TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-08-2008, 06:39 AM   #1351
vstone
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsville, VA
Posts: 1,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
...
If VOD becomes the norm (a possibility), then DVRs (and Tuning Resolvers) become useless. The cable providers will be allowed to treat all VOD programming with "Copy Never" protection because you lose the timeshifting excuse for allowing copying. In any case, the Tuning Resolver isn't going to give subs access to VOD.
This assumes that VOD is assumed to be "good enough." It may be, but I try to stay away from it, being used to the Tivo's instant response and the 8 second replay.

There will always be some live events: sports, some news events. OTOH, maybe the 215 major awards shows will disappear.
vstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 07:22 AM   #1352
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,119
The goal typically would be to satisfy the 90% of the folks, incurring 50% of the cost, instead of the 100% of the folks, incurring 100% of the cost.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 04:26 PM   #1353
hsfjr
(no subject)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SDV-land (Austin area)
Posts: 27
Tuning Adapter

Happpened to hit a earlier part of this thread while googling "tuning resolver" and refound the information that "tuning resolver" had been renamed to "tuning adapter" so googled again... found this...

http://www.opencable.com/downloads/oc_interop_0408.pdf

Haven't read it yet... and I'll probably leave it to the more knowledgable folks to debate... but I LOVED the title...

(Edit: Shoot!... scrolled thru it... nothing useful except it may exist and I want to know the results of the event...)
[And too bad the name may be "adapter" now, because there are too many unrelated results in google...]

Last edited by hsfjr : 04-08-2008 at 04:32 PM.
hsfjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 05:03 PM   #1354
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Interesting. I remember that someone posted that in a conversation with a knowledgeable-seeming cable provider CSR, he'd been told that Tuning Resolver had been relabelled "Tuning Adapter". I wasn't going to start calling it that until I got more proof (knowledgeable-seeming cable provider CSRs are often full of it, but in rare instances they know whereof they speak ). Okay--Tuning Adapter it is.

If they're having an interoperability testing event this week, they've got to be pretty frickin' close to manufacturing and distributing these things. You don't schedule these things randomly--they know that people with both Tuning Adapter and compatible UDCP products have fully-fleshed prototypes that they believe are ready to go. I am encouraged .
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 05:05 PM   #1355
jrm01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
I'm not pessimistic they or some devices with comperable functionality will be availble eventually. I'm just not betting on the June 30 deadline.
Looks like TiVo has changed the wording of that deadline from "second quarter" to "later this year".

http://tivosupport2.instancy.com/Lau...1-754c3260112a
__________________
Comcast, Cox, TW, Charter and BHN are cabal companies.
(That is not a spelling error. Check the definition.
)
jrm01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 05:35 PM   #1356
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
The only place that I've seen that "second quarter of 2008" estimate stated was in this press release, issued jointly by TiVo and the NCTA in November. I don't know how long that support article has been up.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 05:39 PM   #1357
JohnnyO
Crimper
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsfjr View Post
(Edit: Shoot!... scrolled thru it... nothing useful except it may exist and I want to know the results of the event...)
]
Interesting... There are a few email addresses in the document. I wonder who's got the cajones to contact them at the end of the week and ask them "so ... how'd it go?"
JohnnyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 05:48 PM   #1358
hsfjr
(no subject)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SDV-land (Austin area)
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
...they've got to be pretty frickin' close...
And some other points I haven't mentioned along the way to various posts...

1. The 'original' news break (Nov07?) on the dongle mentions that someone already had a prototype at the time... I think some are forgetting that detail.
2. Somewhere along the way, in some thread or another, someone mentions not hearing anything from the ScientificAtlanta side of the world... but they were mentioned in the 'original' news, and it did seem all were committed to the project... but I do agree that not much from them since...
3. I also think that the picture that was associated with the Feb08 news has also been mis-interpreted. Digging back, I think the picture was only there because it mentioned the item in the article as "about the same size"... which has now lead to speculation of re-purposing the container, etc. - I don't actually care about the size. The comparison only leads me to belive it is more likely a horizontal item, rather than a vertical one, or a "dongly" item hanging behind something else[TiVo]. Given how it communicates out either of its "ends," it doesn't seem that it would need line-of-sight from any remote, so one could drywall it up inside the wall and just pass the wires out if one felt like doing so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
I remember that someone posted that in a conversation...
That's probably the posts I found again today...

Last edited by hsfjr : 04-08-2008 at 06:12 PM.
hsfjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 06:07 PM   #1359
hsfjr
(no subject)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SDV-land (Austin area)
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsfjr View Post
nothing useful...
Well, maybe more informative than I initially thought... It pretty much says "hey everyone, bring your stuff here and let's get it working..."

They called for Mot and SA equipment...
Gotta assume there was at least two TiVo boxes there... [edit: changed assumption of 'at least one' to 'at least two' since I'd think they'd show up with at least one each of Series3 and TiVoHD...]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrm01 View Post
Looks like TiVo has changed the wording of that deadline from "second quarter" to "later this year".
On this, I'd have to agree [with other posters in some threads somewhere] that TiVo can't/shouldn't supply 'exact' dates since they won't have any control of the hardware manufacturing.

Last edited by hsfjr : 04-08-2008 at 09:50 PM.
hsfjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 07:08 PM   #1360
classicsat
Astute User
 
classicsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ontario Canada.
Posts: 17,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsfjr View Post
3. I also think that the picture that was associated with the Feb08 news has also been mis-interpreted. Digging back, I think the picture was only there because it mentioned the item in the article as "about the same size"... which has now lead to speculation of re-purposing the container, etc. - I don't actually care about the size. The comparison only leads me to belive it is more likely a horizontal item, rather than a vertical one, or a "dongly" item hanging behind something else[TiVo]. Given how it communicates out either of its "ends," it doesn't seem that it would need line-of-sight from any remote, so one could drywall it up inside the wall and just pass the wires out if one felt like doing so.
There is no reason to believe the unit would be no different in size to the DCT700, since it has to have a certain degree of smarts in it. If I were Motorola, I'd build it into the same case, unless there is reason not to.

Since it is an active cable provided device, you likely should not bury it into the wall. You can probably tuck it in back of your TiVo or other UDCP device.
__________________
Series 2 234 Hr Lifetime.
Window XP and Ubuntu Linux on my PCs.
Watching more and more in HD direct now.
classicsat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 07:20 PM   #1361
ah30k
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
There is no reason to believe the unit would be no different in size to the DCT700, since it has to have a certain degree of smarts in it. If I were Motorola, I'd build it into the same case, unless there is reason not to.
If you ran a company and had the great opportunity to build a product that will sell in very low volumes and customers want for darn near free, you'd want to put as little energy into it as possible. A modified DCT-700 fits that bill to a T.
ah30k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 09:16 PM   #1362
hsfjr
(no subject)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SDV-land (Austin area)
Posts: 27
Sure. Could end up being in that case and I don't disagree with two posts above. I actually was trying to point out that folks have thought that it was actually a picture of the final [Motorola] device. Zatz had only bulleted:

"Motorola’s form factor similar to small DCT700 cable box (shown... "

And "form factor similar" very well might be 'industry slang' for "that new stuff shoved into this old case"...

And I don't believe there would be any need for a message indicator light on the front display (as the picture has).

And No I would't actually put it in the wall. Was just saying there didn't seem to be a need for it NOT to be hidden away behind something (or on the floor under the cabinet).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrm01 View Post
Looks like TiVo has changed the wording...
I see they are also using the "tuning adapter" term there...

Last edited by hsfjr : 04-08-2008 at 09:43 PM.
hsfjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 09:03 AM   #1363
MichaelK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by dswallow View Post
I think what you're seeing in the way of viral video -- the YouTube's and the videocasts and even the Bittorrents -- are exactly what have become the "thousands of channels." We simply had the technology to bypass the idea of a fixed, linear arrangement of those channels in favor of an on-demand model.

my point would be that it's different. The fringe stuff that would have been channel 999 is better server being bit torrent or youtube or vod. But the content on the channel ranked #1 doesn't work well that way.

I think there's a place for the several hundred linear channels that exist and that VOD/youtube etc are a different beast. That different beast might kill off a chunk of the borderline channels but in the end I think there's a sweet spot for linear broadcast- someplace in the current order of magnitude. Anything live like news and sports for one screams for broadcast. Then the top tiers of TV like is shown on the big networks- it's probably just more effective to gain eyeballs to play a popular show every monday at 8pm rather make it availible for download every monday at 8pm to watch whenever. There's a certain amount of water cooler talk about certain shows that make them more popular- if everyone is watching at a different time that goes bye bye.

Other channels there's really not much point to being linear- kids channels might be one genre - they tend to play the same popular cartoons over and over and over again and kids dont mind repeats or care to wait around for a new one- so you could just put up 300 episodes of lilo and stitch cartoon for vod rather then showing 6 different episodes every day. But even disney channel has original programming in primetime - I THINK.

So I dont think we'll get to 1,000 linear channels ever and I dont happen to think at this moment that we'll have just 10 linear channels and the rest vod anytime soon either.
MichaelK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 09:17 AM   #1364
MichaelK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
The goal typically would be to satisfy the 90% of the folks, incurring 50% of the cost, instead of the 100% of the folks, incurring 100% of the cost.

I read an article once that ATT (the old ATT that actually was a research organization) studied things and time and again they found that when bandwidth is involved. 90% of the people are happy with 10% of the volume. They found that building their networks (local, long distance, dial up, and then broadband)- the last 10% of the users are a pain and need 90% more. They argued unsuccessfully that unlimited internet plans were a huge waste of resources and that they negatively effect the providers profits BUT ALSO- the 90% of the people that are forced to subsidize the last 10%.

Not sure if it's the same ratios with TV. But for phone and internet at least you can satisdy 90% with just 10% of the cost. Certainly when you get to the bottom of the pile of channels there are tiny percentages of people watching them.
MichaelK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 10:18 AM   #1365
Gregor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 43,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelK View Post
I read an article once that ATT (the old ATT that actually was a research organization) studied things and time and again they found that when bandwidth is involved. 90% of the people are happy with 10% of the volume. They found that building their networks (local, long distance, dial up, and then broadband)- the last 10% of the users are a pain and need 90% more. They argued unsuccessfully that unlimited internet plans were a huge waste of resources and that they negatively effect the providers profits BUT ALSO- the 90% of the people that are forced to subsidize the last 10%.

Not sure if it's the same ratios with TV. But for phone and internet at least you can satisdy 90% with just 10% of the cost. Certainly when you get to the bottom of the pile of channels there are tiny percentages of people watching them.
It's quite possible. I can't find the articles, but ISTR that most households watch somewhere between 15 and 30 channels regularly, despite there being considerably more available.

I think with Tivo, the channel lines become blurred as I think more of watching Heroes than watching NBC, and when a non-Tivo person asks what channel something is on, it's sometimes hard to remember!
__________________
Wii: 5166-1365-9840-0899

MK:3523-2615-6739

Do not taunt happy thread counts.
Gregor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 10:25 AM   #1366
dswallow
Save the Moderatоr
 
dswallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Long Branch, NJ, USA
Posts: 48,834
TC CLUB MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelK View Post
I read an article once that ATT (the old ATT that actually was a research organization) studied things and time and again they found that when bandwidth is involved. 90% of the people are happy with 10% of the volume. They found that building their networks (local, long distance, dial up, and then broadband)- the last 10% of the users are a pain and need 90% more. They argued unsuccessfully that unlimited internet plans were a huge waste of resources and that they negatively effect the providers profits BUT ALSO- the 90% of the people that are forced to subsidize the last 10%.
And if you get rid of those 10% of users you'll find the remaining ones still fit into the same pattern; 10% of the remaining ones are using 90% of the bandwidth in use among them all.

It's a nice statistic but really pretty pointless to try to use to justify cutting off customers; there'll always be 10% of customers you can cut off to reduce bandwidth usage. You'll always need to be looking at creating a bigger pipe for your customers.
__________________
¯\_(ツ)_/¯****************
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dswallow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 11:21 AM   #1367
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsfjr View Post
1. The 'original' news break (Nov07?) on the dongle mentions that someone already had a prototype at the time... I think some are forgetting that detail
The original news break was back in August. Sometime around the beginning of November 2006, the CEA had complained to the FCC that, after years of waiting, what they got from the Cable industry for bidirectional interactive CableCARD was a scheme which integrally included OCAP, an expensive-to-implement and overly complex mechanism which could not possibly be included in television products on the lower end of the price range. Added to that was the fact that cable was rolling out SDV, presenting most new HD programming and some existing services in that fashion; the only avenue for creating retail devices capable of accessing SDV that the cable industry offered was a full implementation of OCAP. They proposed that the cable providers be made to implement a simpler, easier and cheaper to implement scheme in addition to OCAP, which they called Digital Cable Ready Plus (aka, "DCR+"). This would be a mechanism for accessing three interactive cable apps: Impulse Pay Per View, Video On Demand and SDV.

That following August, in response to the FCC's request for comments on the CEA's Digital Cable Ready Plus proposal, the NCTA filed a counter-protest, claiming that implementation of DCR+ would take a very long time and cost a very great amount of money, all coming out of their pockets. Moreover, it couldn't possibly be ready to roll in time for the analog shut-off (though why they thought that was important is beyond me ). Additionally, in partnership with several OEMs, they'd been working on a solution to the tuning-SDV-in-low-end-products problem, which they called the Tuning Resolver. It was this August 2007 FCC filing which first mentioned the Tuning Resolver (now, apparently, "Tuning Adapter").

Since then they've contrived to implement and begin distributing the tuning resolver without waiting for the FCC to make a decision on the DCR+ issue, in the apparent hope that an existing solution would stop them from ordering implementation of DCR+, since the worst part of the problem that DCR+ solved would have a real solution already deployed.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 12:15 PM   #1368
MichaelK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by dswallow View Post
And if you get rid of those 10% of users you'll find the remaining ones still fit into the same pattern; 10% of the remaining ones are using 90% of the bandwidth in use among them all.

It's a nice statistic but really pretty pointless to try to use to justify cutting off customers; there'll always be 10% of customers you can cut off to reduce bandwidth usage. You'll always need to be looking at creating a bigger pipe for your customers.
that's interesting if true- I didn't see that bit of the study (it was like hundreds of pages so I just skimmed a summary). I took it to mean there is basically a hard line between the 10% and 90% but I could have just assumed that.

is that a given or an educated guess on your part?

I dont know if the study was really trying to analyze patterns- moreso it was making a point that unlimted offerings are wastefull becasue the 10% keep themselves in check when they have to pay. I guess the equivalint in the payt tv world would be stop with the all or nothing system and go a la carte.

also- I'm not sure it's not wise from a business point of view. There's plenty of businesses that make money by trying to do one thing well, or aiming at a particular market, instead of being all things to all people. So it's possible from a business point of view it is wise at some point to say enough is enough as the returns aren't there. I suppose that for cable they ARE AT that point in regards to increasing bandwidth- they went from ~500 to 750 or now 870mhz. Jumping to 1000 might just be a huge expensive undertaking that yeilds little for the fringe- and so along comes SDV to change the whole paradigm becasue you dont need to increase the infrastructure's bandwidth anymore you just use it more efficiently. And that's how we are where we are today.
MichaelK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 12:19 PM   #1369
MichaelK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
The original news break was back in August. Sometime around the beginning of November 2006, the CEA had complained to the FCC that, after years of waiting, what they got from the Cable industry for bidirectional interactive CableCARD was a scheme which integrally included OCAP, an expensive-to-implement and overly complex mechanism which could not possibly be included in television products on the lower end of the price range. Added to that was the fact that cable was rolling out SDV, presenting most new HD programming and some existing services in that fashion; the only avenue for creating retail devices capable of accessing SDV that the cable industry offered was a full implementation of OCAP. They proposed that the cable providers be made to implement a simpler, easier and cheaper to implement scheme in addition to OCAP, which they called Digital Cable Ready Plus (aka, "DCR+"). This would be a mechanism for accessing three interactive cable apps: Impulse Pay Per View, Video On Demand and SDV.

That following August, in response to the FCC's request for comments on the CEA's Digital Cable Ready Plus proposal, the NCTA filed a counter-protest, claiming that implementation of DCR+ would take a very long time and cost a very great amount of money, all coming out of their pockets. Moreover, it couldn't possibly be ready to roll in time for the analog shut-off (though why they thought that was important is beyond me ). Additionally, in partnership with several OEMs, they'd been working on a solution to the tuning-SDV-in-low-end-products problem, which they called the Tuning Resolver. It was this August 2007 FCC filing which first mentioned the Tuning Resolver (now, apparently, "Tuning Adapter").

Since then they've contrived to implement and begin distributing the tuning resolver without waiting for the FCC to make a decision on the DCR+ issue, in the apparent hope that an existing solution would stop them from ordering implementation of DCR+, since the worst part of the problem that DCR+ solved would have a real solution already deployed.

I wonder if the CEA doesn't argue that SDV is nice but what about VOD and PPV. PPV has been around since the law was passed in 1996 and the first regs came out in like 1998. So it's been 10+ years to get to a point that PPV will work on a 3rd party device- seems a little excessive to me. But I guess the cable response will be the old standby: "OCAP , er um true2way, is almost ready and can do all things for everyone"
MichaelK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 12:54 PM   #1370
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelK View Post
I wonder if the CEA doesn't argue that SDV is nice but what about VOD and PPV. PPV has been around since the law was passed in 1996 and the first regs came out in like 1998. So it's been 10+ years to get to a point that PPV will work on a 3rd party device- seems a little excessive to me. But I guess the cable response will be the old standby: "OCAP , er um true2way, is almost ready and can do all things for everyone"
Cable has already argued (in that 8/07 FCC filing) that <tru2way> is here already and already widely deployed by them (all the SA boxes bought by TWC whose product designation ends in "C"--Explorer 8300HDC, 8240HDC, 4250HDC, etc--are <tru2way> compliant, most all of them running the absolutely horrific OCAP Digital Navigator IPG). They will argue that services like IPPV and VOD are not compelling or necessary for low-end products. What they cannot argue is that <tru2way>--particularly a useful OCAP platform (if that's not an oxymoron )--is very expensive to implement. Requiring OCAP for SDV will cut all low-end products out of access to any service they present as SDV, which is something they can hardly desire themselves. The CE OEMs have a real point--at least as far as SDV is concerned--and its not one that the FCC can ignore.

Of course, <tru2way> won't always be so expensive--within a few years, we'll likely have a Cell processor, 1st and 2nd level cache and 128MB of RAM on a single carrier for $25/part, in lot quantities of 10K. But the cable industry has to live with the situation today .

If the scenarios that we've been discussing come to past, VOD will be much more important in the future, eliminating all but a relatively small range of linear video services. But you can't expect the OEMs, cable providers and FCC to be that far-sighted. Look at the "Unidirectional Digital Cable Ready" boondoggle they all so blythely bought into, obsolete nearly before it shipped.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 01:42 PM   #1371
MichaelK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
... They will argue that services like IPPV and VOD are not compelling or necessary for low-end products. ....
neither the law not the regulations exempted access to ippv or vod.

The law is very broadbased basically saying anything they offer needs to be open.

not sure how far they would get with the ippv and vod not being compelling- when they use VOD as a selling point and their csr's use both as a reason not to use a tivo or other cablecard devices

But in the end I guess, it all depends on who has the better lobbyists. (as the fact that DBS is still completely exempt shows)

Last edited by MichaelK : 04-09-2008 at 01:47 PM.
MichaelK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 02:40 PM   #1372
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
So far as I know, nowhere in FCC regulations are they required to provide an open method for access to any and all programming on the cable. If you know differently, please point out the specific regs.

In any case, cable will argue that they have provided access to IPPV and VOD services to third party devices: make your products compliant to the <tru2way> specs and they'll download their IPGs into it, and your customers will be able to access IPPV and VOD services through it, as well as a whole world of currently-difficult-to-imagine-yet-virtually-indispensible services . Certainly nothing in FCC regs compells them to provide an inexpensive-to-implement mechanism through which retail devices can access their core interactive services--I'd like to see a draft of a regulation which tried to require that .

They wouldn't argue that access to IPPV and VOD weren't compelling in general--they'd just argue that low-end product by definition lack costly-to-implement features found in high-end products and that access to IPPV and VOD are features that can reasonably be omitted in the low-end. If someone who can only afford a $150 television wants access to IPPV and VOD, they can pay for that access incrementally at the ever-so-reasonable lease rate of a cable company provided STB .
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 04:15 PM   #1373
MichaelK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
So far as I know, nowhere in FCC regulations are they required to provide an open method for access to any and all programming on the cable. If you know differently, please point out the specific regs.

In any case, cable will argue that they have provided access to IPPV and VOD services to third party devices: make your products compliant to the <tru2way> specs and they'll download their IPGs into it, and your customers will be able to access IPPV and VOD services through it, as well as a whole world of currently-difficult-to-imagine-yet-virtually-indispensible services . Certainly nothing in FCC regs compells them to provide an inexpensive-to-implement mechanism through which retail devices can access their core interactive services--I'd like to see a draft of a regulation which tried to require that .
the LAW says not just programming but SERVICES also- check out the law. I dont recall it specifically saying every channel- but the law seems pretty clear to me it includes all channels- but I'll let you argue that they are allowed to give just some channels or services.


i didn't say anything about inexpensive- that's not written anyplace I know.

In fact NO ONE has ever said that cablecards are inexpensive to mandate. The only argument is how expensive it is. The FCC never seems to respond to the NCTA's complaints about cost.


you can start your reading here- here's the link to the fcc order that I think created all the enabling regulations

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Ord...8/fcc98116.pdf

and here's the FCC press release about it.

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/New.../nrcb8013.html


some quick snippets:

Quote:
This order will benefit consumers and further the Commission's goal of providing competition in the telecommunications marketplace by creating a major market for consumers to own equipment used to access video programming and other services in their homes.
Quote:
Section 629 covers not just equipment used to receive video programming, but also equipment used to access "other services offered over multichannel video programming systems." Such equipment includes televisions, VCRs, cable set-top boxes, personal computers, program guide equipment, and cable modems. The focus of Section 629, however, is on cable television set-top boxes and cable modems, devices that have historically been available only on a lease basis from the service provider.
Quote:
We expect that entities outside of the membership of CableLabs will be able to participate in the
eventual standards setting process.


Quote:
There is further risk in moving to an environment where new devices are commercially available.
With the technology and market developing, it is unclear how efficiently the market will respond if consumers
purchase devices that may not perform all of the functions in the manner that the consumer envisioned. ...
like getting only some channels perhaps?



Quote:
We are realistic, however, in comprehending that the present environment where incumbent cable
operators dominate the MVPD market, and where consumers may not have ready access to information
regarding equipment alternatives, may not easily evolve to a competitive market. We think it important to
convey those circumstances that we believe will indicate where competition is faltering, and cause us to
reexamine our decisions. Additionally, we also address our concern that, having refrained from promulgating
specific technical standards, market driven efforts may not bring tangible choice to consumers, thereby
requiring additional need to reexamine the direction we have taken.
in the order they basically crowned cablelabs to make the standards- the FCC wanted nothing to do with it. And despite others requests for an independant third party the FCC said cablelabs was basically the only one ready to move at that moment in time. But I think this bit above says something to the effect if cablelabs doesn't bring tangible choice (eg the CEA doesn't agree like has happened so far with OCAP) then perhaps the FCC will jump into the fray. (as the CEA probably argues they should do to make DCR+)

just some snippets. Feel free to read the whole thing- I just skimmed so I may have taken things out of context.

there are specific provisions that the FCC wouldn't make rules that stifle new technology- and that's exactly the point of SDV- it's new. Forcing cable to come up with DCR+ or OCAP before deploying SDV wouldn't be helpfull to progress so it's allowed to exist. I get see the point- can't stop progress and all.

I'll even take that VOD is "new".

Put program guides and IPPV existed in 1996 when the law passed- it's crazy in my mind that there is no real world deployed standard for either yet. So maybe the CEA should get their way with DCR+. The tuning resolver/adapter might not be the magic bullet if DVR+ did PPV and VOD but it doesn't. Cable better get true2way on the ground AND IN RETAIL for that "tangible choice" if they want to really show the train has left the station.


That's the whole point of the law- the boxes have to be availible to purchase in retail- who cares if TW is using OCAP if the CEA refuses to built consumer devices- actually i think the actual law says "commerically availible"
MichaelK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 07:05 PM   #1374
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
MichaelK --

FCC 98-116, the FCC Report and Order that you quoted above, doesn't seem to be on your point. What it "ordered" was the inclusion of a new Subpart P of Code of Federal Regulation Title 47, Part 76--it ordered that in July of 1998 (with signficant amendments made to it since), just before ATSC broadcasting began in the United States and 5 years before FCC 03-225 was issued, which ordered the inclusion of modifications to the regulations codifying the plug-and-play-DTV-over-cable scheme. Note that only the stuff in Appendix A of FCC 98-116 are regulations--the rest of it is just discussion of the situation and their justification for making those new rules in Appendix A. The regulations can't be all fluffy and conceptual, like the report part--regulations have to state, as precisely as possible, exactly what they require companies to whom the regulations apply to do, with references to applicable standards documentation that go into excrutiating detail. (Often the regulations aren't nearly precise enough ).

CFR Title 47, Part 76, Subpart P mostly seems concerned with keeping the cable providers from interfering with the sale of navigation devices at retail, and insuring that they deliver details of their interface to people interested in developing such as requested. It also re-iterates that they must make "equipment that incorporates only the conditional access functions" (i.e., CableCARDs) available to subs and that, after 1 July 2007, they must not obtain new devices for sale or lease which integrate conditional access (one of the recent amendments). Except for that last bit, it has nothing much to do specifically with plug-and-play-DTV-over-cable.

Cable (in the form of the NCTA) and the CE OEMs (as represented by the CEA) are fighting for/against <tru2way> and/or DCR+ both on the basis of costs. As stated, the CE OEMs basically can't implement <tru2way> in their low-end products; cable doesn't want to implement DCR+ because it will cost them a very large amount of money (quite likely much more than it will cost the CE OEMs) without giving them any further opportunities to profit. They've already spent a major fortune on the development of the elements of <tru2way>; moreover they did it awfully publicly and while the CE OEMs watched and did not submit their complaint to the FCC begging for a cheaper alternative until recently. That complaint made only one inarguable point--it is unreasonable to require implementation of <tru2way> just to support access to SDV channels. Cable has solved that problem with the Tuning Adapter, however Rube-Goldberg-esque the solution may be .

I truly believe that, if the FCC were to order the cable industry to work on DCR+, they would drop the Tuning Adapter, since no OEM would then design low-end devices which would use it and the only beneficiaries of their buying and stocking them would be a couple hundred thousand CableCARD-using TiVo Series3 and TiVo HD users nationwide--far too little bang for the required effort and expense.

I hate coming down on the side of the cable providers--as hookbill suggests, I like to try to think of them as a groups of terrorists . However, in this particularly case I think that their side is also the side of TiVo S3/HD owners.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 10:32 PM   #1375
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,867
Different things

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelK View Post
So I dont think we'll get to 1,000 linear channels ever and I dont happen to think at this moment that we'll have just 10 linear channels and the rest vod anytime soon either.
There's a difference between a linear channel and a scheduled program. A linear channel is broadcast to every subscriber. Hypothetically, it could even be a VOD channel, but putting VOD content on linear channels would be hideously inefficient. A scheduled program, however, can still be broadcast on SDV QAMs, and in fact on an average CATV system any time a channel represents less than a 5% or so share of the total viewing public during any significant period of time, moving that channel from a liner QAM to an SDV QAM makes sense. Once that is done (or even without it), there's no reason not to offer the content as VOD for those who get stuck on the freeway and are 10 minutes late, or just want to step away from the TV for a few minutes.

My original statement was the norm would be VOD. That means something around half the streams going out to the nodes would be initiated by direct consumer requests rather than by scheduled broadcasting. 'Call it maybe 100 scheduled HD programs and 300 scheduled SD programs sent to the entire city and 100 HD programs and 300 SD programs not scheduled to each node. City wide, that would make perhaps 1000 or so HD programs and 3000 or so SD programs at any one time, from a pool of many thousands.

Right now, in San Antonio, at this very moment, the SDV sub has a pool of well over 1000 programs from which to choose, since every program currently being offfered on any of the 50 or so premium channels is available as VOD. The number of pay-per-view offerings ia also quite large.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 10:44 PM   #1376
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,867
Ppv

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelK View Post
PPV has been around since the law was passed in 1996 and the first regs came out in like 1998. So it's been 10+ years to get to a point that PPV will work on a 3rd party device
Pay Per View has been around since the early 1980s. I was working for a CATV company back then, and we deployed our first PPV system in 1983. We were not the first CATV system in the nation to deploy PPV, either. It's been closer to 30 years than to 10 since PPV was developed.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 01:46 AM   #1377
Firekite
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 63
It's still fascinating to me that people--on a TiVo forum no less--seem to have such a hard-on for VOD. Personally it doesn't bother me that it exists, but it's irrelevant to me because I have a DVR. I can't imagine I'm part of some tiny minority, especially since everyone I know and work with seems to have one, too, and has had for quite a while. If I'm 10 minutes late getting to my favorite shows or am on a date or running errands or whatever, it doesn't affect me. Only selected programming is available on VOD anyway, and other than the novelty factor of being able to order up Showtime late-night soft-core on a whim when I first got the service, it's of little use.
Firekite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 03:24 AM   #1378
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,867
Irrelevant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firekite View Post
It's still fascinating to me that people--on a TiVo forum no less--seem to have such a hard-on for VOD. Personally it doesn't bother me that it exists, but it's irrelevant to me because I have a DVR.
You are correct that any set with a DVR, particularly a TiVo, has generally speaking little to gain from a VOD offering unless that offering is only available via VOD or some similar mechanism. What you continually miss, however, is that the average user does not own a TiVo, and most sets out there do not have DVRs of any sort attached to them. I personally never use VOD or even PPV at all, but I am not the average user, and neither are you. Indeed, even in my house, only three out of the seven TVs have DVRs - all TiVos - on them, and while I don't make use of VOD or PPV, when my daughters were still in the house they did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firekite View Post
I can't imagine I'm part of some tiny minority, especially since everyone I know and work with seems to have one, too, and has had for quite a while.
Then your imagination falls far short of reality. There are only a few million DVRs out there, but over 100 million TV sets. Even so, if you will take a few minutes to browse through the posts on this forum, one of the more commonly asked questions is, "[When] will my TiVo be able to get VOD and PPV?" The fact you or I are of the opinion VOD and IPPV are useless on a DVR does not prevent many DVR owners wanting it, nor does it prevent a large number of them employing VOD and IPPV on leased DVRs. Whether you like it or not, we are indeed part of a fairly small minority at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firekite View Post
If I'm 10 minutes late getting to my favorite shows or am on a date or running errands or whatever, it doesn't affect me. Only selected programming is available on VOD anyway
In San Antonio, every single channel has video rewind available, which is a form of VOD. Every premium channel has VOD available. Once again, the fact you or I find these features of highly limited interest does not mean the average person does as well. Indeed, many people are drawn to a service with more features in opposition to one with less features for no other reason than it has more features, the fact they may never even use many of the features (or even fully apreciate what they are) completely notwithstanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firekite View Post
and other than the novelty factor of being able to order up Showtime late-night soft-core on a whim when I first got the service, it's of little use.
You are also judging the merits of the platform based upon its current state, not its potential. In the late 1950s, a 5 Megabyte hard drive weighed nearly a ton, and the computer to which it was attached filled an entire room and took months to program even for simple functions. Boy, that was a technology that never went anywhere, wasn't it? Ten years later, a video recorder filled an entire 7' tall bay, and cost over $20,000. One could easily buy a very nice house for $20,000 at the time. Obviously, no consumer would ever want to buy a video recorder, right?
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 03:38 AM   #1379
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,119
Good points. I think it is really important to remember that for most people the best DVR is the one that they don't have to buy, the one they don't have to hook up, the one they don't have to negotiate with their service provider to support, and the one that they don't have to pay for service on. Like it or not, service-oriented architectures are back, and will become the norm (again) for many different software-oriented services in our society.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 08:53 AM   #1380
vstone
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsville, VA
Posts: 1,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelK View Post
...
Put program guides and IPPV existed in 1996 when the law passed- it's crazy in my mind that there is no real world deployed standard for either yet. So maybe the CEA should get their way with DCR+.
...
You can thank Gemstar/TV Guide for the program guide mess. They have some patents which have to be dealt with one way or another. I remeber seeing a program guide that started with tomorrow's programming (you could backtrack) to avoid violating a patent.
vstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |