Future of CableCARD by EDITOR

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Pacomartin, Jan 6, 2015.

  1. Nov 15, 2015 #961 of 2036
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    53,800
    7,147
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada

    Advertisements

    You wouldn't need to register your device with the MSO. They would use an open standard, like DLNA DTCP-IP, so any device certified by the standard would be able to access the gateway. That's part of why this system is so appealing. Ince the gateway is up and running you'd never have to deal with the MSO again if you need to add or replace a receiving device.
     
  2. Nov 15, 2015 #962 of 2036
    wco81

    wco81 Active Member

    554
    41
    Dec 28, 2001
    San Jose, CA
    Is there any indication that they'll pull the switch on CableCard once the mandate expires?
     
  3. Nov 15, 2015 #963 of 2036
    slowbiscuit

    slowbiscuit FUBAR

    4,659
    611
    Sep 19, 2006
    In the ATL
    Nope, that's an utter fabrication or at the least a gross overstatement of the miniscule number of apps that allow this.

    Typical MSO tactics.
     
  4. Nov 15, 2015 #964 of 2036
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    53,800
    7,147
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    The mandate is not expiring. The integration ban is expiring. The law that requires them to provide CableCARDs for 3rd party devices is still in place.
     
  5. Nov 15, 2015 #965 of 2036
    wco81

    wco81 Active Member

    554
    41
    Dec 28, 2001
    San Jose, CA

    Advertisements

    I don't think a third party market for set tops will ever materialize, unless they're priced like Apple TV or Roku.

    And we all know third party DVRs will be very expensive and most people won't spend hundreds or over a thousand upfront when ey can lease from the provider.

    Not enough people will be aware or care about this to make a difference.
     
  6. Nov 15, 2015 #966 of 2036
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    53,800
    7,147
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    You're probably right about DVRs. But if they go the gateway route then it'll be much easier for people to buy TVs with the finctionality built in which will save them the cost of renting boxes for secondary TVs. For most people a system like this would save them a lot of money.
     
  7. Nov 15, 2015 #967 of 2036
    Bigg

    Bigg Cord Cutter

    7,434
    829
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    But wouldn't the cable company still charge per connected set, like DirecTV does with RVU?
     
  8. Nov 16, 2015 #968 of 2036
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    53,800
    7,147
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    I guess they could. But with an open protocol how would they know? A gateway with 6 tuners could be used by a single DVR or 6 different TVs. How could they tell? I assumed they'd just have to charge a flat rate for the gateway and be good with that.
     
  9. Nov 16, 2015 #969 of 2036
    lpwcomp

    lpwcomp Well-Known Member

    9,461
    298
    May 6, 2002
    John's...
    They could, via s/w, limit the number of simultaneous connections. They could also limit the number of simultaneous "tuners" in operation.
     
  10. Nov 16, 2015 #970 of 2036
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    3,336
    799
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    Only to the same extent "ain't" is a word. It is used in colloquial speech but is considered improper or non-standard English.

    From Mirriam-Webster:

     
  11. Nov 16, 2015 #971 of 2036
    tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Well-Known Member

    4,348
    592
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    So just how do you prefer to form the contraction of "am not"? I think there technically is "amn't" in some older regional English dialects, but that doesn't sound very good to me. The "M" and "N" kind of melt in your mouth. Though I think sometimes the "M" is silent in "amn't" so it's pronounced like "ant", which is probably where we got "ain't" from in the first place.

    And who exactly gets to decide that "ain't" isn't proper English? I'm not claiming that it is, merely that it does seem strange that we don't have a standard English contraction for "am not".

    Finish this series:

    She is smart, isn't she?
    They are smart, aren't they?
    He is smart, isn't he?
    I am smart, ...
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2015
  12. Nov 16, 2015 #972 of 2036
    Bigg

    Bigg Cord Cutter

    7,434
    829
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    It would have to be written into the protocol, like in RVU, which I presume the MSOs would push for in making the standards.
     
  13. Nov 16, 2015 #973 of 2036
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    53,800
    7,147
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    aren't I.

    Even so ain't and irregardless are not the same. Ain't is a recognized contraction of am not. Irregardless is a nonstandard mashup of regardless and irrespective. Irregardless is not a real word. People use it, incorrectly, all the time so they've added it to some dictionaries but it's always listed as "nonstandard" whereas ain't is listed as "informal".
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2015
  14. Nov 16, 2015 #974 of 2036
    ej42137

    ej42137 Well-Known Member

    3,775
    593
    Feb 15, 2014
    Los Angeles
    "Ain't" is an old word with a long history, used unironically by Shakespeare, that was deemed unacceptable only fairly recently. If you use it in written communication readers will probably assume you are doing it with intent to make a point.

    Irregardless is word recently coined out of a confusion of "irregard" and "regardless" that, to be consistent with the meaning of its suffix and prefix, would mean "with regard", the opposite of the way it is intended. It may be considered a word by some, but using it places you among those confusing "your" with "you're" and believe "comprise" and "composed of" mean the same thing.
     
  15. Nov 16, 2015 #975 of 2036
    tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Well-Known Member

    4,348
    592
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    You do realize that saying "I am smart, aren't I" is grammatically incorrect. It's the equivalent of saying "I are not smart". Using "ain't" in that situation is actually the grammatically correct contraction, but people have it drilled into their heads from childhood to never, ever use "ain't" under any circumstances, and so they wind up erring on the side of being grammatically incorrect and using "aren't" rather than using "ain't" even when it would be more grammatically correct. It's really just a taboo against using the word and it really makes no grammatical sense whatsoever.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2015
  16. Nov 17, 2015 #976 of 2036
    unitron

    unitron Well-Known Member

    16,595
    62
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    Unless you're talking about Irregardless Café, don't use irregardless.


    Or we'll wind up with another one of those flammable/inflammable confusions.
     
  17. Nov 17, 2015 #977 of 2036
    lpwcomp

    lpwcomp Well-Known Member

    9,461
    298
    May 6, 2002
    John's...
    You do realize that is patent nonsense, don't you? It's the equivalent of saying "I am smart, am I not?" while avoiding using the unacceptable contraction "ain't". By the way, since the sentence I quoted was an interrogative, it should have been terminated with a question mark rather than a period (there's an implied "don't you" or "do you not" at the end).
     
  18. Nov 17, 2015 #978 of 2036
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    3,336
    799
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    Now you know why immigrants find English so difficult to learn. There are few rules that don't have at least one or two exceptions, and native speakers don't agree on syntax.
     
  19. Nov 17, 2015 #979 of 2036
    tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Well-Known Member

    4,348
    592
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    Um, no. "Aren't" is the contraction for "are not", so it would be saying "I am smart, are I not?" Any way you slice it, you are using "are" with "I" alone, which is grammatically incorrect in English. The only time you can use an "are" with an "I" in English is if you are using it in combination with another subject like "Mary and I are..." because then the combination of the two subjects acts like "we".
     
  20. Nov 17, 2015 #980 of 2036
    lpwcomp

    lpwcomp Well-Known Member

    9,461
    298
    May 6, 2002
    John's...
    You changed the argument. By your original reasoning,."ain't" would be equally wrong since it is a contraction of "am not" and so would give be as if you said "I am not smart". According to your current analysis, there is no acceptable contraction that can be used for the phrase "am I not".

    One of the problems(?) with "ain't" is that it is generally used as more than just a contraction of "am not". It is also used instead of "aren't and "isn't".
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements