how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
474 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
approval from:
voipguy 
| I'm all for interoperability but come on. I'm going to take a rare stance for myself.
I think the cable companies should be able to deploy SDV at will.
The cable companies product is the service, not the dvr's you rent, all evidence points to the fact that it takes years to recoup the cost of a cable dvr box. they aren't making a huge profit on them.
The reason for SDV is for them to be able to continue to be competative with FIOS and Satelite TV. They need to add as many HD channels as they can, plus VOD and faster internet speeds. To force them to insure that their service continues to work with 3rd party hardware that came out prior puts an unfair burden on them and slows down the deployment of the new services HD, faster internet, VOD that we all want at the same time we are complaining about SDV.
It's a simple Either/Or equation you can't have both.
Most third party products for a service are known to have the limitation that they might become obsolete, it's the chance you take when buying third party hardware for a service, the service might likely change.
Examples
Does motorola or any other cable modem company complain about docsis 3.0 coming out? no they build a 3.0 modem
Lots of people buy their cable modems and are forced to upgrade in order to get the complete new service.
Do PC component manufacturers complain when the industry adds a new bus type, ie pci-express? nope again.
The only reason we have this complaint is because of dedicated Tivo fans who paid alot of money for a third party product, well maybe they should push tivo to make their units upgradable, and tivo should try to keep up with the technology. as that is the job of a third party product supplier. and cablecards comeon those things were obsolete before they came out, they can't even do VOD. One way cable cards where always a losing bet. | |
|  | | Re: I'm all for interoperability but come on. I personally think the manufatures of both the digital recievers, tivo's etc should be fined. Since when does TWC, comcast or any other cable company actually make these devices...none. I do not agree with the process that they followed to launch this but this is not their fault if the devices will not work.
Feb 2009 are they not killing all the over the air analog service so people with rabbit ears etc are being forced to buy products so they can recieve these transmissions.
pure bullshit, fcc must have promised its employees christmas bonuses and this is just in time for the holiday season....lets fine a couple companies and pay out the bonuses. | |
| | | | Re: I'm all for interoperability but come on. OOOpps next time I'll re-read...sorry about the spelling errors, I'm truely not an idiot! | |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
 ·Comcast Formerl..
| said by anvotum76 :
The reason for SDV is for them to be able to continue to be competative with FIOS and Satelite TV. They need to add as many HD channels as they can, plus VOD and faster internet speeds. To force them to insure that their service continues to work with 3rd party hardware that came out prior puts an unfair burden on them and slows down the deployment of the new services HD, faster internet, VOD that we all want at the same time we are complaining about SDV.
So has anyone's broadband speeds been improved in these areas yet? How about HD channels? Are there more? Have they reduced the compression levels? Far as I have heard the answer so far is no on all accounts.
You may not want to admit it but the cable companies do make money off cable box "rent". Sure it cost me $$$ to buy a DVR or cable box, but when a cable company buys hundreds of thousands of them they get a significant price break on the per unit cost. | |
| | | | Re: I'm all for interoperability but come on. SDV has nothing to do with internet bw. Differenent freq spectrum. Yes, almost any location that has launched SDV has added HD channels. Compression levels would be on a per site basis as many sites run very minimal to no compression.
I don't want to admit something that is not true. You are right they do get a discount, and the numbers I have posted numerous times are those discounts by bulk. Some MSO's pay more and some pay less, depends on the deal of the day. Not to mention all the overhead associated with maintaining, supporting, storing, installing, etc. MSO's hate having cable boxes to deal with. They are content resellers and would love to do just that. Continue to make fat cash with out all the costs and headaches of cable boxes. | |
|
| | I agree with most of your statements. Except the last one. Cablecards are not obsolete. Maybe not the best implementation, but not obsolete. Cablecards can and do VOD. Remember every new box deployed after 07/07 has a cablecard in it. The same exact cablecard, running the exact same code that you put in your Tivo. Those boxes made by Cisco, Motorolla, and Samsung do VOD just fine. Why, because they support the VOD communiction specs, which are industry defined specs by the way as well as have return path tuners, whether it be davic or docsis.
The cablecard (s-card included) has always been 2-way capable. | |
| wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by anvotum76 :
The cable companies product is the service, not the dvr's you rent, all evidence points to the fact that it takes years to recoup the cost of a cable dvr box. they aren't making a huge profit on them.
The reason for SDV is for them to be able to continue to be competative with FIOS and Satelite TV.
It's still illegal tying for them to require their box if you want DVR service from them.
And if they wanted to compete, they could, you know, upgrade the plant to 1GHz like some other cable companies are doing. Or maybe they could start using MPEG-4 on new channel adds. That would still break my third party box, but at least then a third party box would be allowed under the rules to be made that works with the new technology.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|
| |
|
