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 11-19-2009, 07:15 AM   #2251
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandashl View Post
FCC rules. All cable franchises using SDV must provide tuning adapters. If you get the runaround, you can file a complaint.
Close but not exact, I believe. If they move a channel currently not SDV to SDV they have to provide the TA. If they just use SDV to add new channels it's not required. Probably a distinction without a difference since they always seem to move some existing channels to SDV.

I believe the rules just say they have to provide a way to keep getting all the channels you were already getting -- not specifically a TA. Probably another distinction without a difference.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2009, 11:31 AM   #2252
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandashl View Post
FCC rules. All cable franchises using SDV must provide tuning adapters. If you get the runaround, you can file a complaint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
Close but not exact, I believe. If they move a channel currently not SDV to SDV they have to provide the TA. If they just use SDV to add new channels it's not required. Probably a distinction without a difference since they always seem to move some existing channels to SDV.

I believe the rules just say they have to provide a way to keep getting all the channels you were already getting -- not specifically a TA. Probably another distinction without a difference.
Where exactly is this rule you're talking about? I don't think that the FCC has codified anything about SDV into regulations, and I haven't seen where they've required that a service provider distribute TAs. They have examined a few complaints about SDV and ruled on them. In those cases, they've required the provider to issue a rebate to Unidirectional CableCARD customers, reduced fees going forward and, I think, use of a leased box without charge for a while, but AFAIK, they haven't mentioned the TA (which would only help TiVo--and now Moxi--users in any case). They've never required that people continue to get the same services, but only that they be warned when things are being added or removed.

I could be wrong, though. Perhaps you've heard something more recent. If so, please cite your source.
__________________
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 11-19-2009, 11:56 AM   #2253
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
Where exactly is this rule you're talking about? I don't think that the FCC has codified anything about SDV into regulations, and I haven't seen where they've required that a service provider distribute TAs. They have examined a few complaints about SDV and ruled on them. In those cases, they've required the provider to issue a rebate to Unidirectional CableCARD customers, reduced fees going forward and, I think, use of a leased box without charge for a while, but AFAIK, they haven't mentioned the TA (which would only help TiVo--and now Moxi--users in any case). They've never required that people continue to get the same services, but only that they be warned when things are being added or removed.

I could be wrong, though. Perhaps you've heard something more recent. If so, please cite your source.
I didn't refer specifically to a rule and I didn't say I thought any rules mentioned a TA specifically. Anyway, my statements (right or wrong) are based on these two links:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...A-09-122A1.pdf

http://www.lightreading.com/document...62284&site=cdn

Both of these reference rules by Section, Paragraph numbers, although I haven't tracked the actual rules down (yet).

The penalties in both referenced cases are so puny as to seem meaningless to me.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2009, 12:22 PM   #2254
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,117
It's all fading in my memory, but wasn't that all just a matter of lack of notification -- that with notification they could have done what they did no problem -- and also wasn't that something that was eventually reversed?
__________________

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 11-19-2009, 01:18 PM   #2255
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
It's all fading in my memory, but wasn't that all just a matter of lack of notification -- that with notification they could have done what they did no problem -- and also wasn't that something that was eventually reversed?
I"m not sure. Take a look at the Forfeiture Order for Cox and see what you think. It seems like more than just lack of notification to me but .... ? Note that it's pretty recent, January of this year.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2009, 01:28 PM   #2256
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,117
Reversed in June of this year:

Quote:
FCC Vacates SDV Rulings Against Time Warner Cable, Cox
Agency Cites Benefits of Switched Digital Video to Consumers

The Federal Communications Commission on Friday reversed orders by the agency's Enforcement Bureau that fined Time Warner Cable and Cox Communications for deploying switched digital video.

... in Friday's order, the FCC said it rules regarding access by unidirectional digital cable products "were not intended to provide access to bidirectional services or to freeze all one-way cable programming services in perpetuity."

... The FCC's June 26 ruling, however, upheld the forfeiture order against TWC relating to the bureau's finding that the migration of programming to an SDV platform constitutes a "change in service" requiring 30-day advanced written notice to the relevant local franchise authority.

... The FCC's order is available here: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...CC-09-52A1.pdf.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/..._Cable_Cox.php

I've got a pretty good memory for an older guy eh?

So SDV is okay (even without providing a TA). Just don't deploy SDV (even with providing TAs) without providing the advance notification you're supposed to provide.
__________________

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 11-19-2009, 01:57 PM   #2257
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Reversed in June of this year:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/..._Cable_Cox.php

I've got a pretty good memory for an older guy eh?

So SDV is okay (even without providing a TA). Just don't deploy SDV (even with providing TAs) without providing the advance notification you're supposed to provide.
So we're back to: There is no ruling or law that requires cable cos. to provide TA's, correct?

It doesn't warm my heart to say anything in defense of cable cos. but I believe this is fair. They tell you they are going to change the terms of their service in advance, and you have the option of dropping the service if the new terms are not acceptable. They could offer to reduce your rates in accordance with the channels you lose (without a TA), which might induce you to take that deal.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2009, 02:08 PM   #2258
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
So we're back to: There is no ruling or law that requires cable cos. to provide TA's, correct?
Correct.
__________________

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 11-19-2009, 03:39 PM   #2259
Shmooh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 54
How can this be? Isn't the point of CableCards that they provide access to the same channels as the rented set-top-box customers?

I get (and have no problem with) the lack of pay-per-view and video on demand - CC's were never meant for that, and those really are a kind of 'premium' service that is not part of core television distribution. However, SDV is basically a different form of broadcasting channels. While the technology requires 2-way communication, doesn't it seem like it violates the spirit of cable card law if cable card customers can't receive those channels?

To take it a step further, what's to stop a cable company from moving to an entirely 'video on demand' service and saying, "Sorry chumps. Rent one of our boxes or you're SOL. Yeah, we know you don't have any other cable choices. Too bad."

I'm not arguing legality (which I know very little about for this). Just arguing that this shouldn't be allowed. Normally, I wouldn't even care - a business can conduct themselves however they want, right? But when they have a government sanctioned monopoly that is intended to provide equal and fair service, things get dicey.

Are we sure we're interpreting the ruling correctly..? That the Cable Co's only have to provide notice that they're removing channels or adding channels CableCard customers can't receive - not actually provide access to them?
Shmooh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2009, 03:49 PM   #2260
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Yeah, it does violate the spirit of the Plug and Play DTV Over Cable agreement. However it should be noted that (1) the FCC frog-marched cable and the CE OEMs into drafting that agreement before they felt ready and (2) the FCC has to recognize that cable cannot effectively compete with satellite's HD channel offerings without more bandwidth capacity and SDV is a fast and relatively inexpensive way for them to, in essence, increase bandwidth capacity. Forbidding them to use it would be unfair restraint of trade, unless they also forbid the satellite companies to use MPEG4 .

It sucks, but there it is.
__________________
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 11-19-2009, 06:06 PM   #2261
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
How can this be? Isn't the point of CableCards that they provide access to the same channels as the rented set-top-box customers?
... the same linear channels as the rented STBs... There are no regulations requiring consumer-owned host device access to non-linear services, such as PPV, VOD and SDV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
I get (and have no problem with) the lack of pay-per-view and video on demand - CC's were never meant for that, and those really are a kind of 'premium' service that is not part of core television distribution. However, SDV is basically a different form of broadcasting channels.
The law determines the relevant distinction, not any one subscriber's personal preference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
While the technology requires 2-way communication, doesn't it seem like it violates the spirit of cable card law if cable card customers can't receive those channels?
References to "the spirit of the law" is the most common refrain of people who are unhappy with the law as it was passed and adopted. The law is very explicit... if something was intended, then it must be written into the law. If it isn't written into the law, then there wasn't enough foresight or consensus to put it into the law and there is no way to tell which except by fiat. Fiat is the prerogative of the courts, making the decision based on what's best for all of society, consumers and business, not individual people, based on what's best for themselves as consumers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
To take it a step further, what's to stop a cable company from moving to an entirely 'video on demand' service and saying, "Sorry chumps. Rent one of our boxes or you're SOL.
Nothing. There is actually nothing requiring any of them to offer any services except local over-the-air broadcast channels. That's why expanded basic is an advanced service and unregulated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
I'm not arguing legality
Then don't make legal arguments (which is essentially the entirety of your message up to this point). If you are sad about the way things are, then just say that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
Just arguing that this shouldn't be allowed.
"Shouldn't be allowed" is exclusively and unequivocally a legal contention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
Are we sure we're interpreting the ruling correctly..?
I am. The reversal of the Enforcement Bureau's over-zealousness make that very clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
That the Cable Co's only have to provide notice that they're removing channels or adding channels CableCard customers can't receive - not actually provide access to them?
Correct.
__________________

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 11-19-2009, 06:09 PM   #2262
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
... the FCC has to recognize that cable cannot effectively compete with satellite's HD channel offerings without more bandwidth capacity ...
This really hits on a major consideration: The satellite services are exempt from the rules that we're talking about, that require cable companies to provide the ability for consumer-owned host devices to interact with their networks. Exempt. Folks upset about SDV should switch to DirecTV or Dish Network and see how much worse those companies satisfy their needs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
Forbidding them to use it would be unfair restraint of trade, unless they also forbid the satellite companies to use MPEG4 .

It sucks, but there it is.
Indeed.
__________________

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 11-19-2009, 06:48 PM   #2263
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
This really hits on a major consideration: The satellite services are exempt from the rules that we're talking about, that require cable companies to provide the ability for consumer-owned host devices to interact with their networks. Exempt.
Actually, so are FIOS and Uverse, at least for the moment. FIOS is voluntarily going along. Uverse could easily come up with a separable security option, but CableCards are out for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Folks upset about SDV should switch to DirecTV or Dish Network and see how much worse those companies satisfy their needs.
Some people greatly prefer Dish or DirecTV. For my sister and others like her, Satellite service (or nothing) is the only option.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2009, 08:14 PM   #2264
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,837
Is FIOS exempt just because the laws did not anticipate fiber going into the house? I believe TWC is fiber optic to our curb.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2009, 08:55 PM   #2265
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
Is FIOS exempt just because the laws did not anticipate fiber going into the house? I believe TWC is fiber optic to our curb.
FIOS got an exemption from having to use CableCARDs in their own leased devices, but they still support CableCARDs in customer equipment, like TiVo. Is that the exemption that you're talking about?

Since Verizon puts their television content on your house coax, their bandwidth available for television has its limits, but all of it is available for digital television, unlike the cablecos, many of whom spend half their copper bandwidth on analog basic and expanded basic channels, and some of the rest on telephone and network service. It should be a long time, if ever, before they need to resort to SDV and Tuning Adapters.
__________________
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 11-24-2009, 07:55 AM   #2266
Shmooh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 54
Re: bicker's response to my last post... Geez, dude - no need to jump on my case. I understand how actual law works in that it must be explicit. No worries, though - I'll just assume you were trying to enlighten me.

(By the way - I still maintain that SDV is in a different category than VoD or PPV. If it's not, then it ought to be. It's not a preference thing, just an implication thing - it behaves very differently than on-demand type services and is much more analogous to traditional cable broadcasting.)

So what's the point of the original CableCard legislation, then? If cable companies can simply bypass them by changing their television delivery system, then won't they just become a moot point? (Sure - tech changes all the time. It's a natural evolution.)

To put it another way - if there are no restrictions on the use of SDV and the cable companies can force consumers to rent their boxes to access everything but local channels, would new laws need to be drafted to accomplish the same -intent- as the original CableCard legislation? (The legal answer is apparently yes - I'm asking about thoughts/opinions.)

To be clear - I have zero problem with cable companies using SDV. I think it's a great idea, actually. The issue I have is with the required rental of their box (which is what CableCards were supposed to prevent, right?).
Shmooh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 08:50 AM   #2267
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
Re: bicker's response to my last post... Geez, dude - no need to jump on my case. I understand how actual law works in that it must be explicit.
It is really important to not lose sight of that. I cannot tell you how often I see folks post complaints about things not working the way they expected them to, where it is very clear that their disappointment stems from them holding unfounded expectations, along these lines, i.e., that the law is about what's best for them. And I have to believe that they get that impression from casual conversations they have with folks who seem to know, but really are just being, as you were, casual about the reality of the situation. Best to be explicit, just in case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
No worries, though - I'll just assume you were trying to enlighten me.
Sorry for upsetting you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
(By the way - I still maintain that SDV is in a different category than VoD or PPV. If it's not, then it ought to be.
I can understand you wanting it to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
It's not a preference thing, just an implication thing - it behaves very differently than on-demand type services and is much more analogous to traditional cable broadcasting.)
That's still a "preference thing". Your preference. Stand proud: You're allowed to have personal preferences. Trying to make them sound like laws is what prompted my reply to your earlier message.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
So what's the point of the original CableCard legislation, then?
This is a fantastic question. At its core, the CableCARD mandates benefit consumer electronics manufacturers who wish to compete in this market. Consumers also benefit, from such competition as their willingness to pay might bring about in the market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
If cable companies can simply bypass them by changing their television delivery system, then won't they just become a moot point? (Sure - tech changes all the time. It's a natural evolution.)
And if that results in a situation where new laws are needed, then new laws will be passed. That's simply not the case yet. Rather, technology is going to catch up. tru2way paves the way. Us early adopters pay a penalty from being early adopters -- that's always the way of things. So our early CableCARD devices will eventually no longer be very useful. That shouldn't be very surprising to anyone.
__________________

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 11-24-2009, 09:41 AM   #2268
Stormspace
Electrocuted by TiVo
 
Stormspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hartsville, SC
Posts: 4,792
I was following cable card in the news up until just before the date of the integration ban was to take effect. At the time Cable card had been broken before it was even released due to cable companies moving to SDV.

At the time I remember speculation that suggested cable companies were moving to SDV to defeat the cable card mandate and keep their own devices in customer homes. Shortly afterward my life got complicated and I stopped following it.

Recently, with the help of Bicker and others I've discovered that the "Level playing field" cable cards were supposed to give didn't actually happen. Cable companies are apparently using devices that have integrated cable cards and support SDV, VOD, and PPV. I haven't discovered why the Cable Boxes would support all of this with a cable card and Tivo doesn't, however I suspect someone will chime in with the answer.

The net result as far as I can see is that all of those cable card ready TV's sold years ago (With the integration ban in mind) will not work with SDV cable systems. Essentially maintaining the status quo before the integration ban. Certainly cable companies knew about this before cable labs finalized the cable card spec? And if so, did they try to get SDV in the spec and if not, why not?
__________________
137hr DTS2
20/180hr HD
166hr DTS2
180hr S2

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Stormspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 10:17 AM   #2269
Shmooh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 54
(To set my tone - I intend no heat in these words, just food for thoughtful discussion.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh
(By the way - I still maintain that SDV is in a different category than VoD or PPV. If it's not, then it ought to be.
I can understand you wanting it to be.
Yes, that's what I mean. It ought to be - I'm stating my view of an ideal world. I'm not trying to say it's currently what the law says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh
It's not a preference thing, just an implication thing - it behaves very differently than on-demand type services and is much more analogous to traditional cable broadcasting.)
That's still a "preference thing". Your preference. Stand proud: You're allowed to have personal preferences. Trying to make them sound like laws is what prompted my reply to your earlier message.
My apologies for not being clear. I was never trying to say that things are laws when they aren't (I even said I wasn't arguing legality, after all.). I'm saying the way I think things should be - not the way they are.

The implications of lumping SDV with VoD and PPV (while that may be true legally) are much more far reaching. Not to split hairs, but I don't consider a logical view of the technologies to be my preference as to how they should be categorized. The categorization just makes the most logical sense. Hence - not a preference. (But maybe that interpretation of the words is just my preference! Ha!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh
So what's the point of the original CableCard legislation, then?
This is a fantastic question. At its core, the CableCARD mandates benefit consumer electronics manufacturers who wish to compete in this market. Consumers also benefit, from such competition as their willingness to pay might bring about in the market.
Interesting point. Really interesting, actually. What does it mean for companies like TiVo if SDV forces them out of the market? Okay, well - we know what it means.

My thought/point is this (hypothetical but very plausible future scenario): The DVRs we bought become obsolete because cable companies (monopolies) create new technologies that make TiVos useless. Laws adjust to benefit equipment manufacturers again (like the original CableCard legislation). Who will buy that equipment, knowing it can and will just happen again, and could happen at any time? (Fool me once, yadda yadda...) Doesn't that effectively prevent competition in that market space by an implied threat of changing technology by a monopoly? How can any company compete in that kind of market?

Whether you look at it from a consumer perspective or device vendor perspective, hasn't cable company monopoly harmed you?

(Getting a bit off topic, but in case you hadn't guessed, my opinion is that the cable company monopolies were a bad idea and should be done away with as soon as possible. I've always liked the idea of a municipality owning/running coax and/or fiber lines to homes and leasing bandwidth to companies who want to provide services on them as an alternative.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Us early adopters pay a penalty from being early adopters -- that's always the way of things.
Well, I'd hardly call somebody buying a CableCard device an 'early adopter'. They've been around for ages.

Interesting discussion, none the less.
Shmooh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 10:32 AM   #2270
Shmooh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormspace View Post
The net result as far as I can see is that all of those cable card ready TV's sold years ago (With the integration ban in mind) will not work with SDV cable systems. Essentially maintaining the status quo before the integration ban. Certainly cable companies knew about this before cable labs finalized the cable card spec? And if so, did they try to get SDV in the spec and if not, why not?
Bicker and others undoubtedly know more about this than I do, but isn't tru2way just the new "cable card" spec that's supposed to provide 2-way communication, and thus provide SDV support (among other things)? Assuming yes, why wasn't tru2way finalized before SDV was rolled out? (Short answer - because they weren't legally obligated to do so?)

Of course, all existing TiVo and cable-card TV owners are still screwed. It would be interesting to know if that screwing was a result of natural technological evolution or because of specific and planned intent on the part of cable companies.

We'll probably never find out for sure, but if we think about how data networking and television delivery have evolved in the past 10 years, it's not that surprising that CableCards are one-way. Of course, it's equally plausible that somebody had the foresight, and simply chose not to include it in the spec.

How much of a cynic are you?
Shmooh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 12:45 PM   #2271
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,837
As I understand it tru2way is already designed into current CableCARDs. Full 2-way mplementation (VOD, SDV handling) requires the host device to be designed accordingly (which current TiVo's aren't) and the cable system to support it too, which largely they don't -- yet.

This post by bkdtv is informative, I think.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 01:00 PM   #2272
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
...........
My thought/point is this (hypothetical but very plausible future scenario): The DVRs we bought become obsolete because cable companies (monopolies) create new technologies that make TiVos useless. Laws adjust to benefit equipment manufacturers again (like the original CableCard legislation). Who will buy that equipment, knowing it can and will just happen again, and could happen at any time? (Fool me once, yadda yadda...) ......
Answer: Us! We can't resist. We are .... early adopters!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
...........
I've always liked the idea of a municipality owning/running coax and/or fiber lines to homes and leasing bandwidth to companies who want to provide services on them as an alternative.......
.........
Similar to what's happening with natural gas and electricity, eh? I like the idea but the technical, economic and political complications of getting from here to there seem ... to say the least ... daunting!

Don't expect laws and regulations to effectively anticpate future technical developments. Glitches that screw early adopters are iintrinsic overhead to trying to regulate hi-tech things.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 02:20 PM   #2273
JWThiers
Smartypants
 
JWThiers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 2,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
And if that results in a situation where new laws are needed, then new laws will be passed. That's simply not the case yet. Rather, technology is going to catch up. tru2way paves the way. Us early adopters pay a penalty from being early adopters -- that's always the way of things. So our early CableCARD devices will eventually no longer be very useful. That shouldn't be very surprising to anyone.
Yes with time new laws will need to be written, but I don't think SDV or Tru2way does anything to make cable cards obsolete. Cable cards fulfills the requirement for separable security devices. I suspect that the cable companies will still have to have some form of separable security no matter what other changes they make to their networks. Our early cable card devices will be obsoleted by SDV and Tru2way not because of cable cards.
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people out there.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.
JWThiers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 03:15 PM   #2274
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
The implications of lumping SDV with VoD and PPV (while that may be true legally) are much more far reaching. Not to split hairs, but I don't consider a logical view of the technologies to be my preference as to how they should be categorized.
There is nothing inherently "logical" about your preferred differentiation. The logical differentiation is the one that is imposed by the law: linear versus non-linear. It is a reflection of the objective, non-controversial, not prejudicial physics of the situation. Any other criteria that one could come up with would not be able to rise to the same level. Generally, such other criteria would involve more tenuous qualities, such as could be affected by marketing, packaging, or personal selection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
The categorization just makes the most logical sense.
To you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
Hence - not a preference.
Hence, a preference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
What does it mean for companies like TiVo if SDV forces them out of the market?
It's immaterial. SDV didn't force them out of the market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
My thought/point is this (hypothetical but very plausible future scenario): The DVRs we bought become obsolete because cable companies (monopolies) create new technologies that make TiVos useless.
Didn't happen, so it is pointless to speculate about it. Truly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
Laws adjust to benefit equipment manufacturers again (like the original CableCard legislation). Who will buy that equipment, knowing it can and will just happen again, and could happen at any time? (Fool me once, yadda yadda...) Doesn't that effectively prevent competition in that market space by an implied threat of changing technology by a monopoly? How can any company compete in that kind of market?
The problem though was prompted by the government rushing regulation when the marketplace was not sufficiently stable enough to determine what the requirements should have been. Heck, the way things are now, is the path forward even clear enough yet? The alternative would be to have government, or a single Ma Bell, impose reality. Neither is acceptable to enough people in the country. So everyone is forced to live with the ramifications of living in a free society, where things sometimes aren't very smooth because of how a free society works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
Whether you look at it from a consumer perspective or device vendor perspective, hasn't cable company monopoly harmed you?
The cable companies don't have a monopoly. If you don't like cable, switch to satellite. Or just use your own antenna and Netflix. If it is important enough, move to where you can get better reception, or choices. This is the reality. The FCC even has tried to deny it, but when they did so they were spanked by the US Court of Appeals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
Well, I'd hardly call somebody buying a CableCard device an 'early adopter'.
Anyone buying anything before the marketplace for that thing is sufficiently stable is an early adopter. I cannot imagine what you could possibly be thinking is the definition of early adopter, besides that.
__________________

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 11-24-2009, 03:25 PM   #2275
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
Assuming yes, why wasn't tru2way finalized before SDV was rolled out? (Short answer - because they weren't legally obligated to do so?)
"They" are still not obligated to do so. The obligation to put such strictures in place rests on the government. What you're seeing is a reflection of the government lacking the intelligence to foresee what technologies are going to be needed in the future, and building those technologies before the marketplace prompts suppliers to provide capabilities for which those technologies that government should have already put in place would provide the kinds of flexibility that we might want.

Again, back when I was working for Ma Bell, before there were more than one phone company, we did this. We thought ahead. We put everything in place before consumers even knew they wanted it. We were provided vast resources beyond what a normal company would normally have -- our profit was a percentage of expense, not a percentage of revenue. Those days are gone though. The people of our country decided that they didn't want that kind of overhead, and they therefore decided that they were willing to live with the consequences of that decision, in return for the promise that competition between cable companies and satellite providers provide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
Of course, all existing TiVo and cable-card TV owners are still screwed.
I have a TiVo S1. I've been "screwed" before. It won't be a big shock to be "screwed" again. My TiVo S1 does exactly what I paid for it to do. The fact that the environment within which I would use such a device has changed so much in less than a decade that I effectively, now, have a big paperweight, doesn't mean anyone did anything wrong, or someone is getting away with something that they shouldn't be able to get away with. It is just a reflection of reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmooh View Post
It would be interesting to know if that screwing was a result of natural technological evolution or because of specific and planned intent on the part of cable companies.
Curmudgeons love to raise the specter of stuff like that, but it is simply bull. I know; In my previous career, I used audit them all. I know, from personal observation, that such accusations are not much more than baseless whining, and self-centered myopia.
__________________

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 11-24-2009, 03:43 PM   #2276
morac
Cat God
 
morac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWThiers View Post
Yes with time new laws will need to be written, but I don't think SDV or Tru2way does anything to make cable cards obsolete. Cable cards fulfills the requirement for separable security devices. I suspect that the cable companies will still have to have some form of separable security no matter what other changes they make to their networks. Our early cable card devices will be obsoleted by SDV and Tru2way not because of cable cards.
That's actually a point most people forget or ignore. CableCards aren't going away nor are they aren't being replaced by SDV or Tru2Way. As you said, none of these has anything to do with the others. CableCards handle the encryption, SDV is a method of sending channels only as needed and Tru2Way is communication standard to allow consumer electronic devices to talk to the cable head-end.

I'll point out that there is one exception to cable cards obsoleting our early cable card devices and that's the M-Cards. Some devices can't use M-Cards at all and some can only use M-Cards in S-Card mode (like the S3).
morac is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 04:03 PM   #2277
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWThiers View Post
Yes with time new laws will need to be written, but I don't think SDV or Tru2way does anything to make cable cards obsolete. Cable cards fulfills the requirement for separable security devices. I suspect that the cable companies will still have to have some form of separable security no matter what other changes they make to their networks. Our early cable card devices will be obsoleted by SDV and Tru2way not because of cable cards.
I agree except I wonder if (hope?) you are a too pessimistic about "our early cable card devices." I have periods of several weeks without any major TA (or CableCARD) problems and during that time "how sweet it is!" -- well relatively speaking; still an assortment of small problems that I can live with. Maybe TA/CableCARD problems will settle down eventually and our devices won't be obsoleted. We'll probably never have VOD but that doesn't bother me that much. There's Netflix, Amazon and YouTube. For MRV with CCI = 0x02, I wonder it isn't feasible for TiVo to give us a solution through just a software update?
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 04:38 PM   #2278
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
When I read "our early CableCARD devices", TiVo didn't spring to mind. I thought about the millions of televisions sold with CableCARD slots; eventually they won't be able to get much of anything with just a CableCARD.

TiVo's fine right now and I don't see that immediately changing. If you wanted cable providers VOD, why'd you buy a TiVo? As for MRV, they probably should redo that to use some secure streaming method (as they should have done to begin with, like Moxi) instead of just slowly copying files around. (I wonder what Moxi uses for that? There are a few different streaming protocols emerging which use DTCP/IP for authentication and protection).
__________________
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 11-24-2009, 05:27 PM   #2279
JWThiers
Smartypants
 
JWThiers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 2,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by morac View Post
I'll point out that there is one exception to cable cards obsoleting our early cable card devices and that's the M-Cards. Some devices can't use M-Cards at all and some can only use M-Cards in S-Card mode (like the S3).
Then the technology that the cards use isn't obsolete, they are reduced function with the older S3 units.
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people out there.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.
JWThiers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 05:35 PM   #2280
JWThiers
Smartypants
 
JWThiers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 2,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
I agree except I wonder if (hope?) you are a too pessimistic about "our early cable card devices." I have periods of several weeks without any major TA (or CableCARD) problems and during that time "how sweet it is!" -- well relatively speaking; still an assortment of small problems that I can live with. Maybe TA/CableCARD problems will settle down eventually and our devices won't be obsoleted. We'll probably never have VOD but that doesn't bother me that much. There's Netflix, Amazon and YouTube. For MRV with CCI = 0x02, I wonder it isn't feasible for TiVo to give us a solution through just a software update?
SDV probably won't do it, IF they continue to work out the kinks with the TA's. I just don't know enough about Tru2way to say. Can they upgrade the OS enough to do it with a firmware /OS update or does it actually require a hardware update. But the Cable Card is probably going to be around a while.

Out of curiosity does anyone remember, why they decided to use CC in the first place? IIRC the cable companies fought to get something to address security issues with 3rd party CE devices and the CC was what came out from that.
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people out there.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.
JWThiers 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 05:19 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |