TiVo Community Forum banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Contra sceleris
Joined
·
3,306 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
FCC Suggestion box for issues related to Tivo

1) Date for ban on any further rollout of SDV / VOD / PPV offerings if no two way standard has been agreed on.

2) Cablelabs is restricted from blocking any products except those that are shown to physically or electronically harm their networks. All other issues currently being decided by Cablelabs, such as which protocolos and formats are acceptable downstream of Cablelabs approved boxes shall no longer be decided by Cablelabs.

3) A copy of the FCC's database of documents shall be placed into a form which may efficiently be searched by internet search engines such as Google, MSN and Yahoo seach. It is unacceptable that document links break or that these documents are only available with search tools that can charitably be described as primitive.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,434 Posts
Justin Thyme said:
FCC Suggestion box for issues related to Tivo

1) Date for ban on any further rollout of SDV / VOD / PPV offerings if no two way standard has been agreed on.
:rolleyes:

2) Cablelabs is restricted from blocking any products except those that are shown to physically or electronically harm their networks. All other issues currently being decided by Cablelabs, such as which protocolos and formats are acceptable downstream of Cablelabs approved boxes shall no longer be decided by Cablelabs.
:rolleyes:
 

·
O2->CO2 Converter
Joined
·
2,657 Posts
Why the rolleyes? Is it really that much to ask to have the FCC finally implement rules that enforce the intent of an over 10 year old law?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,556 Posts
Justin Thyme said:
FCC Suggestion box for issues related to Tivo

1) Date for ban on any further rollout of SDV / VOD / PPV offerings if no two way standard has been agreed on.
I started suggesting this as a point of leverage over a year ago. It even used to be part of my sig:

No SDV 'til CC3​

or something like that.

Where is your two-way idea from the other thread?
 

·
Contra sceleris
Joined
·
3,306 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I don't care if they implement my idea or some other. I just want to be able to change channels.

The key is too motivate the cable industry to find a solution. I think the engineers on both sides are smart enough to figure it out. If their bosses see the benefit of finding a solution, they will.

You could hear the eggshells crack as Rogers tip toed around the subject in his congressional testimony. The truth of the matter is that cable companies don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts. They have every reason to continue to block TivoToGo, Multi Room viewing, and the ability to change channels to VOD, PPV or switched video channels.
 

·
Contra sceleris
Joined
·
3,306 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
GoHokies! said:
Why the rolleyes? Is it really that much to ask to have the FCC finally implement rules that enforce the intent of an over 10 year old law?
The cable industry rolls its eyes because it can. They thought maybe they could laugh off the integration ban or try a back to square one strategy with DCAS, but it didn't work out that way.

The mess on basic bi directional support is not complicated. Customers just want to change channels. Sure, maybe some customers may like OCAP software so we can order junk on home shopping network, if so they can opt for one of those boxes.

But everyone needs to change channels.
 

·
Hubcaps r in fashion
Joined
·
7,486 Posts
I suggested something recently that I'm sure the cable companies will "love".

Currently (if I understand right) most cable companies have their analog channels unscrambled except for a few remaining HBO/movie types.

Analog TV devices with cable-ready tuners can get these channels without needing a cable box.

Since cable companies can put out OTA digital channels "in the clear" by way of QAM, why not do the same with the digital versions of the channels currently available without box on analog?

Seems a pretty simple move. "Ordinary" cable channels could be tuned by any device with a QAM tuner. If you wanted "pay" channels, that's when you'd need to get a box or a cable-card.

Wouldn't this be a whole lot simpler for everyone?
 

·
O2->CO2 Converter
Joined
·
2,657 Posts
Justin Thyme said:
The cable industry rolls its eyes because it can. They thought maybe they could laugh off the integration ban or try a back to square one strategy with DCAS, but it didn't work out that way.
I was wondering specifically why Smark was rolling his eyes. I just noticed that he's a Comcrap Fanboy.

+2 on the others, and I'll actually go on record agreeing with HDTivo! "No SDV until CC3!" :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,426 Posts
GoHokies! said:
I was wondering specifically why Smark was rolling his eyes. I just noticed that he's a Comcrap Fanboy.
Actually smark works for Comcast and has made no secret of the fact. And this is one time that I'll side with him. Every company should be allowed to do what it takes to efficiently and effectively compete in the marketplace and not be hindered by third party companies. When you control the delivery method, you get to decide how it's run.
 

·
Bill Knapp
Joined
·
1,437 Posts
bidger said:
Every company should be allowed to do what it takes to efficiently and effectively compete in the marketplace and not be hindered by third party companies.
That's what a level playing field is for. What if I decided to make all of my channels SDV then all of the TV Channels would require a Cable Company supplied cable box or their DVR. The way I understand it, the purpose of the Cable Card was to level the playing field. Stick crap, like the shopping network and the lower watched programming, on SDV and leave the "Main Programming" on a Cable Card type of device.
bidger said:
When you control the delivery method, you get to decide how it's run.
There are so many companies out there that compete with each other on the same playing field... The idea is to "Level the field". What if you couldn't use your phone in different parts of the country? Remember when you could only use the US Postal Service for mail/packages and if you wanted to buy a Telephone you had to go see "Ma Bell".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,426 Posts
rdrrepair said:
There are so many companies out there that compete with each other on the same playing field... The idea is to "Level the field". What if you couldn't use your phone in different parts of the country? Remember when you could only use the US Postal Service for mail/packages and if you wanted to buy a Telephone you had to go see "Ma Bell".
If TiVo has no way of delivering multichannel programming other than relying on cable, satellite, or FIOS, how are they even on that "same playing field"?
 

·
I can't explain
Joined
·
25,527 Posts
bidger said:
If TiVo has no way of delivering multichannel programming other than relying on cable, satellite, or FIOS, how are they even on that "same playing field"?
well they obviously do not deliver the programming. TiVo provides a service to the end user for time-shifting that programming. They have a much higher value for doing that then what the delivery services currently want to provide as standard level DVR service. Comcast has added TiVo as a premium level service.

Cable cards are all about providing a standard way to securely decrypt ALL THE CHANNELS on a digital stream from the program providers. The FCC has botched this and the thread is about how the FCC should begin again to correct that botched up job.

You can try and throw this off the trail as somehow blaming cable cards or TiVo/CEA for hurting those poor cable companies and their tireless efforts to deliver the absolute best to consumers, but really, how many truly think it is the cable companies getting the short end here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,426 Posts
ZeoTiVo said:
well they obviously do not deliver the programming. TiVo provides a service to the end user for time-shifting that programming. They have a much higher value for doing that then what the delivery services currently want to provide as standard level DVR service. Comcast has added TiVo as a premium level service.
I don't expect Comcast to put limitations on the integrated TiVo box because Comcast controls that box and, like you say, they're hoping/expecting consumers will pay a higher premium on those boxes than the standard DVR.

ZeoTiVo said:
Cable cards are all about providing a standard way to securely decrypt ALL THE CHANNELS on a digital stream from the program providers. The FCC has botched this and the thread is about how the FCC should begin again to correct that botched up job.

You can try and throw this off the trail as somehow blaming cable cards or TiVo/CEA for hurting those poor cable companies and their tireless efforts to deliver the absolute best to consumers, but really, how many truly think it is the cable companies getting the short end here?
Whatever the original intention of Cable Card might have been, Cable providers are looking at how to address and compete with the planned expansion of HD channels/programming by both satellite providers and the solution they seem to have arrived at is SDV.

It seems to me if Cable says to the FCC, "We need to deploy or risk having high-end customers migrate" that the response will be, "Wait awhile while others catch up".
 

·
I can't explain
Joined
·
25,527 Posts
bidger said:
I don't expect Comcast to put limitations on the integrated TiVo box because Comcast controls that box and, like you say, they're hoping/expecting consumers will pay a higher premium on those boxes than the standard DVR.

Whatever the original intention of Cable Card might have been, Cable providers are looking at how to address and compete with the planned expansion of HD channels/programming by both satellite providers and the solution they seem to have arrived at is SDV.

It seems to me if Cable says to the FCC, "We need to deploy or risk having high-end customers migrate" that the response will be, "Wait awhile while others catch up".
yes, because cable companies knew nothing about Cable Labvs and the cable card specs. They think that requiring a TV set with cablecard to include a running OCAP/java platform is perfectly reasonable in order to do SDV and the cable companies have done nothing but embrace the open security standard.

sorry - cable companies are just as resposnible for the current mess of cable card along withy the FCC. The only wrong done cable campanies was giving sat services a waiver out of the whole cable card.
 

·
Contra sceleris
Joined
·
3,306 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
bidger said:
When you control the delivery method, you get to decide how it's run.
Carterfone was a device that connected to the phone network and transmitted phone service to a remote phone via radio.

Ma Bell said that these phones could not be attached to their network. Was the U.S. Government incorrect in telling Ma Bell that their service and the rental of phones were two separate products and could not be tied?

Similarly U.S. Salt leased a salt tablet dispenser and sold the salt tablets that fed the machine. They prohibited lessors from using compatible salt tablets from other vendors. Was the U.S. Government incorrect in telling US Salt that they could not tie the two products?

Cable wants folks to rent their DVR. They are competing against PVRs using Microsoft MCE, and cablecard DVRs such as Tivo S3 and Sony's now discontinued cablecard dvr.

Can cable use their content distribution business as leverage against their DVR competitors?

It walks and talks like illegal tying to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
+1 Justin...great thinking! Any chance you can apply to be appointed FCC comish?? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,992 Posts
rdrrepair said:
There are so many companies out there that compete with each other on the same playing field... The idea is to "Level the field". What if you couldn't use your phone in different parts of the country? Remember when you could only use the US Postal Service for mail/packages and if you wanted to buy a Telephone you had to go see "Ma Bell".
Or when movie studios owned the theatre chains. I'm sure there are other examples where government has intervened to create better competition to advance invention.

I( think these seem like reasonable suggestions. All that's being asked is that the cable companies will have to compete on the hardware side by making better hardware, rather than by being the only provider of certain content.

I'm pretty sure that the cable companies with their resources will be able to maintain the majority of their hardware customer base. It's just nice that we who choose other hardware will be able to do so and still buy our content from the cable providers. I can't be the only one who will rather ditch the cable company and use OTA+ DVD/Unbox to get content than use their hardware if I hate it (and boy, did I hate my SA8300 with SARA software).
 

·
I can't explain
Joined
·
25,527 Posts
Dawny said:
+1 Justin...great thinking! Any chance you can apply to be appointed FCC comish?? ;)
maybe we could combine "the Shield" and "commish" into a new show "FCC Shield" in which our hero, played by the actor Michael Chiklis, holds "meetings" with the cable companies and talks their language

 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top