TiVo Losing Value

[Stormspace]

Originally Posted by MichaelK

I've been paying attention- I know your defination of monopoly. AND I AGREE WITH IT.

BUT FOR PAY TV- I am of the general opinion that there is NOT any monopoly except for some very small subsets of the country. Directv, Dish, and cable duke it out pretty good in my mind. Just look at the numbers- directv has 18 million subs. Dish has like 13 million. that's about 1/4 to 1/3rd of the tv housholds (I think neilson says there are a a bit over 100 million households). But we can agree to disagree onthat point. It is what it is. If you dont think Direct and Dish have any sway then we just plain disagree- I happen to think they do.

if anything Dish and Directv have control of MORE places then cable does- those rural places only have those two as a choice and we can't blame cable for the prices those folks pay for TV.

As far as broadband I inderstand that it's all bits- might be dense on some things but I think I understand how fdigital cable works- laughing. But I happen to beleive that Broadband IS currently different then tv. I can buy just broadband without buying TV from the cable company, and I can buy broadband from non-tv providers. Most of the country by population can buy cable or dsl broadband- most actually dont have 2 chouces of wired tv provider.Sure it's all bits from the head end to your house if you have a cable line. But there's a but of that pipe set aside that connects me to the internet. Broadcast TV, satellite radio, cell phones are all just bits too. Being digital doesn't mean it's all the same. If you want to say that a bit delivery pipe= broadband then cable has tons of competition becasue all those others can send you bits to your house too. It's just differnet in my mind. Again we can agree to disagree.

Satellite service can't be considered competition in this sense mainly because of the high cost of adoption. Sure, you can occasionally find a bundle deal, but typically you have to invest in the equipment to receive the signal. This is onerous on the user due to the excessive cost. Cable on the other hand has a very low cost of adoption and all TV's are capable of receiving the signal out of the box.

IIRC satellite also requires a separate box for every TV in the home with a limit of two boxes per dish. So for a house with 4 sets the cost doubles. Not to mention the wiring requirements for a house with sat service is different since the TV's sometimes have to be wired in series. That may have changed, but the last house we were in we had to rewire it because the previous owners had sat service.

[lrhorer]

Originally Posted by MichaelK

here's a fine example of how monopolies aren't inherintly bad. And it's a very close relative to cable.

ATT for the first ~100 years.

That's specious. At the risk of being cliche, even the darkest cloud has a silver lining. It is arguable that war is the ultimate immorality (although if you ask me, it's congress), and without question the misery, injustice, and evil that accompanies any war is beyond calculation, yet war almost inevitably produces a very large number of positive effects. Those effects do not even come close to being a justification for waging war, although there are those who profit greatly from war and care nothing for the death and suffering they support that might actually have the chutzpah to disagree. The point, however, is that pointing to an incidental positive effect of an evil does not provide support for the notion the artifact is not evil in the first place.

Originally Posted by MichaelK

The government allowed (perhaps even endorsed) ATT to be THE national phone provider for a very long time. THey did it to make sure the country got a ubiquitous(sp?) communications system. In exchange for a REGULATED profit- anyone anwhere that wanted phone service was set up on the system.

It's a bit of an oversimplification, but your narrative here is more or less accurate.

Originally Posted by MichaelK

(that's the crux- regulated- there's nothing wrong in my mind with a monopoly that is regulated- perhaps it's even better than competition for certain things).

You're painting with too broad of a brush here for anyone to really make a relevant comment. To try to separate the chaff from the wheat, however, what seems often to get lost in the maelstrom is that legislation is primarily about morality and justice, not economy and convenience. A just, equitable political system is expensive, and cutting corners is always going to result in injustice and inequity. (Note spending a lot doesn't guarantee the opposite, either.) Furthermore, as a rule of thumb, if a regulation is necessary for a monopoly, then it is also generally necessary for a free market, whether it seems like it, or not. In addition, just because something is necessary does not mean it is good. Necessary evils abound. Indeed, every law is at best a necessary evil, even if the law in question applies more to businesses rather than individuals.

Originally Posted by MichaelK

It wasn't untill the system was basically completely built out that the government decided that ATT was evil for being a monopoly and then set out to DESTROY the company.

That's a revisionist history. AT&T was positively thrilled to be rid of its local franchises. At the time, they were not profitable (in part because AT&T was required to provide local service to anyone no matter how much it cost them), and the long distance business was subsidizing the cost of the local operations.

Originally Posted by MichaelK

And the interesting thing is that for phone service (or maybe even utilities as a whole) maybe a monopoly is a good idea- since it seems for the most part that the broken up phone market really is now in the hands of just a few players even after having been in the hands of tens of company's at one point.

That's not cogent at all. The fact something may be true, may come to pass, or even may be inevitable in no way argues that it may be a good thing. Sooner or later, I am going to die. It is an inevitable fact. While there are those who may argue with me about just how bad such an event will be, and while I am not in the least inclined to prove the statement, it is nonetheless inarguably true and arguably (at least by me) bad.

[JWThiers]

Originally Posted by MichaelK

I've been paying attention- I know your defination of monopoly. AND I AGREE WITH IT.

BUT FOR PAY TV- I am of the general opinion that there is NOT any monopoly except for some very small subsets of the country. Directv, Dish, and cable duke it out pretty good in my mind. Just look at the numbers- directv has 18 million subs. Dish has like 13 million. that's about 1/4 to 1/3rd of the tv housholds (I think neilson says there are a a bit over 100 million households). But we can agree to disagree onthat point. It is what it is. If you dont think Direct and Dish have any sway then we just plain disagree- I happen to think they do.

if anything Dish and Directv have control of MORE places then cable does- those rural places only have those two as a choice and we can't blame cable for the prices those folks pay for TV.

As far as broadband I inderstand that it's all bits- might be dense on some things but I think I understand how fdigital cable works- laughing. But I happen to beleive that Broadband IS currently different then tv. I can buy just broadband without buying TV from the cable company, and I can buy broadband from non-tv providers. Most of the country by population can buy cable or dsl broadband- most actually dont have 2 chouces of wired tv provider.Sure it's all bits from the head end to your house if you have a cable line. But there's a but of that pipe set aside that connects me to the internet. Broadcast TV, satellite radio, cell phones are all just bits too. Being digital doesn't mean it's all the same. If you want to say that a bit delivery pipe= broadband then cable has tons of competition because all those others can send you bits to your house too. It's just differnet in my mind. Again we can agree to disagree.

I can agree to disagree on your conclusions, there are reasonable doubts. Just as I think my conclusions are reasonable. And the whole digital communication is still basically in its childhood (I think its been around long enough to be out of the infancy stage LOL) There are definite differences (now) but I think that in a relatively short time those differences will start to fade. That is why net neutrality is important.

[JWThiers]

Originally Posted by Stormspace

Satellite service can't be considered competition in this sense mainly because of the high cost of adoption. Sure, you can occasionally find a bundle deal, but typically you have to invest in the equipment to receive the signal. This is onerous on the user due to the excessive cost. Cable on the other hand has a very low cost of adoption and all TV's are capable of receiving the signal out of the box.

IIRC satellite also requires a separate box for every TV in the home with a limit of two boxes per dish. So for a house with 4 sets the cost doubles. Not to mention the wiring requirements for a house with sat service is different since the TV's sometimes have to be wired in series. That may have changed, but the last house we were in we had to rewire it because the previous owners had sat service.

You might want to check again. Directv (probably dish too) has had no equipment to buy & no start-up costs for several years (I think you have to commit to a contract?) and with multi switches you can hook up any number of receivers to a single dish. The only additional wiring changes you might want to have (but isn't required if you only want to watch 1 channel) is 2 cables to each set, so you could record channels with different polarities at the same time. Even that isn't required but you would have to buy additional equipment to get around that and the equipment costs a fair amount. you might need a second dish to get locals but that depends on where you are and the signal from the second dish is muxed in with the main dish so there is no additional wires for that.

[lrhorer]

Originally Posted by JWThiers

Interesting, I thought that trust and monopoly were basically the same thing. But the wiki entry here says that "Eventually the term was used to refer to monopolies in general", but I can see some difference. The devils in the details.

Well, they are philosophically related. One might call one an unbridled "vertical" expansion, and the other a "horizontal" one, as it were. Basically a monopoly may be contained - perhaps temporarily - geographically through whatever means, while a trust may be restrained to a specific fraction of each market, but may expand into many markets. In short, a monopoly is basically the "only game in town", but may be limited to just one town. A trust may be only one of many providers in a town, but may have its teeth in to lots and lots of towns. Of course AT&T prior to divestiture was both, being a service provider in almost every city in the entire U.S. and having a virtual 100% penetration into every market they serviced. Part of the problem with being either one is it makes it easy, perhaps almost irresistible, to become the other.

[JWThiers]

Originally Posted by lrhorer

Well, they are philosophically related. One might call one an unbridled "vertical" expansion, and the other a "horizontal" one, as it were. Basically a monopoly may be contained - perhaps temporarily - geographically through whatever means, while a trust may be restrained to a specific fraction of each market, but may expand into many markets. In short, a monopoly is basically the "only game in town", but may be limited to just one town. A trust may be only one of many providers in a town, but may have its teeth in to lots and lots of towns. Of course AT&T prior to divestiture was both, being a service provider in almost every city in the entire U.S. and having a virtual 100% penetration into every market they serviced. Part of the problem with being either one is it makes it easy, perhaps almost irresistible, to become the other.

That's food for thought.

[bicker]

Originally Posted by Stormspace

Satellite service can't be considered competition in this sense mainly because of the high cost of adoption.

This directly contradicts the decision of the US Court of Appeals, and as such everything you based on this faulty premise is unsupportable as well. Satellite service is competition in all senses, and any failure to integrate that into regulatory considerations is indefensible, as a matter of law.

[Stormspace]

Originally Posted by JWThiers

You might want to check again. Directv (probably dish too) has had no equipment to buy & no start-up costs for several years (I think you have to commit to a contract?) and with multi switches you can hook up any number of receivers to a single dish. The only additional wiring changes you might want to have (but isn't required if you only want to watch 1 channel) is 2 cables to each set, so you could record channels with different polarities at the same time. Even that isn't required but you would have to buy additional equipment to get around that and the equipment costs a fair amount. you might need a second dish to get locals but that depends on where you are and the signal from the second dish is muxed in with the main dish so there is no additional wires for that.

That is definitely news to me. We looked at sat service several years ago, and I've been looking at the ads in the local papers and still see equipment costs in the installation fees. Is it just one provider that doesn't have the equipment costs? Maybe it's different in your area?

2 years ago my daughter got Dish and I'm certain they had to pay for the equipment.

Either way, if they've stopped charging for equipment that's a good thing.

[Stormspace]

Looks like Dish has their own copy protection racket going.

I also found quite easily on the DirecTV site that there are no equipment costs, but on the Dish site I wasn't able to find that easily.

Also an observation. Choosing satellite service appears to be entirely more involved than cable with equipment, channel, and service selection. There also appear to be fees for everything imaginable from support to insurance?

Granted I only spent 10 minutes on each site, but it's certainly looks confusing at first glance. It's certainly not the easy choice and I wouldn't pick it with out doing some serious research before taking the plunge.

[dlfl]

Originally Posted by Stormspace

.......Also an observation. Choosing satellite service appears to be entirely more involved than cable with equipment, channel, and service selection. There also appear to be fees for everything imaginable from support to insurance?

Granted I only spent 10 minutes on each site, but it's certainly looks confusing at first glance. It's certainly not the easy choice and I wouldn't pick it with out doing some serious research before taking the plunge.

More confusing than my TWC lineup web page ? I haven't found anyone yet who considered it useful -- including TWC reps! Just determining what channels I'm supposed to get - by any means - is difficult.

More confusing than CableCARDS and Tuning Adapters and all their associated problems and installation issues? (Unless you're one of the lucky ones who never have problems with these devices.) Of course these TiVo-specific issues don't count if you're making a general comparison between cable and satellite, i.e., for non-TiVo users. (Which you were.)

[steve614]

Originally Posted by Stormspace

Looks like Dish has their own copy protection racket going.

At least they're doing it right and allowing a one time move to a PocketDish, whatever that is.

[Stormspace]

Originally Posted by dlfl

More confusing than my TWC lineup web page ? I haven't found anyone yet who considered it useful -- including TWC reps! Just determining what channels I'm supposed to get - by any means - is difficult.

More confusing than CableCARDS and Tuning Adapters and all their associated problems and installation issues? (Unless you're one of the lucky ones who never have problems with these devices.) Of course these TiVo-specific issues don't count if you're making a general comparison between cable and satellite, i.e., for non-TiVo users. (Which you were.)

Touché

[MichaelK]

Originally Posted by JWThiers

... The only additional wiring changes you might want to have (but isn't required if you only want to watch 1 channel) is 2 cables to each set, so you could record channels with different polarities at the same time. Even that isn't required but you would have to buy additional equipment to get around that and the equipment costs a fair amount. ....

the single wire multiswitch doodad still isn't the "normal install"? I haven't been paying attention so i dont know- but at some point I'd think they would just go that route by default.

[MichaelK]

Originally Posted by Stormspace

....

Also an observation. Choosing satellite service appears to be entirely more involved than cable with equipment, channel, and service selection. There also appear to be fees for everything imaginable from support to insurance?

Granted I only spent 10 minutes on each site, but it's certainly looks confusing at first glance. It's certainly not the easy choice and I wouldn't pick it with out doing some serious research before taking the plunge.

that's a joke right?

(I'm kidding myself behing a little sarcastic)

Just read the umpteen threads here about cablecard fees and inconsistant billing that happens all the time with the cable companies.

Cable is movingto "all" digital which will require a box of some sort on every tv. And if you get more than the basic channels an "addtional outlet fee" which is basically that same exact thing as sat's "mirror" feee.

Cable isn't any less confusing when you get into the digital relm. at least dish and directv have one set of uniform pricing and one set of lineups no matter where you are in the country. Every Comcast/cablevision/twc/etc headend seems to price things differently and have differnet channels availible.


when I left directv to go to cable- i needed to make a spreadsheet to try and figure out what I'd pay each month with cable with all thepossible possibilities.

[MichaelK]

Originally Posted by JWThiers

I can agree to disagree on your conclusions, there are reasonable doubts. Just as I think my conclusions are reasonable. And the whole digital communication is still basically in its childhood (I think its been around long enough to be out of the infancy stage LOL) There are definite differences (now) but I think that in a relatively short time those differences will start to fade. That is why net neutrality is important.

yep- I dont think your conclusions are insane- i just dont agree.

I think that it's still too early to know if the differences will fade in broadband or not. I think much of it depends on what laws and regulations get put into place. Depends on how things shake out with "net neutrality"- it could very well end up that you get a pipe and do with it what you please. On the flip side it might wind up very fragmented and limited depending on the provider. Will certainly be interesting to see what shakes out and then find out what everyone's definition of "net neutrality" is- depends on who you talk to at the moment.

[JWThiers]

Originally Posted by MichaelK

the single wire multiswitch doodad still isn't the "normal install"? I haven't been paying attention so i dont know- but at some point I'd think they would just go that route by default.

I haven't had a sat since Feb 08 and IIRC the thing (can't recall what it was called) that put it all on 1 wire cost over $100. So I don't think they have made it the normal install. They figure that they have to install at least one run because if the wiring is old they have to replace it anyway and if you are doing one the second run is just the cost of the wire and connectors. its just cheaper overall for DTV to do that if they are paying for the install.

[JWThiers]

Originally Posted by MichaelK

I think that it's still too early to know if the differences will fade in broadband or not. I think much of it depends on what laws and regulations get put into place. Depends on how things shake out with "net neutrality"- it could very well end up that you get a pipe and do with it what you please. On the flip side it might wind up very fragmented and limited depending on the provider. Will certainly be interesting to see what shakes out and then find out what everyone's definition of "net neutrality" is- depends on who you talk to at the moment.

Agreed, its still very early, but I'm hopeful.

[Stormspace]

I'm getting tired of our elected officials and judiciary being so stupid about technology. It seems like every company with something to protect piles on DRM and then convinces lawmakers it's a good thing, knowing full well that milllions of sheeple won't complain and those that do will be such a small minority nothing will get done to change things....

[DougJohnson]

Originally Posted by Stormspace

I'm getting tired of our elected officials and judiciary being so stupid about technology. It seems like every company with something to protect piles on DRM and then convinces lawmakers it's a good thing, knowing full well that milllions of sheeple won't complain and those that do will be such a small minority nothing will get done to change things....

"Sheeple" is such a grand word. It lets the user show how much smarter and more insightful he is than the unwashed masses. -- Doug

[bicker]

Use of the word "sheeple" does smack of an arrogance on the part of the person using the word, essentially displaying inexcusable disrespect for others who might hold to different beliefs and values, have different priorities, or simply feel that consumerism isn't the be-all and end-all of existence, and that the rights of property ownership have merit.

[Stormspace]

I disagree. I truly think that companies and lobbyists take into account how many people will be effected and what the push back will be when they push for legislation. So sheeple in this sense is everyone that is going about their lives without knowing better until the wolf is at their door. How many people have we seen come on this forum and ask where the copy protection is coming from? They had no clue these things were being done.

[bicker]

This isn't the only consumer concern there is -- people encounter such situations at least once every day or so. Just as consumerism is pervasive, consumers encountering asset protection is pervasive. There is no way you can claim that it is a big shocker to anybody. So what do people do? Do they vote more and more consistently for the candidate who most favors consumerists? No. Quite the opposite. People are voting more and more consistently for the candidate who favors a healthy business environment that fosters jobs, fosters the value of investments, keeps taxes as low as possible. Both political parties are offering that perspective now, because Americans generally agree about those things.

People aren't stupid. They just don't value what you want them to value.

[Stormspace]

Originally Posted by bicker

This isn't the only consumer concern there is -- people encounter such situations at least once every day or so. Just as consumerism is pervasive, consumers encountering asset protection is pervasive. There is no way you can claim that it is a big shocker to anybody. So what do people do? Do they vote more and more consistently for the candidate who most favors consumerists? No. Quite the opposite. People are voting more and more consistently for the candidate who favors a healthy business environment that fosters jobs, fosters the value of investments, keeps taxes as low as possible. Both political parties are offering that perspective now, because Americans generally agree about those things.

People aren't stupid. They just don't value what you want them to value.

No, People aren't stupid. I do think our law makers and judiciary don't understand technology issues and believe lobbyists and others that "explain" it to them from only a business perspective.

Just an example of unintended consequences and our lawmakers not thinking things through is the DVD encryption on public domain works that makes it illegal to copy something that is freely copyable. Chillingeffects.org lists some of the other issues with the DMCA. This is just one example of a pro business effort that has effects people either didn't think of, or didn't expect when the legislation was passed. So now that it has we have to live with it.

I fear the same is happening to cable television, its just that TiVo users are the first to feel it.

[Brainiac 5]

Originally Posted by Stormspace

I fear the same is happening to cable television, its just that TiVo users are the first to feel it.

My fear is that we will completely lose the ability to record TV onto removable media. The intent of the regulations absolutely was to preserve that ability, but the shift from VCRs to DVRs has basically already made us lose it (since "copy once" is a lot more restrictive for a DVR than for a D-VHS recorder).

[samo]

Originally Posted by Stormspace

No, People aren't stupid. I do think our law makers and judiciary don't understand technology issues and believe lobbyists and others that "explain" it to them from only a business perspective. ..... I fear the same is happening to cable television, its just that TiVo users are the first to feel it.

The reason TiVo users are the ones who feel it is because of the way TiVo implemented MRV. Except for TiVo users nobody else has the problem with the copy flags. Why should law makers or judiciary change the law or all the "Sheeple" (the rest of us) care about the problems TiVo users have?
Much easier fix is for TiVo users to try to influence TiVo to fix a problem by implementing streaming or for TiVo users to switch to the different DVR if copy flags are the major issue for them.
You have to realize that TiVo users are just another special interest group and unless this special interest group can come up with justifiable reason to lobby law makers to change the law, the only solution to the problem is to be proactive and either work with TiVo or walk away from TiVo.

[ZeoTiVo]

Originally Posted by Brainiac 5

My fear is that we will completely lose the ability to record TV onto removable media. The intent of the regulations absolutely was to preserve that ability,

there was never any ruling that was about a right to record to removable media. It was a ruling that fair use allowed for recording in home to watch by that household at a a later time.

The copy once flag is legit but the broadcasters are applying it wholesale against even the content owners wishes.
However Samo is correct that stand alone DVR users that employ cable cards (soon to include MS media center) are a small special interest group and they really have no right to expect they can copy something after initial recording. This really needs a technology solution versus a rule change, especially since the tech solution is already shown to be viable.

[lrhorer]

Originally Posted by ZeoTiVo

there was never any ruling that was about a right to record to removable media. It was a ruling that fair use allowed for recording in home to watch by that household at a a later time.

Well, there was a ruling concerning making backup copies of computer disks. I'm not sure how specific the language was, but taken broadly, it might cover the same intent.

Part of the problem, however, is technology is moving faster than lawmaking. This in and of itself presents a problem, but even setting legal coverage aside, I think it breeds a sort of paranoia on the part of all concerned. Each interested party is not only wanting to make sure they get everything they don't yet know they want, but they are also worried that one of the other parties is going to be able to take what they think might be unfair advantage of something of whch no one has yet thought. The result is a mess.

[JWThiers]

+1

[bicker]

Originally Posted by lrhorer

Well, there was a ruling concerning making backup copies of computer disks. I'm not sure how specific the language was, but taken broadly, it might cover the same intent.

The limitation on exclusive rights of copyright owners does not extend beyond computer programs:

TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, § 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

Originally Posted by lrhorer

Part of the problem, however, is technology is moving faster than lawmaking.

No it isn't. That's a rationalization. The law addresses such current topics as secondary transmission by satellite carriers, underserved localities (such as Bristol County, MA), etc. The law is not vague or cagey about this.

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Sections 107 through 122 list specific exclusions, each one serving a public good. The only leg that pirates have to stand on in this regard is the Sony-Betamax decision which tried to justify unauthorized copying using the Fair Use Doctrine, apparently asserting that making a durable copy of a movie for later viewing actually qualified as "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or research". Rest assured that if any aspect of Sony-Betamax ever makes it back to the Supreme Court for review, it'll be overturned. Remember who voted for Sony-Betamax:

• Stevens - Still serving.
• Burger - Succeeded by William Rehnquist, who almost always voted "with the prosecution in criminal cases, with business in antitrust cases, with employers in labor cases, and with the government in speech cases".
• Brennan - Replaced by David Souter, so that's probably a wash.
• White - Replaced by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so that's probably a wash.
• O'Connor - replaced by Samuel Alito appointed by George W. Bush. As a government lawyer, Alito urged President Reagan to veto a consumer protection bill.

So a 5-4 decision, now with at least two of those five justices now replaced by less consumerist justices... you do the math.

The reality is that if I own something, such as the right to make copies of a video presentation, I should be able to offer licenses to view that video presentation with any terms and conditions whatsoever. It's mine. I own that right completely and without encumbrance. And if someone doesn't like the terms and conditions, then they can refuse my offer and do without it.

[Brainiac 5]

Originally Posted by ZeoTiVo

there was never any ruling that was about a right to record to removable media. It was a ruling that fair use allowed for recording in home to watch by that household at a a later time.

I purposefully didn't use the word "right" for just that reason. However, we had the ability to record to removable media before, and the regulations were written thinking that we'd be recording to D-VHS digital tape, which was removable. They absolutely intended to allow (and do allow) D-VHS to work.

The copy once flag is legit but the broadcasters are applying it wholesale against even the content owners wishes.

In the scenario that was originally envisioned, we'd record to D-VHS and "copy once" would not have been as restrictive. For instance, you could take the tape to any room of your house; we wouldn't need MRV.

However Samo is correct that stand alone DVR users that employ cable cards (soon to include MS media center) are a small special interest group and they really have no right to expect they can copy something after initial recording.

Yes, it was never intended that you could make a second-generation copy, that's why we have the "copy once" AKA "copy one generation" value. However, the rules were meant to more or less keep the status quo with respect to what you could legally do before; because of the shift from VCRs to DVRs, we've lost some of the abilities we had before.

This really needs a technology solution versus a rule change, especially since the tech solution is already shown to be viable.

Well, either a technology solution or a rules change would do. A reasonable rules change might be to allow "copy once" programs to be copied to other (non-removable media) DVRs in the same house, enabling MRV. But it's true that a technical solution would be easier than re-negotiating how the copy flags work.