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 01-02-2008, 09:49 AM   #961
gatzke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 46
TWC response

I just got the following response from Time Warner in response to my angry missive to the FCC:

Quote:
Good morning:
Thank you for choosing Time Warner Cable for your entertainment and communication needs. We appreciate the opportunity to address your questions and concerns.

We apologize for the problems you have experienced in accessing all digital and High Definition Channels currently available via CableCARD. This issue is due the current availability of standard or “one-way” cable cards on the market.

The problem with being unable to access “Switched Digital”, AKA two-way dependant programming via CableCARD is not due to Time Warner Cable being the sole cable TV provider in your area or as mistakenly referred to in your online request a “monopoly”. Alternate TV programming sources in your area include AT&T, Dish and over the air High Definition receivers.

CableCARD usage with Time Warner Cable:

As several Digital programming and channels require two-way connections for viewing, current UDCP or one-way CableCARDs will be unable to access all Digital programming and features offered via two-way set-top converter.

Two-way or “Open” CableCARDs will be able to access two-way dependant programming but will not be available via Time Warner Cable until the end of the first quarter of 2008. This information was included on Time Warner Cable’s South Carolina web page at the following link:

http://www.timewarnercable.com/South...CableCard.html

If you have additional questions regarding Time Warner Cable services, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions section: http://www.timewarnercable.com/Custo...ategories.ashx or contact us toll free at 1-866-892-7201 for assistance.

Thank you for using Online Customer Support.
Time Warner is the only cable provider in my area. Satellite and OTA are not cable, so TWC is a monopoly cable provider in my market.

The key issue is they have migrated to a technology (SDV) that cuts out third party providers against the wishes of the FCC.

But the more interesting thins is that 2 way cards are coming to my area soon, but only the "Open Cable Cable Card" (which I think is Cable Card 2.0).

I am pretty sure the Tivo HD and S3 are not going to work with cable card 2.0, so I assume I have to wait on the SDV USB fix that may be out and available in a year or so.

Are there any Cable Card 2.0 devices out other than those leased by providers?

It is hard for me to fully recommend Tivo HD to my friends when it cuts out half your HD channels, so I assume this issue is hurting Tivo due to TWC's abuse of monopoly.

So no free cable for me! (Unless the FCC steps in...)
gatzke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 12:55 PM   #962
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatzke View Post
Time Warner is the only cable provider in my area. Satellite and OTA are not cable, so TWC is a monopoly cable provider in my market.
This is a meaningless statement. It is similar to saying that Ford is a monopoly provider of F-150s. It is well-established that satellite companies are competitors to cable companies, for purposes of determining whether a company is a monopoly provider of advanced (i.e., that requiring CableCards) subscription television service.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 01:31 PM   #963
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
This is a meaningless statement. It is similar to saying that Ford is a monopoly provider of F-150s. It is well-established that satellite companies are competitors to cable companies, for purposes of determining whether a company is a monopoly provider of advanced (i.e., that requiring CableCards) subscription television service.
Thanks--for some reason I was having trouble coming up with an apt simile. You hit it on the nose . Cable is a partial monopoly (a phrase that I'll admit is a bit oxymoronic), since a substantial portion of the U.S. population lives in circumstances where they currently have no other choice of multichannel subscription television provider, but that situation likely won't last. It's probable that everyone will eventually have access to television service from both cable and one or more telcos at a minimum.

If cable wasn't in competition with DBS and the telcos, they probably wouldn't be nearly so interested in SDV. If it weren't for D*'s threat to offer "up to 150 HD channels" (and Verizon's claiming the same by the end of '08) cable wouldn't be in such a hurry to beef up their HD offerings; if it weren't for SDV, they pretty much couldn't respond to the competition.
__________________
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 01-02-2008, 01:38 PM   #964
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Indeed, and in the end, that aspect of cable television service that is still considered a utility/monopoly, i.e., the provision of local broadcast television channels -- THAT is regulated, typically costing only $12-$13 per month, and that service does NOT require CableCards (except in TiVos, and that's TiVo's fault, since they elected not to provide manual channel mapping).
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 02:16 PM   #965
gatzke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 46
SDV as abuse of monopoly

Quote:
This is a meaningless statement. It is similar to saying that Ford is a monopoly provider of F-150s. It is well-established that satellite companies are competitors to cable companies, for purposes of determining whether a company is a monopoly provider of advanced (i.e., that requiring CableCards) subscription television service.
Cable is currently the only way to pipe multiple channels into my house in a manner where I don't need a box on every TV. In addition to my main TV, I have four more TVs and I don't want to buy dish boxes on them (although I may have to buy Digital boxes anyway)

I think Cable is the only way to use my existing coax. I am probably wrong, but I thought you have to run new cable so each box is connected to the dish. If they were true competition, dish would sell me one box I plug one coax into my house and all my devices easily get a boatload of channels.

Cable is the only way for a lot of condo and apartment dwellers. Some HOAs don't allow the dish either (mine).

Saying cable competes with DBS and telecos is like saying cars compete with bikes and planes. They all are transportation methods and all use different technology routes, but give you different advantages and costs for similar service.

I appreciate that SDV may make cable companies competitive, but it still stinks that I have to miss out on services. Ideally they would have the USB Tivo thing working before SDV rolled out, or charge me proportional to the number of channels I actually can watch.
gatzke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 02:32 PM   #966
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatzke View Post
Cable is currently the only way to pipe multiple channels into my house in a manner where I don't need a box on every TV.
Oh gosh, so you're fixating even more finely than I insinuated earlier; limiting your scope to your house, only, and stating that the essential service is the delivery of television channels without a box. So instead of what I suggested before, that's like saying, "Burlington Ford has a monopoly on selling F-150s without me having to drive more than 10 miles to the dealership."

And what's worse, you're highlighting an exemption the FCC gave the satellite companies but did not give the cable companies.

Do you realize how far off-kilter your argument is?

Don't get me wrong: I feel for your worries. However, it is a personal issue, not an anti-trust issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gatzke View Post
Some HOAs don't allow the dish either (mine).
HOAs aren't allowed to preclude satellite service. To assert anything in that regard is to assert a right to be so lazy so as to not have to stand up for your rights. It's simply indefensible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gatzke View Post
Saying cable competes with DBS and telecos is like saying cars compete with bikes and planes.
No, it isn't. This isn't me talking; this is our society speaking, from the voice of its duly-elected and duly-appointed officials.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 03:00 PM   #967
lew
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,265
A HOA can restrict satellite dishes to areas actually owned by the homeowner. Generally the HOA, not the individual homeowner, owns the roof and exterior walls for condo developments. I'm using the term condo in the legal sense. Townhouses are frequently not condos, but attached houses.

A HOA can exist for regular detached homes (generally a gated community), townhouses (basically attached homes) or condos.

Many residents of condos have no legal place to place a dish. Those people are basically limited to a balcony or patio which might not have a line of site.

Teleco, particularly FiOS, provides meaningful competition in many areas.

I have the option of two satellite companies, a cable company and FiOS. OTA is not really available.
That's competition.

That doesn't change the fact that some customer only have one cable system available to them. Having to move effectively limits competition.







Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
HOAs aren't allowed to preclude satellite service. To assert anything in that regard is to assert a right to be so lazy so as to not have to stand up for your rights. It's simply indefensible.


Last edited by lew : 01-02-2008 at 03:22 PM.
lew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 03:44 PM   #968
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by lew View Post
A HOA can restrict satellite dishes to areas actually owned by the homeowner. Generally the HOA, not the individual homeowner, owns the roof and exterior walls for condo developments. I'm using the term condo in the legal sense. Townhouses are frequently not condos, but attached houses.
You're all over the place with terms. HOA and condo are different things, and indeed the best way of determining which is which is to ask the question: Who fixes the roof? If it is the association, then we're talking condo. If it is the homeowner, then we're talking HOA.

Note my comments were directed at HOAs, not condos. You can check the archives for my comments regarding condos, which indeed do face restrictions.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 04:03 PM   #969
CharlesH
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Milpitas (San Francisco Bay Area)
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
You're all over the place with terms. HOA and condo are different things, and indeed the best way of determining which is which is to ask the question: Who fixes the roof? If it is the association, then we're talking condo. If it is the homeowner, then we're talking HOA.
I own a townhouse (i.e., one of several houses attached together side by side), but the HOA maintains the roof (including replacement when necessary) and paints the exteriors. I think the only place a resident can put a dish is on their balcony or patio, which is meaningful only if it has a line of sight to the satellite.
CharlesH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 04:37 PM   #970
lew
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,265
I suspect terms like HOA are used differently in different parts of the country.

Frequently the correct term would be condominium association but many people also use the term HOA. This would particularly true in a large development that consisted of townhouses, traditional homes and condos.

The previous poster said his HOA restricted satellite dishes. His HOA would have the legal authority to do that if poster owned a unit in a condo.

The best of of determining is looking at insurance. A condo insures the building against fire.





Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
You're all over the place with terms. HOA and condo are different things, and indeed the best way of determining which is which is to ask the question: Who fixes the roof? If it is the association, then we're talking condo. If it is the homeowner, then we're talking HOA.

Note my comments were directed at HOAs, not condos. You can check the archives for my comments regarding condos, which indeed do face restrictions.

lew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 11:22 AM   #971
NSPhillips
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 59
Aren't all these discussions of where you can put up a dish kind of pointless on a forum for a product that only functions with cable?
NSPhillips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 11:36 AM   #972
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Yup, sure are.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 04:26 AM   #973
jimhutchins
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16
So what we're really all mad about...

NSPhillips and bicker make a good point. If you're participating in this thread, you probably aren't a Dish or DirecTV customer. For whatever reason, you've chosen (or have been "limited to") cable and you have a HD TiVo product.

I think the crux of the issue for many of us is the (relatively) sudden change that limited the functionality/usability/value of our TiVo HD devices.

Personally, I invested about $1,400 in TiVo HD Equipment and services (two $300 TiVo HD's, one $200 DVR Expander, two $300 3-year service commitments). Just a couple months later, my cable company (Bright House) finally delivered additional HD programming, but they did it with SDV, so I can't access it with my TiVo (yet).

The problem here is that this doesn't feel "fair" to most of us. We bought our TiVo's with the understanding that we'd be able to receive ALL HD programming if we (subjected ourselves to the pain of) installing CableCARD's. That isn't how it is working out (at least so far).

Unfortunately, being "unfair" isn't illegal. Being "unfair" just sucks and that's where it ends.

There are plenty of threads that review the pros and cons of all of the various TV sources, so I won't rehash them here. I think what most of us are feeling (and many are expressing) is a profound frustration at the complexity and compromises that seem to be so tightly linked with trying to get a reasonable selection of HD programming.

I think that most of us just want access to as much HD programming as possible and we want to be able to view and record that HD programming on whatever device we choose (implicitly a TiVo HD or TiVo Series 3 if you're reading this thread).

So (shouting at the wind and waving my fist in the air): I want my TiVo's to work with my cable to give me access to all of the HD programming that I pay for. That's it. End of story. End of rant. Good night and good luck.
jimhutchins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 05:24 AM   #974
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhutchins View Post
Personally, I invested about $1,400 in TiVo HD Equipment and services
Do keep in mind that this doesn't matter one bit. How much you pay for something doesn't have any bearing on anything. I think people misdirect their outrage stemming from just how much they've spend, outrage that perhaps is best directed at themselves for spending more money on something for which they had no real guarantee would provide them the value they wanted for as long as they wanted. The is a strong aspect of personal responsibility that comes into play, here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhutchins View Post
The problem here is that this doesn't feel "fair" to most of us.
It doesn't feel "fair" -- granted. Again, I believe that's a distortion of the reality. It is fair: Every party involved is doing what it is supposed to be doing (except perhaps for overzealous governmental regulators). The only gap is between what the customers took it onto themselves to foster expectations for, and the reality those customers encountered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhutchins View Post
Unfortunately, being "unfair" isn't illegal. Being "unfair" just sucks and that's where it ends.
And let me explain why I believe that even considering it "unfair" is off-target. Rather, it is "unfortunate", not unfair. The word "unfair" carries with it a connotation of nefarious intent. It may be because some of the most common definitions of unfairness are explicit about that, such as, "Contrary to laws or conventions, especially in commerce; unethical". If you mean the kind of "unfairness" that is simply a lack of equity due to unfortunate circumstances, without fault, then I can agree with that description. Again, no one is to blame here, except perhaps those who expected more than we were explicitly promised (and again, government regulators, for their self-centered brinksmanship).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhutchins View Post
I think what most of us are feeling (and many are expressing) is a profound frustration at the complexity and compromises that seem to be so tightly linked with trying to get a reasonable selection of HD programming.
This is really an important point. This whole space is unnecessarily complex, because the government insists on interfering beyond the bounds of what is reasonable and necessary. Lifeline cable (broadcast local HD channels) is all that is necessary for government to get involved with. Beyond that, government should never have gotten involved, except to sanction localities that obstructed reasonable requests by new service providers to begin operating within their borders. Here is wonderful example of something good regulated into badness.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 05:52 AM   #975
jimhutchins
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Do keep in mind that this doesn't matter one bit. How much you pay for something doesn't have any bearing on anything. I think people misdirect their outrage stemming from just how much they've spend, outrage that perhaps is best directed at themselves for spending more money on something for which they had no real guarantee would provide them the value they wanted for as long as they wanted. The is a strong aspect of personal responsibility that comes into play, here.
I have to disagree here. I spent $1,400 with the expectation that I'd be able to watch all the HD the cable company has to offer with my HD TiVo's if I got CableCARD's for them. I based my decision to purchase a THREE YEAR subscription on (I think) a reasonable assumption that I would be able to use my TiVo HD's as advertised and as intended for at least those three years. I was perfectly willing to fork over ~$39/month (net effective cost) for that functionality. I was not and am not willing to pay $700/month (the net effective cost of the two months where I had full functionality). My objection here is that the functionality has been truncated VERY early in my TiVo's projected life and during my subscription. That changes the value proposition and thus the cost becomes a valid factor.
jimhutchins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 06:17 AM   #976
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhutchins View Post
I spent $1,400 with the expectation that I'd be able to watch all the HD the cable company has to offer with my HD TiVo's if I got CableCARD's for them.
Did you give all that $1,400 to the cable company, and receive from them a guarantee that in return for that money you would be able to do what you suggested? No. Of course not. You gave most of that money to TiVo, who didn't even have the power to provide you such assurances, even if they were willing to do so. So this goes back to you creating an expectation. Therefore, if you want to assign blame for things not living up to that expectation, you need to assign it to yourself. Again, personal responsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhutchins View Post
I based my decision to purchase a THREE YEAR subscription on (I think) a reasonable assumption that I would be able to use my TiVo HD's as advertised and as intended for at least those three years.
Again, TiVo never advertised that it would work with SDV. TiVo's lawyers have made sure that their assurances, in contracts and in advertisements, kept them clear of any responsibility for things beyond their control, like SDV. It's a very hard, cold truth, but we have to learn to live with it.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 06:47 AM   #977
jimhutchins
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Did you give all that $1,400 to the cable company, and receive from them a guarantee that in return for that money you would be able to do what you suggested? No. Of course not. You gave most of that money to TiVo, who didn't even have the power to provide you such assurances, even if they were willing to do so. So this goes back to you creating an expectation. Therefore, if you want to assign blame for things not living up to that expectation, you need to assign it to yourself. Again, personal responsibility..
I voluntarily gave (TiVo) my $1,400. For that, I take full personal responsibility. TiVo (like nearly all corporations) made no guarantees. HOWEVER, if you go to TiVo.com, the information that TiVo provides says that the TiVo HD "Works with any cable provider using CableCARDs" they even have a double-asterisks that warns "TiVo® HD and Series3™ HD DVR: Does not support satellite service. Two CableCARDs™ may be required for dual tuner functionality and to receive dual digital cable channels. Cable service required to receive cable channels."

Even if you dig into the Product Features, Product Specifications, Product FAQs, and CableCARD FAQ's on TiVo's site, there is STILL no mention of the SDV limitation.

So, yes, I believe that TiVo (to whom I gave all that money) created an EXPECTATION that THEIR product which they describe as having been "Designed specifically for cable customers" will (fully) work with my cable service.

I don't begrudge my cable provider using SDV. They have service issues that I DO hold against them, but SDV was a reasonable business and technical decision for Bright House to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Again, TiVo never advertised that it would work with SDV. TiVo's lawyers have made sure that their assurances, in contracts and in advertisements, kept them clear of any responsibility for things beyond their control, like SDV. It's a very hard, cold truth, but we have to learn to live with it.
SDV has been an issue for more than six months (note the date on the beginning of this thread). TiVo's web site, advertising, and literature STILL lack any mention of the SDV limitation. For that, as a consumer, I can certainly hold TiVo responsible. The implementation of SDV is beyond TiVo's control, the non-disclosure of TiVo's inability to (currently) support SDV isn't. They could modify their web site before you post your next reply to me. I'm betting they won't.

So, the bottom line for me is that TiVo has a corporate responsibility to disclose this technical issue (whether beyond their control or not). TiVo's lawyers had them put footnote after footnote on the bottom of nearly every TiVo HD web page. I can and do hold them responsible for failing to add a footnote about SDV.
jimhutchins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 09:47 AM   #978
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhutchins View Post
So (shouting at the wind and waving my fist in the air): I want my TiVo's to work with my cable to give me access to all of the HD programming that I pay for. That's it. End of story. End of rant. Good night and good luck.
See, that's part of the argument that I don't get. It's all new HD programming that you didn't have access to before, yet somehow you feel that you're paying for it. When you invested in TiVo, there was probably a ton of content already on the cable that you couldn't access with them, but which was available to cable STB lessors, on free and subscription VOD channels. Theoretically, you were paying for that as well, since those box lessors weren't charged anything more for access to that, other than charges ostensibly being paid for their box. The only reason why the expansion of channels as SDV services bugs you is because you want access to this new content whereas you didn't particularly want that other stuff.

The cable providers are in a no win situation. They only way that they can make a significant addition to their HD programming offerings to combat satellite's "up to 150 HD channels" advertising onslaught is to dump a huge portion of their analog tiers (almost of all of it, if they wanted to eventually offer 150 HD channels) or go to SDV. Any other way of expanding their bandwidth would have required drastic equipment updates throughout their systems, taking years to complete, costing probably billions of dollars nationwide and resulting in new services that couldn't be accessed by Series3 TiVos or any other current digital cable tuning devices, since it wouldn't have expanded their tuning range beyond 870 MHz. Dumping large numbers of analog channels was going to enrage their analog TV using customers and going to SDV would piss off their CableCARD customers. There are an estimated 300 million analog-only televisions currently in use in this country and an estimated 300 thousand CableCARD users. So, who would you choose to piss off?

I'm sure that the cable providers who've deployed SDV are prepared to lose every last one of their CableCARD-using subs (but hoping that it won't come to that). They're not prepared to immediately lose large portions of their analog television dependent subs.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill

Last edited by mikeyts : 01-04-2008 at 02:48 PM.
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 10:28 AM   #979
lew
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,265
Very well said. The cable companies need to add more HD stations and SDV is the only way to do it NOW.

Analog OTA will soon be history. Cable companies may be able to go all digital at that point, customers will sort of understand they need some kind of box for their tv sets to work. The problem is cable systems may not be able to wait a year. The second problem is some cable systems may see the need to keep some or all of the analog channels.




Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
See, that's part of the argument that I don't get. It's all new HD programming that you didn't have access to before, yet somehow you feel that you're paying for it. When you invested in TiVo, there was probably a ton of content already on the cable that you couldn't access with them, but which was available to cable STB leasors, on free and subscription VOD channels. Theoretically, you were paying for that as well, since those box leasors weren't charged anything more for access to that, other than charges ostensibly being paid for their box. The only reason why the expansion of channels as SDV services bugs you is because you want access to this new content whereas you didn't particularly want that other stuff.

The cable providers are in a no win situation. They only way that they can make a significant edition to their HD programming offerings to combat satellite's "up to 150 HD channels" advertising onslaught is to dump a huge portion of their analog tiers (almost of all of it, if they wanted to eventually offer 150 HD channels) or go to SDV. Any other way of expanding their bandwidth would have required drastic equipment updates throughout their systems, taking years to complete, costing probably billions of dollars nationwide and resulting in new services that couldn't be accessed by Series3 TiVos or any other current digital cable tuning devices, since it wouldn't have expanded their tuning range beyond 870 MHz. Dumping large numbers of analog channels was going to enrage their analog TV using customers and going to SDV would piss off their CableCARD customers. There are an estimated 300 million analog-only televisions currently in use in this country and an estimated 300 thousand CableCARD users. So, who would you choose to piss off?

I'm sure that the cable providers who've deployed SDV are prepared to lose every last one of their CableCARD-using subs (but hoping that it won't come to that). They're not prepared to immediately lose large portions of their analog television dependent subs.

lew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 11:35 AM   #980
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhutchins View Post
HOWEVER, if you go to TiVo.com, the information that TiVo provides says that the TiVo HD "Works with any cable provider using CableCARDs"
So sue them. Seriously. If you really believe TiVo actually promised you what you're implying that they promised you, then sue them. You won't win, because you are pointing to only one piece of information TiVo made available to you; other pieces of information TiVo made available indicated otherwise. Remember, you were never able to get PPV or VOD with TiVo. That's not covered in that statement you quoted, and folks haven't been able to access those aspects of cable service since the beginning.

And let's be clear, I wish what you're alleging was correct. I'm disappointed that it's not.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 12:30 PM   #981
ldudek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 239
Just some observations and comments.

First let me admit that I just looked over the last page, didn't read every little comment and just got the "jist" of what is being said. I smeeked so sue me.

Second IMHO Bicker usually delivers a pretty good argument. He's honest and I've seen him admit when he is wrong. Now having said that it may seem to many that he sides with the cable company frequently. It may seem that way but only because he is giving an honest statement.

Now having said that I want to know why in all this discussion about cable cards, SDV, people not getting it in their area there was no mention about the dongle. If it was mentioned, I apologize I didn't see it. Will it be out second quarter of this year? I kind of doubt it as it seems anytime cable says anything they usually are off on their predictions, and Bicker before you slice and dice me on this one I will admit that TiVo is frequently off too. But I do believe it will be out some time this year.

If you didn't take the time to research your area, SDV, and such then really that's nobody's fault but your own. I know I did when I bought mine.

Oh and one last thing. Bicker I liked the "sue them" comment. Hey, why not a CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT.

Last edited by ldudek : 01-04-2008 at 04:09 PM.
ldudek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 01:21 PM   #982
gatzke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
See, that's part of the argument that I don't get. It's all new HD programming that you didn't have access to before, yet somehow you feel that you're paying for it.
I had a crappy SA 8300 HD PVR box from my cable company, so I had access to all the HD they provide.

I bought a Tivo HD assuming that with a cable card I would get the same HD channels.

I had no indication that cable cards were limited in HD channels. Eventually I found after the fact the small print on their web page that said some "services" are not available to cable card subscribers. Even if I had seen that before my Tivo purchase, I would have assumed they mean no PPV or on Demand whcih are services, not channels.

I am not super happy, but at least I am back on a Tivo again. Maybe in a year we get the USB SDVfix...
gatzke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 01:24 PM   #983
BobCamp1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldudek View Post
All and one last thing. Bicker I liked the "sue them" comment. Hey, why not a CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT.
You're way too late, that was suggested back in post #311. If it had been posted in the mid 200's, I would have won $30 from my office pool.

Is it me or is this thread just going in circles?

Anyway, the Motorola solution is due by June 30, 2008, a.k.a. "second quarter". The SA solution, which is needed much more as most of the SDV implementation is with SA systems, is TBD.
BobCamp1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 04:13 PM   #984
ldudek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCamp1 View Post
You're way too late, that was suggested back in post #311. If it had been posted in the mid 200's, I would have won $30 from my office pool.

Is it me or is this thread just going in circles?

Anyway, the Motorola solution is due by June 30, 2008, a.k.a. "second quarter". The SA solution, which is needed much more as most of the SDV implementation is with SA systems, is TBD.
Who says "All and one last thing?" I do apparently. I fixed that.

I was unaware of the SA TBD thing. Can you point me as to where that info is located?
ldudek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 04:53 PM   #985
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Actually, I believe that in some filing to the FCC the cable providers have claimed that they expect to have solutions ready for distrbution by the end of the second calendar quarter of 2008. I don't think that any official announcement of any solution has been made by Motorola--some guy purported to to have close contacts in Motorola wrote in his blog that they have a prototype and that we should expect it to resemble the now-useless DCT-700 digital-only STB (cable providers can't purchase boxes now with built-in conditional access methods and the DCT-700 lacks a CableCARD slot); the only statement from a Motorola representative that I've been able to ferret out on the net simply stated that their development of a tuning resolver was going fine, without giving any details of when it should be done or what it will look like. Bits of consumer electronics don't get much simpler than this--I've seen cell phones that were at least an order of magnitude more complex completed in six months. When they say that they'll have something ready to ship by the middle of the year, I don't doubt it.
__________________
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 01-04-2008, 06:03 PM   #986
jimhutchins
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatzke View Post
I had a crappy SA 8300 HD PVR box from my cable company, so I had access to all the HD they provide.

I bought a Tivo HD assuming that with a cable card I would get the same HD channels.

I had no indication that cable cards were limited in HD channels. Eventually I found after the fact the small print on their web page that said some "services" are not available to cable card subscribers. Even if I had seen that before my Tivo purchase, I would have assumed they mean no PPV or on Demand whcih are services, not channels.

I am not super happy, but at least I am back on a Tivo again. Maybe in a year we get the USB SDVfix...
This very closely mirrors the scenario that surrounded my purchases and my feelings. I did research, but apparently not enough (I didn't notice this thread). I agree that I would lose if I sue TiVo. I agree that they have plenty of weasel room. I'm just not super happy.
jimhutchins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 06:09 PM   #987
GiantsFan24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Makakilo, Hawaii
Posts: 47
Geez, some of you serial posters sure like to overreact to (more-or-less) innocuous comments. What's wrong with someone feeling like the cablecos move to SDV was unfair to TIVO S3/HD users? I know I did. When I bought my S3 a year ago, there was lots of big text saying "HD!"; no big text saying, "except if..." I was not aware that my cable provider was contemplating going SDV. And I don't know why I should have been expected to know that. Or how, for that matter, since they weren't publicizing it. That being said, I don't blame TIVO or TWC. I understand the business and technical decisions both made, and I look forward to the dongle, whenever it should arrive. In the meantime, I have to use the POS SA8300HDC DVR. And I gotta tell ya, that feels unfair!
GiantsFan24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 11:31 PM   #988
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantsFan24 View Post
Geez, some of you serial posters sure like to overreact to (more-or-less) innocuous comments. What's wrong with someone feeling like the cablecos move to SDV was unfair to TIVO S3/HD users?
If you don't want people to react to your comments then don't post . Alternatively, you can preface it with something like, "Look, I understand that the cable providers really have no alternatives for providing a lot more HD channels to using SDV, but on an emotional level, it feels as though I'm being cheated somehow. I know that it's not true, but I can't help feeling that way. That's all I wanted to say."

Carefully reading jimhutchins' posts, he did kind of say that, so our responses were kind of redundant. He did respond to the responses, though, which kept them coming .
__________________
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 01-05-2008, 06:05 AM   #989
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldudek View Post
Second IMHO Bicker usually delivers a pretty good argument. He's honest and I've seen him admit when he is wrong. Now having said that it may seem to many that he sides with the cable company frequently. It may seem that way but only because he is giving an honest statement.
Thanks for you kind words. There is also another dynamic at work. I don't regularly post "yup, what he said" messages. If someone else is making the point well-enough, I won't chime in. Of course, human nature being what it is, there are far far far more people willing to bitch about big-company suppliers than people willing defend them, so generally, so generally when I do agree with complaints about a big-company supplier, others have already made the point as well as necessary, so you won't see me post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldudek View Post
Will it be out second quarter of this year?
I haven't seen anything more than the initial projection, which I wouldn't count on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldudek View Post
I kind of doubt it as it seems anytime cable says anything they usually are off on their predictions, and Bicker before you slice and dice me on this one I will admit that TiVo is frequently off too.
As you can see, I agree with you on this. They released a projection, which I don't see any good reason to rely on. The real problem is that some people are actually fostering their own expectations based on that projection. That's idiocy IMHO. You base expectations on firm and explicit promises, nothing less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldudek View Post
But I do believe it will be out some time this year.
Again, I totally agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldudek View Post
If you didn't take the time to research your area, SDV, and such then really that's nobody's fault but your own. I know I did when I bought mine.
Agree again.

Do you see, now, why I generally don't post when someone has already said what I feel needs to be said?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 06:08 AM   #990
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatzke View Post
Eventually I found after the fact the small print on their web page that said some "services" are not available to cable card subscribers.
Which is the whole point. Anyone expecting TiVo to support all services provided by the cable company simply didn't do their due diligence.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is online now   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.
TiVo® 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 01:47 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |