[hddude55]

I realize blame isn't as important as a solution but I would at least like to know at whom I should be PO'd. It seems like almost everyone here points their fingers totally at the cable TV industry, but then I read a comment like this from a highly regarded poster on an HDTV forum:

"Not trying to start any argument here, but Tivo has known about SDV for a long time and chose NOT to include the needed hardware. I don't know what the heck this has to do with any monopoly stuff, and that argument is getting pretty old IMHO, especially given the lax requirements for teleco's to enter the market."

http://www.landlpcservices.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=692

So please tell me who I should be mad at, the greedy pigs of the cable industry or the clueless geeks at TiVo?

 

[HiDefGator]

The only thing you can blame Tivo for is making a dvr that they knew would not work with sdv when it came. They could not have included any hardware that would have solved the problem. They really had no idea how soon SdV would be a problem. Directv adding dozens of new HD channels is what is driving the SDV rollout today.

Cable companies don't like other companies riding on their network and sucking away their revenues. It is no surprise they aren't bending over backward to produce a solution that will make Tivo work as well as their dvrs.

 

[MickeS]

I can understand both sides. The cable companies are trying to squeeze out as much use of the bandwidth in existing infrastructure as they can, and TiVo is trying to build machines that can be produced based on standards that won't change willy nilly.

I am a customer of both TiVo and the cable company, so I want them to figure this out. But ultimately, it's TiVos responsibility, as they are the ones who need to come up with a solution for THEIR hardware. The cable company has a solution, it's just that I don't want it because it stinks.

 

[ajwees41]

Tivo also could have included 2 way communications that could have been enabled via software update.

 

[cjhrph]

Tivo also could have included 2 way communications that could have been enabled via software update.

More like they should have. I find it very difficult to believe that that they had no prior knowledge of SDV and two-way communications when this device was engineered. For whatever reason, they chose not to make it a two-way device. How they could not plan for at least the possibility of needing to adapt the Series3/HD to the cable companies SDV rollout is shameful. They let us down.....

 

[vman41]

My cable company carries over 70 analog channels, if they went all digital they could add well over 100 HD channels. The standard tier subscribers who would drop them if they had to get a box for every TV must be critical to their business if they haven't chosen to go all digital by now. They want to keep their core business steady while maximizing the lucrative premium content.

 

[MickeS]

More like they should have. I find it very difficult to believe that that they had no prior knowledge of SDV and two-way communications when this device was engineered. For whatever reason, they chose not to make it a two-way device. How they could not plan for at least the possibility of needing to adapt the Series3/HD to the cable companies SDV rollout is shameful. They let us down.....

What were they going to plan for? There were no standards in place that I know of - rather than spend money on one thing and then finding out it'll be useless, better to wait until something is worked out. They were late enough as it is with their HD model.

They need to get something out now though.

 

[ah30k]

Tivo also could have included 2 way communications that could have been enabled via software update.

This is debatable. Depending on how you read the spec, it could be interpreted that they were not allowed to include the transmitters to be authorized as a UDCP.

There are four types of devices that can be authorized to use the CableCARD module interface. This electronic authorization comes in the form of digital certificates that are embedded within the Host receiving device that accepts a CableCARD module. In order to receive these digital certificates a manufacturer must sign a license and build a product according to certain requirements.

The first type of Host product that can make use of the CableCARD module is the Unidirectional Digital Cable Product (UDCP) or "Digital Cable-Ready Receiver." These products were defined by FCC rules. The license a manufacturer signs for such products is the DFAST license and the requirements are found in the Joint Test Suite Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma. For more information, please see www.cablelabs.com.

A second type of Host product is an M-UDCP device or a unidirectional receiver that uses an M-Card operating in M-Mode. In other words, a product that supports multiple tuners with a single CableCARD.

The third type of Host product that can use the CableCARD module is the OpenCable Unidirectional Receiver (OCUR). The OCUR employs DRM technology (e.g., WMDRM and Real Helix), and is used to provide premium digital cable content to certain PCs. The PC itself must meet certain criteria established by the DRM provider, but is not certified separately by CableLabs. OCUR products are defined by CableLabs OpenCable specifications and the manufacturer must sign the CHILA license. The product must follow the requirements defined by the CableLabs OCUR specifications and DRI specifications. Presently these devices are required to support the S-Mode interface, but work is underway to extend their support to allow the M-Mode interface.

The fourth type of Host product that can make use of the CableCARD module is an OpenCable Host 2.0 device. This device is licensed by CableLabs under CHILA and the requirements for this product are found in the Host-CFR-2.0 specification. The main difference between this product and that which is defined by the FCC is the support for two-way functionality. The OpenCable Host 2.0 device specifications include all of the requirements necessary to support two-way cable services (e.g. video-on-demand or switched digital video), while UDCP devices do not. It is important to note that it is the receiver implementation that determines support for two-way services, not the functionality of the CableCARD module. All CableCARD modules are two-way capable.

 

[andyw715]

I'm new to the SDV thing but have read the corresponding faq's, threads, etc.

I thought the whole reason behind CableCard is to allow manufactures the ability to integrate the card reader in thier product to recive digital cable service. Thus eliminating the need for an external box.

I also thought that this is regulated and actually started by the FCC.

How can a cable company still be able to provide service via Cable Card yet not allow these equiped devices access to the entire slew of channels. It seems that "older" CC devices should be supported. Thus no SDV

 

[cjhrph]

What were they going to plan for?

Maybe nothing, I don't know. I am not an engineer, nor do I work in the cable industry. The author of the thread wants to know who to blame. Again, I say that for whatever reason, TiVo made a conscious business decision to release this box without the ability for 2-Way communication. You can't possibly blame the cable companies for employing a technology that may allow them to provide maximum content in an effort to boost gross profit. TiVo hitched their wagon exclusively to the cable companies, which makes them responsible for making the equipment function in a harmonious fashion if they wish to continue in business.

 

[pkscout]

For those blaming TiVo, exactly what could they have included or put in? There is no standard for 2way communications because the cable industry wants OCAP, which would mean TiVo builds the hardware and the cable company provides the software and the interface. Basically no more TiVo. When there is a communications standard that doesn't require OCAP then there is something TiVo can do. In the short term we'll have to hope the SDV USB dongle is forth coming fairly soon. Or that the rumor that TiVo will be back on DirecTV after Murdoch sells to Liberty is really true.

 

[GoHokies!]

Maybe nothing, I don't know. I am not an engineer, nor do I work in the cable industry. The author of the thread wants to know who to blame. Again, I say that for whatever reason, TiVo made a conscious business decision to release this box without the ability for 2-Way communication. You can't possibly blame the cable companies for employing a technology that may allow them to provide maximum content in an effort to boost gross profit. TiVo hitched their wagon exclusively to the cable companies, which makes them responsible for making the equipment function in a harmonious fashion if they wish to continue in business.

Wrong at every turn.

Tivo shares responsability with the cable companies to build and operate their equipment IAW the cablecard specifications. More often than not, when folks have problems with their S3/THD units, it is because of poor training and misconfiguration issues with the cable company. Tivo has gone out of their way to provide information to the cable companies (including the "for the cable installer" handout in the S3/THD boxes in an attempt to make it as easy as possible for the cable companies to do their jobs and install a cablecard and get it working.

Tivo did not include the satellite providers because the satellite providers didn't want to do business with Tivo. Since the FCC is almost-worthless and allow the satellite companies to shut Tivo out by not including them in the cablecard mandate, Tivo was powerless to do anything about it.

Tivo made the conscious decision to release the box without 2-way support for SDV and VOD because it was either release the box as-is or release no box at all. Where do you think that Tivo would be if they had NO HD offerings at this point?

You should take some time to educate yourself and think things through before making such patently incorrect and misinformed statements.

 

[GoHokies!]

If you want to blame anyone, blame the FCC. If they had properly implemented the '96 telecom law, none of this would be a problem. Cable and satellite companies would have been using detachable security of some type almost 10 years ago and this would be mature, run of the mill technology by this point.

Instead, the FCC pandered to the cable/satellite industry, giving the satellite folks a free pass and allowing the cable companies to put off the cablec ard requirements time and time again. If all this mess had been straightened out BEFORE there was a crunch for bandwidth, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. But, since big industry pulls the strings and holds the power, the little guy (you and me) and the small innovative companies like Tivo get left holding the bag.

 

[cjhrph]

Business cannot rely on the government to bail them out. The government owes TiVo nothing. You can't go crying to the FCC every time a 3rd party introduces a glitch in your business plan. I repeat again, TiVo wants to profit by providing/selling a service on top of the existing cable infrastructure. That's all well and good, but it's solely their responsibility to make their hardware compatible with it. My company does not enjoy the luxury of asking a government entity intervene every time one our clients/suppliers decides to alter the way they do business. The absolute answer to the thread posters question is that TiVo is to blame for not providing a product or engineering a solution to the current state of cable television.

 

[SeanC]

Just not getting it hunh?

It is impossible for Tivo to "engineer a solution" to something that doesn't exist.

 

[cjhrph]

When the solution to SDV arrives will it be provided by:

1. TiVO
2. Cable Industry
3. FCC

 

[nhaigh]

Business cannot rely on the government to bail them out. The government owes TiVo nothing. You can't go crying to the FCC every time a 3rd party introduces a glitch in your business plan. I repeat again, TiVo wants to profit by providing/selling a service on top of the existing cable infrastructure. That's all well and good, but it's solely their responsibility to make their hardware compatible with it. My company does not enjoy the luxury of asking a government entity intervene every time one our clients/suppliers decides to alter the way they do business. The absolute answer to the thread posters question is that TiVo is to blame for not providing a product or engineering a solution to the current state of cable television.

So you feel that TiVo should have moved into the hardware business and ditched the software in favor of the cable OCAP UI? For me TiVo is the software.

I feel TiVo have done all they could do in the circumstances. Until we have true two way interface offered that CE vendors can utilize and deliver a unique and differentiated user experience we will have only one way CE devices.

I blame the FCC 100% for failing to enforce the rules they developed aimed at creating a competitive environment. If they had I suspect TiVo would have more competition in the market as would the cable companies and all our cable bills would be significantly lower.

 

[pkscout]

If you want to blame anyone, blame the FCC. If they had properly implemented the '96 telecom law, none of this would be a problem. Cable and satellite companies would have been using detachable security of some type almost 10 years ago and this would be mature, run of the mill technology by this point.

Instead, the FCC pandered to the cable/satellite industry, giving the satellite folks a free pass and allowing the cable companies to put off the cablec ard requirements time and time again. If all this mess had been straightened out BEFORE there was a crunch for bandwidth, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. But, since big industry pulls the strings and holds the power, the little guy (you and me) and the small innovative companies like Tivo get left holding the bag.

Oooooo. I want to change my answer to this one.

 

[cjhrph]

So you feel that TiVo should have moved into the hardware business and ditched the software in favor of the cable OCAP UI? For me TiVo is the software.

No, I think that TiVo had no other choice than to release the product when they did. My HDTivo works well. I have invested in it and am satisfied that it is performing as expected.

 

[sfhub]

For those blaming TiVo, exactly what could they have included or put in? There is no standard for 2way communications because the cable industry wants OCAP, which would mean TiVo builds the hardware and the cable company provides the software and the interface. Basically no more TiVo. When there is a communications standard that doesn't require OCAP then there is something TiVo can do. In the short term we'll have to hope the SDV USB dongle is forth coming fairly soon. Or that the rumor that TiVo will be back on DirecTV after Murdoch sells to Liberty is really true.

QPSK and DOCSIS are well-known. TiVo could have included the low-level transceiver capability in anticipation that the higher level protocols would be worked out at a future date.