Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Technology

Cable Industry Responds Regarding HD TiVo Problems 91

Posted by samzenpus from the just-wrap-some-duct-tape-on-it dept.
Lauren Weinstein writes "The day after the issue of cable system incompatibilities with the new HD TiVo and similar devices was discussed on Slashdot, the cable television industry has responded with a workaround proposal in a new FCC filing, though key issues remain to be fully resolved."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cable Industry Responds Regarding HD TiVo Problems More

Cable Industry Responds Regarding HD TiVo Problems

Comments Filter:

  • Blog promotion sucks. (Score:5, Informative)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @09:34AM (#20361951)
    Let's skip the pointless blog promotion and go straight to the real article here [broadcastnewsroom.com].
    • Umm... The article isn't much better.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jlarocco ( 851450 )

        Umm... The article isn't much better.

        Linking to the original article isn't done for quality. It's done because blogging tards don't deserve credit for ripping off other people's work.

    • However, I do like the way the summary is written as if the cable companies were responding to the discussion on slashdot. Oh, hell yeah! Those companies don't want to rile up the mighty slashdot community! If they hadn't done something quickly, we just might have sat on our fat asses and vociferously complained some more! FIGHT the POWER!

  • Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by swb ( 14022 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @09:47AM (#20362035)
    You kind of get the feeling they want to own the network and the devices, which I guess is an appealing idea from a monopoly standpoint.

    I'm curious, though, how much money they actually make on set top boxes vs. what has to be nearly constant breakage and wear and tear.

    • Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 26, 2007 @09:52AM (#20362069)
      Yes. The cable companies would love to own the devices allowed on the network. That's why in 1996 the FTC ruled that they *have* to allow cable card standards to exist, so customers can use off-the-shelf set top boxes in the name of competition. Ten years later, and we still can only *barely* do this -- the cable companies have dragged their feet at every turn. It's frustrating.

      • IANAL but (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dreamchaser ( 49529 )
        I wonder if there are grounds for a Class Action lawsuit, the Class being everyone who has had any problems using a third party box with their cable?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by mh1997 ( 1065630 )

          I wonder if there are grounds for a Class Action lawsuit, the Class being everyone who has had any problems using a third party box with their cable?

          Yes, a class action lawsuit is just what is needed here. A law firm getting millions of dollars while the chumps that signed on for the lawsuit get a coupon for $5 off their next cable purchase.

          My favorite tech related class action lawsuit was against Iomega where Iomega agreed to pay legal expenses of at least $650,000 while the losers that signed up for

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by NMerriam ( 15122 )

            Yes, a class action lawsuit is just what is needed here. A law firm getting millions of dollars while the chumps that signed on for the lawsuit get a coupon for $5 off their next cable purchase.

            My favorite tech related class action lawsuit was against Iomega where Iomega agreed to pay legal expenses of at least $650,000 while the losers that signed up for the lawsuit got product discount offers, free dedicated technical support. Oh yeah, Iomega also paid a $1,000,000 charitable donation to someone but I di

            • The purpose of the class-action lawsuit statutes is not to compensate millions of people for small losses, it's to make the cost to corporations high for making small but widespread violations of consumer rights, misleading marketing, etc. Making the cost to corporations higher will encourage them to fix problems rather than just see that it will cost less to stonewall than it would to do the right thing.

              Maybe in theory, but every time I read about a class action lawsuit in the papers, it seems designed t

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by NMerriam ( 15122 )

                Maybe in theory, but every time I read about a class action lawsuit in the papers, it seems designed to generate millions in billable hours for the law firm filing the suit. It seems to be getting to the point where it's all about the billables and less about helping the consumer.

                Yes, the lawyers filing the suit make a bunch of money. That's what encourages them to file the suit. Class actions are about basically using free market principles to enforce regulations -- provide a huge financial incentive to

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ivan256 ( 17499 )
        And they still own the cable cards, and in many cases have managed to charge almost as much for the card as they used to for a set top box...

        Most people aren't going to pay for an off-the-shelf set top box when they still have to pay the fee to rent cablecards. People should be able to buy the cablecards too.
        • I don't think that would stand up. It would more likely be narrowed to a select group of set top box manufacturers.

          What I don't get though is why none of the manufacturers has really pushed things in order to get access to the market. I seem to remember boxes being advertised in the late 80s which would do the trick.
      • While I'm certain that this won't lead to the death of the cable company, it will almost certainly ensure that a lot of people will begin going online to get some/more/all of their video needs. In many cases, and increasingly more, the content of each network is making it to the internet in legal channels...and that's disregarding the illegal methods which happen to serve up greater quality.

        Compare the ease of ANY method where the user goes online to get a video to the complications that are coming alon
        • Oops, I started responding and forgot to emphasize a main point, that unlike cell phone carriers, people have the choice to leave the cable companies behind. No real alternative exists to the cell carriers since WiFi-based phones aren't realistic in a huge percentage of the country yet, and any form of satellite phone is still largely hopeless.

          As for Cable Providers, so goes the rule of competition...if people can find it cheaper, better, and more reliably; they will eventually buy elsewhere
    • I work in the industry. My work is pretty far removed from this particular question, but I'm pretty sure that STBs are seen as part of the cost of doing business, not a profitable part of the business.

      I think they want to own the box for a few reasons. First, they want as much control over the CA as possible. Second, there's always concern (justified or no) about having third party hardware on any private network. Additionally, they want to control the software so they can change the experience in a con

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        but I'm pretty sure that STBs are seen as part of the cost of doing business, not a profitable part of the business.

        If that's the case, then the benefits of monopolizing the user interface must be sufficient to justify these costs.

        I think they want to own the box for a few reasons. First, they want as much control over the CA as possible.

        But they should be allowed only the control they need to ensure efficient delivery to customers according to the terms of the service agreements with those customers.

        • Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to make any sort of qualitative statement about the situation. But now I am going to argue with you just a bit.

          DirectTV uses open boxes. Echostar uses proprietary boxes. DirectTV is basically dead in the water when it comes to any sort of interactive service. (As far as I know, they can't even do push-VOD.) I'm pretty sure that Echostar is the world leader in interactive STB deployments. I think that this does give the customer some value.

          If that's the case, then the

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            You don't seem to realize that these features are either custom software on the STB, or network features that are accessed by . . . custom software on the STB. If that doesn't clarify why they want to control the STB for you, I don't think anything will!

            I realize that. What I also realize is that there is a significant number of people out there who, given the choice of 'features' that they don't really want anyway and a STB which interferes with the operation of some more advanced features that their syste

            • If the cable companies want to switch to an all digital system, they are going to have to figure out a way to make it work with consumer equipment.


              Why do they have to do that?

              -Peter

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by PPH ( 736903 )
                Because a significant (albeit minority) set of users will just drop cable on the day they turn on their analog set, which is directly fed from the cable drop, and it ceases to work.

                There is a significant segment of the market that, given the choice of the next service tier (digital, with a STB) with its price, or no cable, will choose no cable. In my neighborhood (served by Comcast), it appears to be about 20%. Cable companies have failed to provide a digital package that is either reasonably priced and/o

                • So your position is that you understand their business better than they do? That they need to sacrifice important (to them) new features to maintain their least profitable customers?

                  You know your analog TV tuners are going to stop working with over-the-air broadcasts in less than a year and a half, right? Have you considered that maybe you're being a Luddite?

                  I don't have any sort of TV service. I don't see the value proposition. I think we are in basic agreement there. Maybe you'd be happier just not h

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by demon ( 1039 )
            DirectTV uses open boxes. Echostar uses proprietary boxes.

            Actually, I think you got that the wrong way around - the DirecTV systems use Hughes' proprietary DSS system, whereas the Dish receivers I've seen use DVB, an open standard (specifically DVB-S, but whatever). I don't know what that does for interactivity, but from what I've seen of modern DirecTV reception hardware (my parents have a Samsung DirecTV HD receiver), the "interactivity" is pretty much absent there. Not that I'd care much - the only "inte
            • All Dish Network boxes are Echostar boxes. Your parents have a DirecTV box not made by DirecTV.

              The upshot is that DirecTV has no control over the box, so they can't push out any sort of middleware, like OpenTV (I work for OpenTV) or OCAP. No middleware, no interactivity.

              DVB is more "open" than DSS, but DirecTV's overall platform is more open in that they allow 3rd party boxes.

              As for interactive services, you might be more interested than you think. If you find yourself sitting in front of a TV on Dish Ne
          • Your comment reveals a deep misunderstanding about what's going on.

            No, his comment reveals a correct understanding of the ethics of the issue. No company should hold unnecessary control over its customers. Consumers should always have choices. Everything should always be open and in the customers' best interests.

      • I think they want to own the box for a few reasons. First, they want as much control over the CA as possible. Second, there's always concern (justified or no) about having third party hardware on any private network. Additionally, they want to control the software so they can change the experience in a controlled way.

        I have problems with most of these reasons. One of the main reasons that someone would buy something like a TiVo is to get the TiVo experience, not the cable company experience. The cable co

        • It's easy to find nasty things to say about the cable industry. I won't argue with you.

          That said, any industry wide standard (in any fast-moving industry) is going to be shot by the time it hits the street. If they put every pie-in-the-sky feature into CableCARD you'd be crying that doubles the cost of the TV.

          Also, it isn't cheap for an operator to roll out a new feature. Ever. Retiring STB models is fantastically expensive. Implementing new features in software on existing models isn't cheap either.

          I

          • That said, any industry wide standard (in any fast-moving industry) is going to be shot by the time it hits the street.

            Ethernet, USB, FireWire, 802.11, PCI, and a host of other standards would seem to argue otherwise. I also have a little trouble with the Cable industry being depicted as a "fast-moving industry", but maybe that's just me. Do you know long there was between the FCCs ruling and any kind of CableCARD deployment? Here's the Wikipedia entry to refresh your memory [wikipedia.org] DVB, which is used in Europ

    • I pay $16.20/month to Optimum Online for equipment ($9.95 for DVR upgrade, $6.03 for the digital tuner box (dual-tuner HDTV 80GB), and $0.22 for the remote). I've had the same equipment without replacement or service calls for three years, for a total cost of about $580. If I had TiVO I'd have paid more for the hardware plus the monthly TiVO service fee. I feel like I'm still ahead of the game, and prolly will be for another 3-5 years.

  • Open letter to the NCTA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ivan256 ( 17499 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @10:17AM (#20362209)

    In its comments to the FCC Friday, the NCTA opposed the CEA's proposal, saying it would "strip away the most exciting interactive services and features that distinguishes [sic] cable from its competitors."


    Dear Cable Companies,

    Features which are implemented in a set-top-box are not features of your network. You do not have some "right" to charge for features implemented in a device that is attached to your network unless that device is: A) Creating traffic on your network, and B) you charge the customer per unit traffic. Your proposal would strip away the most exciting services (the ability to pay once for things your company charges a recurring fee for) and features (the ability to skip commercials, and other crap that you haven't thought of) that distinguish the makers of competing set-top-boxes from you and each other.

    Nobody with more than half a brain is fooled into thinking you have anybodies best interests but your own in mind, but the FCC's job is to look after the public's interest, not yours.

    Love,
    Your reluctant, but trapped, customers

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Your reluctant, but trapped, customers

      Whether or not your "trapped" depends on your ability to handle not watching TV. Perhaps you should look at why you "need to watch TV". Several years ago I was told by the local office of the then contracted local monopoly cable company that they would never offer cable internet here because there was not enough potential customers here for them to do so. When they said this to me they were under a contract with the city that specified they would work on getting cable i

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ivan256 ( 17499 )

        Whether or not your "trapped" depends on your ability to handle not watching TV. Perhaps you should look at why you "need to watch TV".

        You've missed the point entirely.

        You're trapped whether you discontinue (or never sign up for) cable company service or not. Cutting the cord and discontinuing service doesn't magically make you able to manipulate and timeshift television signal in whatever legal methods you might choose... It just means you're not watching TV. The only way it would make you not "trapped"

    • FWIW. The FCC doesn't actually have the authority to tell the cable companies to do anything since they do not broadcast over the public airwaves. The mandates for supporting hardware features such as cablecard are directed only at device manufacturers and are conducted by the FTC with appropriate FCC coordination. This is why the cable companies get away with their delay tactics.

      The last time this was done is when TVs were mandated to support the higher UHF channels. Back then it was no big loss for the ca

  • Does anyone remember when TV was simple? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) * on Sunday August 26, 2007 @10:41AM (#20362379) Homepage Journal
    Does anyone remember when TV simple to use, and most of the shows were better?

    My goodness, the media industry has turned watching TV into something about as fun as dealing with Microsoft software.

    There's nothing that can't be turned into a total nightmare by adding technology.

    • Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple? (Score:4, Funny)

      by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @10:51AM (#20362469)
      Does anyone remember when TV simple to use, and most of the shows were better?

      I remember when MTV used to play music videos.

      Boy... I'm old.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by DrSkwid ( 118965 )
        I remember the days *before* MTV existed !
      • I remember when MTV showed mostly music videos that didn't suck. IMO that ended around 1991.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gfxguy ( 98788 )
        I remember that, and when they started VH1 for all the "older" people who started complaining, and then VH1 became nothing but shows...

        The same thing happened with CNN... then they started Headline News. At least Headline News still shows news instead of shows.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 )
      My goodness, the media industry has turned watching TV into something about as fun as dealing with Microsoft software.

      You should try using Windows MCE--the best of both worlds...
    • I don't remember the shows being better, but I do remember TV having fewer competitors for my attention. Now, with the addition of cheap postal rental of DVDs and the Internet, broadcast TV has a hard time competing for the time I have for entertainment. The only thing it ever really had going for it was convenience, and it doesn't really have much of that anymore.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )
        They shows may or may have not been better. Just assume that they were the same. Now shrink down the number of channels dramatically. What you are left with is a better quality "density". It's hard to percieve anything but a massive quality drop on TV because there's so much drek that you have to wade through if you want to get to anything interesting.

        You need the DVR just to help you sort it all out for you.

      • Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) * on Sunday August 26, 2007 @02:27PM (#20364245) Homepage Journal
        Now, with the addition of cheap postal rental of DVDs and the Internet, broadcast TV has a hard time competing for the time I have for entertainment.

        And yet they insist on doing everything they can to further antagonize me. Random schedules, reality shows, more advertising per hour, advertisements _during_ the programs... I cancelled my satellite subscription years ago and with Netflix and my own personal collection (including The Simpsons, MST3K and plenty of other nerdy shows), I don't miss network TV at all.

  • Motorola, SA, CSG systems (Score:5, Informative)

    by grumling ( 94709 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @11:14AM (#20362643) Homepage
    Most of the problem is centered around Motorola and SA spreading FUD in the industry about signal theft. Instead of using standard encryption techniques (like your bank and just about every secure web site), they put together a system that is just about as closed as you can get. Then the .gov comes in and says they have to open it up. Rather than scrap the existing system and use something that will be secure and open to other manufacturers, they continue to try to adapt their encryption to the new rules, without letting too much information out there, hoping to avoid the hacking that went on in the satellite industry.

    The other big problem is that the cable billing systems were never intended to deal with customer purchased equipment that requires authorization, and most of that code was hacked on at the last minute and doesn't work very well. The customer service people have minimal training on the system (they are there to provide customer service, not enter data), so they end up making a lot of mistakes. The billing systems make it much harder than necessary, and the screwy way cablecards interface makes it much more difficult.

    Finally, the cablecard spec is still only 1 way. The real spec will be the 2.0/ocap system, but there still seems to be some work to do. This will allow 2 way services to be implemented but there is a lot of back office stuff that needs to be addressed, some of which has never been tried outside of a lab. The 1.0 cablecard slot is not compatible with the 2.0 cards (it is not a firmware upgrade).

    It is going to require a lot of training and attitude change from the entire industry. In the long run, if the industry adopts the standard and actually uses the features available to them, it will be a great system. Imagine picking up a set top at Best Buy, taking it home, entering you WiFi key and getting on your home gateway. Your set top will autoprovision with services based on your subnet, and will share data with any other set tops in your home network. All this stuff is possible today, but will require a lot of rethinking by the cable companies. Motorola showed off the DVRs that share data, and Cisco/Scientific Atlanta has the home networking tech.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by The Vulture ( 248871 )
      Disclaimer: My personal opinion, not that of the company I work for.

      Actually, the big part of it is that Motorola and SA know that with a fully open encryption system, cable operators wouldn't have to continue to purchase their equipment, operators could choose to integrate competitors' equipment in the mix more easily. Working for an upstart competitor, one problem that we see is that cable operators just spent a ton of money on Mot/SA equipment, and don't want to lose that "investment".

      If they would actu

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by teebob21 ( 947095 )
      Again, I am forced to post in a Cable Industry thread.

      Finally, the cablecard spec is still only 1 way. The real spec will be the 2.0/ocap system, but there still seems to be some work to do. This will allow 2 way services to be implemented but there is a lot of back office stuff that needs to be addressed, some of which has never been tried outside of a lab. The 1.0 cablecard slot is not compatible with the 2.0 cards (it is not a firmware upgrade).

      Regarding CableCARDs, please know your stuff before posting consumer FUD. CableCARD 1.0 has always been 2-way compatible, provided you have a 2-way TV. With the exception of one model from Samsung which isn't on the general market anymore, NONE of the consumer electronics companies have built this feature into their sets.

      "The media has frequently reported that first-generation CableCARD 1.0 modules are one-way devices1. This is simply not true.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by demon ( 1039 )
        Thank you for doing what I was going to do anyway - seems every thread involving CableCARD requires at least a few people to drag out the "but CableCARD is only one way isnt that stupid lolz" crap.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by NateTech ( 50881 )
        So you're attempting to argue that CSR's at cable companies getting tons of training to handle internal inefficient broken systems is supposed to be a comfort to those of us stuck at the end of the phone line, wasting our time, waiting for the overworked CSR who knows how to 10-key well...?

        The same CSR who's so overloaded they don't know anything about how their own network works, and can't figure out how to actually handle our problem? A problem that we're sure others have had, and the company could train

  • "rolandsgirlfriend"??? Come on taggers. This is offensive. You know perfectly well that Lauren Weinstein is a man. He has been making a real contribution in the security field for many years.

    Too bad I can't mod a tag as -1, troll.

  • FCC bending-over for what? (Score:3, Informative)

    by MilesNaismith ( 951682 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @02:00PM (#20364045)
    I used to find hooking up TV equipment fairly easy.

    I got a TiVO HD last week and getting it to work was a NIGHTMARE

    First I couldn't find anyone at ComCast that seemed to know how this CableCard junk works. My local office wouldn't just give me one and let me hook it up myself, I had to have a "technician" for that.

    I requested a visit and specified it was for TiVO HD, and I needed a MultiStream card.

    THREE guys show up. Two of them were n00bs being trained. The supposed experienced hand doing the training, hadn't heard of an M-card, and only had one single-stream card with him.

    Next he informs me none of it will work until I upgrade to "Digital Classic" I can't do it with just basic digital service.

    Says I'll need to call in again and schedule another truck roll after I've upgraded.

    Useless! How many mornings off am I supposed to request from work, so I can hope they will show up and figure this out?

    They've made it so frakkin complicated their own people don't know how it works, and they won't let you do it yourself in many places. This is like the old AT&T monopoly. This half-baked idea is supposed to replace analog cable by 2009. Ugh! The CableCo has frakked this up through sheer incompetence or spite, and the FCC is asleep at the switch. This stuff should be kept SIMPLE not layered up with a bunch of unneccessary widgets. Adding MORE widgets will not fix a broken design.

    Yes I returned my TiVO HD within the 30 days for full refund. I ABSOLUTELY do not blame TiVO in this, the returns lady was very gracious and didn't try to talk me out of it or anything. TiVO is just trying to play the hand it was dealt.

  • One Post to Clarify Many (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bad Mamba Jamba ( 941082 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @02:43PM (#20364439)
    I've been reading this thread and there are many fictions here I thought one general post would be better than trying to reply and correct them all.
    • First of all TiVO's main gripe here is the introduction of Switch Digital Video (SDV) by the cable industry breaks their product. SDV, in a nutshell, is a technology that increases network efficiency by monitoring when people are watching a given show. If no-one is watching the bandwidth is allocated to another show that is being watched. Sort of like IP multicast, where you use IGMP to sign up for a multicast group, the router streams as long as you're signed up, but when no-one is signed up it doesn't bother broadcasting the stream. The part the breaks TiVO is the program is no longer broadcast on a stable frequency and PID on the network so TiVO can no longer tune reliably. SDV is not an cable wide standard and therefore TiVO is left out in the dark unless they implement drivers for every provider in the country. Assuming they can even get the specs. It has been suggested that switched digital video support be moved into the Cable Card specification to resolve this problem, but that's all still in the works.

      Note the big driver for freeing up bandwidth is HD content. HD requires 3x to 4x bandwidth to broadcast over a standard def channel. This incurs substantial cost to the cable company in terms of content revenue per bandwidth unit. One might give a nod that broadcast providers are trying to help us out here and make that shiny new HDTV in our living rooms even better. Even satellite is making this move - though they can't do switched due to their restricted 2 way capability, and instead had to launch a few new satellites and work other magic to increase their bandwidth.

      An alternate to SDV would be to increase plant bandwidth like the satellite guys and add additional channels. This requires substantial capital investment whereas switched is primarily a software solution and therefore significantly cheaper. Like order of magnitude cheaper. I guess in a way you can thank Wall Street for SDV because the investors really love this stuff and it makes stock prices go up.

    • Second - somebody dragged in Cable Cards and said something about cable cards only being 1 way. WRONG! Time Warner Cable is deploying 2 way cable card devices in major markets such as NYC right now. http://www.timewarnercable.com/Corporate/Products/ CableCard/CableCard.html [timewarnercable.com]. Comcast does not offer two way service as of yet. But the spec is complete and available on the CableLabs website.

    • Third, and slightly off topic, but the word monopoly irks me to no end; somebody said cable companies are monopolies. Strictly speaking - WRONG! Cable companies have to sign franchise agreements with every city, and may be fined, or even kicked out for violating those agreements. However ANY company is free to come in and compete. Verizon FIOS and AT&T are doing just this. DirectTV is there with Satellite. The main barrier to competition is cost. And the cost to build a network and maintain it is staggering.

      Remember the whole point of business is to make money while moving toward the best solution by virtue of competition. Not to give stuff away for free because it makes a company feel warm and fuzzy. You vote with your dollar be it buying stocks, paying taxes to support public infrastructure, or paying for goods and services. If you don't like cable go sign up for something else. Each broadcast technology has it's pros and cons, pick what works for you. If you're not happy with anything then cancel and get outside or take up a hobby. Hell start your own broadcast video company. Just no more whining!!!

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sure. And someone could have come and competed with Standard Oil, if they'd just had the money to drill enough holes in the ground.

      There are many kinds of monopolies. Infrastructure is usually considered a "natural" monopoly, in that it doesn't make sense to have a hundred power lines (for an actual, historical example) running to each home. However, since a market can't function under a monopoly, we have to replace market regulation with government regulation.

      So yes, cable is a (local) monopoly, under t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SillyNickName ( 1125565 )

      Third, and slightly off topic, but the word monopoly irks me to no end; somebody said cable companies are monopolies. Strictly speaking - WRONG! Cable companies have to sign franchise agreements with every city, and may be fined, or even kicked out for violating those agreements. However ANY company is free to come in and compete. Verizon FIOS and AT&T are doing just this. DirectTV is there with Satellite.

      In most places only one company has the legal right to use the required right-of-ways to operate a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by demon ( 1039 )
      Actually, your statement that an HD channel takes about 4x the bandwidth of an SD channel may be true - if you're comparing to a *digital* SD channel. However, many major cable MSOs still broadcast their basic lineup, as well as several other channels, in *analog* SD - those channels actually each take about the same bandwidth as an HD channel. The question remains, then, why not just move more SD channels to digital transmission? They could free up ridiculous amounts of bandwidth that way.
      • Because there are a lot of people like me who don't want to pay the crazy fees the cableco wants for a digital box and digital service. If they want to save money and bandwidth by delivering my basic cable digitally, I'm fine with that, but don't charge me MORE so they can save money.
  • It's called a cablemodem, people. And I have a stack of paychecks that says they'll f*** that up just as bad as cablecard installs. And, btw, doing it like this is in violation of the cablecard spec and UDCP license. (and would still require the SDV client app within the device. not a huge issue for tivo, but certainly is for everyone else -- how do you update the firmware on your TV?)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Milikki ( 103463 )
      how do you update the firmware on your TV?)

      If its a Samsung, you ask the company to mail you a cablecard with the update on it, stick it in the tv, power up and it automagically updates the firmware.

      Kevin

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close