FCC should Force Satellite to use cablecards?

[Justin Thyme]

I can't believe how stupid I've been. For the longest time, I have assumed that Satellite carriers were exempt from FCC regulations because Satellites weren't coverred by them. I didn't really think why- I just assumed it had to do with some obscure federal laws about what the FCC's jurisdiction was- cablecos were very much like a power company but Digital Broadcast Satellite (DBS) wasn't, so no jurisdiction.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Classic AT and DT_DC cleared this up in a question having to do with DirecTv.

Originally Posted by dt_dc

The FCC lays out exactly why DBS was exempted in their original report and order ... specificially on pages 26-28. Search for document 98-116 (in field 2. DA/FCC Number) on the following FCC search page to get the relevant document:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

Direct link: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/...ment=2101780002

Now many people may not want to wade through the bureaucratease of that, but there were a couple reasons that I will probably inaccurately summarize as the following:

1. Satellite was new and small (8% of the market at the time). Traditionally, regulators exempt newcomer businesses from new initiatives.
2. Satellite boxes could be purchased by a large number of third party vendors, and competition was very healthy between them.
3. Third party Satellite boxes may be used nationally and interchangably between different services. The carriers did not have a stranglehold on producing the boxes as the cable companies did.

Oh how the world has changed.

First off, the satellite world bears little resemblence to the one where folks could go buy one of those enormous satellite dishes that could be pointed at several different satellites, and where you could buy a box that would allow you to tune in a bewildering amount of US and foreign content. In Europe, satellite broadcasting dominates the market, and in America, the cable companies are very concerned about their steady losses to satellite companies like Direct and Dish. These companies are hardly frail newcomers.

Secondly, there no longer is a great deal of choice for satellite offerings. Currently Rupert Murdoch has effective control of DirecTv, and the SkyTv satellite businesses in Europe and in Asia. Both Dish (echostar) and DirecTv have been in discussions on merging.

Thirdly, I don't think anyone could argue that there is any kind of thriving business of third party providers of satellite boxes. If you want to have Dish or DirecTv, you are forced to use their box, and you cannot use a box you paid them for to use interchangably with a different satellite provider. You are locked in with your investment, and the satellite provider has a natural monopoly due to the barriers to switching.

The reasons for exempting Satellite companies from the cablecard requirement no longer exist.

They are behemoths that have global reach and control not only the manufacture of the boxes, and the delivery, but in growing degrees, even the content.

Why is it relevant to Tivo?

• Wouldn't Tivo be able to petition the FCC to allow customers of Direct to switch their DirecTivo support to Tivo?
• Isn't the FCC refusing to do their job in assuring that boxes may be used interchangably? Tivo as well as a number of other DVR manufacturers would love to build one box that you can simply plug a Comcast, DirecTv, or Dish Network card into, and that you can order your services from whichever carrier provides the best services on any particular month. Doesn't this encourage competition? Isn't that what the FCC's job is in regulating the industry?
• Should Direct and Dish be able to dictate all features do and do not appear in the boxes that access their services? Comcast and Viacom aren't allowed to manufacture their own boxes- Why should Direct?
• On boxes like DirecTivo's that they do not manufacture, why should the carrier be allowed to control all software so that they can effectively control all features regardles who manufacturers the box? Isn't that situation tantamount to same situation Congress intended to prohibit? In other words, shouldn't DirectTv be prohibted from disabling Tivo features on Tivo boxes?

If Tivo and other DVR manufacturers like Sony Pioneer Panasonic and Samsung had the the ability to compete on an even playing field with the carrier provided boxes, we'd have a heck of a lot more choice and versatility in switching providers and thereby get the carriers to compete on the ridiculous charges they get away with taking from our pocketbooks month by month.

[dylanemcgregor]

Well, I don't know if I can say the FCC should do this, but I know I certainly would like it if they did. And I think it would end up being a boon to the sat providers as well. If cable card takes off and people start investing money in TV sets and TiVos and other cable card devices, that will start to be a powerful disincentive for consumers to switch to sattelite. I can't see why the sattelite companies have not actually lobbied to be included in the specification, but I am sure I am missing something.

Dylan

[classicsat]

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

Third party Satellite boxes may be used nationally and interchangably between different services. The carriers did not have a stranglehold on producing the boxes as the cable companies did.

For DBS, the receivers weren't interoperable across providers, for the most part, if you consider DirecTV and USSB as one provider. There was a service on IA5 that uses Echostar receivers, as does Skyangel. There was some ethnic service that used DirecTV format.

You could never purchase a provider agnostic box for any US based DBS service, and use it with either DirecTV/USSB or Dishnetwork. That has been the situation since day one of DBS in the USA.

And the market wasn't as open as it seemed. The first million DirecTV receivers had to be RCA, and further manufacturers then released their receivers.

Echostar didn't really have brands. There may have been some JVC, Philips, and RCA boxes, thats it. Most of their boxes are Echostar branded, either as Dishnetwork, or their old brand HTS.

On the other hand, there were all sorts of analog C-band receivers, which accepted a standard descrambler module or external descrambler, and you could choose to buy your programming from one or more companies (you still can to some degree, except there is ony one provider of Digital pay receivers for home C-band, analog nearly gone).

First off, the satellite world bears little resemblence to the one where folks could go buy one of those enormous satellite dishes that could be pointed at several different satellites, and where you could buy a box that would allow you to tune in a bewildering amount of US and foreign content.

That world is still there, it has just evolved from the way it was 10-20 years ago.
True, it is more a hobbiest thing than a means to an end to get TV, but that is the way it goes.

Both Dish (echostar) and DirecTv have been in discussions on merging.

AFAIK, talks stopped when it was either clear, or Murdoch had closed the deal to purchase DirecTV.

Isn't the FCC refusing to do their job in assuring that boxes may be used interchangably?

Who said satellite boxes had to play. IMO, although universal satllite receiver would be a good thing, the FCC has decided to do nothing with them than, and should do nothing now.
IOW, if they wanted universal satellite recievers, they should have said so long ago.

Should Direct and Dish be able to dictate all features do and do not appear in the boxes that access their services? Comcast and Viacom aren't allowed to manufacture their own boxes- Why should Direct?

Yes, they should, to protect the rights of them and their programmers, so a box does support Macrovision, the ablity to spit out song titles as text our a serial port, by all means.
Comcast and Viacom (I time you meant Time Warner), don't have to build boxes, SA and Motorola do.

I think technologically, a universal DirecTV/Dishnet box could be done, but the providers are in too deep to let that happen, especially for higher end STBs such as DVRs

Now an STB that would do either cable/otaa or satellite would be harder, as in addition to conditional access, you would need a a satellite tuner, separate from a cable tuner, as the technology on the RF side is radically different on satellite than cable.

[montge]

Lets reverse this around. Why didn't the cable industry or terrestrial TV adopt/work with our international counterparts to establish a common standard. Cablecard is very technically simular to the way DVB (mostly related to the CA standards) set of standards works. It also seems like ATSC is pretty simular in a lot of ways to the DVB standards also, with most of the differences being related to audio encoding, and video sizing. (For those that are interested, look up DVB-T, DVB-C, DVB-S in google and you'll see additional info on these standards.)

Why did the US cable industry and TV industry re-invent the wheel on this? They could have adopted a well established standards that a large percentage of the world uses.

As far as I can tell it's all came down to business, the license holders of DVB wanted to much money, so the US cable and terrestrial TV industry decided to develop it's own standards that are basically the same but with just enough differences to not have to license them.

So my basic answer is NO, they shouldn't, it's a free market

[dmdeane]

Let us also not forget the new IPTV services that are on their way. Already in certain areas you can get very fast, much faster than cable or DSL, broadband service, and later you'll be able to get TV over this via IP, or so I understand:

https://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhom...ot/package.asp

I would hope that these new IPTV services won't reinvent their own proprietary standard, forcing us to get special IPTV boxes; they should join the CableCARD standard and save us all the extra annoyance of yet another incompatible TV standard.

[MighTiVo]

Originally Posted by dmdeane

Let us also not forget the new IPTV services that are on their way. Already in certain areas you can get very fast, much faster than cable or DSL, broadband service, and later you'll be able to get TV over this via IP, or so I understand:

https://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhom...ot/package.asp

I would hope that these new IPTV services won't reinvent their own proprietary standard, forcing us to get special IPTV boxes; they should join the CableCARD standard and save us all the extra annoyance of yet another incompatible TV standard.

Sorry for the bad news, MS has most US Telcos using a MS proprietary standard.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06...gy_in_tatters/

Too bad TiVo doesn't have the money and the clout to get fully into the IPTV game. After all, Series 2 TiVo's are essentially ready for basic IPTV services today!
http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ss=TiVo&id=825
Sure would be a nice way to ease IPTV into 2million households instead of requiring a forklift of consumers existing STBs and existing services.
As I understand it, the telcos just don't have enough faith that TiVo will be around to invest in using their technology.

[jsmeeker]

Originally Posted by dmdeane

Let us also not forget the new IPTV services that are on their way. Already in certain areas you can get very fast, much faster than cable or DSL, broadband service, and later you'll be able to get TV over this via IP, or so I understand:

https://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhom...ot/package.asp

I would hope that these new IPTV services won't reinvent their own proprietary standard, forcing us to get special IPTV boxes; they should join the CableCARD standard and save us all the extra annoyance of yet another incompatible TV standard.

A co-worker showed me the lineup for FIOS for his community. Pretty impressive. ALL the local stations in HiDef. Too bad it will be years, if ever, before I see something like that where I live.

[thwart]

Originally Posted by MighTiVo

Too bad TiVo doesn't have the money and the clout...

Indeed.

[Justin Thyme]

Originally Posted by classicsat

...the FCC has decided to do nothing with them than...

The FCC never said the DBS exemption from the cablecard requirement was to be granted in perpetuity.

The aim of the cablecard requirement was to bring to video networks the same principle of allowing non phone company manufacturers to build phones that attach to the phone network.

The FCC said as much. [The Cablecard principle] "is similar to the Carterfone principle adopted by the Commission in the telephone environment. The Carterfone "right to attach" principle is that devices that do not adversely affect the network may be attached to the network." Source: FCC release regarding cablecard decision, 1998

To roughly paraphrase the policy document DT_DC cited, the FCC decided to exempt the DBS providers because 1) they were small and weak newcomers, 2) there was a healthy business for third party provided boxes and 3) The satellite companies did not have a stranglehold on the production of navigation devices.

None of these conditions are true today.

Originally Posted by FCC annoucement of the cablecard requirement

In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress directed the Commission to create rules that would allow consumers to obtain "navigation devices" -- meaning the set top boxes, remote control units and other equipment -- from commercial sources other than the service provider. 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.

Currently, consumers do not benefit from any such competitive third party market of providers of navigational devices. The will of Congress has not been executed by the FCC. With flagrant disregard for Congress's goal and the FCC's authority, both the cablecos and the DBS companies are intent on closing out third party DVR providers from accessing their data services directly in ways any ways even vaguely similar to what we have with POTS or Cell phones. The original date for cablecards was originally July 2000. Five years later, we are still waiting, and meanwhile the FCC is letting the CableCos get away with murder. As for the DBS companies? They have an even better deal.

Let's put aside the question of whether it was correct of the FCC to require Cablecos to use cablecards. If it is correct to require them to use cablecards, then because the reasons for exempting DBS companies no longer are valid, it is consistent with FCC stated rationale and stated policy to require DBS companies to support use of such access cards in third party devices.

Where have I erred?

Granted, if I have not erred, given FCC's track record, I fully realize we might not see a DBS "cablecard" standard until 2012.

I guess the near term question of the greatest immediacy has to do with remedies that companies can realistically petition the FCC to put in place within the year.

For example, consider opening up DirecTivo service support.

If it was Congress's desire that companies like Tivo be able to compete with Provider supplied boxes, then what rationale can the FCC provide for allowing DirecTv to prohibit users of DirecTivo's from switching their support from Direct To Tivo, and getting new software from Tivo instead? Why is it not realistic for the FCC to grant such a petition?

[dmdeane]

Originally Posted by MighTiVo

Sorry for the bad news, MS has most US Telcos using a MS proprietary standard.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06...gy_in_tatters/

Yeah, but this is like, what, the third or fourth attempt by MS to buy its way into the TV industry, is it not? I can see an infant industry allowing MS to shower it with money for a while (or with "free" software and hardware development or other services), but if IPTV really takes off, why would they not want to open their systems up to some competition rather than be shackled to MS, especially when something open, and mandated by the FCC for cable, already exists in the form of CableCARD? My real curiosity is whether the FCC can mandate CableCARD for the IPTV folks as well; I'm uninformed on the legal and regulatory aspects, not to mention the technical problems. Just curious.

Too bad TiVo doesn't have the money and the clout to get fully into the IPTV game. After all, Series 2 TiVo's are essentially ready for basic IPTV services today!
http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ss=TiVo&id=825

IPTV is far too new and speculative a thing for TiVo to waste its limited resources on at the moment. Look how long it is taking TiVo to get into CableCARD, for instance. But I wouldn't count TiVo out of the game just yet. If TiVo continues to expand its relationships with cable TV and IPTV grows up as a competitor to cable TV, we'll see TiVo working up similiar relationships with the telcos. I doubt very much the telcos signed any truly exclusive deals with MS that they can't be free of in a year or two.

Sure would be a nice way to ease IPTV into 2million households instead of requiring a forklift of consumers existing STBs and existing services.
As I understand it, the telcos just don't have enough faith that TiVo will be around to invest in using their technology.

Oh, TiVo will be around. "Faith" has nothing to do with it. MS bought their way into this party, and the telcos will gladly let MS buy them their drinks for the evening. But that doesn't mean that the telcos will be asking MS to spend the night with them afterwards. The telcos weren't "snubbing" TiVo; they were simply taking advantage of MS's desperation to buy into the TV business to help finance the early stages of their IPTV development.

[dmdeane]

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

If it was Congress's desire that companies like Tivo be able to compete with Provider supplied boxes, then what rationale can the FCC provide for allowing DirecTv to prohibit users of DirecTivo's from switching their support from Direct To Tivo, and getting new software from Tivo instead? Why is it not realistic for the FCC to grant such a petition?

If your understanding of the law is correct in regards to DBS, I also assume it applies to the telco's move into IPTV. Has the FCC made any comments about IPTV? Or are they ignoring the issue? Are they asleep at the switch over there at the FCC, or is there an ideological commitment not to "interfere" with the "free market" regardless of what Congress intended?

[wolverines]

Cablecard was a standard hammered out between the cable companies and the consumer electronics companies. Those cable cards are designed to work only with cable, not dbs. I don't think you'll see a day when we have a dbs standard. Market principles dictate otherwise. The cable companies don't compete with each other, use 2 primary suppliers (SA and Motorola) and it took them forever to come up with standard. Everyone wants something different. Given that, can you imagine the two competing dbs companies agreeing? I'd expect them to fight an FCC mandate tooth and nail.

As a consumer I'd love to see it of course, but doubt I will.

[dmdeane]

Originally Posted by jsmeeker

A co-worker showed me the lineup for FIOS for his community. Pretty impressive. ALL the local stations in HiDef. Too bad it will be years, if ever, before I see something like that where I live.

I know someone who has the FIOS broadband ISP service; he now usually hosts my coworker's XBOX Live Halo 2 games since his bandwidth is so much superior to ours. I believe they don't offer the IPTV yet in his community, but that might have changed. Unfortunately they don't even offer the FIOS broadband ISP service yet in my community, so I am condemned to wait. Just as well; I don't have an HDTV set yet and probably won't for many years. It's just not high yet on my list of priorities. I can wait. TiVo can wait too; standard def cable TV is still the "choice" (or rather default position) of the vast majority of TV users at the moment. That will change, but it still gives TiVo plenty of time. Most people aren't on the "cutting edge".

[JimSpence]

I think the FCC should write a rule that allows DBS companies to let subscribers get all broadcast networks that they can't receive OTA and don't yet have locals via DBS. What? You say I can? It's called DNS waivers. But, that's only good for the four major nets, not WB or UPN.

[Justin Thyme]

Originally Posted by wolverines

Cablecard was a standard hammered out between the cable companies and the consumer electronics companies. Those cable cards are designed to work only with cable, not dbs. I don't think you'll see a day when we have a dbs standard. Market principles dictate otherwise.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but Cable companies are actually hostile to the cablecard initiative and are doing everything they can to resist the FCC ruling that require them.

The reason you don't have this in your home is not due to market forces. Market forces are in nearly all cases are good, however as with all things, there are exceptions. Market forces allow natural monopolies to dictate consumer choice, and most people think that is a bad thing.

The cableco's are not doing cablecard because they want to. They hate the concept in the same way the Phone company hated the idea of consumers going to BestBuy to purchase any phone that suited their needs.

If market forces had their way and alternate navigation devices were not allowed to access the phone company's network, then the phone company would have controlled your computer's access to the outside world. You may not recall acoustic coupler modems. Didn't the engineers realize it would have been much more reliable to connect their circuits directly to the phone line? Of course they did. But until the FCC came out with the Carterfone rulings that anyone should be able to make devices that connect to the phone network, it was illegal to do anything other than the acoustic coupler.

It was more than being able to buy phones that look like Mickey Mouse. The growth of the internet would have been very very different if all modem manufacturing was controlled by the phone company.

The Carterfone ruling was good for industry. It was good for consumer choice. I think that is all the FCC and Congress is trying to do with guaranteeing that third party companies can make devices that directly access the DBS and cable company networks.

Why the Satellite companies should be exempted from the same requirement the cableco's must obey is beyond me. Interoperability and having a single standard is not the point. What is the point is being able to do the same thing you do when you buy any phone that suits you and plug it into the wall and it works. The world is much different now than the world of C and K Band big dishes accessing multiple satellites using satellite tuners available from a variety of third parties. That is not reality any more for 99.9% of satellite users. The only choice satellite users have for direct connection is what the satellite company forces down their throats.

Ask any DirecTivo owner how they feel about being locked out of the features that all the other Tivo owners enjoy. Rupert Murdoch wants everyone connecting to Direct to use a DVR manufactured by another of his companies. He can fairly claim that his new DVRs will do everything that the DirecTivos do. Naturally, because he has not allowed the DirecTivos to get HME or TivoToGo or any other of the new features.

Murdoch is doing it quite simply because he can.

[Justin Thyme]

Originally Posted by dmdeane

If your understanding of the law is correct in regards to DBS, I also assume it applies to the telco's move into IPTV. Has the FCC made any comments about IPTV? Or are they ignoring the issue?

First off, I don't know jack about the law, or the regulatory environment. My background is software and to a much lesser extent, electronics engineering. Until before I read what DT_DC pointed to I completely misunderstood their policy on satellite companies. Like everyone else, I am here to learn, and just report back what I learn. If it is wrong, hopefully someone will correct me.

Anyhow, if you take a look at the FCC policy document that DT_DC referenced above, you will see that they noted that they generally give waivers for newcomer companies and technologies. IMHO, that is goodness. We should be extremely reluctant to allow bureaucrats to interfere unless there is no other way to mitigate the few negative effects that unfettered market forces have. It is way to early to see how internet delivered television (IPTV) is going to play out. If consumer's are not being corralled into paying to the same vendor because it way to inconvenient to do otherwise, then why muck with it. Don't fix what isn't broken, and all that.

But whether or not our societies general attitude about regulation should be one way or another is beyond the scope of this question. The fact is that we have a regulatory environment that requires cablecos to do one thing but doesn't require the same of satellite companies.

Seems to me that it should be a level playing field between the cablecos and the DBS carriers like DirecTv and Dish Network.

[interactiveTV]

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

The fact is that we have a regulatory environment that requires cablecos to do one thing but doesn't require the same of satellite companies.

Seems to me that it should be a level playing field between the cablecos and the DBS carriers like DirecTv and Dish Network.

A level playing field is not the same as equal and same.

If the goal is to force what was once a regulated monopoly (cable) to allow consumers to purchase rather than lease the set-top, cable card makes sense.

The DBS companies aren't geographically restricted. If I buy a DirecTV box -- and I can *buy* one now -- I can move from NYC to Ohio to California to Texas and still use it. Cable card gives the consumer that same ability.

It makes absolutely no sense to me to force a DBS to "open" their product to other set-top makers. On what basis? If consumers don't like the Direct choices on STB and programming, they can choose Dish. That isn't true with cable which originated as a regulated monopoly granted by a local authority. Since many places in the country *can't* use a DBS dish due to line of sight or other issues -- mainly cities including much of NYC -- the *only* consumer choice is cable.

Should the FCC force a company to open its product because another -- a regulated monopoly is being forced to? How does that create a level playing field? It helps to define the field. If, for example, we say the field is allowing consumers to purchase a STB and be able to use it coast to coast, then the field already is level.

Should we force Apple to allow *any* MP3 player to work with iTunes and thus create consumer choice and a "level" playing field? Heck no. They earned their place, it is still not a monopoly and plenty of consumer choice exists and you can't punish a company for success.

A level playing field isn't equal and same. There is no reason why the DBS companies should be forced to allow *HUGE* consumer electronic companies to profit off the installed base of customers they have built. It isn't like Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, and Nokia are poor, little ants that need protection from the big anteaters.

The fact is the regulatory requirements might require different things but that doesn't mean it isn't fair. Apple chose to not open its system, Intel and Microsoft did. If the products that evolve from Cable Card lure consumers in, the DBS companies will surely follow. With cable passing 103 million of the 106 million TV households (NCTA) and with the vast, vast majority of those served by only one cable company, it is an entirely different market situation. Almost any home that can get Direct can choose Dish if it wants.

I see no snowballs chance in hell in the NCTA convincing anyone to force open the DBS set-top. I also don't believe they should be based on the consumer choice. I also think it would only increase consumer cost and delay the HD upgrades which are forthcoming.

_ITV

[Justin Thyme]

I see your point.

The FCC is applying the free access for all phone manufacturers principle to Cable companies and not satellite providers for the benefit of New York city.

[bidger]

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

Ask any DirecTivo owner how they feel about being locked out of the features that all the other Tivo owners enjoy.

OK, you can start with me. IMO, it's no BFD. My SA TiVo can't offer me the features that my D-TiVos can, so it's only natural that the SA should offer features the D-TiVos can't.

The mindset seems to be that SA and D-TiVos are one and the same. Funny, I knew there were differences when I bought my first set of each in 2000 and 2001. I expect TiVo to make choices on whatever features to offer on their sets that best benefit TiVo and DirecTV to do the same.

[dswallow]

If you think TiVo would actually sell and support units for DirecTV services directly if they were permitted to, then you've probably made an assumption that's not necessarily based upon TiVo's historical behavior. They'd have to invest in design, manufacture, marketing and support themselves. TiVo hasn't shown the willingness to do this on their own. They haven't even gone very far with the one product line they do market on their own -- the standalone unit and the DVD standalone unit. Where's the standalone HD/ATSC unit? Vaporware repeatedly, year after year of dog-and-pony-shows with such products. TiVo needs a partner to accomplish most anything. Without DirecTV's desire to have TiVo involved, TiVo won't be. Even if the FCC says they can.

The FCC making a rule is not an automatic guarantee of anything except of an increase in bureaucracy.

[interactiveTV]

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

I see your point.

The FCC is applying the free access for all phone manufacturers principle to Cable companies and not satellite providers for the benefit of New York city.

wow. Your sarcasm managed to ignore 4 other on-topic points that back up my opinion.

That cable is a MONOPOLY, DBS isn't
That a purchased cable set-top is limited to only that company's service area, DBS isn't
That the playing field need not be level for things to still be fair
That DBS customers ALREADY OWN their set-tops, cable customers don't

IF the point is to allow consumers to PURCHASE rather than LEASE then why WOULD we regulate DBS? They already purchase. Since the consumer purchase of a cable STB would be geographically limited and not permit the consumer, if he didn't like the choices to switch to another cable provider, cable card regulations can fix those. Those things aren't broken on DBS. The question would then become, what is the point of cable card and does it achieve it? But hey, why discuss that when you can make a snide, sarcastic comment that doesn't address anything substantive in my post? 20 cheap points for you, Justin. congrats.

I guess, Justin, if you'd rather have a conversation with yourself, give an opinon, then come back with just sarcasm to a response, you can have this and other other 400 posts per day you do all to yourself.

There was one slight reference to NYC -- and yet you made it the sum of your well reasoned response which actually very inaccurately doesn't reflect my point -- but you'd rather not have a real discussion I guess. Pity.

_ITV

[Justin Thyme]

Originally Posted by dswallow

They'd have to invest in design, manufacture, marketing and support themselves.

Why. DirecTivo's already exist. Why shouldn't customers be allowed to switch the contract for the DVR service portion of their contract from Direct To Tivo?

Cell phone companies create all sorts of barriers to exit. One of them was that they refused to alow owners to retain their phone numbers. The FCC created a rule in 1998 that consumers should be able to retain their numbers.

ITV- to your points:
1. Is or is not a Monopoly. Irrelevant. Cell phone companies are not a monopoly either. Does that mean the FCC's ruling on phone number retention was bad for consumers? In any case the only support you provided that Cable companies were a classic monopoly was that apartment dwellers in NYC could not install individual dishes from their apartments. It was a flimsy proposition, deserving of the humor I awarded it.

2. Geographic mobility. Since Phone company phones could also be purchased and were geographically mobile in the US, does that mean that it was wrong to require the phone company to allow third party phones be directly connected to their networks?

3. Ownership. That satellite consumers are forced to buy a DVR for $300 or other navigation equipment which will not work with any other vendor means that Satellite companies can incrementatlly increase charges however they want because they know the barrier to exit is so high that consumers will accept the additional charges rather than switch to another vendor. Locking in the consumer to high priced proprietary equipment defeats market forces.

Such defeat of market forces seems to have been the motivation behind Congress's mandate to the FCC to assure that third parties could provide navigation devices to access the video networks in the same way that the carterphone ruling allowed access to the phone networks.

The FCC granted a waiver based on reasons articulated in the FCC paper I cited and paraphrased.

None of your responses have challenged the fact that all those reasons no longer are true.

Is it your point that the FCC would base a continuation of the waiver on some other points- such as other ones you listed? If so, I'd be interested in the examining similar FCC rulings that used such rationales for such waivers.

[dswallow]

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

Why. DirecTivo's already exist. Why shouldn't customers be allowed to switch the contract for the DVR service portion of their contract from Direct To Tivo?

Cell phone companies create all sorts of barriers to exit. One of them was that they refused to alow owners to retain their phone numbers. The FCC created a rule in 1998 that consumers should be able to retain their numbers.

ITV- to your points:
1. Is or is not a Monopoly. Irrelevant. Cell phone companies are not a monopoly either. Does that mean the FCC's ruling on phone number retention was bad for consumers? In any case the only support you provided that Cable companies were a classic monopoly was that apartment dwellers in NYC could not install individual dishes from their apartments. It was a flimsy proposition, deserving of the humor I awarded it.

2. Geographic mobility. Since Phone company phones could also be purchased and were geographically mobile in the US, does that mean that it was wrong to require the phone company to allow third party phones be directly connected to their networks?

3. Ownership. That satellite consumers are forced to buy a DVR for $300 or other navigation equipment which will not work with any other vendor means that Satellite companies can incrementatlly increase charges however they want because they know the barrier to exit is so high that consumers will accept the additional charges rather than switch to another vendor. Locking in the consumer to high priced proprietary equipment defeats market forces.

Such defeat of market forces seems to have been the motivation behind Congress's mandate to the FCC to assure that third parties could provide navigation devices to access the video networks in the same way that the carterphone ruling allowed access to the phone networks.

The FCC granted a waiver based on reasons articulated in the FCC paper I cited and paraphrased.

None of your responses have challenged the fact that all those reasons no longer are true.

Is it your point that the FCC would base a continuation of the waiver on some other points- such as other ones you listed? If so, I'd be interested in the examining similar FCC rulings that used such rationales for such waivers.

Sorry, with my response I was leaning towards the idea that a new piece of hardware is required. I generally ignore the SD stuff these days. Long live HD. I guess there's no other barrier to the idea of another entity providing different software/navigation to the existing TiVo-based platform.

[samo]

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

Why. DirecTivo's already exist. Why shouldn't customers be allowed to switch the contract for the DVR service portion of their contract from Direct To Tivo?

Cell phone companies create all sorts of barriers to exit. One of them was that they refused to alow owners to retain their phone numbers. The FCC created a rule in 1998 that consumers should be able to retain their numbers.

ITV- to your points:
1. Is or is not a Monopoly. Irrelevant. Cell phone companies are not a monopoly either. Does that mean the FCC's ruling on phone number retention was bad for consumers? In any case the only support you provided that Cable companies were a classic monopoly was that apartment dwellers in NYC could not install individual dishes from their apartments. It was a flimsy proposition, deserving of the humor I awarded it.

2. Geographic mobility. Since Phone company phones could also be purchased and were geographically mobile in the US, does that mean that it was wrong to require the phone company to allow third party phones be directly connected to their networks?

3. Ownership. That satellite consumers are forced to buy a DVR for $300 or other navigation equipment which will not work with any other vendor means that Satellite companies can incrementatlly increase charges however they want because they know the barrier to exit is so high that consumers will accept the additional charges rather than switch to another vendor. Locking in the consumer to high priced proprietary equipment defeats market forces.

Such defeat of market forces seems to have been the motivation behind Congress's mandate to the FCC to assure that third parties could provide navigation devices to access the video networks in the same way that the carterphone ruling allowed access to the phone networks.

The FCC granted a waiver based on reasons articulated in the FCC paper I cited and paraphrased.

None of your responses have challenged the fact that all those reasons no longer are true.

Is it your point that the FCC would base a continuation of the waiver on some other points- such as other ones you listed? If so, I'd be interested in the examining similar FCC rulings that used such rationales for such waivers.

OK Justin, assuming that all of your mumbo-jumbo is correct, can you explain what you personally as a consumer will gain if FCC forces satellite providers to use cable card equivalent? There 2 satellite providers - Dish and DTV. So assuming you get your wish, what do you gain what you don't have already except for higher cost and need to buy additional hardware? Sure, you'd be able to tell Dish that if ... (whatever) I'll switch to DTV. Can't you do it now? If you want to forfeit your Russian programming, you can switch to DTV for free. Opposite is also true. So what's your problem? Why government needs to get involved? There is no "satellite" card TiVo on the horizon and even if it was - would you spend $1000 to prove a point? Not likely.

[interactiveTV]

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

Why. DirecTivo's already exist. Why shouldn't customers be allowed to switch the contract for the DVR service portion of their contract from Direct To Tivo?

Because Direct PAID for that customer, not Tivo. The contract between Tivo and Direct was clear. Direct paid for the box, paid for the marketing, paid for the support. Why should Direct, which paid to acquire the consumer be forced to give her away?

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

Cell phone companies create all sorts of barriers to exit. One of them was that they refused to alow owners to retain their phone numbers. The FCC created a rule in 1998 that consumers should be able to retain their numbers.

ITV- to your points:
1. Is or is not a Monopoly. Irrelevant. Cell phone companies are not a monopoly either. Does that mean the FCC's ruling on phone number retention was bad for consumers?.

Number retention but NOT phone retention. I can't take my Sprint phone to Cingular, can I?

The phone number is actually tied to the person and does not belong to the phone carrier. You actually back up my point. The FCC didn't force cell companies to use the same technology (as Korea and other countries did). TDMA, CDMA, etc. Consumer's can't always (in some cases you can) use their phone when the switch, can they? Phone companies even have the "gall" to sell LOCKED phones. Oh, the horror.

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

In any case the only support you provided that Cable companies were a classic monopoly was that apartment dwellers in NYC could not install individual dishes from their apartments. It was a flimsy proposition, deserving of the humor I awarded it..

No, I didn't. First, I said MANY cities, including NYC. Two, within cable, ONE cable provider consists of the entire offering in 90%+ of the homes. Cable systems ARE a monopoly within the structure you've set up or are you saying that I should be able to buy one box that works with EITHER cable or DBS? If not, then the universe you define makes cable a monopoly.

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

2. Geographic mobility. Since Phone company phones could also be purchased and were geographically mobile in the US, does that mean that it was wrong to require the phone company to allow third party phones be directly connected to their networks?.

At the time, phone companies were STILL monopolies. The phone was the ONLY choice a consumer had. A regulated monopoly plays under different rules. Or should we apply your logic to ALL markets and force EVERY hardware/service market open?

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

3. Ownership. That satellite consumers are forced to buy a DVR for $300 or other navigation equipment which will not work with any other vendor means that Satellite companies can incrementatlly increase charges however they want because they know the barrier to exit is so high that consumers will accept the additional charges rather than switch to another vendor. Locking in the consumer to high priced proprietary equipment defeats market forces.

$300??? where? I can get a STB for FREE. The DBS pays for the box and they call it their customer acquisition cost. Much like a locked Verizon phone. And what high barrier to exit? The contract that says in exchange for getting the hardware at below cost, a customer must remain for a specified period of time (1 year, for example?) There's nothing wrong with such contracts and I fail to see how a FREE box is a barrier to exit. They CAN increase charges but consumers WILL switch. The mere possibility of the boogey man doesn't make your case.

Direct has a free DVR after rebate right now
Dish has a free DVR with new service right now

My cellular company is offering a free phone with new service right now. Without hacking the phone, it won't work on anyone else's network. What was your point again?

Originally Posted by Justin Thyme

Such defeat of market forces seems to have been the motivation behind Congress's mandate to the FCC to assure that third parties could provide navigation devices to access the video networks in the same way that the carterphone ruling allowed access to the phone networks.

The FCC granted a waiver based on reasons articulated in the FCC paper I cited and paraphrased.

None of your responses have challenged the fact that all those reasons no longer are true.

Is it your point that the FCC would base a continuation of the waiver on some other points- such as other ones you listed? If so, I'd be interested in the examining similar FCC rulings that used such rationales for such waivers.

Really? Let's quote the FCC ruling....

We believe, however, that differences in the marketplace for DBS equipment, where devices are available at retail and offer consumers a choice, as compared to equipment for other MVPD services, particularly cable operators, provide justification for not applying the rule separation of security functions to DBS services.

Again, your example of cell networks is, as you would say, deserving of humor. There is no forced interoperability of handsets by the FCC. Number portability is a different animal.

If, as I believe, the MAIN FACTOR is retail choice then the DBS market ALREADY meets that standard.

It appears your whole motive in trying to misread and force a ruling on one class, a monopoly business (cable) is to help Tivo. Direct contracted Tivo to make a product for it. It paid for the hardware, it paid for the customer acquisition, it paid for the service. How Tivo deserves to keep that customer is more than a reach. It might be a great Tivo Army rallying cry but it seems flimsy to me.

Does the quote above not make it clear that RETAIL CHOICE was the key factor? If so, how do DBS companies (Dish and Direct) NOT meet the test? FREE DVR seems to benefit the customer.

_ITV

[dswallow]

I've always found it annoying when people refer to DirecTV as "Direct"; it's not like their name is "Direct TV" and they're just shortening it.

[interactiveTV]

Originally Posted by dswallow

I've always found it annoying when people refer to DirecTV as "Direct"; it's not like their name is "Direct TV" and they're just shortening it.

I've always found it annoying when people use "loose" when they mean "lose" but that's just me.

I also find it annoying when those little ketchup (or is it catsup?) packs won't open even though I tug at the indicated tear point.

And why doesn't everyone use "TiVo" rather than the most often used "Tivo"?

How hard can it be to hit that shift key while you type the "V"?

Personally, I think using "DTV" is more confusing as it is also used for the silly "digital television" moniker.

I've always found it annoying... the new thread by Andy Rooney...

_ITV

[MighTiVo]

Originally Posted by dmdeane

IPTV is far too new and speculative a thing for TiVo to waste its limited resources on at the moment. Look how long it is taking TiVo to get into CableCARD, for instance. But I wouldn't count TiVo out of the game just yet. If TiVo continues to expand its relationships with cable TV and IPTV grows up as a competitor to cable TV, we'll see TiVo working up similiar relationships with the telcos. I doubt very much the telcos signed any truly exclusive deals with MS that they can't be free of in a year or two.Oh, TiVo will be around. "Faith" has nothing to do with it. MS bought their way into this party, and the telcos will gladly let MS buy them their drinks for the evening. But that doesn't mean that the telcos will be asking MS to spend the night with them afterwards. The telcos weren't "snubbing" TiVo; they were simply taking advantage of MS's desperation to buy into the TV business to help finance the early stages of their IPTV development.

The Telcos are spending a LOT of money building out the IPTV infrastructure. Sure there isn't anything going on in retail right now but there is a lot going on with hardware manufacturers and build out of the network. It isn't that the Telcos are snubbing TiVo, they just don't have enough faith that they will be around forever. As several CTO's have said "MS isn't going away anytime soon".
TiVo can't wait for someone to come to them, they have to get out there and push their way in.

Back to the OP topic, even if there isn't a portable technology for DBS, at the very least, consumers should be allowed to purchase 3rd party equipment that can work with the network. This would include the ability for the third party manufacturer to build in any technology allowed by law and should be consistent with other program delivery.

In other words, you could get a free DVR from the provider, or you could purchase your own. TiVo should be allowed to sell a DTV receiver with all the capabilities and compatibility of their stand alone series 2. That doesn't mean that a person under contract with an existing free receiver could transfer that box to TiVo without financial penalty though.

[MighTiVo]

Originally Posted by interactiveTV

Number retention but NOT phone retention. I can't take my Sprint phone to Cingular, can I?

The phone number is actually tied to the person and does not belong to the phone carrier. You actually back up my point. The FCC didn't force cell companies to use the same technology (as Korea and other countries did). TDMA, CDMA, etc. Consumer's can't always (in some cases you can) use their phone when the switch, can they? Phone companies even have the "gall" to sell LOCKED phones. Oh, the horror.

_ITV

You certainly can not take a phone to an incompatible network, but you can take a phone that supports multiple technologies. You can also purchase a phone for full price (or used) that you can take with you to another network.

This gives you the consumer the ability to purchase the type of technology they want to use.

As I said in my last post, what I think needs to happen is DBS should be forced to allow 3rd party manufacturers to sell STBs.
We should be able to purchase a new DTV STB from TiVo that supports MRV, HME, HMO, etc. is compatible with other stand alone STBs, heck even a cable card STB.
We would need to pay TiVo for their sub, and pay DTV the additional receiver fee.

As a DTV customer you could then have the choice,
1) Purchase (or get free) a DVR from DTV with a very low monthly fee with limited capabilities.
2) Purchase a DVR from TiVo with full subscription costs and full support for upgrades from TiVo.

This should be the same for DTV and Dish which would allow TiVo to produce a box that supported either, or perhaps dual technology and support both.

[interactiveTV]

Originally Posted by MighTiVo

Back to the OP topic, even if there isn't a portable technology for DBS, at the very least, consumers should be allowed to purchase 3rd party equipment that can work with the network. This would include the ability for the third party manufacturer to build in any technology allowed by law and should be consistent with other program delivery.

In other words, you could get a free DVR from the provider, or you could purchase your own. TiVo should be allowed to sell a DTV receiver with all the capabilities and compatibility of their stand alone series 2. That doesn't mean that a person under contract with an existing free receiver could transfer that box to TiVo without financial penalty though.

Why?

On what basis should the government interfere?

You can purchase one of many different STBs from either of the DBS companies.

Why should they be forced to, as you are requesting, separate security functions out from their boxes? Unlike cable companies, you OWN the box, you have CHOICES, and you have more than one provider (there are two DBS companies).

I guess this demand to regulate DBS seems strange to me. On what basis should Tivo be allowed to make money off of Direct's customer base? I can't choose OnStar on my BMW. Should DOT force BMW to allow OnStar to offer its service on my car? Why?

DirecTV (happy?) spent billions building its system without the benefit of a monopoly. So did Dish. I cound 9 different DISH STBs I can choose and I can OWN each and every one rather than get locked into a forced lease payment.

If the goal of the FCC was to give RETAIL CHOICE and allow OWNERSHIP, the DBS providers already meet those two requirements. The extra regulation you are requesting seems to be onerous and against the free market principals that drive R&D. The cable companies built their plants on the back of a regulated monopoly. It's a different origin and they still don't permit ownership or choice. However, it isn't the government's job to force companies to offer consumer choice merely because.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm merely wondering what your basis for your request is. What are the benefits (not just to consumers but also to the DBS companies which spent billions in a competitive enviroment) and what are the drawbacks? Should the government also force Apple to open iTunes? What about forcing Apple to make the iPod work with other online music stores? What about forcing BMW to allow me to use OnStar versus BMW Assist? How would this affect R&D?

Why should a DBS company be forced to allow anyone to make their boxes?[ b]They already offer consumers choice and the abilty to own. [/b]DBS set-tops are as evolved or more so than their cable counterparts and are price competitive. Tivo aside, who doesn't deserve -- in any sense -- government assistance, it seems it would only increase the costs of the box, hamper customer service, and create a disincentive for DBS companies to improve services. If you don't like Dish, get DirecTV. And vice versa. You can still choose and buy your box.

_ITV