TiVo Wants Cable to Throw More Money at CableCards
Should the FCC impose a sweeping new regulation concerning CableCards that would benefit less than 0.001% of all cable customers?
Or would it be adding a pointless, expensive requirement on the back of a failed policy — one that the FCC is actually phasing out?
TiVo and the Consumer Electronics Association are now lobbying the FCC make the cable industry adopt an IP backchannel for switched digital video communications to replace the SDV “tuning adapters” that MSOs have been giving TiVo users to use free of charge (see TWC Flicks On SDV In NYC). That’s despite unanimous agreement, including from the FCC, that CableCard rules haven’t achieved the commission’s goals of establishing a “competitive” retail market.
Right — this is the tuning adapter that cable developed in conjunction with TiVo (see Cable to Offer Switched Digital Video to TiVo Subs). In 2007, TiVo CEO Tom Rogers said the company was “gratified that the cable industry has agreed to work quickly to develop a solution” to allow DVRs to access switched digital video.
But in comments filed Monday in response to the FCC’s proposal to revised CableCard rules, the company said, “TiVo did not agree that the Tuning Adapter should be the solution for all future retail navigation devices. A retail device market cannot be created if consumers who buy their own devices still have to rely on an operator-supplied set-top box.”
Why change horses in midstream, especially as the FCC is looking at a new “AllVid” requirement that would supersede CableCards? (See FCC AllVid Rule Would ‘Ban The Set-Top As We Know It’: Analyst.) Because an IP backchannel would be a “more economical and scalable solution” and “more appealing and convenient for consumers,” according to TiVo.
So let’s do the math here. There are 42.6 million digital cable subscribers in the U.S., out of a total of about 61.8 million basic video subs.
As of mid-June, cable operators had deployed 520,000 standalone CableCards for use TiVos or other devices — representing less than 1% of all subscribers (see Operators’ CableCard Box Tally Tops 21 Million). Of that group, the cable industry has given out free tuning adapters, which let those TiVos access switched digital video channels, to 31,600 customers… or around 0.0005% of all cable TV subscribers.
SDV has been widely rolled out by Cablevision Systems, Cox and Time Warner Cable, with Comcast expecting to start ramping up later this year (see Comcast Tees Up Switched Video Rollouts). Switched digital video conserves bandwidth by delivering linear TV channels only when a subscriber in a given neighborhood requests them — but SDV isn’t compatible with one-way CableCard devices; hence the need for the tuning adapters from Cisco and Motorola.
The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, in its own reply comments Monday, pointed out that developing and supporting an “IP backchannel” for TiVos and other devices would impose a new, time-consuming and complex requirement, only on cable. And for the benefit of very, very few customers.
“Although TiVo and CEA have elsewhere recognized that technology mandates stifle innovation, they seek to impose a new mandate exclusively on cable: to engineer a new Internet pathway to cable headends that will handle SDV signaling from third-party devices, in lieu of the Tuning Adapters that are working now over secure cable plant,” NCTA said.
NCTA also reiterated its position that the integrated set-top ban should be eliminated (see NCTA Answers Critics of CableCard Stance and NCTA To FCC: End Set-Top Integration Ban).
Also chiming in against requiring a new IP backchannel for CableCard devices to access SDV were Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cisco Systems.
The NCTA cited comments from Arris — which now owns Digeo, producer of the Moxi DVR — saying that a move to an IP backchannel would be expensive, disruptive and distracting and that such a change “risks doing more harm than good” because the SDV tuning adapters are working.
“There may well be creative IP solutions and technological designs for interactive services, but they should be addressed for all MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors] on an AllVid basis in the NOI [notice of inquiry], not in this short-term cable-centric proceeding,” NCTA said.
cable installer commented:
Tivo is like Vonage, and last I heard they are bankrupt. I'm an installer and fix issues within customers homes daily that are signal problems. The customers call and complain of tiling and usually its a signal issue. Just imagine if they can buy their own digital boxes to hook up by themselves. Who would they call to fix all their issues? The cable companies? The cable companies are going to charge them an arm and a leg to do so and then who wins in that situation? Keep it the way it is and toss this Tivo demand out the window.
ChefJoe commented:
Until TiVo gets to use (without major license costs) the same access protocols that cable companies use in their STBs (which can access VOD, SDV, guide/channel number/show information without an additional) I think they should be able to petition the FCC to enforce the cablecard requirement that is currently in place.
GoIP commented:
Why bother with SDV, VoD, etc. It's a waste of time. By the time you get it implemented that ship will have sailed. Put your $ into the IPTV transition and get off of MPEG-2 TS for good. The consumer is moving to IP with or with out the MSOs. This will force the MSOs (and other MVPDs) to play nice with devices like the iPAD, laptops, and internet ready TVs, because the MSOs still want to be the content providers to their subscribers, so they will be motivated to develop protocols and technology that will allow them to source content to these devices.
harvey commented:
tivo's survival game plan: sue dishnetwork, partner with soon to be bankrupt rcn, lobby fcc.
harvey commented:
tivo's survival game plan: sue dishnetwork, partner with soon to be bankrupt rcn, lobby fcc.
harvey commented:
tivo's survival game plan: sue dishnetwork, partner with soon to be bankrupt rcn, lobby fcc.
harvey commented:
tivo's survival game plan: sue dishnetwork, partner with soon to be bankrupt rcn, lobby fcc.
Dana commented:
TiVo made many good points in its comments, which are not reflected at all in this article. The cable industry re-purposed old, obsolete, bulky set-top boxes by turning them into tuning adapters, which TiVo accepted as a temporary solution (after the industry came up with switched video). Adopting an IP backchannel for switched video makes economic sense for consumers since in the future, most video equipment is probably going to work with the Internet anyway. Like AT&T, which used to have a monopoly over telephones, cable companies have been profiting from renting out their set top boxes and *not* communicating clear information to consumers about other options (like QAM or CableCARDs). Furthermore, some set-top boxes are horribly designed for people with disabilities, who would benefit greatly from devices that are designed to be much more user-friendly.
TiVOless commented:
TIVO refused to support the IEEE 1394 requirement on STBs, when in fact, virtually no end customer could use IEEE 1394 even if they wanted to because SA/Cisco and Motorola most often screwed the pooch in their firmware, never (or slowly) fixing it. At least TiVO would have gotten it deployed correctly if they would have put it on their units. They did not and so I never purchased a TiVO. They even filed with the FCC to be exempt and dump the requirement - so I and others who did try our best to use IEEE 1394 ports will file against TiVO as they want MSOs to use their vision of the future.
TiVOless commented:
TIVO refused to support the IEEE 1394 requirement on STBs, when in fact, virtually no end customer could use IEEE 1394 even if they wanted to because SA/Cisco and Motorola most often screwed the pooch in their firmware, never (or slowly) fixing it. At least TiVO would have gotten it deployed correctly if they would have put it on their units. They did not and so I never purchased a TiVO. They even filed with the FCC to be exempt and dump the requirement - so I and others who did try our best to use IEEE 1394 ports will file against TiVO as they want MSOs to use their vision of the future.
TiVOless commented:
TIVO refused to support the IEEE 1394 requirement on STBs, when in fact, virtually no end customer could use IEEE 1394 even if they wanted to because SA/Cisco and Motorola most often screwed the pooch in their firmware, never (or slowly) fixing it. At least TiVO would have gotten it deployed correctly if they would have put it on their units. They did not and so I never purchased a TiVO. They even filed with the FCC to be exempt and dump the requirement - so I and others who did try our best to use IEEE 1394 ports will file against TiVO as they want MSOs to use their vision of the future.
TiVOless commented:
TIVO refused to support the IEEE 1394 requirement on STBs, when in fact, virtually no end customer could use IEEE 1394 even if they wanted to because SA/Cisco and Motorola most often screwed the pooch in their firmware, never (or slowly) fixing it. At least TiVO would have gotten it deployed correctly if they would have put it on their units. They did not and so I never purchased a TiVO. They even filed with the FCC to be exempt and dump the requirement - so I and others who did try our best to use IEEE 1394 ports will file against TiVO as they want MSOs to use their vision of the future.
TiVOless commented:
TIVO refused to support the IEEE 1394 requirement on STBs, when in fact, virtually no end customer could use IEEE 1394 even if they wanted to because SA/Cisco and Motorola most often screwed the pooch in their firmware, never (or slowly) fixing it. At least TiVO would have gotten it deployed correctly if they would have put it on their units. They did not and so I never purchased a TiVO. They even filed with the FCC to be exempt and dump the requirement - so I and others who did try our best to use IEEE 1394 ports will file against TiVO as they want MSOs to use their vision of the future.
Doug commented:
Free? Comcast charges me monthly for my cablecards!
Davis Freeberg commented:
I think one of the major points missing from this is that it's not just switched digital channels that cable card customers lose out on, but the VOD options as well. Since VOD is "included" in the cost of the cable, the 0.0005% that is impacted is really a bit closer to the 520,000 stand alone cable card customers that are being discriminated against. Should cable companies be allowed to take away a service you pay for just because you went with a competitor? If so, then we won't have much competition in the set top box space. Cable did everything in their power to make cablecard fail and now they are trying to drag their feet even longer so that they don't have to compete with over the top video.