HD Cable Box, TIVO and SDV

Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by philipl411, Mar 8, 2008.

  1. Mar 8, 2008 #1 of 62
    philipl411

    philipl411 New Member

    7
    0
    May 6, 2007

    Advertisements

    I want remove the cable cards from the tivo, get the HD box from Time Warner and pair them up like i used to do with my old series 2. would this resolve the SDV issue?
     
  2. Mar 8, 2008 #2 of 62
    Combat Medic

    Combat Medic No guts, no glory

    8,325
    0
    Sep 6, 2001
    San...
    Nope. The S3 cannot control a cable box, nor can it record the output from the cable box. In other words, we are screwed because of Time Warners SDV until TiVo fixes what Time Warner has broken.
     
  3. Mar 8, 2008 #3 of 62
    ah30k

    ah30k Well-Known Member

    2,493
    156
    Jan 8, 2006
    Uh, this is quite a homer comment. I'll play along with your assertion that TW broke it for just a moment... How is TiVo fixing it?
     
  4. Mar 8, 2008 #4 of 62
    Combat Medic

    Combat Medic No guts, no glory

    8,325
    0
    Sep 6, 2001
    San...
    Play along? OK, fine. For reference Time Warner broke it (the cable card standard used by the TiVo) by moving to a two way protocol that is unusable by all consumer purchased devices on the market.
    TiVo is fixing it by pushing and integrating the tuning resolver that will give the TiVo enough two way capabilities to get by until the cable companies come up with the next way to screw the customer.

    -Mike
     
  5. Mar 9, 2008 #5 of 62
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida

    Advertisements

    I think the issue here is that there is no blame. Time Warner is doing what they're supposed to. TiVo did what they were supposed to. The fact that the result is unsatisfactory for consumers is a reflection of reality, not a reflection of any specific fault.

    Stuff happens.

    Always base your expectations for service on explicit promises; never assume you're owed something just because you want it, or because you've had it in the past.
     
  6. Mar 9, 2008 #6 of 62
    classicsat

    classicsat Astute User

    17,877
    0
    Feb 18, 2004
    Ontario Canada.
    Actually, it is the cable companies that are responsible for the Tuning resolver hardware. TiVo will just have to write software to support it.
     
  7. Mar 9, 2008 #7 of 62
    Combat Medic

    Combat Medic No guts, no glory

    8,325
    0
    Sep 6, 2001
    San...
    Bicker:
    No, the cable companies are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. They should be upgrading their infrastructure. But instead they are putting band aids on top of band aids.

    Classicsat:
    The cable companies might be responsible for building them, but they would never have done this without TiVo pushing it.
     
  8. Mar 9, 2008 #8 of 62
    ah30k

    ah30k Well-Known Member

    2,493
    156
    Jan 8, 2006
    You are displaying your ignorance. What exactly do you mean by upgrading their infrastructure? Please be specific. If you can come up with a cheap way to offer near unlimited HD offerings I'd love to hear it. Despite you calling it a band-aid, SDV offers just that.
     
  9. Mar 9, 2008 #9 of 62
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    This is false. SDV is quite a revolutionary technology which will allow the CATV company to deliver a virtually unlimited number of channels of video content along with a massive palette of other services. It is no more a "bandaid" than Television broadcasting was a bandaid to radio broadcasting. No reasonable amount of infrastructure upgrades could accomplish the very real current SDV abilities, let alone the potential services which can be handled by SDV. What's more, no matter what the bandwidth of the broadcast medium, or how few devices it serves, SDV multiplies the potential of any broadcast system several thousandfold, including broadband fiber to the house.

    The fault lies mostly with CableLabs and the FCC for penning and ratifying a strictly limited CC 1.0 spec and not following up with a reasonable OpenCable 2.0 spec, or ratifying anything beyond 1.0. If the OpenCable 2.0 spec had been fixed, firmed, and ratified 4 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess. The Series III woud have been introduced as a fully SDV capable device back in 2005, or early 2006 at the latest, rather than Q3 2006. It would almost certainly still have required 2 CableCards as the current unit does, but it would have been 2-way.

    As it is now, attempting to produce a 3rd party receiver without any solid unified standard is a daunting proposition. The manufacturer must either live with the vast pitfalls of producing several incompatible units or else attempt to produce a universal unit with no guarantee it will work next week.

    First of all, it isn't the cable companies which are building them, either. It is the CATV equipment manufacturers, who are much smaller in number and have a very different agenda from the CATV companies. Any manufacturer who perceives a profit in producing a device within their core competency is almost surely going to build the device. What evidence do you have Cisco, Motorola, et al would not have made the decision to manufacture the device if TiVo had not pushed for it?
     
  10. Adam1115

    Adam1115 Well-Known Member

    36,233
    3,228
    Dec 15, 2003
    Denver ish
    The fact that cablecard was the agreed upon way to deliver one way digital cable, the fact that they are deploying SDV so that cablecard customers cannot receive it blatantly violates the FCC mandate. Cablecard 2.0 was only envisioned to allow for two way features like on demand, but the cable companies decided to use it as a sneaky way to get rid of cablecard.

    The fact is, they are 'agreeing' to use the resolver is to avoid getting in huge trouble. It only solves the problem with TiVo, does nothing to solve it with TV's. But being that TiVo is their biggest 'problem', I'm sure they will get away with it.
     
  11. Adam1115

    Adam1115 Well-Known Member

    36,233
    3,228
    Dec 15, 2003
    Denver ish
    You are aware that cablelabs is exclusively made up of cable TV operators, right?
     
  12. jeepguy_1980

    jeepguy_1980 Unregistered User

    250
    0
    Mar 1, 2008
    Newport...

    Cheap solution: Eliminate some of the horrible analog channels that no one watches. They take up more bandwidth than the digital channels and suck.

    Cable companies do not need SDV. My company does not use it and claimed that they never will.
     
  13. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    When you've bought a cable company, you get to say what they're supposed to be doing. Until then, their owners get to say.
     
  14. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    You are incorrect. You really should do some research before you make such statements.
     
  15. Combat Medic

    Combat Medic No guts, no glory

    8,325
    0
    Sep 6, 2001
    San...
    No, the customers get to say. At least they do if the companies are not a monopoly.

    -Mike
     
  16. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Sorry, but customers do not get to say. Customers ONLY vote is with their wallet. And as long as enough customers reward cable companies for what they're doing (instead of what you want them to do), then the owners will tell the cable companies to do what they're doing.
     
  17. Combat Medic

    Combat Medic No guts, no glory

    8,325
    0
    Sep 6, 2001
    San...
    And as long as the only option is the cable company then the customers get no say?

    Why is it that FIOS doesn't need to do SDV?
     
  18. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Of course there is! The situation is a mess (and not just for TiVo owners), and it could easily have been avoided. That it isn't TiVo's fault and isn't very much the fault of the CATV companies doesn't mean there isn't fault here. There are lots more parties involved than just TiVo and the cable companies. Dozens, in fact. Some are guilty of greed. Some of stupidity. Some of a lust for power. All of them are guilty of a parochial attitude. In some that attitude is essential or justified at least to an extent. In others it's just malfeasant.

    [/QUOTE]The fact that the result is unsatisfactory for consumers is a reflection of reality, not a reflection of any specific fault.[/QUOTE]
    Nonsense. The express and singular intent of the development of separable security, the founding of CableLabs, and the development of CableCards was to completely eliminate all need for the consumer to use CATV provided equipment by allowing 3rd party manufacturers to produce devices which would interact directly with the separable security and without respect to what systems the individual CATV provider happens to employ. In short that means every consumer would have the choice to either purchase a less expensive device (or keep an older one) and lease the CATV company's STB, purchase their own STB - including a DVR like the TiVo - to work with their less expensive or older TV, or purchase a more expensive receiver with separable security built in. The explicit intent was that selecting any one of the three scenarios would allow the user to obtain every service offered by the CATV company. To that express end, both CableLabs and the FCC are dismal failures.

    When a government bureaucracy is involved, rarely and excruciatingly slowly. What's more, the stuff that happens rarely looks anything like it was supposed to. That's a big part of the problem.

    The explicit promise from CableLabs and the FCC was that standards would be developed and enforced so that a consumer would be able to purhcase a 3rd party TV or DVR which would allow them to receive every service offered by the CATV company, and would be able to move across the country without having to worry about whether their unit would work with the new CATV company's system. No fault? Every member of the CableLabs council and every employee of the FCC involved with CATV system should be facing charges of criminal malfeasance.

    In taxes and embedded equipment costs we are paying those people a huge amount of money to see to it separable security works and works well. What they are doing is taking our money and sitting around acting important.

    Never assume a government agency is going to do anything but a lousy job. Until there are severe sanctions and punitive consequences for the individuals in such organizations who fail to do an acceptable job, let alone a good one, they never will.
     
  19. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    I am aware that it is not. First of all, the board of directors is made up mostly of representatives (mostly CEOs) of the CATV operators, not the operators themselves, but even the board is not entirely CATV operators. The NCTA has a rep, and there are two individuals not directly employed by CATV companies.

    The staff, who are the people who actually do (or don't in this case) the work, and they are employed by CableLabs, not the CATV companies directly.

    The members are of course all CATV companies. That's not surprising.

    CableLabs' job is to create workable and ratifiable standards for separable security which can be stomached by consumers, 3rd party manufacturers, the FCC and Congress as well as their members. They have failed to do so. The FCCs job (in part) is to sit on CableLabs and beat them thoroughly until they do come up with an acceptable solution, or else to impose a solution upon them without worrying about their feelings or that of their members. When six months had passed after the CC 1.0 ratification and no acceptable standard for two way services had been proposed, the FCC should have taken the latter route.
     
  20. Adam1115

    Adam1115 Well-Known Member

    36,233
    3,228
    Dec 15, 2003
    Denver ish
    Ok, the VAST majority. What is the difference in saying the CEO is a member 'not the cable operator itself'?

    I think the buck stops at the CEO. So the ceo is involved in deciding how to deliver digital cable to TV's, then is also the same person who is responsible for deciding to deploy channels in completely incompatible manor?

    You blamed the 'problem' on cablelabs, cablelabs decisions are being made by the cable companies.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements