SDV Pain Growing

[MurrayJimW]

Time Warner Greensboro / Winston Salem now has the following channels that are not available to Cablecard customers:

TWC HD
LMN HD
CNN HD
UHD
Food HD
History HD
AETV HD
TBS HD
ESPNU

This is in addition to any Spanish language programming, West Coast feeds of premiums (HBO, MAX etc.), and a host of on demand channels and PPV.

I have been told by a tier 3 tech at TWC here that ANY new additions to the cable lineup will be implemented using SDV. This means while HDTV continues its growth with new channels being added on a continual basis; those of us with Tivos will likely be left with only the local channels in HD eventually.

All in all this currently comprises better than 50 channels if you include the on demand and PPV's.

It's getting very very difficult for me to continue to justify the extra expense of HD Tivos to myself when this is continually happening with no word from Tivo on a timeframe for a solution. I can also no longer recommend Tivo's to anyone I know as they are all buying HD sets and anything I tell them to buy could be rendered useless at any time by these developments. Someone needs to do something immediately......

Jim Murray
TWC Winston Salem, NC

[nrc]

All in all this currently comprises better than 50 channels if you include the on demand and PPV's.
Including On Demand and PPV is a bit of a stretch. By that logic Amazon Unbox gives you thousands of channels not available on cable.

It's getting very very difficult for me to continue to justify the extra expense of HD Tivos to myself when this is continually happening with no word from Tivo on a timeframe for a solution. I can also no longer recommend Tivo's to anyone I know as they are all buying HD sets and anything I tell them to buy could be rendered useless at any time by these developments. Someone needs to do something immediately......
If TiVo were able to "do something immediately" we'd have a solution by now. They can only proceed with cooperation from the cable industry and that doesn't happen without the constant pressure from regulatory agencies.

It's perfectly reasonable to consider these factors in your decision on TiVo. It's also exactly what the cable industry wants and why they're in no hurry to support a solution. Don't blame TiVo. They don't have any option to solve the problem on their own or any real leverage to make the cable industry move any faster.

If you're looking for someone to blame, blame the FCC for allowing the cable industry to stall the CC initiative for so long to begin with and then allowing them to continue to stall on solutions for advanced services.

[MurrayJimW]

Including On Demand and PPV is a bit of a stretch. By that logic Amazon Unbox gives you thousands of channels not available on cable..

Agreed, BUT I am paying the cable company for these services and my decision to use Tivo's box prevents me from receiving a service I am paying for. I pay Tivo to provide the option of Unbox and then pay Amazon if I use it. It's also not available in HD.


If TiVo were able to "do something immediately" we'd have a solution by now. They can only proceed with cooperation from the cable industry and that doesn't happen without the constant pressure from regulatory agencies.

It's perfectly reasonable to consider these factors in your decision on TiVo. It's also exactly what the cable industry wants and why they're in no hurry to support a solution. Don't blame TiVo. They don't have any option to solve the problem on their own or any real leverage to make the cable industry move any faster.


You are preaching to the choir here. I have been using Tivos since 1998 and would hate to give it up. I always give Tivo the benefit of the doubt when problems arise, but SDV has been deployed for quite some time now. Tivo knowingly sold and is selling units that are being crippled by this technology. Ideally I would have at least expected a lawsuit be filed against the cable operators rendering the cablecards useless by deploying SDV. This may not be a short term solution, but would at least make me feel as though something was being done on my behalf and may serve to delay or discourage more widespread deployment of the SDV platform pending a workable technical solution. Perhaps if Tivo is not able to make a box that works on these platforms they should cease production completely and concentrate of the software side of things. I'd be more than happy for TWC to provide me a box with Tivo software on it and be done with the constant crap that goes along with owning your own.


If you're looking for someone to blame, blame the FCC for allowing the cable industry to stall the CC initiative for so long to begin with and then allowing them to continue to stall on solutions for advanced services

I do blame the cable industry and the FCC, but they did not sell me 2 boxes costing over $2000 that don't work as advertised. I am not naive enough to think THEY are going to come up with a solution or slow the deployment of SDV because it is wrong and not following the cablecard mandate. The responsibility for making a product work with an existing technology falls squarely on the manufacturers shoulders.

[yunlin12]

I do blame the cable industry and the FCC, but they did not sell me 2 boxes costing over $2000 that don't work as advertised.


I don't think Tivo advertised that their box would work with SDV.

On th otherhand, if cable advertised digital HD new channels, then pulled the rug out from under those who use cable cards (not just Tivo users), aren't they the one not delivering as advertised?

[HiKent]

All I can say is hope that the Triad TWC doesn't talk to their cousins at TWC Hawaii. Here, the just moved *all the existing* HD to SDV & cancelled HD subscriptions for cablecards. We do get broadcast HDs (what little they bother to timeshift here in Hawaii), but HDNET, TBS, Nat'l Geo, MTV, CNN, etc, etc they just cancelled.

My Dad lives in W-S & asked me about upgrading his TiVo for HD. I told him not to do it -- it's not worth the grief.

I also blame TiVo for selling me a $1000 box (w/transfer) to receive HD -- and less than one year later it doesn't work. And no solution in sight. And it just keeps getting worse.

Good luck -- and enjoy your HD before TWC takes it away...

[classicsat]

Agreed, BUT I am paying the cable company for these services and my decision to use Tivo's box prevents me from receiving a service I am paying for.

And you knew going in that SDV could be a problem. Or at least could have known of the situation if you had done your research.

I always give Tivo the benefit of the doubt when problems arise, but SDV has been deployed for quite some time now.

And the Series 3 platform has been around as long (in development) or as longer as SDV has been a concern. When TiVo designed the S3, SDV wasn't a big concern, and there weren't two-way standards they could build to at all, let alone by compromising the TiVo platform (as they'd have to for OCAP).


Perhaps if Tivo is not able to make a box that works on these platforms they should cease production completely and concentrate of the software side of things.

Right now, there are more potential customers that will get by without SDV, so TiVo will keep producing them.


The responsibility for making a product work with an existing technology falls squarely on the manufacturers shoulders.
TiVo did build a box with the technology available to them at the time, or to the standard that would least compromise the TiVo platform.

[morac]

All I can say is hope that the Triad TWC doesn't talk to their cousins at TWC Hawaii.

SDV is the future, there's no getting around that. It's basically a matter of when, not if.

For what it's worth, while TW is leading the way with SDV, people in Comcast territory aren't immune either. Comcast completed trials of SDV and the CEO says he loves it. I'm expecting it to go into use early next year in my area based on comments from local techs and the CEO.

If you believe TiVo's web site, they say they'll have a work around before SDV is widely deployed (http://tivosupport2.instancy.com/LaunchContent.aspx?CID=CBECF1B9-88DE-4B74-82C1-754C3260112A), which by my estimates means they should have something by mid 2008, but I'm not holding my breath.

[moyekj]

I personally sympathize with people affected by SDV. It's easy if you are not currently affected by it to spout out "it's not Tivo's fault", "you should have known you were taking the risk" and other cliches that are getting old. I'd like some additional information from Tivo exactly what progress is being made towards a solution, or if there is no progress I'd like to know that as well. Right now it's beginning to sound more like a marketing ploy to hold onto customers a little longer until it becomes clear a solution is not in the works... Of course that's only speculation, but given the lack of additional information, speculation is all we have to go with.

[HDTiVo]

I was thinking of starting a thread for ideas on getting compensation for SDV and getting the FCC and franchise authorities involved in slowing SDV deployment subject to the dongle thing becoming available.

Sharing experiences about getting free or reduced price equipment or reduced price service fees from the cable company, and info on who/how/what to contact at the FCC would be helpful.

If the public speaks up enough, the pressure will slow SDV and push the dongle along.

One basic arguement is that SDV breaks an existing standard of reception (cableCARD/One-way devices) for a class of channels which were intended to be fully receivable by the devices. It is not about other classifications of channels, like VOD or PPV. Using SDV is analogous to broadcasting color TV in a way that B&W sets couldn't display it in B&W. Until a dongle is available, SDV should not be allowed for broadcast cable channels.

[sfhub]

TiVo should just be forced to put a big fat label on their boxes that says smoking SDV is hazardous to TiVo's health.

I would guess over 80% of the people buying TiVo HDs still have no idea what SDV is.

At this point, TiVo knows about the problem. They need to just fess up and warn people of the problem very clearly on the box. You can't expect every customer to tread through huge SDV threads to figure out what is going on.

[Combat Medic]

I was thinking of starting a thread for ideas on getting compensation for SDV and getting the FCC and franchise authorities involved in slowing SDV deployment subject to the dongle thing becoming available.

Sharing experiences about getting free or reduced price equipment or reduced price service fees from the cable company, and info on who/how/what to contact at the FCC would be helpful.

If the public speaks up enough, the pressure will slow SDV and push the dongle along.

One basic arguement is that SDV breaks an existing standard of reception (cableCARD/One-way devices) for a class of channels which were intended to be fully receivable by the devices. It is not about other classifications of channels, like VOD or PPV. Using SDV is analogous to broadcasting color TV in a way that B&W sets couldn't display it in B&W. Until a dongle is available, SDV should not be allowed for broadcast cable channels.

I sent a message to the Texas Public Utilities Commission complaining about SDV and asking for a percentage discount off my bill for every channel that I can't get. So, if I can't get 10% of the channels I want a 10% discount until that dongle is available.

We'll see what happens.

[bicker]

I don't think Tivo advertised that their box would work with SDV.You are correct. The TiVo does indeed work as advertised.

[bicker]

Right now, there are more potential customers that will get by without SDV, so TiVo will keep producing them.I don't think that's the issue. Rather, TiVo has something that they can sell to customers that can get by without SDV support, while they don't have something that they can sell to customers that cannot by without SDV support -- it is as simple as that. TiVo doesn't make a DVR that works with DirecTV either -- that doesn't mean that TiVo should, effectively, go out of the DVR business.

[bicker]

If you believe TiVo's web site, they say they'll have a work around before SDV is widely deployed (http://tivosupport2.instancy.com/LaunchContent.aspx?CID=CBECF1B9-88DE-4B74-82C1-754C3260112A), which by my estimates means they should have something by mid 2008, but I'm not holding my breath.Indeed, and anyone who reads that notation and interprets it that that means that the solution will make their Series 3 work regardless of SDV is misleading themselves. To satisfy that pledge, TiVo needs only have a solution available to get a TiVo to work with SDV in a test environment. It will be incumbent on your cable company working with TiVo to facilitate the translation of that success into a solution that works in your home. It is not logical to place an obligation on TiVo regarding that without giving TiVo control over the cable company IMHO.

For example, TiVo -- right now -- promises to offer a solution that works with encrypted digital cable. However, if your cable company is one of those that has run out of CableCards and cannot get more, that's not TiVo's fault.

[bicker]

I personally sympathize with people affected by SDV. It's easy if you are not currently affected by it to spout out "it's not Tivo's fault", "you should have known you were taking the risk" and other cliches that are getting old.True, but perhaps the problem is the act of trying to assign fault itself. Stuff happens. When it happens to you, that's unfortunate. It isn't necessary for that to be a context for adjudicating blame.

[yunlin12]

I just wish more people did what Combat Medic did if SDV happened to them. CIf anyone is at fault, cable is the root, yeah we can ask Tivo to give us more info, but basically they and all the other CE who are afraid of adding cable card support in their product are all powerless unless consumers complain to the FCC and stand up to cable.

[MurrayJimW]

I don't think Tivo advertised that their box would work with SDV.


I see several of you jumping on the bandwagon with this one. I can't think of a more ridiculous statement. Tivo didn't advertise that it wouldn't work either. My recollection is that the box was advertised as digital cable compatible which obviously now it isn't all the time.

SDV is a little known technology. Just because almost all of the people on these boards know what it is means nothing. I have spoken to many many people at TWC that have no clue including the tech that was here this afternoon who deals with this stuff for a living. If TWC's employees don't know what it is then how should Joe Consumer before purchasing a Tivo?

[nrc]

The funny thing is that until the S3 came out people kept asking when TiVo was going to have a CC/HD solution and the standard answer was that CC wasn't ready. It may be that if TiVo had it's way they'd still be giving that answer. But the truth is that they were simply losing too much business to integrated cable DVRs to wait for a flawless solution.

[George Cifranci]

Lets just hope the "Tuning Resolver" comes out soon...

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6471733.html

I dread when Time Warner Columbus comes out with a bunch of new HD channels (most likely they will also be put on SDV).

However, when I bought my Series 3 in late December 2006 it was known and discussed on these forums even back then that SDV was coming.

[yunlin12]

I see several of you jumping on the bandwagon with this one. I can't think of a more ridiculous statement. Tivo didn't advertise that it wouldn't work either. My recollection is that the box was advertised as digital cable compatible which obviously now it isn't all the time.

SDV is a little known technology. Just because almost all of the people on these boards know what it is means nothing. I have spoken to many many people at TWC that have no clue including the tech that was here this afternoon who deals with this stuff for a living. If TWC's employees don't know what it is then how should Joe Consumer before purchasing a Tivo?

Yes no one said anything about SDV a year ago even though people in the know knew. Tivo didn't, cable didn't. You want to blame this all one Tivo, you go ahead, I just think it's unfair. Also, it doesn't do much just pointing finger here.

The bottom line is Tivo isn't the one who brought about SDV, it's the cable company, and it's not Tivo who controls how to deploy a solution for this, it's once again cable. If you have the energy to complain and argue here, you may as well take your energy to go after the cable company. You, Tivo, all cable card users, and all CE companies that are trying to make products for cable cards are the victims here.

Edit: one more thought, just something very specific, if you are paying for digital cable, using cable cards which is a cable labs certified device for the entire industry, why aren't you entitled to get all the channels that cable companies provide. If they deploy a technology that breaks cable cards, why shouldn't you demand a discount on the rate that you are paying?

[inaka]

I also blame TiVo for selling me a $1000 box (w/transfer) to receive HD -- and less than one year later it doesn't work. And no solution in sight. And it just keeps getting worse.
It sounds like the smart thing to do would be to get the cable HD DVR for one month and test them both side by side. The pros with the generic cable DVR are that you'll get all the HD channels, on demand, and no chance of losing more HD channels as you add them, etc., The bad news? It's a DVR not nearly as good as the Tivo.

Weigh the options side by side and see if the benefits outweigh the lack of tivo software. You never know.

The good news is that you could sell your lifetime enabled HD Series 3 Tivo for probably more than you bought it for and sit on the sidelines with the cable co DVR until things work out.

[ADent]

This is a total failure of Cable Cards - They don't work with SDV for consumer equipment and there is not really any CC2.0 stuff out there.

I would complain loudly to FCC (they are the ones supposedly requiring CC cards - which is pointless with SDV) and your Federal reps to get on the FCCs case.

----

BTW here is a post from this forum from over a year ago (6/5/2006) talking about how Switched Digital needs CC2.0 to work and thusly not compatible with a S3.
The downside is that this requires bidirectional communication with the cable network, and this is not compatible with today's Digital Cable Ready tuners, nor CableCARD 1.0 - which also means this won't work with the Series3. This would require the bidirectional features of the oft-delayed CableCARD 2.0, which seems a long way from being settled.

[jacksonian]

I see several of you jumping on the bandwagon with this one. I can't think of a more ridiculous statement. Tivo didn't advertise that it wouldn't work either. My recollection is that the box was advertised as digital cable compatible which obviously now it isn't all the time.

SDV is a little known technology. Just because almost all of the people on these boards know what it is means nothing. I have spoken to many many people at TWC that have no clue including the tech that was here this afternoon who deals with this stuff for a living. If TWC's employees don't know what it is then how should Joe Consumer before purchasing a Tivo?
Jim, obviously I feel your pain because I'm on your system. And I understand being angry and frustrated, I am too. But you're making our point for us.

If you've spoken to many people at TWC that have no clue what SDV is, why do you expect TiVo to put a big label on their box that says, "May not work with a technology that may or may not affect you, and even if it does, most of the people at your cable company likely have no idea if you're affected or not, so you may not want to buy our product." Seriously?

There was another W-S guy on the AVS forum who couldn't figure out why his TV with cablecard couldn't tune those new HD channels last month. He called dozens of people at TWC, had several techs out, had cable cards swapped out serveral times, and NO ONE at TWC knew anything about SDV and those channels being on SDV. I was the one who told him he would never be able to tune those channels with a cablecard.

So you can't throw this on TiVo. Yes, I want a dongle yesterday. And I won't wait forever. But I'm trying to be patient as long as I can, hoping that they'll get the tuning resolver finished in the next 6-12 months.

[bicker]

I see several of you jumping on the bandwagon with this one. I can't think of a more ridiculous statement. Perhaps because it undercuts your side of the argument definitively?

Tivo didn't advertise that it wouldn't work either.Now that IS a ridiculous statement. The object of marketing is to highlight the strengths of a product.

My recollection is that the box was advertised as digital cable compatible which obviously now it isn't all the time. So perhaps -- only PERHAPS -- "now" (your word, not mine) they should be warning folks about SDV. Not before.... but "now".

[bicker]

This is a total failure of Cable Cards - They don't work with SDV for consumer equipment and there is not really any CC2.0 stuff out there.

I would complain loudly to FCC (they are the ones supposedly requiring CC cards - which is pointless with SDV) and your Federal reps to get on the FCCs case.Absolutely. This isn't TiVo's fault; this isn't the cable company's fault. It is a fault of the regulatory system; it is the FCC's fault, if anyone's.

[MurrayJimW]

So perhaps -- only PERHAPS -- "now" (your word, not mine) they should be warning folks about SDV. Not before.... but "now".

My point exactly.

Perhaps I don't state things as well as I should sometimes. I did not expect a warning from Tivo last September when I bought my boxes and I would have bought them anyway. I had been waiting years for a HD Tivo box to show its face and would have purchased it no matter the SDV issue.

I do NOT fault Tivo for not being able to snap their fingers and come up with a solution to a problem the cable companies are intentionally creating for us. I fault the cable companies and I fault the FCC for not strictly enforcing a mandate they imposed. I think it is more than unfair to pass rules and regulations opening up competition in this arena and then leaving small companies open to bankruptcy because the government is not forcing cablecards to work as they were intended. I cannot imagine the frustration I would feel if I had produced and marketed a product for use with these cards and then had the rug pulled out from under me (nor can I imagine the financial toll).

That being said, Tivo is currently selling a rather expensive box to unsuspecting folks who are going to be very upset when they get it home and hook it up to their new HDTV. When they find out they cannot watch their college football team on Saturday even though all their neighbors with the same digital package are enjoying it, Tivo is going to be the one blamed because Tivo is the portion of the system that is unable to tune the game. It's only natural and expected that if you buy a product and it does not perform to your expectations you are going to be frustrated with the product - not the cable company.

I still stand by my original statements. If those of you who think I am solely blaming Tivo for this will go back and read, you will see this simply isn't true. I am simply making a call for Tivo to exhaust all resources possible to fix the problem or attempt to slow the rollout of SDV. People need to be warned of this at the point of sale whether it's a notice on the box or some other means. I would also have expected Tivo or someone else to file suit by now against the FCC, the cable companies, or both for intentionally disabling a system that was agreed upon and designed by the folks that are now abandoning it.

You want to blame this all one Tivo, you go ahead, I just think it's unfair.

I'm not even sure where this came from or how you got that impression. I've gone back and read my post and I can see nothing that would infer this is the case.

Jim

[puckettcg]

I don't think Tivo can do anything about this problem, but I do believe they will get to a workaround. I also don't think that the Cableco's are actively trying to undercut TIVO either. Cable is suffering from its own failure to upgrade its bandwidth, and when you have Direct TV actively advertising that it will soon have 150 channels, Cable has to do something to fight back. In my area, (Richmond, VA), Comcast hasn't indicated its going to SDV yet, but the signal quality is obviously suffering some stress, and word is they are planning to drop all but local channels from their analog lineup in 2008 to free up bandwidth for more HD content.

But what you don't see in Direct TV's advertising is a direct comparison to Verizon FiOS. That's probably has as much to do with FiOS not having enough penetration yet, as anything, but its also true that FiOS isn't going to have any trouble adding additional HD content because they spent the money to build the infrastructure. Its also why I switched from Comcast to FiOS as soon as it was available in my area. True you still can't get on-demand through a cable card, but I'll rent a box to get that content (it ended up being free anyway with my 2 year commitment). Customer service pretty much stinks anywhere and I saw no improvement switching to FiOS, but my signal strength is much higher and I don't have to worry about them running out of capacity any time soon.

Quite frankly, it would serve Comcast right if they go out of business over their failure to keep up. And as long as DirectTV is out there, there will be enough competition to keep prices in check in and encourage innovation.

[bicker]

It's only natural and expected that if you buy a product and it does not perform to your expectations you are going to be frustrated with the product - not the cable company. Or, as is the case this time, frustrated with the government.

However, misdirected anger by customers is something that is somewhat beyond the power of manufacturers. It is up to retailers to ensure they provide all appropriate information. If you purchase a TiVo at tivo.com, you'll find this warning (http://www.tivo.com/whatistivo/tivohd/faqs/index.html#24): "Currently, certain advanced and interactive digital cable services such as video-on-demand, enhanced program guide, and pay-per-view services may require the use of a separate cable company-provided set-top box. For more information about interactive digital cable services, please call your local cable operator." I agree that, at this time, they should perhaps add, "... switched digital video ..." to that list of advanced and interactive digital cable services. However, they have no obligation to publicize the limitation any more broadly than that.

And as you yourself wrote: People need to be warned of this at the point of saleSo if you purchase your TiVo from any other retailer, the obligation we're talking about falls on that retailer, not on TiVo.

I would also have expected Tivo or someone else to file suit by now against the FCC, the cable companies, or both for intentionally disabling a system that was agreed upon and designed by the folks that are now abandoning it. That will not help get them more cooperation, and their complaint will likely fall on deaf ears.

[MurrayJimW]

Or, as is the case this time, frustrated with the government.

However, misdirected anger by customers is something that is somewhat beyond the power of manufacturers. It is up to retailers to ensure they provide all appropriate information. If you purchase a TiVo at tivo.com, you'll find this warning (http://www.tivo.com/whatistivo/tivohd/faqs/index.html#24): "Currently, certain advanced and interactive digital cable services such as video-on-demand, enhanced program guide, and pay-per-view services may require the use of a separate cable company-provided set-top box. For more information about interactive digital cable services, please call your local cable operator." I agree that, at this time, they should perhaps add, "... switched digital video ..." to that list of advanced and interactive digital cable services. However, they have no obligation to publicize the limitation any more broadly than that.

And as you yourself wrote: So if you purchase your TiVo from any other retailer, the obligation we're talking about falls on that retailer, not on TiVo.

That will not help get them more cooperation, and their complaint will likely fall on deaf ears.

I can see why you chose the name Bicker. It seems that's all you're truly after.

I give up.....you're right. Tivo should do nothing. They should keep taking it up the butt from the cable companies and the FCC and pass it on to the consumer.

[jhimmel]

I can see why you chose the name Bicker. It seems that's all you're truly after.

I give up.....you're right. Tivo should do nothing. They should keep taking it up the butt from the cable companies and the FCC and pass it onto the consumer.

You say this because you believe TiVo is doing "nothing"? You don't believe TiVo is extremely concerned about a situation that can completely wipe out their business? You don't believe they are doing whatever they can to solve this major dilemma?

My guess is that they are downplaying the impact while simultaneously working every possible avenue to rectify it. In other words, they are trying to survive. Cable companies will not make it easy.

Jim H.

[MurrayJimW]

You say this because you believe TiVo is doing "nothing"? You don't believe TiVo is extremely concerned about a situation that can completely wipe out their business? You don't believe they are doing whatever they can to solve this major dilemma?

My guess is that they are downplaying the impact while simultaneously working every possible avenue to rectify it. In other words, they are trying to survive. Cable companies will not make it easy.

Jim H.

I do not believe Tivo is doing nothing. I'm sure they're working as hard as possible on a technical solution. Some, however; seem to make the point that it really isn't Tivo's responsibility to inform the public of the problem or to rectify it. I disagree with this. I also do not believe it would kill Tivo to share a little more information on the possible timeframe and proposed solution with those already affected.

[MPeter]

There are those of us who frequent forums and web sites to know the difference between CableCards and SDV. I'm worried that TiVo won't come up with a solution (with the Cable industry's foot dragging), but I knew the risk when I purchased the unit.

But, I can see a large majority of the population just see commercials or a display in-store and have no clue they should be worried about SDV technical issues. I kind of see this as similar to the flack some retailers are getting for selling TV's that still only have an analog tuner. There is supposed to be a warning label about the conversion to digital and the need for a conversion box. TiVo should really be warning consumers a bit more about the SDV issue.

[morac]

Absolutely. This isn't TiVo's fault; this isn't the cable company's fault. It is a fault of the regulatory system; it is the FCC's fault, if anyone's.
I'm not sure how you can blame the FCC for this. The FCC ordered the cable companies to separate the decrypting/decoding of cable signals from the hardware that tunes the channels. In other words make the hardware that handles the DRM separate from the hardware that tunes the signal. The cable companies response to this demand (after sitting on their hands for over 10 years) was the cableCARD standard.

Then once cableCARD comes out, the cable companies decide they don't really like it and want to switch to OCAP and DCAS. They also decide to start using SDV.

Now cableCARD will work with SDV if the box hardware has 2-way communication, but since the cable companies refuse to certify any box as 2-way compatible unless the box implements OCAP and the process for 2-way certification wasn't even available at the time the S3 came out, there is no way the TiVo S3 could be certified for 2-way communication even if it had the hardware.


So I say the FCC did their job (eventually) by getting the cable companies to support cableCARD, but then the cable companies did an end run around the law by implementing SDV. So the vast majority of the blame would lie with the cable companies. A small part could be placed on the FCC for allowing the cable companies so much lee-way and not forcing the standard sooner, but that doesn't spill over into SDV.

[bicker]

My guess is that they are downplaying the impact while simultaneously working every possible avenue to rectify it.Yes, that's probably the case. It is almost as the previous poster expects companies to aggressively discourage customers from buying their products. That is an unreasonable perspective, IMHO.

[bicker]

I'm not sure how you can blame the FCC for this.The FCC put together a regulation that allowed this situation to exist. The blame, if there is to be blame, rests squarely there. If it weren't for that regulation, we wouldn't be down this path at all.

[morac]

The FCC put together a regulation that allowed this situation to exist. The blame, if there is to be blame, rests squarely there. If it weren't for that regulation, we wouldn't be down this path at all.
If it weren't for that regulation, we'd all be using DVR's provided by our cable company because at best TiVo would not be able to provide a HD DVR (ie: no cableCARDS). At worst TiVo would be out of business.

I place the blame on the cable companies for not following the spirit of the regulations. The whole idea was to prevent the cable companies from having a monopoly on cable boxes. The cableCARD standard was the solution to that. SDV is cable's way of bypassing the regulations and force customers to rent from the cable company again (though granted that's not the main reason it's being implemented).

The FCC came up with the regulations over a decade ago (yes it took that long for the cable companies to comply). There's no way the FCC could have included SDV in the regulations since SDV didn't exist back then.

The only thing I fault the FCC is giving the cable companies way more time than was required to get a standard working. Based on the current FCC chairman's statements over the past year, I don't think the cable companies will get a reprieve this time.

[NSPhillips]

I just hope they come up with a word better than "dongle." It's tough to take something seriously when it sounds so stupid and/or pornographic.

[cableguy763]

I hear a lot of people on here claim that the cable co's are using SDV to render Tivo usleless. That is ridiculous. Cable is using SDV so that they can compete in the industry and offer their customers what they want: more HD, faster modem speeds, phone service, and VOD. SDV is the most economical solution for acquiring the needed bandwidth. It is unfortunate that it renders a lot of channels useless for cable card customers. But hindering cable card customers, who make up about .05% of customer base, is a much better decision than pulling a lot of analog services that nearly 99% of their customers still use. Cable LOVES that you are buying a Tivo S3 with a 3 year agreement. That will more than likely make you a cable customer for the next 3 years. It is totally in cable's best interest to cooperate in the making of this dongle. I am sure it will come out soon. I am guessing that they have to wait to see what the largest cable co, Comcast, decides with vendors, etc., etc, in implementing their SDV services. I love my Tivo, and I hope the dongle comes quickly.

[bicker]

If it weren't for that regulation, we'd all be using DVR's provided by our cable company because at best TiVo would not be able to provide a HD DVR (ie: no cableCARDS). That doesn't excuse the damage that the regulation has done -- the very problems that folks are complaining about in this thread. The regulation did that. The regulation.

I place the blame on the cable companies for not following the spirit of the regulations. Why am I not surprised? :p

[morac]

That doesn't excuse the damage that the regulation has done -- the very problems that folks are complaining about in this thread. The regulation did that. The regulation.

So I'm assuming you don't own a S3 or HD. After all you wouldn't want to support regulation of the industry, right? :p

Why am I not surprised? :p
At what, that I blame the cable companies or that they don't like regulation (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1247059120071112)?

[mbhuff]

I hear a lot of people on here claim that the cable co's are using SDV to render Tivo usleless. That is ridiculous. Cable is using SDV so that they can compete in the industry and offer their customers what they want: more HD, faster modem speeds, phone service, and VOD. SDV is the most economical solution for acquiring the needed bandwidth. It is unfortunate that it renders a lot of channels useless for cable card customers. But hindering cable card customers, who make up about .05% of customer base, is a much better decision than pulling a lot of analog services that nearly 99% of their customers still use. Cable LOVES that you are buying a Tivo S3 with a 3 year agreement. That will more than likely make you a cable customer for the next 3 years. It is totally in cable's best interest to cooperate in the making of this dongle. I am sure it will come out soon. I am guessing that they have to wait to see what the largest cable co, Comcast, decides with vendors, etc., etc, in implementing their SDV services. I love my Tivo, and I hope the dongle comes quickly.

I strongly disagree. If you take a little time and check the SEC fillings for the various public cable companies you will find what they are telling their investors. They see the strongest growth potential by controlling the user interface and providing ads, services such as retailing of cars and real estate, PPV/VOD and providing access to their own verison of craigslist/ebay. They see the future with entertainment as just a vehicle to put their box in people's homes. That's why they so strongly push OCAP. OCAP isn't a protocol like tcp/ip, if it was, TiVO would have supported it long ago. Instead it's a standard where the cable companies control what software runs on your hardware. The cable companies will do anything to stop any competing hardware platform. They want to stop TiVO and other companies during their infancy so they don't get a foothold on what the cable companies see as their only way of extending their revenue growth (the market saturation of cable is about as good as it's going to get)

I'm lucky and live in a place where they aren't doing SDV yet, once they do, I'll probably just switch to OTA and tell the cable company where they can put it. I'm not holding any hope for the "tuning resolver" or dongle for SDV. There are two many different head-end SDV systems. Not only would they have to support each different protocol, but have some mechanism to update it when it changes (and trust me, the cable companies will change it early, and often). They can't even produce a product for the different cable companies such as Cox or Comcast becase different regions of Cox or Comcast use different SDV protocols. There is no standard for SDV and there probably never will be. If the cable companies were really doing this for increased bandwidth they would setup a standard into CableLabs to reduce their cost (changing equipment in different regions, etc)...

My bet is that even if TiVO gets out a SDV tuning resolver, the cable companies will annouce a new technology such as "USDV" that is incompatible and they will switch to it in record time.

The real problem is the FCC. They have been feckless over the last 10 years. Had the type of anti-regulatory people been at the FCC at the dawn of TV, every region might have had a different TV standard instead of Never The Same Color. At the time the government setup NTSC, various TV manufacturers tried to stop the implementation because each had their own technology and had hoped to win the war and have a monopoly. Of course, had that happened, TV would never have had mass appeal, but some companies would much rather have 100% of a small pie than 1% of a much larger pie even if it would be more profitable (too much risk and cost).

[Luke M]

I hear a lot of people on here claim that the cable co's are using SDV to render Tivo usleless. That is ridiculous. Cable is using SDV so that they can compete in the industry and offer their customers what they want: more HD, faster modem speeds, phone service, and VOD. SDV is the most economical solution for acquiring the needed bandwidth. It is unfortunate that it renders a lot of channels useless for cable card customers. But hindering cable card customers, who make up about .05% of customer base, is a much better decision than pulling a lot of analog services that nearly 99% of their customers still use. Cable LOVES that you are buying a Tivo S3 with a 3 year agreement. That will more than likely make you a cable customer for the next 3 years. It is totally in cable's best interest to cooperate in the making of this dongle. I am sure it will come out soon.

I agree that switched video deployment is strictly motivated by bandwidth efficiency, but I don't share your optimism about the hypothetical "dongle". It's a kludge, and very few customers will use it, so where's the motivation to pour money into it? The only reason to even propose such a crummy solution is to keep the FCC at bay.

[mbhuff]

Here's a quick question for people that believe that SDV is being deployed for bandwidth reasons:

Why are a number of cable companies announcing SDV for new HD channels even those which they know a majority of people will be watching thus rendering the bandwidth gains moot?

Even with statistical multiplexing in most cases popular channels SDV doesn't gain any additional bandwidth. Perhaps they are just hoping it will help, perhaps they think it will work better in the future, or just perhaps they know that third party devices are increasingly being popular (especially now that Tivo has a cost effective solution), and they want to make sure to kill any non-OCAP solution. Deploying new head-end hardware and pushing out new software solutions for their DVRs/STB so they can SDV channels like TBS, USA, etc is not in their best interest unless their motive is to kill competition.

I don't think cable companies are Dr. Evil plotting world dominion. They are motivated by profit. Their profit is maximized by controlling the device that sits in front of the user. Public companies, and the officers that run it get rewarded not by making a profit for the company, but are rewarded for increasing that profit. It's just a fact of the way stock options and stock grants make companies make decisions that benefit themselves in the short term. Making sure OCAP wins does that for them. Read the filling with the FCC where they even agree to look into the tuning resolver, it drips with condescension toward the hardware manufacturers and makes multiple points that they feel that OCAP is the only reasonable solution.

[cableguy763]

I happen to know a little about the Austin SDV implementation. They are not using SDV on the most popular services, as you pointed out would be a waste. The HD channels that are using SDV are obviously not going to be the major networks, or espn or HBO. The rest of the HD are not watched any more than other SD cable channels. Actually they are watched less. So, someone in Austin obviously knows what he is doing when designating whether a channel will be switched or not. If you want a channel lineup of what is switched, look at the first page of the SDV sticky. Austin has been able to add many HD and SD channels without taking away any analog services. So, looks like they ARE using it for bandwidth management.


I am not debating your marketing aspect at all. I haven't read the filings so I cant really comment on it. I just believe that SDV came around because it is cheaper to implement than say a full plant upgrade to 1 gig. Cable cant just sit on their hands and let D* kill them on the HD offerings.

[mbhuff]

That may be true about Austin's implementation of SDV, but if you read through the various thread about different cable companies and the SDV faq thread, you'll notice many cable companies moving large numbers of the HD channels to SDV, in fact the Hawaii cable company is moving ALL HD channels other than network broadcast to SDV. It may just be a coincidence that these type of moves benefit cable companies pursuit of an all OCAP solution, but I don't think these CEO guys want to place nice with third-party hardware companies.

I hope I'm proven wrong, but I don't think the "tuning resolver" will ever ship, and even if it does, it will be short-lived due to another change instituted by the cable companies. There is far too much money involved for cable companies to take a risk that they might loose control of what they see as their future growth. Only a strong FCC that will enforce not only the letter of the law, but the spirit as well will make the mandates that will allow interoperability.

[lrhorer]

And the Series 3 platform has been around as long (in development) or as longer as SDV has been a concern.
That's not true. SDV has been a concern for several years, now. It's one reason why TiVo delayed the introductiom of the S3 as long as they did.

and there weren't two-way standards they could build to at all
There still aren't. That's a big part of the problem. In the absence of standards, does a technology company go ahead and risk bankruptcy by developing a platform which may severely cripple production and support (not to mention trashing customer satisfaction) when standards are finally produced, or do they risk bankruptcy by not deploying new platforms while their competition races ahead of them?

, let alone by compromising the TiVo platform (as they'd have to for OCAP).
OCAP would not compromise the TiVo platform. The only thing OCAP compromises is the rights and security of the users whose hardware employs it.

TiVo did build a box with the technology available to them at the time,
Not true. Indeed, the hardware is nothing about which to scream, and wasn't when it was developed.

or to the standard that would least compromise the TiVo platform.
They built to the only existing standard. It is still the only existing standard. Neither OpenCable 2.0 nor OCAP are ratified standards, yet, and nothing the individual CATV companies are using at this time is a standard, nor are they overtly compatible with each other. This fact does presents very little consternation for the CATV companies at this time. It presents a significant dilema for TiVo and television manufacturers.

[mbhuff]

Do you know what OCAP is? It isn't a standard or protocol it a middleware layer kinda like a VM. Any implementation of OCAP allows the Cable Company to download their OS on your hardware. If Tivo came out with a OCAP product, your cable company could download SARA or Passport to it, and it wouldn't be a TiVO. The only way this makes sense is if TiVO develops to the OCAP standard and can work a partnership with a cable company like they are doing with Comcast. From what I hear, they are having a lot of issues with it. Creating that middleware layer adds a lot of overhead. Things like MRV and TiVO to Go will be decided by the cablecompany, not by TiVO.

[lrhorer]

Here's a quick question for people that believe that SDV is being deployed for bandwidth reasons:

Why are a number of cable companies announcing SDV for new HD channels even those which they know a majority of people will be watching thus rendering the bandwidth gains moot?
TWC San Antonio has over 1000 channels, right this very moment. Add to this the fact many of these "channels" are VOD, and that Video Re-Do is avialable on all broadcast channels with standard schedules, and this takes the number of "channels" in to the thousands or perhaps tens of thousands.

Even with statistical multiplexing in most cases popular channels SDV doesn't gain any additional bandwidth.
Thousands of video streams on a 750MHz CATV plant where over 400MHz is allocated for classical analog video sounds like they've gained additional bandwidth, to me.

Their profit is maximized by controlling the device that sits in front of the user.
'True enough. What's more important to most companies is the fact costs are minimized by so doing. Bean counters positively hate Costs of Doing Business. It's much easier to establish a fat margin over low operating costs than over high operating costs.

Read the filling with the FCC where they even agree to look into the tuning resolver, it drips with condescension toward the hardware manufacturers
And it happens I agree. I've seen a couple of proposals for tunig resolvers, and none of them are very good. They all seem be based upon a fundamental lack of understanding of the engineering paradigms involved. It's more important we wind up with a scalable and sustainable systems than merely getting it to work at this moment.

and makes multiple points that they feel that OCAP is the only reasonable solution.
I fully agree a middleware solution like OCAP is by far the best solution. What I (and others) dislike is giving the CATV companies the exclusive right to control the OCAP deployment and more importantly to control the user's hardware. The decision to allow or disallow particular software and features on the user's own hardware should be strictly up to the user themselves, as should the choice of which software they wish to deploy.

[HiDefGator]

Imagine what would happen if Tivo put a warning label on the box that suggested customers check with their cable company first about advanced digital feature compatibility before purchasing. 19 out of every 20 customers would get talked out of buying the Tivo by the cable operator. It would be the end of their HD sales.

[lrhorer]

Do you know what OCAP is?
Do you?

It isn't a standard
Yes, it is.

or protocol
It is several protocols.

it a middleware layer
All any middleware is is a bunch of protocols. It is a dual set of protocols which allows two otherwise incompatible sets of software or hardware to pass data in one or both directions. When System A cannot speak to System 1, middleware which can speak to both System A and System 1 is employed to allow the two systems to work together. A standardized middleware such as OCAP allows system A and System 1 to both be modified and maintained independently without breaking the ability to communicate betweeen the two systems. Not only that, but as long as Systems A, B, and C on the south side and System 1, 2, and 3 on the north side all conform to the same middleware standard, then any middleware which also conforms to the standard can be used to allow System A, B, or C to work with System 1, or System 2, or System 3.

Any implementation of OCAP allows the Cable Company to download their OS on your hardware.
That's total nonsense. An OS is an OS, and no middleware is ever an OS, period. What's more, in a million years the cable company would not be able to push an OS onto the TiVo and get it to work. The OS must be written specifically for the hardware on which it runs, and since the TiVo hardware is proprietary, the CATV company would never have a snowballs chance to get their own OS onto the Tivo unless Tivo obligingly handed over the details of the hardware to the CATV company. That ain't gonna happen.

If Tivo came out with a OCAP product, your cable company could download SARA or Passport to it, and it wouldn't be a TiVO.
That's total horse pookey. OCAP (or any middleware) will allow the user to take advantage of features built into the system through external auspices. Middleware will not, can not disable or modify any existent feature of an Operating System. It merely mediates communications between two disparate Operating Systems. You want a good example of middleware on the TiVo? Download Galleon server or pyTiVo. The HME interface they (and TiVo Desktop) use is a middleware socket.

The only way this makes sense is if TiVO develops to the OCAP standard
That's a given. The problem is, most of the CATV systems out there don't employ OCAP. That, and the fact the management and deployment of the middleware itself is under the complete control of the CATV company. If the CATV company wants to install spyware on the DVR, OCAP lets them do it, and the user cannot stop them.

Creating that middleware layer adds a lot of overhead.
Well, it can. TiVos aren't exactly brimming with extra processing hoesepower, either.

Things like MRV and TiVO to Go will be decided by the cablecompany, not by TiVO.
That's a gray area. If a feature (like MRV and TTG) are part and parcel of the OS, then middleware generally speaking isn't going to be able to affect it. In this case, however, the middleware could at least hypothetically take over management of the ports used by HME, which in practice could possibly mean the middleware could "accidentally" break HME protocols such as TTG amd MRV.

[routerman]

My point exactly.

I am simply making a call for Tivo to exhaust all resources possible to fix the problem or attempt to slow the rollout of SDV. People need to be warned of this at the point of sale whether it's a notice on the box or some other means. I would also have expected Tivo or someone else to file suit by now against the FCC, the cable companies, or both for intentionally disabling a system that was agreed upon and designed by the folks that are now abandoning it.


Jim

Just my two cents...

If anything, I believe SDV will speed up as satellite adds more HD services. As more and more HD services are added to satellite, the impetus for Cable will be to add more HD services... period. I have to believe all new HD's will be SDV.

Tivo will not be able to stop SDV. My guess is that CC customers make up somewhere around 1/2% to 3/4% of all cable subscribers. With these small numbers, it will be difficult to convince regulatory agencies to stop a system that allows more HD channels to the majority of subscribers. Also, as satellite adds more HD, the cable guys will have more reasons to cry foul if the FCC stops SDV installations.

The tuning resolver will be a welcome addition. I will have more of an incentive to go with a S3 or HD. Until it becomes widely available, my aging series 2 will have to do.

[bicker]

So I'm assuming you don't own a S3 or HD.Your assumption is wrong. I own a TiVo Series 3. After all you wouldn't want to support regulation of the industry, right? :pWhy would what I own have anything to do with what I would or wouldn't support? My principles aren't swayed by what I happen to buy or use. :rolleyes:

[bicker]

Why are a number of cable companies announcing SDV for new HD channels even those which they know a majority of people will be watching thus rendering the bandwidth gains moot? To project an image of fairness. Otherwise, the cable company would open itself up to attacks, especially since every channel that represents a minority interest would end up getting slotted onto SDV. Companies try to avoid being accused of being discriminatory towards minorities.

[CrispyCritter]

Any implementation of OCAP allows the Cable Company to download their OS on your hardware.
That's total nonsense. An OS is an OS, and no middleware is ever an OS, period. What's more, in a million years the cable company would not be able to push an OS onto the TiVo and get it to work. The OS must be written specifically for the hardware on which it runs, and since the TiVo hardware is proprietary, the CATV company would never have a snowballs chance to get their own OS onto the Tivo unless Tivo obligingly handed over the details of the hardware to the CATV company. That ain't gonna happen.I agree it's not the OS, but where exactly is the division (as I've said in the stickied thread)? The cable companies want to maintain control of the user interface as far as I can tell. Does this mean that they can, for example, require that all UI screens have one of their ads on it? Can they require specific remotes? Here's what the cable companies said themselves in their August FCC brief (pages 18 and 20) (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519612942)

Cable service need not be the only service provided by retail products enabled with OpenCable, but when it is presented, it must be presented as offered by the cable operator by subscription agreement to consumers.

As a result, cable operators will be able to educate their customers about how cable services will operate on two-way digital cable-ready televisions before consumers buy them, and will be able to provide post-sale customer service with the confidence that television displays, diagnostic screens, remote control keycodes, and other features will operate in a way that cable customer service representattives are trained to support and that cable customers will understand.
With the cable company in charge of the user interface (and able to change it at their whim), much of the "TiVo experience" is gone. I've seen nothing to indicate the cable companies will not be able to do that.

[mbhuff]

All any middleware is is a bunch of protocols. It is a dual set of protocols which allows two otherwise incompatible sets of software or hardware to pass data in one or both directions. When System A cannot speak to System 1, middleware which can speak to both System A and System 1 is employed to allow the two systems to work together. A standardized middleware such as OCAP allows system A and System 1 to both be modified and maintained independently without breaking the ability to communicate betweeen the two systems. Not only that, but as long as Systems A, B, and C on the south side and System 1, 2, and 3 on the north side all conform to the same middleware standard, then any middleware which also conforms to the standard can be used to allow System A, B, or C to work with System 1, or System 2, or System 3.

I think you need to re-read what OCAP is and what a middleware is. I've been doing network intergration professionally since 1987 and you are way off base.

OCAP doesn't allow systems to talk to each other. OCAP is a standardized hardware/software platform that allows the cable operators to download their OS/Applications to it. Just because they use the word "Open" doesn't mean it is. And yes, if TiVO produced an OCAP platform, then your cable company could download SARA OS/interface on to it. Re-read the specifcations.

If TiVo implemented OCAP then it wouldn't be a TiVO unless the cable company licensed TiVO's software and then choose to allow it to be downloaded from their cable plant.

[jrm01]

Why are a number of cable companies announcing SDV for new HD channels even those which they know a majority of people will be watching thus rendering the bandwidth gains moot?



This statement is way off base. Most estimates are that 35% of homes now have HD sets, but according to some sources (including Nielson) 50% of those sets are only used to watch SD content. They indicate that only 14% of homes are actually watching HD content. Now when you factor in the the fact that most SDV implementations do not affect network HD stations that makes the new HD channels a prime candidate for SDV.

ESPN2 is one of the most frequent SDV casualties. At it's best (NASCAR) it tops out with a rating of 6 (6% of sets are tuned in). Most likely only a third of them are watching in HD. That means that 2% of the viewers (at the peak) are watching ESPN2HD. That sounds like a logical candidate to me.

[mbhuff]

jrm,

That's true, for now. But go into any Best Buy/Circuit City and almost all new tvs are HD. The for the cable companies to spend as much as it costs to move to SDV for something that won't be true shortly doesn't make sense. Some cable operators have announced that all new HD channels will be SDV. Within a few years, having them be SDV would be foolish for bandwidth issues, but it does do what they want: require their STB.

I'm sure a number of SDV implementations are being done to increase bandwidth, just as I am sure that some are being done with the intention of driving out cablecard users. Remeber, cable companies fought CableCards from day one, and still in many locations make it as difficult as possible to use. There are a number of people with CableCard TVs also which are being forced to get a STD (either cable companies or TiVOs). Cable companies want to make sure they get their cablebox in front of them.

[jrm01]

Most forecasts predict that HD penetration won't hit 50% until 2010, even at the current pace. And even then a large percentage of users will still be using them for SD reception (don't ask me why).

I work at BB selling TVs. My strongest selling point is providing the in-clear QAM lineup to prospective customers and explaining how to get HD without the box. Many, many customers just don't want to pay for HD programming or settop box (or for TiVo) and are surprised when I tell them they don't need to.

Cable companies have a logical defense for SDV (bandwidth savings) and are exploiting that in order to gain settop presense also.

[Luke M]

That's true, for now. But go into any Best Buy/Circuit City and almost all new tvs are HD. The for the cable companies to spend as much as it costs to move to SDV for something that won't be true shortly doesn't make sense. Some cable operators have announced that all new HD channels will be SDV. Within a few years, having them be SDV would be foolish for bandwidth issues, but it does do what they want: require their STB.


The DBS companies are adding tons of HD channels and cable risks losing their best customers if they don't try to compete.

Since you think switched video is foolish, perhaps you can reveal what obviously vastly superior method cable ought to be using instead.

[CrispyCritter]

The DBS companies are adding tons of HD channels and cable risks losing their best customers if they don't try to compete.

Since you think switched video is foolish, perhaps you can reveal what obviously vastly superior method cable ought to be using instead.I personally have no problems with the idea of SDV. The cable companies ought to be able to use it. But the cable companies have been under government mandate for 10 years to implement cablecard. It's the height of hypocrisy for the cable companies to implement SDV outside of the cablecard mechanism. They could have easily standardized two way communication by extending the cablecard protocol; they have the standardization mechanism in place, and Cable Labs in place to validate implementations. The cable companies chose not to, because they hate the idea of giving up control.

The cable companies made themselves un-competitive without SDV through cablecard; I don't see why they should be rewarded for having done so, and given free rein to escape cablecard.

[BobCamp1]

My bet is that even if TiVO gets out a SDV tuning resolver, the cable companies will annouce a new technology such as "USDV" that is incompatible and they will switch to it in record time.

The real problem is the FCC. They have been feckless over the last 10 years. Had the type of anti-regulatory people been at the FCC at the dawn of TV, every region might have had a different TV standard instead of Never The Same Color....

They aren't implementing SDV just to spite less than 1% of their customers. They are trying to keep up with their competitiors.

The FCC is a big part of the real problem. They dictated a technology instead of the desired end result. CableCard 1.0 was already obsolete when the S3 was initially launched. And they haven't forced both sides to a compromise with the next generation technology, even when neither side could really afford to wait.

Also, the FCC has been unfair recently. It's not treating everybody the same, and some of cable's competitors are getting big enough to seriously compete, especially in HD. So now what does the FCC do? Stifle DBS? This goes against their current plan to nuture competition and also against their other plan to transtition to ATSC. Relax cable's restrictions? So far, they are doing just that by allowing SDV to proceed. If the FCC is going to bungle regulation so badly, it should either develop a great, well-organized plan or get out entirely. What they have done so far isn't helping.

As far as the other point, TV would have worked out just fine without the FCC. Companies can come to agreements all by themselves. They do in all the other industries. TV would have evolved to one or two standards, and the TVs would be compatible with all of them. DVD did this in the past with +/- R and it's going to happen again for them with HD. Many other technologies have evolved this way as well.

[TolloNodre]

Companies can come to agreements all by themselves. They do in all the other industries.

Yep, look at how HD-DVD and Blu-Ray worked itself out.

Oh wait....:D

[bicker]

They aren't implementing SDV just to spite less than 1% of their customers. They are trying to keep up with their competitiors.This is a really important insight -- I think a lot folks regularly overlook this inescapable reality. It's BUSINESS -- it's nothing personal.

The FCC is a big part of the real problem. They dictated a technology instead of the desired end result.Very well-put. So we are left with different people applying their own personal interpretation to what the "desired" end result should be of the regulation.

However, let's keep in mind that this quagmire may have been what was "intended" by the FCC. I put the word "intended" in quotations marks, because in reality, entities cannot have intentions. Only people can have intentions, and so when an entity like the FCC passes a regulation, the de facto "intention" is a miasma of bits and pieces of the intentions of those who had a hand in crafting, and modifying the regulation. It could very well be that there was absolutely no consensus to be arrived at, due to conflicts within the commission that issued the regulation, so their "intention" was simply to LOOK like they were doing something. We've seen this hundreds of times: You have an issue for which no consensus can be reached, so government, in order to LOOK like it is doing something, issues a regulation that is too vague to provide a reasonable level of assurance that it would bring about ANY interpretation of what should BE.

Note that what happens if government doesn't engage in this kind of idiocy is nothing. That's a good thing for those of us who believe less government is better government. If we cannot come to consensus on something, then don't regulate it. Let the market decide.

If the FCC is going to bungle regulation so badly, it should either develop a great, well-organized plan or get out entirely.Amen.

[btwyx]

Since you think switched video is foolish, perhaps you can reveal what obviously vastly superior method cable ought to be using instead.Deleting analog SD channels.

That's what Comcast is doing around here. For every analog SD channel that's deleted, they can add at least 2 HD channels. They're planning on getting rid of all of them in the near furture anyway.

They just made a few of the less watched limited basic channels (California Channel, C-SPAN 2, TV Guide Channel) digital only around here and we've now got 6 new HD channels. I'm assuming any limit basic customers who ask can have a converter box for free.

Once they get rid of the 70 or so analog channels, they can have another 140 or so HD channels. No SDV needed, and they're already planning to do this.

[morac]

Most forecasts predict that HD penetration won't hit 50% until 2010, even at the current pace. And even then a large percentage of users will still be using them for SD reception (don't ask me why).

Probably because there is so little HD programming compared to SD. I try to watch HD programs when they are available, but a lot of what I watch isn't in HD. So I guess I would be counted as part of the group using my HD TV mainly for SD reception. That doesn't mean I wouldn't use it to mainly watch HD if that option was available.

So you have a catch-22. People aren't watching HD on their HD TV's because HD programming isn't widely available (thought DirecTV is changing that) and providers aren't making more HD channels available, because not many people watch HD.

I think DirecTV's original announcement that they planed to offer tons of HD channels caught many cable providers by surprise so they had to scramble to free up bandwidth to compete. They chose the SDV route, rather than dropping a lot of analog channels or upgrading their systems.

[morac]

They dictated a technology instead of the desired end result.

The FCC didn't dictate a technology. The Government basically told the cable companies to separate the DRM from the cable boxes. This is what was mandated in 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD#Background):

...assure the commercial availability to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor."


Basically the FCC said that customers should be able to get cable boxes from companies other than those providing the actual cable signal. This is similar to the mandate that now allows anyone to go into any store and buy a phone instead of being forced to rent one from the phone company.

It was up to the cable companies to determine how they wanted to go about implementing this separation. The cable companies formed CableLabs and in 1998 came up with the CableCARD 1.0 standard. It was the cable companies, not the FCC that came up with this standard. The FCC just agreed to it.

CableCARD 1.0 was supposed to be supported in 2000 and mandated for use in their own cable boxes in 2005, but those dates were pushed back at the request of the cable companies when they stated the dates could not be met (probably because they spent the time filing lawsuits against the FCC instead of working on getting the cableCARDS out the door). If the cable companies wanted to they could have come up with the cableCARD 2.0 standard (or whatever standards they wanted that implemented 2-way communications) from the get go and we wouldn't be having the problem now. Instead they threw a tantrum and did as little as possible until threatened.

Maybe the cable industries resented the FCC's involvement or maybe they were rushed to come up with a standard, but for whatever reason the cable companies do not like the cableCARD standard (even though they invented it). They would prefer to use OCAP and DCAS. Technically OCAP/DCAS is not required to get 2-way communications working, but the cable companies want to maintain complete control of the user interface for any 2-way communications (VOD/PPV/etc).

Here's a good analogy for those that remember when AOL was basically "the way" to access the Internet. AOL allowed you to access web pages on the Internet, but made you use the AOL browser so basically AOL controlled what you saw on your screen. Now AOL was completely unnecessary since if you knew what you were doing you could dial-in using AOL, then launch Internet Explorer or Netscape and browse that way, but imagine that if you tried to launch IE or Netscape, AOL disconnected you and you will get a feel of what the cable companies want to do with OCAP.

So for you SAT people out there, in a simplified form, OCAP is to VOD what AOL is to the WWW. :p

[davecramer74]

Deleting analog SD channels.

That's what Comcast is doing around here. For every analog SD channel that's deleted, they can add at least 2 HD channels. They're planning on getting rid of all of them in the near furture anyway.

They just made a few of the less watched limited basic channels (California Channel, C-SPAN 2, TV Guide Channel) digital only around here and we've now got 6 new HD channels. I'm assuming any limit basic customers who ask can have a converter box for free.

Once they get rid of the 70 or so analog channels, they can have another 140 or so HD channels. No SDV needed, and they're already planning to do this.


Comcast is rolling out SDV, not sure what your reading. Their interim solution is removing the analogue so they can add some for now. Dont forget they have DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems coming down the pipe too. That will be pushing cable modem speeds to 100mbit as well. Anywho, they just approved bigbands SDV solution, which according to this arcticle, 11 million americans already have SDV...

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6503826.html

Comcast is a huge cable provider, its just going ot take them a little longer to implement the sdv. Im sure they wanted to see how some of these rollouts, TW in particular went before they implemented it. Im sure its coming and coming soon now. Theyll need to boost their HD lineup dramatically or risk losing lots and lots of customers.

To the OP, im suprised you picked up the S3 knowing sdv was coming. When i first went to buy one when they came out, i read here and decided not to until they had a better solution in place. Cable cards arent the answer. Hopefully this "dongle" comes out, id prefer tivo over my comcast dvr, but dont prefer it enough to not get all the HD channels.

[dubluv]

I don't think Tivo advertised that their box would work with SDV.

On th otherhand, if cable advertised digital HD new channels, then pulled the rug out from under those who use cable cards (not just Tivo users), aren't they the one not delivering as advertised?

just a headsup regarding CC's and the SDV situation. not all tivo customers are visiting this board or even know that their recently purchased S3 or THD might have issues getting all programming because of this. also, there are tv's that have CC, and those people also will be affected by this problem. one of the reasons i bailed out on CC on my first hdtv was my cableco's inability to talk nice to the CC's they were renting me. just thinking about these first few years with cablecard, you'd think it was doomed from the start. talk about letting the cat watch the canary...

[PPC1]

Yes, that's probably the case. It is almost as the previous poster expects companies to aggressively discourage customers from buying their products. That is an unreasonable perspective, IMHO.

Well, a manufacturer should openly discourage customers from buying their products if the product won't work for those particular customers. If they hype the product for a particular purpose, and the product fails to meet that purpose, that might well be construed as a breach of warranty for particular purpose.

[Combat Medic]

I just wish more people did what Combat Medic did if SDV happened to them. CIf anyone is at fault, cable is the root, yeah we can ask Tivo to give us more info, but basically they and all the other CE who are afraid of adding cable card support in their product are all powerless unless consumers complain to the FCC and stand up to cable.

Oh, and I just filed a BBB complaint also. We'll see....

[bicker]

Deleting analog SD channels.That won't quite be enough to do all the things with the available bandwidth that customers are going to want (premium HSI service, trick-play without DVR, etc.)

So you have a catch-22. People aren't watching HD on their HD TV's because HD programming isn't widely available (thought DirecTV is changing that) and providers aren't making more HD channels available, because not many people watch HD. Absolutely. That's why early, second and third wave adopters ALL have to recognize and accept that they're paying more and getting less than they would if the offering appealed to the vast majority of mass-market. The cost of the leading-edge shall be borne by both sides of the transaction.

The FCC didn't dictate a technology.They didn't dictate the implementation of the technology, but they did dictate the technology. Focus on the other half of what BobCamp1 said: "... instead of the desired end result." The FCC did not clearly express the desired end-result.

The Government basically told the cable companies to separate the DRM from the cable boxes.Which was wrong. If they meant what you have implied you want them to have meant, they should have required cable companies to "provide a means of separable security so all customers can receive all television programming offered, without the need for an external box." Why was this very simple statement not included in the regulation? Because it was not the will of the commission. There was no consensus, so we end up with a vague regulation. 100% the fault of the FCC.

[bicker]

It is almost as the previous poster expects companies to aggressively discourage customers from buying their products. That is an unreasonable perspective, IMHO.Well, a manufacturer should openly discourage customers from buying their products if the product won't work for those particular customers.First, how did you go from "aggressively discourage" to "openly discourage"? Why did you change what we were talking about, yet still choose to reply to my message? :confused: I'm sorry to have to mention it, but changing that adjective, without acknowledging at least that you agree that aggressive discouragement is inappropriate, smacks of a bit of dirty pool to me.

Second, companies don't discourage. That's not what they're for. They're supposed to promote their products and services, and make information available about its limitations -- NOT aggressively discourage -- not even "openly discourage". Here's where TiVo fulfills their responsibility to make information available, 100%:
http://tivosupport2.instancy.com/LaunchContent.aspx?CID=CBECF1B9-88DE-4B74-82C1-754C3260112A

The TiVo will still work even with SDV. It will simply work on fewer channels or strictly through OTA. You want companies to operate differently. You want consumerist perspectives, such as those that prevailed in the 1960s and 1970s, to prevail again. I get that. However, as I said, it is NOT reasonable, IMHO. Our nation has changed. For thirty years it is become increasingly more and more pro-business, beginning with the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. Now, even the Democrats are pro-business. That old world that some of us perhaps recall from 40-50 years ago no longer exists.

[BobCamp1]

The FCC didn't dictate a technology. The Government basically told the cable companies to separate the DRM from the cable boxes....

....Basically the FCC said that customers should be able to get cable boxes from companies other than those providing the actual cable signal.

This first statement is dictation of technology. Such a dictation has giagantic loopholes that are easily worked around, leaving the CE companies in the dust. As we are currently seeing.

This second statement is the desired result. This is what was IMPLIED. If it were MANDATED instead, cable companies would be required to share whatever the interface or new technology was with CE boxes. Heck, they may have even paid the CE companies to build it.

All the FCC had to do was say something like, "there shall be fully-functioning third-party boxes available from at least __ other companies" or "___% of boxes in use must be from a third-party".

The market changed dramatically for Tivo. With S1 and S2, they could reverse-engineer the existing cable boxes and interface with the IR blaster and the serial port. With S3, they ARE the cable box. They can't reverse-engineer anymore. It requires a new business strategy, one that doesn't count on the FCC stepping in. Tivo seems to be slowly realizing this -- but those SDV dongles should have been ready with the initial release of the S3.

[btwyx]

Originally Posted by btwyx
So you have a catch-22. People aren't watching HD on their HD TV's because HD programming isn't widely available (thought DirecTV is changing that) and providers aren't making more HD channels available, because not many people watch HD.I didn't post that, that was morac.

[PPC1]

First, how did you go from "aggressively discourage" to "openly discourage"? Why did you change what we were talking about, yet still choose to reply to my message? :confused: I'm sorry to have to mention it, but changing that adjective, without acknowledging at least that you agree that aggressive discouragement is inappropriate, smacks of a bit of dirty pool to me.

Although you do not explicitly state that I misrepresented your post, your claim of “dirty pool” suggests to me that you feel I have. Yes, I did choose a different word than yours. I didn’t really give much thought to the distinction in the meaning between these two words in doing so. But there was no intent to misrepresent your statement. Of course, your statement was repeated verbatim, so it's not reasonable to suggest that I misrepresented your statement. Your dirty "pool comment" is therefore silly-- particularly given that the word "aggressive" that you used in your post was your (mis-?)characterization of another poster's comment. You yourself attributed that word to someone else who never used it.

I was merely making a slightly different point than you. (Surely it’s not “dirty pool” to make a related but slightly different point than yours.) I would agree with you that companies should not be expected to aggressively discourage all potential customers. However, I would not agree that we do not expect companies to aggressively discourage customers for whom the company knows or should know that their product won't work.

Second, companies don't discourage.

Are you sure about that? That’s a pretty absolute statement. I would agree that generally they don’t. I would also agree that usually they don't. But I wouldn’t agree that no company ever would. I doubt you would either.

The TiVo will still work even with SDV. It will simply work on fewer channels or strictly through OTA.

This is true. However, I think it would be an interesting question as to whether a trier of fact would find this to be a breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Clearly, an argument can be made that it does. I don’t pretend to know how any particular (and at this point, obviously hypothetical) trier of fact would resolve the issue. Nor did I purport to say so.

You want companies to operate differently. You want consumerist perspectives, such as those that prevailed in the 1960s and 1970s, to prevail again. I get that.

You missed the whole point. I referred to the fact that under certain circumstances, a warranty may be found to exist that a particular product would serve the use the purchaser intended. It’s the law of Sales, and recognized in the UCC:

"Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose" (2-315).

Clearly, TiVo has reason to know that the customer will use the S3 to watch and record digital cable channels. However, I think you hit on one of the key questions when this is applied to our fact pattern: If the S3 will work for some, but not all, available digital cable channels, is the S3 not fit for that particular purpose? Cleary, you would say it is “suitable” and “fit.” Other people on this site say it’s not. This is why the ultimate arbiter of this type of question is usually a jury. In the days when class actions are brought because video screens are a half inch smaller than advertised (and other such non-sense), it certainly would not be imprudent for TiVo to avoid such entanglements by openly (and perhaps aggressively) discouraging the class of people with SDV from purchasing their product.

[bicker]

But there was no intent to misrepresent your statement.That wasn't clear to me. I was rightfully suspicious about your distortion.

I would agree with you that companies should not be expected to aggressively discourage all potential customers. However, I would not agree that we do not expect companies to aggressively discourage customers for whom the company knows or should know that their product won't work. And who gets to determine how much a company should know about a specific customer? You, of course. :rolleyes: As I indicated earlier, your expectations are unreasonable IMHO: Your expectations are simply inconsistent with the reality of how business works today.

Are you sure about that? That’s a pretty absolute statement.If you read the rest of the paragraph, you'll see I make it clear that that is a generalization. I would agree that generally they don’t.Excellent, then we agree.

This is true. However, I think it would be an interesting question as to whether a trier of fact would find this to be a breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.Interesting perhaps, but I'm pretty sure that TiVo would win that one.

[PooperScooper]

Where does Tivo claim that every channel provided by a cable company will be available via use of a cable card?

larry

[MurrayJimW]

Where does Tivo claim that every channel provided by a cable company will be available via use of a cable card?

larry


They don't that I'm aware of, but this begs the question of how much is too much. Certainly having a digital cable compatible box is fine and folks are not going to worry too much about a couple of channels missing but when this grows to 50 or 60 or even all channels there is an indisputable problem and the box is arguably no longer digital cable compatible.

[bicker]

I think PooperScooper's point, though, is with regard to the source of expectations. Customers can choose to expect whatever they wish, but suppliers are typically only expected to satisfy expectations that they promise to fulfill.

[MurrayJimW]

I think PooperScooper's point, though, is with regard to the source of expectations. Customers can choose to expect whatever they wish, but suppliers are typically only expected to satisfy expectations that they promise to fulfill.

We've beaten this point to death now. Once again. If you cannot receive any digital cable channels on a "digital cable compatible" box I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would claim it was indeed digital cable compatible. The number of channels unavailable to someone before reaching this conclusion is open to speculation and highly individualized.

Our opinions obviously differ on this a great deal and this truly was not what I started this thread to debate. In fact there was no debate offered in my original post. It was essentially a plea for help from Tivo (because they are larger and have more resources than one guy yelling at a local CSR) and a warning to others in my market that they were not going to get a large number of HD channels currently available to other subscribers. Telling me I am wrong and that the boxes do everything they were advertised to do is in my opinion irrelevant to the problem at hand and a waste of everyone's time. I have not blamed Tivo for any of this, I love their boxes or I would not own 7 of them all sub'd and hold stock in the company. The point is that the Greensboro/Winston Salem area of TWC is being slowly shut down as far as cablecards go.

[PPC1]

And who gets to determine how much a company should know about a specific customer? You, of course. :rolleyes: As I indicated earlier, your expectations are unreasonable IMHO: Your expectations are simply inconsistent with the reality of how business works today.

You suggest that I claim to be the one that gets to decide what a company specific customer. Then you roll your eyes at the suggestion, to convey contempt of this position. But your interpretation of my post cannot fairly be made from my post. This is a disingenuous straw man argument. I made the point that the issue of whether the S3 would be deemed fit would be resolved by a trier of fact. Similarly, what the seller knew or should have known of the buyer’s intended use is a question for the trier of fact. A reasonable question is presented under our facts as to how this factual issue should be resolved. However, you pass up the chance to ask a reasonable question in order to just take a rhetorical swipe at another.

[bicker]

We've beaten this point to death now. Once again. If you cannot receive any digital cable channels on a "digital cable compatible" box I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would claim it was indeed digital cable compatible.Dude: I have one of these boxes. I have it connected to digital cable. I receive every channel I purchase. Don't tell me that it "cannot" receive "any" digital cable channels. So the problem is not the box's ability to receive digital cable. The box does that JUST FINE. The problem is that the box cannot receive SDV'd digital cable, and it doesn't claim to receive SDV'd digital cable.

Telling me I am wrong and that the boxes do everything they were advertised to do is in my opinion irrelevant to the problem at hand and a waste of everyone's time.No not really. You keep clouding the issue, and some of the rest of us have to keep correcting the misleading information you post. >shrug<

[bicker]

You suggest that I claim to be the one that gets to decide what a company specific customer.Sorry, but some of your sentence is missing.

Similarly, what the seller knew or should have known of the buyer’s intended use is a question for the trier of fact.What the buyer and seller should have known is information which is accessible to anyone willing to research the issue themselves and discover the reality.

[bizzy]

you guys should all become internet lawyers.

[bicker]

Rather, I figure folks should stop trying to play the blame game and focus on helping other members get the most out of their entertainment choices.

Hey, you can dream, eh?

[MurrayJimW]

Dude: I have one of these boxes. I have it connected to digital cable. I receive every channel I purchase. Don't tell me that it "cannot" receive "any" digital cable channels. So the problem is not the box's ability to receive digital cable. The box does that JUST FINE. The problem is that the box cannot receive SDV'd digital cable, and it doesn't claim to receive SDV'd digital cable.


All I can say is hope that the Triad TWC doesn't talk to their cousins at TWC Hawaii. Here, the just moved *all the existing* HD to SDV & cancelled HD subscriptions for cablecards. We do get broadcast HDs (what little they bother to timeshift here in Hawaii), but HDNET, TBS, Nat'l Geo, MTV, CNN, etc, etc they just cancelled.

Not receiving any digital channels was intended as an example of the worst case scenario for these boxes and it very well could happen in the near future. As noted by the second quote above from another post; this problem is even more accelerated in other areas than in my own.

Again...the point of my original post was not to get attacked, but to apprise those in my area of the problem.

I'm truly happy your box works - really I am - Dude.

And I thought ADD was overdiagnosed......

[sfhub]

For kharmic harmony to be restored bicker's provider would go SDV for all channels and MurrayJimW would become a beta tester for the tuning resolver.

[GargleBlast]

03/2004: Bay Area, CA - Got DirecTiVo SD, upgraded HD to 160GB (then zippered)
07/2005: Got HD DirectiVo (knowing that MPEG4 was coming, knowing that DirecTV+ DVRs were coming and DirecTV and TiVo were divorcing!), upgraded to 800GB (zippered too)
03/2005: Offloaded DirecTiVo SD to a friend for free
03/2007: Moved to Austin, TX - DirecTV wouldn't move HR10-250. Insisted I get HR20, bye bye DirecTV, sold HR10-250 on ebay for $400
03/2007: Tried TWC and SA8300HD. Ugly ugly box terrible UI
04/2007: TiVo S3 for $600 at costco (knowing about TWC Austin SDV) pre paid 3 years.
06/2007: Ditched TWC and went OTA.
07/2007: Got Basic analog cable for 'free' with cable internet!!!
08/2007: External HD a la kickstart 62... nice
11/2007: U Verse is rolling out but not TiVo compatible :-(

I'm still loving my TiVo but would like more HD channels. I'm back to thinking about DirecTV again or U-verse which would render my S3 useless. It seems the only way for it to work would be to allow recording via dual HDMI inputs but then the copy flag would get in the way of that and the 2 dedicated compression ICs would cost yet more. On the plus side, TiVo HDMI would work with every cable, satellite, FiOS, UVerse box. (again only if HDCP didn't rear it's ugly head...unless TiVo was allowed to pretend to be a TV!)

Am I stupid for spending best part of $2K over 3 years on all this stuff... My investment in rented boxes from either cable or DirecTV would have been...$400-$600.

Once again I love my TiVos, but $1000 saving would buy a nice MacBook, hell, even a nice 1080p LCD these days! My TiVo has a lot to do to repay my investment, I'm still waiting patiently...

Oh and we don't even need a dongle, they 'could' all implement this via the ethernet port since we've all connected our tivos...the cable co's could simply provide a password protected site that would allow the tivo to request a channel for us. They could even provide a TiVo accesible site that would allow us to select PPV and VOD.

Laughing on the inside! Honest!

[bicker]

Not receiving any digital channels was intended as an example of the worst case scenario for these boxes and it very well could happen in the near future.In other words, you employed hyperbole to try to make your point sound more critical than it was. Unfortunately, that tends to backfire online, as in this case.

[dwynne]

In other words, you employed hyperbole to try to make your point sound more critical than it was. Unfortunately, that tends to backfire online, as in this case.

If I purchased an HD Tivo and knew my cable company was going to SDV or had it now then perhaps I would be stupid?

If I purchased an HD Tivo box and later the cable company added more channels that I did not currently get and could only get via SDV then that would be "too bad" for me - certainly not something I would think was OWED to me?

The only way I would feel ripped is IF the cable company started moving channels I already get and pay for over to SDV so I could no longer HD Tivo them.

I can see WHY they are doing this - D* is going to have a TON of HD channels up via the 4 bird dish soon and the cable co needs to up their HD channel count to compete. Since they can't dump all the analogs (yet) they have to try to cram more into the same space, so their answer is SDV. Makes sense to them and to me, as long as they don't drop the channels I get and pay for.

Like with D*, if I want the new HD channels they are offering I have to get the new dish (no problem) but I also have to drop my HR10-250s and get non-Tivo D* DVRs (big problem for me). So does D* OWE it to me to give me channels where my HD D* Tivos can get them? No. Should I sue them because they will not? I would hope not. Same with the cable co and the SDV channels. If they add them where I can't get them, then too bad for me since I don't have one of their boxes.

Dennis