provide you a two-way device under the current specs and licensing agreement that can actually record SDV channels via Tivo software.

So, anyway, a 'two-way' Tivo built under the current specs would not provide recording of SDV channels on any cable plant in the US currently ... probably would never do so ... and would cost several hundred dollars more to manufacture than the S3.

There was no 'decision' to include two-way functionality or not for Tivo for the S3 ... under the current specs, licensing agreements, and market conditions, it most certainly is / was impossible for Tivo to do so.

[kjmcdonald]

I'm still hoping some sort of ethernet or usb dongle workaround is possible. I know it probably won't be, but this is just such a pain to think about.

There is hope. I guess you'd call it hope. The possibility exists, once the standard is done and finalized. Then work can start and someone can decide it it's technically possible or not. Then someone else will decide it it's economically possible or not.

If it does happen, I think it's way in the future. Years not months.

A lot can happen in that time. We may not want it. or we may not need it. :)

-Kyle

[dt_dc]

Monty2_2001,
How is Tivo ignoring this problem? What would you have them do, since there isn't a standard that exists that allows them to build a box that will work with your cable companies SDV system?That is factually incorrect.
Samsung got their two way TV set (http://www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2005/05_pr_samsung_082405.html) certified by Cable Labs in August 2005 (way before S3 was released). Panasonic and LG also got their 2-way units certified. Motorola already made 2-way cable card DVR unit.GoHokies statement is factually correct. The Samsung, Panasonic, and LG units will not work with Monty2_2001's cable company's current SDV system. They may work with those systems at some point in the future ... then again, they may not. There is also no way for Samsung, Panasonic, and LG to sell those units to consumers yet, and they are not doing so.

Also, Motorola's two-way CableCard unit can not be sold directly to consumers. It can only be sold to cable companies to then lease to their customers.

[dswallow]

All a 2-way CableCARD host had to worry about implementing was the communication back to the head end, which certainly looks like it'd be DOCSIS-based, and that support is pretty developed right now. If the hardware cost wasn't exorbitant, they could've just built in that capability knowing that some sort of hardware had to be there, and there was a good chance they could do everything else on the general CPU that's needed as long as they had a way to communicate upstream. They'd still certify the host device as unidirectional, but the potential remained that it could function as 2-way once the protocol standards were finalized.

Maybe it'd have been enough. Maybe not. But without it, it's definitely not enough. :)

[dt_dc]

Any word on how many Cable plants those 2 way sets are comptible with. I'd bet real money that it's no where near 100%. I'd be surprised if it's even close to 50%.Three or four ... in the country. Something like 0.1%. They are being used for field / integration tests now.

Samsung, LG, Panasonic, etc. and the cable companies (Comcast, Cox, Time Warner) are hopefull they'll be able to bring two-way sets to market some time in 2008. I wouldn't hold my breath ... 2009 seems more realistic.

Edit: I actually wonder if the Panasonic / Comcast reps were able to keep a straight face when they said 'hopefull' for 2008 at CES. Not planning for ... or targetting ... or any of the other slightly-firmer but still with wiggle-room terms ... 'hopefull'.

[kjmcdonald]

Three or four ... in the country. Something like 0.1%. They are being used for field / integration tests now.

Samsung, LG, Panasonic, etc. and the cable companies (Comcast, Cox, Time Warner) are hopefull they'll be able to bring two-way sets to market some time in 2008. I wouldn't hold my breath ... 2009 seems more realistic.

These are still CableCARD based? or DCAS?

I assume since Comcast, Cox, and time Warner are supporting this that all of these sets are OCAP based? Yuck!

And all this without a standard? What if the standard ends up being different? Will the MSO's just have to support 2 specs?

-Kyle.

[Monty2_2001]

Except that this information has the potential to be different for every headend (of which there are probably at least thousands in the US)...



Bad example - it isn't like your Tivo is going to start working only some of the time. A better example would be that any new coverage areas will be on a frequency that your phone doesn't support, but even that isn't perfect (if existing channels go SDV for example).

If it were as well publicized as SDV, you're right - my answer is "tough", and I sure wouldn't blame Samsung, I would blame the cell phone company that changed their service to be incompatable with my standards compliant phone.

SDV is not 'well publicized'. Are you nuts? Can you imagine that probably 90% of people know of Tivo, and might want an HD Tivo.. And that perhaps .001% have ever heard of SDV?

How can you possibly say that garbage?

[dt_dc]

These are still CableCARD based? or DCAS?Mostly CableCard, although there's been some DCAS lab-testing as well.I assume since Comcast, Cox, and time Warner are supporting this that all of these sets are OCAP based?Of course.And all this without a standard? What if the standard ends up being different? Will the MSO's just have to support 2 specs?There is a 'standard' ... it just isn't finalized and there's no CEA / NCTA 'agreement'. The point of these current two-way hosts is for field-testing. You test out your initial OCAP-based guides and stuff. If the specs change ... the specs change. Heck, if Panasonic needs to change an integrated circuit and send Time Warner a couple new TVs to keep field-testing ... fine, they do so.

Again, these current 'two-way' hosts are purely currently for lab / field / integration testing. Things change ... then things change. No big deal. That is the point of lab / field / integration testing.

[kjmcdonald]

Mostly CableCard, although there's been some DCAS lab-testing as well.Of course.There is a 'standard' ... it just isn't finalized and there's no CEA / NCTA 'agreement'. The point of these current two-way hosts is for field-testing. You test out your initial OCAP-based guides and stuff. If the specs change ... the specs change. Heck, if Panasonic needs to change an integrated circuit and send Time Warner a couple new TVs to keep field-testing ... fine, they do so.

Again, these current 'two-way' hosts are purely currently for lab / field / integration testing. Things change ... then things change. No big deal. That is the point of lab / field / integration testing.

True. True. I didn't look at it that way.

SO from this I gather that these companies beleive the standard will be final before they will ship these products (on any large scale) to consumers?

-Kyle

[GoHokies!]

SDV is not 'well publicized'. Are you nuts? Can you imagine that probably 90% of people know of Tivo, and might want an HD Tivo.. And that perhaps .001% have ever heard of SDV?

How can you possibly say that garbage?

You do know that 73% of statistics are made up, right?

I would argue that given all of the SDV discussion around here (and has been for quite some time) that your numbers are BS and that the information is out there for the educated consumer to find.

Not to mention your complete misappropriation of the blame on Tivo and not the folks causing this problem that you conveinently ignored. :rolleyes:

[mcukier]

You do know that 73% of statistics are made up, right?

I would argue that given all of the SDV discussion around here (and has been for quite some time) that your numbers are BS and that the information is out there for the educated consumer to find.

Not to mention your complete misappropriation of the blame on Tivo and not the folks causing this problem that you conveinently ignored. :rolleyes:

plus, there's a difference between well publicized and well known... SDV rollout is well publicized, even if it is not well known.

In our society, in order for something to become well known it has to be compressed into a 30-second teaser and aired on Television... ;)

[HiDefGator]

Look at all the people that bought an S3 for $800 and then discovered it didn't work with satelite. A very low percentage of people read this forum cover to cover frequently.

heck look at all the S3 owners on this forum that had never heard of SDV.

[Monty2_2001]

Well, gohokies thinks that it's no big deal. Why is he on here? Just to piss off S3 owners? To say we have no reason to be upset with this situation? To say we shouldn't have answers from Tivo on what to do with SDV?

[BruceShultes]

If it is available in your area, switch to FIOS TV as soon as your cable company tries to implement SDV in your area and cancel your cable service.

Also, make sure you tell your cable company why you are switching.

[GoHokies!]

Well, gohokies thinks that it's no big deal. Why is he on here? Just to piss off S3 owners? To say we have no reason to be upset with this situation? To say we shouldn't have answers from Tivo on what to do with SDV?

So with no answer to factual questions, you resort to personal attacks. Real mature. I've helped a lot more folks with my posts then your total postcount, but thanks for playing. :rolleyes:

Find somewhere where I've said that SDV isn't a problem - for the record (again) I don't like SDV. Don't like the end run that the cable companies are doing around the FCC mandate for accessability for 3rd party hardware. I'm sorry if being reasonable, wanting to see where this goes (I have Comcast, so despite all of the sound and fury SDV still hasn't made an appearance), and placing the blame on the cable company where it belongs is unsuitable for you. Spread your ignorant, misinformed FUD somewhere else.

Like Bruce mentioned, if SDV actually takes away a channel you watch (for all the talking I can only recall one poster who has said that they used to receive channel "X" and no longer do) then switch to FIOS or basic cable+OTA. It isn't perfect, but its far from making your S3 an doorstop.

[Monty2_2001]

You keep saying FIOS FIOS, like that's an option to many. It's NOT.

And you keep saying go to OTA+cable, but when they drop your digital channels, then what?

Doorstop time. It's just stunning that you are so cocky and pleased that Tivo isn't saying anything about this issue. FUD? FUD is already out there, and it's real. SDV is real. People are affected now.

You have your head in the sand as well, and so does Tivo. Sucks for anyone that's actually looking for some answers.

[kjmcdonald]

You keep saying FIOS FIOS, like that's an option to many. It's NOT.

And you keep saying go to OTA+cable, but when they drop your digital channels, then what?

Doorstop time. It's just stunning that you are so cocky and pleased that Tivo isn't saying anything about this issue. FUD? FUD is already out there, and it's real. SDV is real. People are affected now.

You have your head in the sand as well, and so does Tivo. Sucks for anyone that's actually looking for some answers.

But there isn't anything that Tivo can say to you or do for you that will change the situation.

The ball is somewhat in the Consumer Electronic Association's court, but mostly in the Cable Companies Court. The best we consumers can do is demand that The FCC do it's job and play Refferee for us the consumer who otherwise has no say in the matter.

I'd like to know what it would take to file a joint (all users from this forum who wanted to) petition to the FCC. I'll have to reread the info and links provided earlier. While one letter added to the file might help some, a single letter from this forum signed by as many members as possible might be even more effective.

I'm somewhat surprised Tivo hasn't organized something like this itself.

-Kyle

[mcukier]

But there isn't anything that Tivo can say to you or do for you that will change the situation.

The ball is somewhat in the Consumer Electronic Association's court, but mostly in the Cable Companies Court. The best we consumers can do is demand that The FCC do it's job and play Refferee for us the consumer who otherwise has no say in the matter.

I'd like to know what it would take to file a joint (all users from this forum who wanted to) petition to the FCC. I'll have to reread the info and links provided earlier. While one letter added to the file might help some, a single letter from this forum signed by as many members as possible might be even more effective.

I'm somewhat surprised Tivo hasn't organized something like this itself.

-Kyle

In my experience TiVo tends to operate more behind the scenes, so as not to step on any unnecessary toes. If you ever see TiVo organizing a petition, it's time to sell your TiVo stock and cancel your subscription, because they're on a last ditch effort at that point....

So, I guess I'm GLAD to see that TiVo hasn't had to resort to a petition yet :-)

[MichaelK]

You guys are forgetting that the cable companies also charge for "digital service" and "DVR service" when they rent you a cablebox. My actual 8300 cost is : 9.99 (cable box) + 5.99 (digital service) + 5.99 ( DVR service) The real total cost is close to 22 bucks a month, not counting any eventual VOD. Don't tell me that they don't make money with cable boxes because they do.

Sergio

the "digital service" fee is not box related and will get charged to a 3rd party box like a tivo just as well.

So you are basically paying 16dollars a month to rent and use the 8300 DVR. At the beginning of 2006 Directv said they were paying about 600 dollars per HD Tivo they manufactured- assuming that cable paid 500 that means about 31-32 months till they break even. Add in the cost of money (interest) then it's maybe closer to 3 years. I dont think they are makign a killing on cable boxes.


All that said, I believe the current regulations state that cable needs to charge the actual cost for their equipment as a whole (they cant make excessive profit on equipment rentals and conversly aren't supposed to subsidize equipment either if I remember correctly) so in your case the 10 rental fee is probably what they figure the true cost is of the box and the $5.99 dvr "service" is the unregulated amount and there for their maximum profit.

10/month for 60 months lifetime is 600 dollars which sounds like it might be their cost including financing and upkeep.

[Agent86]

Like Bruce mentioned, if SDV actually takes away a channel you watch (for all the talking I can only recall one poster who has said that they used to receive channel "X" and no longer do) then switch to FIOS or basic cable+OTA. It isn't perfect, but its far from making your S3 an doorstop.
If by "doorstop" you mean "technology is completely dead or unit no longer functions", then you are correct. Sure the unit will function, but it won't receive any new channels and it might even lose some existing ones. That seems pretty pointless.

FIOS is not available in my area. Verizon doesn't even serve land lines in my state, so they aren't an option.

OTA is not easy to receive here without putting a giant antenna on my roof. Besides, going from hundreds of channels to record to 6 isn't very appetizing either. Or, even if you just count HD, I'd be losing access to 50% of the HD content available to me by operating OTA only.

I absolutely love TiVo. I've owned many and they are the best bar none. But to pay $800 (plus monthly service) for a box that can't receive all the channels that you are paying $100+ a month for? That's just silly. We already give up PPV and OnDemand, now we have to give up some existing channels and all new ones? Where do you draw the line?

A lot of people say "The SDV channels are not what I watch" or "They haven't added anything in SDV that I want yet", to justify their purchase. I'm happy for them. But, in reality, most of them are just buying time. Maybe a few months, maybe a few years, but at some point they're going to add a channel you want and then you get stuck.

The saddest thing of all is that this hits TiVo harder then it hits us. We can just get a box from the cable company and try to move on. TiVo's only recourse is to try to survive off their patents and making deals with companies like Comcast.

I love my S3. I smile every night when I sit down and use it. It is one of my favorite machines of all time. But I'm on a Comcast system and SDV is coming at one point or another. I fully intend to use this machine to its fullest for as long as I can, but if this SDV stuff really happens, then I'm not expecting more then a year or two of useful service out of it at best. Considering how much I paid for the device, that isn't a great ROI.

[dt_dc]

SO from this I gather that these companies beleive the standard will be final before they will ship these products (on any large scale) to consumers?There are lots of factors at play to determine when these two-way products actually start getting shipped ... 'finalization of standards' is just one (relatively small) part.

Off the top of my head ...

1) Cable company support of these two-way products

2) Cost of including two-way support

3) Demand for two-way features

People love specs ... look at the specs. Ok, sure. There were 'finalized / issued' specs for building two-way products back in 2004. Heck, these specs weren't even all that different from the initial draft specs for two way products from 2000. Not even all that drastically different from the two-way specs today. Yawn ... if I had $1 for every finalized spec that doesn't correspond to any products in the market ...

Anyway ... whatever ...

Are Samsung / LG / Panasonic going to be shipping two-way TVs if they are only supported on 25% of cable systems, it adds $300 to the manufacturing price, and there is still (relatively) little VOD / SDV / and other demand for two-way features? No ... probably not. OTOH, if the two-way TVs are supported on 95% of cable systems, it adds $5 to the cost, and cable systems triple the amount of VOD content (including unique content not available linearly) and start adding nDVRs and Start Over type of two way functionality and Web based content and interactive features and games and some sort of 'killer' two-way apps and start moving more channels over to SDV or IPTV ... well, certainly so.

Somewhere in there is some mix of cable company support of these two-way products, cost of including two-way support, and demand for two-way features that determines when it's reasonable to start bringing products to market ... exactly when / where / how that curve will be met ... hard to say. Way, way, way too many factors.

Heck, there's even multiple ways to get 'there' from 'here'.

For example ... there's the CEA / NCTA two-way negotiations. People look at the specs but ... do the specs mean anything if cable companies don't support the specs (or CE manufacturers can't depend on support?) No, not really. Well ... that's part of the negotiations ... cable companies supporting two-way products, by some date-certain, with corresponding FCC regulations to enforce support. Do the specs mean anything if CE manufacturers don't feel they can get enough value-add or cost-effectiveness to bring a competitive two-way product to market? Again, not really ... if you write a spec and no one builds to it because they can't make money doing so ... doesn't really mean very much. Again, part of the negotiation process between the two groups. Hammer out that right combination of specs, dates, regulations, licensing agreements, labeling requirements, and all the other things that incent both groups to bringing these products to market ... bang, two way products on the market.

OTOH, perhaps the two sides can't hammer out these things. The continue on in stalemate. Too much to work out ...

Fine, cable has (various) reasons themselves for bringing two-way (relatively) less proprietary boxes to market that allow them to pick and choose from competitive manufacturers. They will continue to work down that path. The OCAP / two-way field trials are just part of this process. They get OCAP two-way products working ... start deploying it accross their systems ... start buying two-way OCAP boxes from Samsung / LG / Panasonic (in addition to their standard vendors Motorola / SciAtl / Pace) ... eventually there's enough support in the marketplace and costs are brought down enough that Samsung / LG / Panasonic simply start slapping the same chip-set into their TVs. Bang ... two way products on the market. Cable ends up paying a bit more to go down this path ... but oh well.

Cost / benefit ... all comes down to cost benefit.

Anyway, the two-way products will eventually come to market. Still a ways to go before that happens though ... lots of different paths ... and lots of different possible forks in the path ... but they aren't here now ... and even when they are it still very well may not make sense for Tivo to make a two-way product.

[Agent86]

So you are basically paying 16dollars a month to rent and use the 8300 DVR. At the beginning of 2006 Directv said they were paying about 600 dollars per HD Tivo they manufactured- assuming that cable paid 500 that means about 31-32 months till they break even. Add in the cost of money (interest) then it's maybe closer to 3 years. I dont think they are makign a killing on cable boxes.
I have to disagree here. I know many people that have had their original SD digital cable boxes for well over 5 years. Most people I know with HD (non-DVR) boxes have had them for 2 years. I myself have had an SD box for over 2 years. We've had digital cable here since the mid 90s, back when we were owned by TCI.

I have no plans to swap out my SD cable box, and most folks I know with them don't either. If they do, its because they're moving to HD which requires another box. But then they'll keep that box until they are forced to get another one.

I think it is entirely plausible that the cable company makes money on these boxes. In the entire time we've had digital they have done a full swap out once - to replace the original digital boxes that called for PPV via telephone with 2-way cable ones. And, most likely, that swap ended up saving them money in telephone fees and time/effort to maintain that system. Regardless, other then that one time, these same boxes have just sat in the field until they die.

[GoHokies!]

You keep saying FIOS FIOS, like that's an option to many. It's NOT.

And you keep saying go to OTA+cable, but when they drop your digital channels, then what?

Doorstop time. It's just stunning that you are so cocky and pleased that Tivo isn't saying anything about this issue. FUD? FUD is already out there, and it's real. SDV is real. People are affected now.

You have your head in the sand as well, and so does Tivo. Sucks for anyone that's actually looking for some answers.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem, as I have never said I was please that Tivo was silent on this. I also never said that FIOS or OTA were perfect, but again YOU'RE STILL BLAMING TIVO FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. I don't know how many more times I have to say that to make you understand it. Tivo has done everything that they can to try and mitigate the problem. I even used the search for you to show what Tivo has done. Go read this thread:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=308083&highlight=tivo+petition+fcc+sdv

Remember that it's pre-release of the S3, so there is a lot of "when is the S3 coming" speculation that isn't relavant, but in Tivo's petition to the FCC they say:

TiVo then discussed the need to ensure that competitive entrant unidirectional
digital cable products (“UDCPs”) – such as TiVo’s S3 device – continue to work
with cable systems utilizing switched digital video technology. Specifically, TiVo
expressed concern that if a cable operator distributes linear cable channels (apart
from PPV and VOD) via switched digital technology, subscribers with a
competitive entrant UDCP will not have access to the same channels as those
subscribers leasing set-top boxes from the cable operator. Consequently, consumers
will be hesitant to invest in UDCPs. This concern, which TiVo has heard from a
number of customers, is captured by the attached e-mail, copies of which were
distributed at the meetings. TiVo emphasized that it is not against cable’s use of
switched digital technology, but simply wants those cable operators adopting the
technology to take whatever actions necessary to ensure that subscribers with
competitive entrant UDCPs have equal access to the same digital content offerings
available to subscribers with MSO-leased set-top boxes.

What else would you have Tivo do? I understand that the workarounds are not perfect, but unless we all tell the Cable Companies (with our wallets) that we're not buying into their SDV game, then they'll have no motivation to change.

I'm well aware of the fact that FUD is out there and it is real - you keep spreading it. :rolleyes:

[MichaelK]

I have to disagree here. I know many people that have had their original SD digital cable boxes for well over 5 years. Most people I know with HD (non-DVR) boxes have had them for 2 years. I myself have had an SD box for over 2 years. We've had digital cable here since the mid 90s, back when we were owned by TCI.

I have no plans to swap out my SD cable box, and most folks I know with them don't either. If they do, its because they're moving to HD which requires another box. But then they'll keep that box until they are forced to get another one.

I think it is entirely plausible that the cable company makes money on these boxes. In the entire time we've had digital they have done a full swap out once - to replace the original digital boxes that called for PPV via telephone with 2-way cable ones. And, most likely, that swap ended up saving them money in telephone fees and time/effort to maintain that system. Regardless, other then that one time, these same boxes have just sat in the field until they die.

plain vanilla boxes are a differnt animal but the OP was talkgin about an HD DVR.

solid state boxes like that certainly last much much longer, but even today I'm not sure what the lifespan of them is. The older ones can't deal with switched video either so they'll need to get junked.

But I still believe they are not permitted by current regulation to gain much profit from boxes- my cable compnay for example leases their years and years old analog boxes for sixty five CENTS. Why in the world is it that low unless there is a regulatory reason and they have paid for the intial purchase and now are just charging upkeep. I mean really wouldn't you at least make it 99 cents and get all the pennies before the dollar mark?

Digital boxes are $4.85 and it's hard to imagine that after a year or two of that it's not 100% profit but maybe they are supposed to assign a percentage of the head end to each digital box or something? (No idea- I'm totally grasping- and could be completely wrong)

So my provider certainly isn't making any money on analog boxes (and we still have HBO analog so there must be plenty of people with them) and isn't getting rich on HD DVR's. Plain digital STB's seem like they could be a profit center but it makes no sense that they would only rip people off on one of the 3 choices.

[kjmcdonald]

Cost / benefit ... all comes down to cost benefit.

Anyway, the two-way products will eventually come to market. Still a ways to go before that happens though ... lots of different paths ... and lots of different possible forks in the path ... but they aren't here now ... and even when they are it still very well may not make sense for Tivo to make a two-way product.

I hear you.

I think what I meant when I said 'finalized standards' was 'a standard a 3rd party could resonably rely on working out in the real world.'

It sounds like we're a ways from there. Unless we can persuade the FCC to hrry things along.

I saw theories written up somewhere that the FCC might grant extensions on the integration ban if companies promised to go all digital by a certain date.

I don't know how likely that is, but I think I might actually support an extension/waiver on the 1-way integration ban, if a company were to promise to meet a reasonably soon 2-way integration ban deadline instead.

In other words give Cable an incentive to agree and implement their side of the 2-way standard sooner rather than later. The Carrot would be not having to spend $$$ on non-integrated devices with proprietary 2-way designs now, and then spend it all again on non-integrated 'standard' 2-way designs later.

Unless of course the 2-way communications the MSO's are buying in the boxes they're getting for 07/01 already are so damn close to the standard that they're little chance they'd have to be replaced again later???

Then there's no incentive for the MSO's to request the extension waiver on these grounds, so they'd still be subject to the current ban.

-Kyle

[vstone]

Comcast just signed a big STB purchase with Panasonic. AFAIK, Panasonic doesn't make any head end equipment. As alluded to above, Comcast at this time has systems that were owned by Time-Warner or Adelphia just 6 months ago.

I think the cable companies have to hedge their bets with common technology in case the FCC grows some cojones!

[Agent86]

plain vanilla boxes are a differnt animal but the OP was talkgin about an HD DVR.
Fair point

solid state boxes like that certainly last much much longer, but even today I'm not sure what the lifespan of them is. The older ones can't deal with switched video either so they'll need to get junked.
Are we sure they can't be updated to do SDV? Our current boxes got updated to do OnDemand without any trouble.

But I still believe they are not permitted by current regulation to gain much profit from boxes- my cable compnay for example leases their years and years old analog boxes for sixty five CENTS. Why in the world is it that low unless there is a regulatory reason and they have paid for the intial purchase and now are just charging upkeep. I mean really wouldn't you at least make it 99 cents and get all the pennies before the dollar mark?
This is also a good point. Though, perhaps they have made their investment back after all these years, and now they are just trying not to gouge people and draw government ire?

Digital boxes are $4.85 and it's hard to imagine that after a year or two of that it's not 100% profit but maybe they are supposed to assign a percentage of the head end to each digital box or something? (No idea- I'm totally grasping- and could be completely wrong)
Agreed - I have no idea myself either.

So my provider certainly isn't making any money on analog boxes (and we still have HBO analog so there must be plenty of people with them) and isn't getting rich on HD DVR's. Plain digital STB's seem like they could be a profit center but it makes no sense that they would only rip people off on one of the 3 choices.
This is true. We have analog converters, but only for people without cable ready TVs. All of our premiums are digital now.

I don't think they are getting rich on DVRs - with hard disk failure I would be surprised if they can. Unless the disks are covered in their deals with the box makers somehow. That's probably one of the reasons they are pushing for headend DVRs instead of end user DVRs.

But the digital boxes it seems like they could make a few bucks on.

[dt_dc]

What else would you have Tivo do? Have included Firewire on the S3.

That would have ensured:

The S3 would have been guaraunteed to be able to access and record SDV channels today via a STB leased from the cable company.
The S3 would have been guaraunteed to be able to access and record SDV channels via all future STBs leased from the cable company (untill such time as the FCC firewire requirement is changed / dropped).
The S3 should have been able to access and record SDV channels via all (forseeable future) two-way cable receievers (not TVs, but receivers like STBs, HD Optical Recorders, etc) for sale from third party manufacturers that include Firewire output and AVC command support. While one can never 'guarauntee' a future spec / standard / product ... every version of the two-way cable product specs that have been discussed / negotiated for the past 4-5 years have included mandatory Firewire output and AVC command support for two-way cable receivers. Dropping this requirement has never been put on the table.
In addition to SDV, the same comments above apply to 1+GHz, IPTV, and just about every other concievable bandwith saving / expanding technology that cable has discussed (with the exception of AVCs like MPEG4 or VC-1 ... however, Tivo did put that MPEG4 chip in)
In addition to SDV, the same comments above apply to VOD, iPPV, and other two-way content delivery mechanisms (subject of course to the copy once / copy never / copy whatever restrictions that cable can place on some of this content).
Even if FCC regulations were changed, and the Firewire requirement dropped, and for some reason no third party ever comes out with a retail two-way STB that includes Firewire output and AVC support ... Tivo would be able to come out with a dongle / side-car / add-on box solution for the S3 using already approved CableLabs digital outputs at the same time other two-way products come to market.Cable, consumer electronics companies, and the FCC agreed on Firewire as the way to provide for one-way cable products (today) that allowed for the chance to upgrade to two-way functionality (including a one-way DVR and SDV). Seriously ... this was all hashed out back in 2000.http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6511958656

FCC Report and Order
In the Matter of Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment
Adopted: September 14, 2000

A subscriber with a (...) unidirectional DTV receiver equiped with a 1394 connector could access advanced and interactive services via a set-top box. To the extent that cable operators are continually developing new services, and to the extent that some of those services may require capabilites not available in earlier models of DTV receiver, one can imagine a subscriber wanting a 1394 connector as an "insurance policy". Rather than replacing his or her DTV receiver in order to upgrade the capability to access advanced services, the subscriber might prefer to purchase an upgraded set-top box and connect it to the DTV using a 1394 connector.

(...)

Digital Cable Ready 1 refers to a consumer electronics TV receiving device capable of receiving analog, basic, digita basic, and digital premium cable television programming by direct connection to a cable system providing digital programming. This device does not have a 1394 connector or other digital interface. A security card (or POD) provided by the cable operator is required to view encrypted programming.

Digital Cable Ready 2 refers to a consumer electronics TV receiving device capable of receiving analog, basic, digita basic, and digital premium cable television programming by direct connection to a cable system providing digital programming. This receiving device will incorporate all features defined in Digital Cable Ready 1 and will also include the 1394 digital interface connector. A security card (or POD) provided by the cable operator is required to view encrypted programming.

Digital Cable Ready 3 refers to a consumer electronics TV receiving device capable of receiving analog, basic, digita basic, and digital premium cable television programming by direct connection to a cable system providing digital programming. This device will incorporate all features defined in Digital Cable Ready 1 and also receive advanced and interactive digital services by direct connection to a cable system providing digital programming and advanced and interactive digital services and programming. A security card (or POD) provided by the cable operator is required to view encrypted programming.And then, again, re-affirmed in 2003.http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6515287620

FCC Second Report and Order
In the Matter of Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment
Adopted: September 10, 2003

Each of the Digital Cable Ready 1-2-3 labels reflects the ability of receivers to perform basic cable navigation for analog, digital basic and digital premium services, as well as receive encrypted services with a POD. Digital Cable Ready 2 and Digital Cable Ready 3 receivers additionally support interactive two-way services, although they differ in how they provide these functions.

Receivers under the Digital Cable Ready 2 category use a set-top box that connects to the television via a 1394 connector while Digital Cable Ready 3 devices support interactive services without a set-top box.

(...)

Cable Subscribers owning unidirectional digital cable televisions or DTV monitors that wish to receive advanced, interactive services will need a seperate set-top box in order to do so. As a means of ensuring the connectivity of these devices, the proposed rules would obligate all cable operators to (provide) "functional" 1394 interfaces.Cable, comsumer electronics makers, and the FCC agreed to Firewire as the "inurance policy" ... as the upgrade path way back in 2000 ... and again confirmed it in 2003.

Now ... cost / benefit / demand ... Tivo obviously decided there wasn't the demand for Firewire ... the cost / benefit was justified ... whatever. But ... it is exactly how the three groups agreed to as a way to (optionally) allow for SDV support via UDCP DVRs ... a long, long, long time ago ...

[samo]

Cable, comsumer electronics makers, and the FCC agreed to Firewire as the "inurance policy" ... as the upgrade path way back in 2000 ... and again confirmed it in 2003.

Now ... cost / benefit / demand ... Tivo obviously decided there wasn't the demand for Firewire ... the cost / benefit was justified ... whatever. But ... it is exactly how the three groups agreed to as a way to (optionally) allow for SDV support via UDCP DVRs ... a long, long, long time ago ...
So basically complaint to FCC about SDV will be completely groundless. If TiVo knew about SDV coming some time in a future and decided not to include firewire port, then it is their problem.

[GoHokies!]

dt_dc, that sounds like a brilliant solution - is there a provision in Cable labs certification-land for saving from a firewire input? Or would Tivo just have dispensed with the Cable cards altogether and stuck with a STB controlling HD box?

[DCIFRTHS]

Nice rhetoric, ...

Thanks :)

...but is factually incorrect. From cablecard primer source: (http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.html)

That means that present cable card is capable of receiving SDV. Some manufacturers like Samsung decided to include two-way functionality in their receivers (Sumsung did it and got Cable Labs approval in August 2005) and some manufacturers like TiVo decided not to include it.

Actually, you are leaving out the facts. The most important one is that while the CC spec does allow for 2 way functionality, (I never said it didn't) it would be almost impossible to make this work because the cable head end has to support it, and as far as I know, there are no standards for this. Maybe you can point me to the FAQ that lists the standards that any CE company (not just TiVo) would need to make a fully functional two way CC device.

So my question to you is: Why include two way functionality, in a device, if there is nothing that you can do with it?

"For the future.", you say?

Hmm. Do you really think that a standard for two way communication is around the corner? "Not even close." I say.

"OCAP", you say?
What's the point of owning a TiVo if the interface looks like a cable company box? "There is none.", you quietly reply....

EDIT: Yes. I do hold the FCC responsible for this debacle. They are supposed to make things better, and not mandate half-assed solutions, and then sit back and watch the wreckage. This is my opinion, and you obviously feel differently - which is fine- even though you are wrong ;) :)

[GoHokies!]

Fine - but again how did Samsung do it?

Read the thread:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4852075&&#post4852075

Edit: I swear there was a post between DCIFRTHS and mine when I started writing this - I quoted most of it...

[kjmcdonald]

So basically complaint to FCC about SDV will be completely groundless. If TiVo knew about SDV coming some time in a future and decided not to include firewire port, then it is their problem.

I find DT_DC's comments interesting, and I' learned more that I didn't know before.

That said, I don't think Tivo knew about SDV specifically. I don't know that the documents refered to specificall mention it either. It's my guess that Firewire was thier plan for anything that came along that a unidirectional device couldn't do. I read DT_DC's post as saying that SDV is just the first thing to come along that is really pushing people to want to use it.

Still, given that this was documented way back when I'm very disappointed that Tivo left this one thing out. I remember people mentioning lack of firewire in the beginning, but since all I could think of to use it with was a HD, and eSATA seemed like a good alternative. Now, seeing the other things the firewire could be used for, eSATA doesn't seem like an equal replacement after all. :(

Now I wonder if at least someone could come up with a (rate-limited) USB to Firewire adapter? Maybe that's an easier solution than an external upstream module?

-Kyle

[samo]

Yes. I do hold the FCC responsible for this debacle. They are supposed to make things better, and not mandate half-assed solutions, and then sit back and watch the wreckage.
Actually, I agree with this particular statement. :) But I also hold TiVo responsible for releasing the product that does not have a hardware that could be upgraded by software to work with SDV. As dt_dc pointed out in his excellent post, it wouldn't even have to be 2-way certification, just a firewire would do.

[smc]

Can a Firewire to USB cable work? I would post a link of such a think but I haven't posted five times yet. You can go to usbfirewire to see one.

[GoHokies!]

Can a Firewire to USB cable work? I would post a link of such a think but I haven't posted five times yet. You can go to usbfirewire to see one.

You're talking about hooking the firewire output of a cable box to the USB input on the S3? I'm pretty sure that a USB port can't handle the data rate required to handle HD video.

[DeathRider]

Other than some comcast Moxi DVRs, do you see any with active firewire ports (and I believe they may have been disabled with a firmware update)?

Even if they are there for an "insurance" policy, I doubt whole heartedly they will be used as long as CableLABS and the MPAA have anything to do with it.

I'm referring to video transferring from a STB to a DVR.

Even so, will we need to rent 2 STBs, or lose the DT feature of the S3, like the S2DT?

[smc]

If one does a search on firewire transfer rates you'll find that Firewire 1394 transfers at 400Mbs while USB 2.0 does 480Mbs. So USB is faster. When the new firewire standard 1394b comes out then it will blow away USB, but till then USB is faster.

[DCIFRTHS]

Actually, I agree with this particular statement. :) But I also hold TiVo responsible for releasing the product that does not have a hardware that could be upgraded by software to work with SDV.

It definitely would have been nice if they had done that, and I am not opposed to an external solution (if one is even possible). What would bother me is if they built in the capability for an "unknown spec", eventually implemented it, and the box slowed to a crawl.


As dt_dc pointed out in his excellent post, it wouldn't even have to be 2-way certification, just a firewire would do.

His (her?) posts are always interesting, and filled with information. One of my favorite posters!

I wonder how many CPU cycles firewire requires?

EDIT: No offense meant by my questioning dt_dc's gender. I just don't know the answer...

[AaRdVarK3]

To answer two questions:

1) While USB 2.0 is theoretically faster than FireWire, FW wins in real world tests. USB requires a considerable amount of overhead.

2) FireWire is not CPU intensive at all. Most of the processing is done by the FireWire controller. USB on the other hand requires a good deal of effort by the host device.

[moyekj]

As mentioned above I can see why firewire was really not a viable option for Tivo especially for a dual tuner unit since it would require connecting it to two separate firewire-enabled boxes - way too clunky and expensive having to rent 2 boxes and buy an S3 and pay for service. It may have been viable to have one firewire input to the Tivo which could have been used to handle SDV channels, but then that complicates the software a lot in terms of tying particular channels to be recorded from particular inputs. Just doesn't seem practical.

[dt_dc]

So basically complaint to FCC about SDV will be completely groundless.Groundless? Well now, that would depend on what the complaint was and what it was based on wouldn't it?

Plenty of legitimate reasons for a complaint, request for rulemaking, or other filing to the FCC about SDV ... from consumers or companies. Don't think I've seen any on this thread ... but anyway.

Plenty of groundless reasons for complaints ... plenty of legitimate ones too.

[Saxion]

Have included Firewire on the S3.dt_dc, as always, a pleasure to read your posts.

Can Firewire handle dual data streams? Is a dual-tuner cable box with 2 Firewire streams theoretically possible? If not, perhaps that figured into TiVo's decision.

[dt_dc]

is there a provision in Cable labs certification-land for saving from a firewire input?There are provisions for (DTCP protected) Firewire output. But for input ... nothing in Cable labs certification-land for input because ... it's not needed. CableLabs has no say over Firewire inputs.

However, to be usefull for recording from cable boxes and CableLabs certified devices ... you'd want to support DTCP protection. Supporting DTCP protection means ... DTLA licensing and 5C (Hitachi, Intel, Matsushita, Sony, and Toshiba) approval.

Same general rules apply though ...
http://www.dtcp.com/Or would Tivo just have dispensed with the Cable cards altogether and stuck with a STB controlling HD box?I'd probably buy a Firewire-input based DVR (with or w/o ATSC tuners) w/o CableCard slot(s). Probably not many other people that would though.

Cost / benefit ... supply / demand ... all that good stuff ... yada yada.

[dt_dc]

I think what I meant when I said 'finalized standards' was 'a standard a 3rd party could resonably rely on working out in the real world.'Good way of putting it.

Kinda funny thing about that whole "CableCard 2.0" label. In some ways ... it was very innacurate (implied these new two-way CableCards or something).

But in some ways ...

There's a whole combination of specs, licensing agreements, actual deployment and / or committment to deployment and / or regulated mandated deployment, labeling issues, cost issues (SoCs and standardized chip sets and what-not) ... etc, etc, etc. that's all required to bring two-way products to market.

As a representation of all that ... the whole "CableCard 2.0" label (in some ways) is rather accurate.

[davecramer74]

interesting you bring up the firewire. I know on the motorola boxes they are in fact active and you can plug a pc in and yank the media off the hard drive. I dont know about actually plugging a device in, etc.

Other than some comcast Moxi DVRs, do you see any with active firewire ports (and I believe they may have been disabled with a firmware update)?

http://replayguide.sourceforge.net/dct6412/

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_to_use_a_Motorola_DVR/Firewire

[acvthree]

Plenty of legitimate reasons for a complaint, request for rulemaking, or other filing to the FCC about SDV ... from consumers or companies. Don't think I've seen any on this thread ... but anyway.



Oh Great and Powerful Dt_Dc...

So, how would you word a legitimate complaint to the FCC about SDV? Help a menion out!

Al

[vstone]

OK sports fans. If the concern over SDV revolves around not having two way communication and not about the bandwidth available via firewire, then what is the differnce if that communication is via a direct firewire connection or a firewire connection via USB? or even a firewire connection via ESATA? Those using On Demand programming via a cable box already know that this stuff is not instantaneous.

For the record, I don't know if SATA protocols would support this use of eSATA.

Tivo may have left the firewire port off so the issue of recording HDTV permanently would not be an issue in any way, shape or form.

[MichaelK]

... It may have been viable to have one firewire input to the Tivo which could have been used to handle SDV channels, but then that complicates the software a lot in terms of tying particular channels to be recorded from particular inputs. Just doesn't seem practical.


that's EXACTLY what the S2DT does today. They already have the software to handle such a setup.

[dt_dc]

That said, I don't think Tivo knew about SDV specifically.Depends on what you mean by 'knew about SDV specifically'.

Tivo 'knew' about SDV (specifically) way back in ... hmmm ... 2002. At the latest. Seriously, if they didn't ... someone (or multiple someones) should be fired (if they haven't been already). They knew about 1+Ghz ... knew about 1024QAM ... knew about AVCs ... knew about a whole bunch of things ...

Now, what they didn't 'know' ... for certain ... and what they still don't know (for certain) is exactly when / how / to what extent SDV and other technologies will be deployed. Especially in the 'medium' / product life-cycle term. Short term (up to 2 years or so) ... it can be a bit easier to see how things will shake out. Longer term (5+ years) ... well, you can usually figure out the broad strokes that will guide an industry. It's that medium-term 2-5 year technology roadmap that is a bear to figure out.

Some of these 'SDV will be deployed like this' posts crack me up. Seriously ... if anyone knows cable's exact technology roadmap in the 2-5 year period ... let me know. Cable execs don't know, and are hedging their bets. Cable vendors don't know, and are hedging their bets. Wall street investors and industry analysts don't know, and are hedging their bets. But hey ... if you know that 2-5 year outlook ... I'll put together a portfolio that will double/triple/quadruple your investment. Seriously. Then again, you're probably looking at a 90% loss if you're wrong ...

Tivo doesn't know either (especially since they've got to be looking out accross multiple industries and sectors ... poor saps). They ... like everyone else ... place their bets, roll the dice. If they get it right ... they've got an advantage. Depending on your certainty / aggressiveness / desperateness ... you hedge your bets (or not) to make sure they've got the ability to make adjustments in the short term if things don't shake out like you're thinking in the medium term. Such is the life of Product Managers, CxOs, VCs, investors, etc. etc. At Tivo and everywhere else.

Here's something to remember about SDV ... it makes a great 'story'. A wonderful 'story'. A beautiful 'story'. Puts 'It's a Wonderful Life' to shame. From a CAPEX / COGS / ARPU / EBITDA ... SDV and DSG and DOCSIS 3.0 and some of the other cable techs are a wonderful, beautiful, story. Goes something like this ... "We had our CAPEX spending back in the late 90's (which you slammed us for back then). Now, this great plant infrastructure we've put in place lets us spend next to nothing and stay ahead of competitors who have to spend billions (launching sattelites, replacing CPEs, upgrading plants by running FTTH, using limited unproven untested technology like FTTN and IPTV) just to keep up. Reward us for our insight ... punish our competitors for their failures. Thank you very much, it's a wonderful (cable) life".

'Plant Upgrades' and 'Rebuilds' and the like ... very, very bad stories. Ishtar bad. Wall Street Atomic Wedgie bad.

Rolling / incremental / adjustable / flexible CAPEX spending like SDV and DSG and DOCSIS 3.0 ... much better. Especially at a time when Time Warner is spinning out their IPO ... and Adelphia is being aquired ... and BigBand and Terrayon and RGB and similar companies that cable companies have invested in are spinning off, getting aquired, and having IPOs ...

But anyway, I digress.

Good story ... good bit of truth to it ... some fiction ... we're moving from exposition to rising action ... dunno what the climax and falling action will hold (nor does Tivo) ... seems to have a rather obvious denoument but ... we shall see.It's my guess that Firewire was thier plan for anything that came along that a unidirectional device couldn't do. I read DT_DC's post as saying that SDV is just the first thing to come along that is really pushing people to want to use it.

Still, given that this was documented way back when I'm very disappointed that Tivo left this one thing out. I remember people mentioning lack of firewire in the beginning, but since all I could think of to use it with was a HD, and eSATA seemed like a good alternative. Now, seeing the other things the firewire could be used for, eSATA doesn't seem like an equal replacement after all.Ohh ... haven't even gotten started on everything Firewire can / could do. Lots of good / great reasons to include Firewire.

Then again, lots of good reasons not too.

Put 'em all together, mix them with other factors and whada ya got?

An S3 with no Firewire and that's just that.Now I wonder if at least someone could come up with a (rate-limited) USB to Firewire adapter? Maybe that's an easier solution than an external upstream module?USB and Firewire are in completely different leagues in the CE world. Not saying either is better / worse ... more / less usefull. Just completely different and suited to different things. In the PC world, where we've got massize generalized CPUs and common OSs and no need for encryption and ... well in the PC world they 'compete' and are seen as interchangeable.

In the CE world ... that eSATA port ... or 8VSB or QAM modulation via the coax input ... both are more similar to Firewire than USB.

[sfhub]

I don't buy this Firewire argument at all.

Does anyone really think it is viable to sell a dual-tuner PVR that requires 1 or 2 STBs sitting on top of it? That will go over real well with the wife and your electricity bill. If the firewire channel change has some incompatibility do they fall back on IR blasters?

Bottom line, if the cable company can produce an integrated dual-tuner PVR, so should third parties like TiVo. Giving consumer choices, that is the whole point of all this isn't it?

It is like the MSOs can take the highway to the airport, but all 3rd parties have to take local streets and stop at every traffic light. Yeah, the 3rd parties can still get there eventually so they aren't technically locked out, but in reality they are.

[sfhub]

If one wants to say TiVo knew about SDV then they should feel equally comfortable saying the MSOs knew about the CC mandate. Since the cutoff was pushed back multiple times, why did they allow CC implementations that would not be compatible with their future plans. MSOs came up with CableCARD through their proxy CableLABs. The CE industry didn't come up with this on their own.

[sfhub]

In our society the job of a powerful agency like the FCC is to protect the public interest because we don't really have a say in this but can be hurt by it.

The fallback for not having agency oversight is for legislation and litigation, which many people feel would be less efficient.

[kjmcdonald]

Depends on what you mean by 'knew about SDV specifically'.

Tivo 'knew' about SDV (specifically) way back in ... hmmm ... 2002. At the latest. Seriously, if they didn't ... someone (or multiple someones) should be fired (if they haven't been already). They knew about 1+Ghz ... knew about 1024QAM ... knew about AVCs ... knew about a whole bunch of things ...

OK, I stand corrected then. :)

Any insight on things like this (http://hd.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=99651) that make the reality of working 2-way CE devices seem much more near term?

Also can you explain how MoCa (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9671171&&#post9671171) fits into this picture?

-Kyle

[dt_dc]

EDIT: No offense meant by my questioning dt_dc's gender. I just don't know the answer...He took no offense.I wonder how many CPU cycles firewire requires?Jack and squat.

Someone, somewhere, should have / could have written a good article about the differences between USB / Firewire in the PC world vs. the differences between USB / Firewire in the CE world. Ahh well ... have to see if I can find something.

But anyway, yes, CPU usage is a biggun (as far as those differences go) ... and of course, typical PC CPU vs typical CE CPU and PC / CE CPU trends ...

[dt_dc]

So, how would you word a legitimate complaint to the FCC about SDV?Just keep in mind this ...

The 'FCC mandate' is to "assure the commercial availability, (...) of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment".

That's it. Nothing more ... nothing less. On the one hand, seems rather weak. Nothing about making sure consumers can access all content without an STB ... or making sure cable companies don't undermine consumer devices ... or making sure cable companies don't deploy things that can't be accessed via consumer devices ... or, well, a whole lot of the other things that people seem to ascribe to 'FCC mandates'.

Just ... "assure the commercial availability". Just make sure they're available in stores. That's it.

Ahhh ... but on the other hand, they must "assure commercial availability". It's not enough to simply make it possible to build a navigation device. To have the potential of commercial availability ... it must be assured. Pretty broad / poweful ...

Bottom line is this ... does SDV (significantly) impact consumers' purchasing decisions? There's the key. Nothing more ... nothing less.

[MichaelK]

If one wants to say TiVo knew about SDV then they should feel equally comfortable saying the MSOs knew about the CC mandate. Since the cutoff was pushed back multiple times, why did they allow CC implementations that would not be compatible with their future plans. MSOs came up with CableCARD through their proxy CableLABs. The CE industry didn't come up with this on their own.


of course cable knew. If you want to be a pessimist and assume cable is evil (sometimes it's tough not too) then they purposely havne't come up with a 2-way standard that the CEA agrees too in order to keep people locked their hardware and therefore their ui.

[jacksonian]

samo,
I'm not disputing your claim since I don't know what is actually true. But what you've posted is a direct contradiction to all the information I've read on this topic. If what you posted is in fact true, then TiVo could make an S4 TODAY that will work with SDV, correct? So why wouldn't they do that?

[kjmcdonald]

Ahhh ... but on the other hand, they must "assure commercial availability". It's not enough to simply make it possible to build a navigation device. To have the potential of commercial availability ... it must be assured. Pretty broad / poweful ...

Bottom line is this ... does SDV (significantly) impact consumers' purchasing decisions? There's the key. Nothing more ... nothing less.

Well according to the wording you quoted, it doesn't even need to impact consumer's purchasing decisions, it needs to impact Manufacturer's product roadmaps. It's about assuring the creation of the devices, not the purchase.

Extrapolating from the wording, it really leaves the power in the hands of the CE vendors.

If they could really speak with one voice, and have no dissenting companies, then if it said it wouldn't make a single device available unless the spec looked a specific way, then (after a long debate/wait) the FCC would be mandated to force the MSO's to accept that spec?

Am I missing something?

-Kyle

[MichaelK]

Well according to the wording you quoted, it doesn't even need to impact consumer's purchasing decisions, it needs to impact Manufacturer's product roadmaps. It's about assuring the creation of the devices, not the purchase.

Extrapolating from the wording, it really leaves the power in the hands of the CE vendors.

If they could really speak with one voice, and have no dissenting companies, then if it said it wouldn't make a single device available unless the spec looked a specific way, then (after a long debate/wait) the FCC would be mandated to force the MSO's to accept that spec?

Am I missing something?

-Kyle


that sounds like a plan. I guess the problem is so many of the big guns buckled and signed on to OCAP as it stands now?

[kjmcdonald]

that sounds like a plan. I guess the problem is so many of the big guns buckled and signed on to OCAP as it stands now?

It's starting to appear (http://hd.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=99651) that way.