TiVo Community Forum banner
  • TiVoCommunity.com Ambassador Program Now Open! >>> Click Here

Oh Crap - Rovi buys TiVo?

103K views 751 replies 169 participants last post by  lessd 
#1 · (Edited)
#652 ·
Most people have no idea what's going to happen to them once Streaming becomes the norm. Streaming is the Cable Co's version of a Trojan Horse. Once it becomes the norm, get ready for 20 minutes per hour of forced commercials that you will not be able to skip.
That is when I stop watching TV. I would much rather watch nothing then be forced to watch 20 minutes of commercials for every show I watch.
 
#654 ·
That's what I'm afraid of. Once they get rid of local DVRs something is going to change in their TOS and all the sudden we'll get stuck with forced commercials. :(

If that happens I'll just stop watching TV. I'd be more annoyed by forced commercials then not watching TV at all. There are plenty of other things I can do to entertain myself.
In a lot of ways, I think Hulu (or maybe a cross between Hulu and PS Vue) represents the future of all pay TV (except satellite maybe). Everything will move to IP-based streaming, whether it's live linear channels or on-demand. Local DVRs will be replaced with cloud DVR functionality, which is essentially a type of on-demand streaming. All advertising with become "programmatic," that is, dynamically inserted ads targeted at specific viewers. And all ads will be required viewing during on-demand/cloud DVR playback unless you pay an additional fee for the ad-free service tier, just like Hulu does now.

I wouldn't worry too much that you'll be forced to watch ads (other than while watching live non-premium linear channels). Programmers know that many viewers have gotten used to ad-free viewing, thanks to DVRs, premium channels, Netflix, etc. There will continue to be a demand for ad-free viewing by consumers and the powers that be will provide it, for a price.
 
#655 · (Edited)
In a truly competitive environment, when it doesn't cost more to offer an unlimited service to people, it gets offered.
No it doesn't. You just want it to be. In reality, what you want is only offered in a regulated environment.

Well to be fair Sony is streaming live TV.
So, assuredly not the most efficient way of distributing that kind of content. (Remarkably: The most efficient way of streaming live television is cable. :rolleyes: )

Most people have no idea what's going to happen to them once Streaming becomes the norm. Streaming is the Cable Co's version of a Trojan Horse. Once it becomes the norm, get ready for 20 minutes per hour of forced commercials that you will not be able to skip.
Yup. The industry will adjust and return to deriving from the marketplace the customer perceived value that they've been deriving for decades. There are very few examples of where that didn't happen, and those examples serve as warnings for industries facing technological change today, such that they ensure that they don't make the same mistakes.

Maybe there will be screen recorders which carry the whole streaming session and then playback is under your control.
That would be explicitly illegal. Perhaps folks think that copyright law is going to be revoked? Well, if so, be prepared for no high quality high production value content to be generated whatsoever. If you take away the profit motive, entirely, people truly will take their toys and go home. Every dollar invested in a business competes with every other way that dollar could be invested. If an industry becomes less profitable than municipal bonds (for example), then only an idiot would invest in the industry rather than the municipal bonds.

Businesses charge money for value offered.
No. Consumers pay for value. Businesses charge money based upon what people pay.
Wow. How many angels can you get to dance on the head of a pin?

You've said nothing new, in the quote above, and surely nothing that even remotely supported any of the nonsense you posted after the quote above.

You hate "The Man". Message received. :rolleyes:

Think that might the straw to force me to premium only.
And thereby the system is restored to equilibrium.

In a lot of ways, I think Hulu (or maybe a cross between Hulu and PS Vue) represents the future of all pay TV (except satellite maybe).
Hulu is said to be working on a live-streaming service that it would use to provide broadcast and cable TV channels like ESPN and the Fox network.

So we've come full circle. We have Cable. Then Streaming comes to the "rescue". Then Streaming turns into Cable.
 
#657 ·
when it comes to music and movies I'm in the same camp as PMIRANDA , when it comes to tv shows like star trek series and house md , I can handle Netflix and Amazon hd.

I have never understood why anyone into music would not buy a CD, rip it into mp3's at their favorite quality (320) and then own the cd for life? I got screwed when a music service I had bought some songs that were hard to acquire locally went bankrupt ( Rhapsody) since then I might have bought 5 tracks from Apple, but all else comes in CD.

I doubt Apple will go BK anytime soon, so I know I can always get those tracks but as PMIRANDA said the quality sucks on them.

the same argument goes to todays generation buying vynil and turn tables LMAO . I grew up with that crap , and compared to a digital recording that is now taken in digital format at the studio and has been since the 80's make no sense, but I love seeing kids say it's sounds so much better, remind me of my quadrophonic days . cause 4 speakers had to be better than 2 right ? :D
4 speakers. I have 8 in my living room. Would love a 9.2.4 setup.
 
#659 ·
That would be explicitly illegal. Perhaps folks think that copyright law is going to be revoked?
Wait - recording the IP stream would violate copyright law? No . . . for the same reasons that VCR and DVR time shifting don't.

That said, if the cable cos and content providers get their way, doing so would probably be a DMCA violation because it would potentially require cracking the decryption to record it rather than stream the content.
 
#660 ·
Well to be fair Sony is streaming live TV.
So, assuredly not the most efficient way of distributing that kind of content. (Remarkably: The most efficient way of streaming live television is cable. :rolleyes: )
I could argue that the most efficient way of distributing video content is OTA. Certainly everything else seems to be going wireless these days. And the idea that we should all be streaming live content during primetime hours is insane. Or should some of us expect to do our viewing in the middle of the night to avoid the inevitable network congestion?

Maybe there will be screen recorders which carry the whole streaming session and then playback is under your control.
That would be explicitly illegal. Perhaps folks think that copyright law is going to be revoked?
The whole concept of streaming "linear TV" instead of broadcasting it may indeed be primarily a way for the industry to circumvent court precedents that allow us to record content, which has been determined to not violate copyright laws as long as it's for our private use. I hope the courts will understand and catch up. And even if you don't believe people should have the right to skip commercials, would you allow the simple convenience of QuickMode in your brave new world?

So we've come full circle. We have Cable. Then Streaming comes to the "rescue". Then Streaming turns into Cable.
No, at that point, the industry would have succeeded in perverting the system. We will have come full circle only when recording of content is again allowed (for private use).
 
#662 ·
Sorry had to pull this from a few pages ago:

3:2 pulldown on 4K TV yay can't wait!
They most probably will shoot in 24p and the TV will do the conversion.
should be 5:5 pulldown with a 120hz TV.
 
#663 ·
No it doesn't. You just want it to be. In reality, what you want is only offered in a regulated environment.
That is demonstrably false, both Europe and Asia have competitive HSI markets and unlimited data is the norm. Regulation has nothing to do with it, having a choice of more than 1-2 providers does.

I'm sure you'll now argue that this is because the pipes are run by pipe companies (with mandated open line access) and not vertically integrated behemoths like Comcast, but that's kind of the point.
 
#664 ·
should be 5:5 pulldown with a 120hz TV.
Depends on how they broadcast it. If they broadcast as 24fps then yes. If they broadcast as 60fps then they will do the 3:2 pull down on their end. Since no 4k broadcast currently exists it's impossible to say for sure what they will do. Sports will be 60fps for sure. Not sure what they'll settle on for regular TV. Most drama shows are shot at 24fps just like movies. (creates the film look we're use to) But sitcoms and soap operas are shot at full 60fps, so it could go either way. I seriously doubt they'll mix them together. In all likelihood they'll broadcast everything at 60fps just because it's easier for their equipment to handle a constant frame rate for ad insertion, etc...
 
#665 · (Edited)
No it doesn't. You just want it to be. In reality, what you want is only offered in a regulated environment.
What I want is a truly competitive market for broadband service, but apparently we can't have that in most places in this country. So I would rather have a regulated monopoly than an unregulated monopoly any day of the week. If the broadband providers want to charge customers like a metered utility, then its rates should be regulated by the government just like other utilities.
 
#666 ·
Most people have no idea what's going to happen to them once Streaming becomes the norm. Streaming is the Cable Co's version of a Trojan Horse. Once it becomes the norm, get ready for 20 minutes per hour of forced commercials that you will not be able to skip.
I am not sure what you mean by "Streaming" or "norm". If you by streaming you mean VoD, I wouldn't worry about it linear broadcasts will exist for an extended period of time. If by streaming you mean IP TV delivery again I wouldn't worry about it the main example we have now (AT&T Uverse) offers a DVR just like any cable company does. Of course without FCC action if cable moves to IP TV delivery they could lock out third part STBs or DVRs.

If any cable company was actually foolish enough to eliminate DVRs or force people to watch commercials on some cloud type DVR, satellite would eat their lunch, they already offer superior DVRs as it is. And of course people could also go OTA.
 
#667 · (Edited)
ISPs using DATA caps. Anyone who doesn't understand that data caps are complete Bull Sh** and only exist because of lack of competition and are designed to protect the ISPs own video services either works for an ISP, owns their stock, or has been completely suckered.

We are paying our ISPs for bandwidth, they should be obligated to provide that bandwidth. If we move data through the bandwidth at any moment in time or not is irrelevant, again we paid the ISP to provide us with bandwidth they should be obligated to have the bandwidth available for our use when ever we want to use it. Selling someone 100Mbps of bandwidth, without any time of day use restrictions and then saying how much data they can move through it, means you really are not selling them 100Mbps of bandwidth. The word fraud comes to mind when someone sells you something then falls to delivery it.
 
#668 ·
Depends on how they broadcast it. If they broadcast as 24fps then yes. If they broadcast as 60fps then they will do the 3:2 pull down on their end. Since no 4k broadcast currently exists it's impossible to say for sure what they will do. Sports will be 60fps for sure. Not sure what they'll settle on for regular TV. Most drama shows are shot at 24fps just like movies. (creates the film look we're use to) But sitcoms and soap operas are shot at full 60fps, so it could go either way. I seriously doubt they'll mix them together. In all likelihood they'll broadcast everything at 60fps just because it's easier for their equipment to handle a constant frame rate for ad insertion, etc...
Plus 120Hz TVs are just frame doubling a 60Hz feed (actual 59Hz) . No magic there.
 
#669 ·
Plus 120Hz TVs are just frame doubling a 60Hz feed (actual 59Hz) . No magic there.
120Hz is needed to display 24fps without a pull down pattern, I think that's what he was referring to. With a 60Hz TV you have to use a 3:2 display pattern for 24fps content, which can create jumpy movement. With a 120Hz TV you can just display each frame for 5 refresh cycles so the movement is smooth.
 
#670 ·
120Hz is needed to display 24fps without a pull down pattern, I think that's what he was referring to. With a 60Hz TV you have to use a 3:2 display pattern for 24fps content, which can create jumpy movement. With a 120Hz TV you can just display each frame for 5 refresh cycles so the movement is smooth.
True. I think the rule is your refresh rate divided by 24 needs to be a whole number. Amazon's 24fps is not always easy to notice, but the TiVo works with it. I like it.

To see some really bad visual effects, set the TiVo or Mini for 1080/24 (only) and watch how bad a regular 1080i picture looks.
 
#671 ·
ISPs using DATA caps. Anyone who doesn't understand that data caps are complete Bull Sh** and only exist because of lack of competition and are designed to protect the ISPs own video services either works for an ISP, owns their stock, or has been completely suckered.

We are paying our ISPs for bandwidth, they should be obligated to provide that bandwidth. If we move data through the bandwidth at any moment in time or not is irrelevant, again we paid the ISP to provide us with bandwidth they should be obligated to have the bandwidth available for our use when ever we want to use it. Selling someone 100Mbps of bandwidth, without any time of day use restrictions and then saying how much data they can move through it, means you really are not selling them 100Mbps of bandwidth. The word fraud comes to mind when someone sells you something then falls to delivery it.
Yup. That is my point. They have suckered people into believing they are paying for data AND bandwidth. They are not. They are paying for bandwidth.
 
#672 ·
I guess I'm seriously oldskool. I like recording and having complete shows saved to watch. I prefer the playback options/control with a DVR. I don't do much streaming, have no current streaming accounts. I've used my large TV as my mac monitor for years now, always had internet/tv convergence but never streamed much.
Same as why I don't stream music. I converted my old LPs and CDs to hi-res mp3. I like to access my music to do other things with in video projects etc. Cant do that with streaming.
I'm a survivor from the great Sony DHG DVRs that relied on TVGOS for data. Hung onto that til the bitter end then went to Tivo. These have all been great machines. I thought Apple would offer something good but so far just more streaming, no recording or capture.
 
#673 ·
True. I think the rule is your refresh rate divided by 24 needs to be a whole number. Amazon's 24fps is not always easy to notice, but the TiVo works with it. I like it.

To see some really bad visual effects, set the TiVo or Mini for 1080/24 (only) and watch how bad a regular 1080i picture looks.
The only time the Mini or regular TiVo will ouptut 24P is with pass through. The content will need to be in 24P to output that framerate. You can't just select a resolution with a framerate of 24P. You can only do that in conjunction with a 60P output or a 1080i resolution or lower.
 
#674 · (Edited)
Wait - recording the IP stream would violate copyright law? No . . . for the same reasons that VCR and DVR time shifting don't.
Yes, illegal, since the IP streams are protected specifically to preclude recording.

This isn't just revenue enhancement - it's a legal obligation: Licensing for streaming (recording not permitted) is separate from licensing for broadcast (which can be recorded/time-shifted). You're simply incorrect. The time-shifting provisions you refer to pertain only to broadcast.

That said, if the cable cos and content providers get their way, doing so would probably be a DMCA violation because it would potentially require cracking the decryption to record it rather than stream the content.
All of what you say here is not only already the case, but has been since 1996.

I could argue that the most efficient way of distributing video content is OTA.
Except it isn't. Using OTA for terrestrial viewing is, incontrovertibly, wasteful of bandwidth. Indeed, even for serving mobile stations, it would be substantially more efficient to structure service similar to switched digital video, with the mobile station signaling which service it wants to receive, its local cell site placing that service on one of a few frequencies it has available, which could be shared if there happen to be more than one mobile station wanting that service at the same time.

Certainly everything else seems to be going wireless these days.
Not for efficiency. Specifically for convenience.

The whole concept of streaming "linear TV" instead of broadcasting it may indeed be primarily a way for the industry to circumvent court precedents that allow us to record content, which has been determined to not violate copyright laws as long as it's for our private use. I hope the courts will understand and catch up.
If you change from broadcast to streaming, you are choosing to switch from the means by which time-shifting is protected to the means by which it is not.

I hope television consumers "will understand and catch up".

I don't have to like it, and more importantly, neither do you. The world doesn't revolve around us as consumers, but is a balancing of the needs of all parties, including consumers and suppliers. You "want it all". Tough. Get over it. Not just because it is the (current) law, but because everything returns to steady state eventually. If the laws change allowing time-shifting of streaming, then guess what: We'll have advertising overlays on-screen at all times, or some other similarly-invasive mechanism - because the people paying for the production of television series, the advertisers, are not going to give over the millions upon millions of dollars they give now, without getting the value from doing so that they get today, that value being the affecting of consumer purchasing behaviors.

And even if you don't believe people should have the right to skip commercials, would you allow the simple convenience of QuickMode in your brave new world?
Evidently you haven't done much streaming. During many streaming feeds, today, all forms of fast forward are blocked.

No, at that point, the industry would have succeeded in perverting the system.
Ridiculous. Just because it doesn't kowtow to your demands as a consumer they're evil? What self-ratifying nonsense. The "system" (American consumer markets) is based on charging for products and services based on customer perceived value, not how much customers wish they could pay.

That is demonstrably false, both Europe and Asia have competitive HSI markets and unlimited data is the norm.
That is demonstrably false, both Europe and Asia have highly regulated HSI markets.

Regulation has nothing to do with it
False.

We've had these discussions here and on other television-related fora for several decades. There is always the indignant consumerists insisting that the world is going to change and suddenly service providers are going to sacrifice their profit in the interest of providing a consumerist nirvana. It never happens. Time after time after time, things return to steady state, the offerings and pricing adjusting to environmental changes and then settling back to the industry exacting from consumers compensation based on how much value the consumer derives from the offerings. That's not going to change without a wholesale scuttling of the American economic system.
 
#675 · (Edited)
The only time the Mini or regular TiVo will ouptut 24P is with pass through. The content will need to be in 24P to output that framerate. You can't just select a resolution with a framerate of 24P. You can only do that in conjunction with a 60P output or a 1080i resolution or lower.
It looks like this has been fixed. It's now impossible to set pass through only on a Roamio. I'll check the Premiere soon.
 
#676 ·
Yes, illegal, since the IP streams are protected specifically to preclude recording.

This isn't just revenue enhancement - it's a legal obligation: Licensing for streaming (recording not permitted) is separate from licensing for broadcast (which can be recorded/time-shifted). You're simply incorrect. The time-shifting provisions you refer to pertain only to broadcast.
If you change from broadcast to streaming, you are choosing to switch from the means by which time-shifting is protected to the means by which it is not.

I hope television consumers "will understand and catch up".

I don't have to like it, and more importantly, neither do you. The world doesn't revolve around us as consumers, but is a balancing of the needs of all parties, including consumers and suppliers. You "want it all". Tough. Get over it. Not just because it is the (current) law, but because everything returns to steady state eventually. If the laws change allowing time-shifting of streaming, then guess what: We'll have advertising overlays on-screen at all times, or some other similarly-invasive mechanism - because the people paying for the production of television series, the advertisers, are not going to give over the millions upon millions of dollars they give now, without getting the value from doing so that they get today, that value being the affecting of consumer purchasing behaviors.
Oh, so the choice of broadcast vs streaming will be left to us? Then I will choose broadcast. But if you're saying that broadcast will be eliminated so that we will have no choice, then legislators and/or the courts need to amend the laws so that longstanding consumer rights are preserved. Laws can be changed, sometimes in the public interest. Corporate interests should not be so heavily favored that they can futilely force us to endure commercials for products we have no interest in buying. Some of us will just stop watching if necessary, but we shouldn't have to do that, and it's not really in the interest of content owners to push consumers to that extreme.

Ridiculous. Just because it doesn't kowtow to your demands as a consumer they're evil? What self-ratifying nonsense. The "system" (American consumer markets) is based on charging for products and services based on customer perceived value, not how much customers wish they could pay.
I didn't use the word "evil". But in the absence of proper regulation business entities will always compete in any ways that can give them an advantage, fair or unfair. It is the job of government to force them to play by the rules and "color within the lines" rather than riding roughshod over consumers just because they have more economic power and lobbying influence. We pay lip-service to "free markets" but those require that consumers be able to price-shop on an item-by-item basis at the time they need a product or service. There are many areas of our economy where those conditions are not even close to being met.

And you didn't address the problem of everybody streaming live content during primetime hours. Recording lets us watch content on our schedule without causing such a bottleneck because it allows network loads to be distributed and balanced properly.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top