Old Chat Rep
@rogers.com
| reply to DaveNJ
Re: Why is cablecard so expensive ?
The cards are pretty cheap to rent compared to a cable box. However if you want to buy a cable box you can but your screwed if they stop working. Comcast won't replace it. This is why they don't sell them in most areas if not all. The rental fee is your warranty. If it breaks down then they will get you another one. If you own it. Good luck.
BTW: I know of no product that has a warranty like the one you want on electronics since technology changes fast it would be impossible to do that. |
|
markofmayhem
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
| reply to Zoder
said by Zoder  :Seems like a bad cycle. The cable industry chose a security model with a complicated licensing structure. The licensing fees are so high that only Motorola and Cisco can afford to pay them. But since Cisco/Moto are the only major players in the game, they can charge inflated prices for the equipment to the cable companies The cable industry has yet to choose a security model, this is the underlying problem. Each head-end chose a security model spanning the last three decades. At the time the head-end implemented security, the sales pitch from competing equipment providers dictated the security protocol in use and both Moto and Cisco lock down this choice for at least 10 years. Comcast, a single company, has many different security protocols across areas. It drills all the way down to zip code. Greater Pittsburgh, for example, uses Motorola in most of it's areas except a subset of zip codes in the township of Mt. Lebanon where Cisco is used. Most of this was created through acquisition of area's and the past MSO provider's decision, even when those acquisitions were forced (Adelphia). The FCC has had no interest in forcing the "security" onto the open market as of yet, just to separate it from all other service provided by the cable company.
said by Zoder :This confuses me. When you say "cost of service" are you talking about the box features or the outlet activation?
Neither. The cost you have to reimburse to the MSO for delivering the signal to your home, for registering your store-bought equipment onto their network, and for providing you with the option to watch/view all that you purchased. Many people assume that their overall bill to watch television will decrease if they could buy their own box. The 1996TA that started separate security had no intention of lowering your cost to watch television, only to forcibly allow manufacturers into a then closed market. The only way to lower the cost to watch television is for society as a whole to stop demanding it at an increased rate year after year. Television is a commodity that has proved to be recession proof, inflation proof, stagflation proof, etc. When economic times are hard, people turn to entertainment. When economic times are good, people turn to information. How convenient that television specializes in both. Separate Security involves additional cost to the MSO to implement and maintain, a cost that will ultimately be the customer's burden. The FCC was representing the CEA, not the consumer, when it instituted Separate Security. The consumer is not "screwed" here, by forcing competition into the market, the market then becomes reliant on market forces which consumers can and will impact. It will take many years for those forces to become strong enough to cause action.
said by Zoder :Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the CEA and the NCTA have been fighting on this issue for years. Yes and no. The CEA has no involvement in the decision making regarding OpenCable, this is different than OCAP/Tru2Way. OpenCable is both the hardware and software component that will allow any manufacturer to develop a piece of hardware compatible with all U.S. cable operators (at least those supporting Cable Labs). Tru2Way is the AP of OCAP, it is a middleware that will allow Java (GEM) based applications to run on certified hardware. The CEA wanted it's own AP, DCR+. The CEA is not fighting over how the hardware portion should be dictated, it is fighting that the cable company should not have sole control over what applications are running on it's closed network through a certification process. Not only does hardware have certification, so too does software.
said by Zoder :The CEA position being that Tru2way will force the MSO's interface on the device, destroying the selling features that would differentiate their product from a competitors. Tru2way being more of the cable industry's vision. Absolutely not. Tru2Way is a middleware that runs applications. The CEA device can run it's own applications. If it wishes to use a different guide, it can. If it wishes to use different DVR controls, it can. If it wishes to use MoCA, or TV2PC, or Netflix, or anything else... it can. No "selling points" are destroyed, at all. Any software that accesses or provides information/service in competition with the MSO's supplied software must be Tru2Way certified or will be disabled. Any software company can achieve this status.
There are caveats.
Video OnDemand is NOT an accessible service, it is an application. That application is owned and operated by the MSO. That application will be downloaded to your device so you can access VoD as it is part of the package you are paying for. At the current moment in time, there are no acceptable certified substitutes to this application.
The guide MUST include space for MSO control (if anyone doubts this will be advertisements, get your head checked).
Any service accessing infospace outside of the MSO's closed network must use secondary networking abilities: wifi, ethernet, phone, etc. This excludes MoCA as MoCA is locked down to the devices in your home and MoCA itself does not connect to the outside.
said by Zoder :I just find that when you are dealing with the NCTA things take years more to come to fruition than you would expect. It's been more than a decade already since the Opencable project began. I would think that having an agreement with the CEA would be a plus for the cable industry. Imagine the advantage they would have over sat and uverse if every tv sold was capable of connecting with every cable system with 2 way communication. 10 years is nothing. There are roughly 48 different companies, all with their own agenda, priorities, and concerns that are on-board with the OpenCable project from Microsoft to Cox to Intel to Echostar to TiVo to Panasonic to Comcast to Sony to Macrovision. The fact that a complete hissy-fit breaking down all progression hasn't happened yet is rather remarkable. Cable is taking a position that their closed network is under their control and the CEA will have to play by their rules on their playground. They are offering the CEA the keys to get into the playground and the CEA is resisting in many areas as it became quickly apparent that the "Tru2Way" certification process would be expensive, lengthy, and the certified product that will result will not be at a price-point lower than TiVo to start. Thrown together Chinese chips won't pass certification, I'm sure this upset many of the CEA's members to get a sub $100 3 month warranty DVR into Wallymart. The flipside is that Cable Labs is preventing quick turn-around times, thus eliminating many competitors from being able to play due to high certification requirements and costs. Another component to making this project lengthy is the fact they are trying to nail it the first time through. All updates, upgrades, changes, etc. will be in this original project. They want it right the first time so the pain won't have to be felt again later. One of OpenCable's priorities is scalability. The average consumer has very little knowledge that this project and it's resulting products is even occurring. |
|
cypherstream
Looking forward to the future of things.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to DaveNJ
July 1st Tru2way Deadline
»www.zatznotfunny.com/2009-07/jul···eadline/ |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
| reply to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem :The only ones who can afford the other licensing in the card are Motorola and Cisco. They have very large licensing deals with Macrovision, Microsoft, SeaChange, Bigband, etc. CableLabs is a point of certification, allowing the product to be sold without the concern of the product being incompatible with the MSO. Seems like a bad cycle. The cable industry chose a security model with a complicated licensing structure. The licensing fees are so high that only Motorola and Cisco can afford to pay them. But since Cisco/Moto are the only major players in the game, they can charge inflated prices for the equipment to the cable companies
quote:
Seperable Security always had a cost component of service from the MSO to it. The buying of the box at retail was for feature-shopping and open market pricing options to the consumer, it was never meant to lower the overall cost of service! In fact, it was made to put the cost of service on to the open market, which over time will do nothing but increase as our society demands entertainment at an increased rate year after year.
This confuses me. When you say "cost of service" are you talking about the box features or the outlet activation?
quote:
The 1996 Telecom Act was protection to the CEA, not the consumer. Do not confuse "open market" and "retail" with "consumer protection". The seperable security law was specifically crafted to unlock the SA/Moto stronghold so that members of the CEA could enter the market. Companies such as TiVo and Moxi will benefit consumers the most from the statute. Tru2way has the potential to truly be "retail" as most of us define it. The Panasonic models were actually for sale in Circuit City near Chicago, which is closer to how consumers envisioned the 1996 law. Market pressure brought about Tru2way, not Congress. See Moto's DCH line-up for what the answer to the 1996 telecom act was without market pressure.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the CEA and the NCTA have been fighting on this issue for years. The CEA position being that Tru2way will force the MSO's interface on the device, destroying the selling features that would differentiate their product from a competitors. Tru2way being more of the cable industry's vision.
I just find that when you are dealing with the NCTA things take years more to come to fruition than you would expect. It's been more than a decade already since the Opencable project began. I would think that having an agreement with the CEA would be a plus for the cable industry. Imagine the advantage they would have over sat and uverse if every tv sold was capable of connecting with every cable system with 2 way communication. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| reply to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem :Do not confuse "open market" and "retail" with "consumer protection". The seperable security law was specifically crafted to unlock the SA/Moto stronghold so that members of the CEA could enter the market. Very well said. |
|
markofmayhem
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
| reply to Zoder
said by Zoder :But part of the blame lies with CableLabs. They should license it to any manufacturer willing to make them. They do.
The only ones who can afford the other licensing in the card are Motorola and Cisco. They have very large licensing deals with Macrovision, Microsoft, SeaChange, Bigband, etc. CableLabs is a point of certification, allowing the product to be sold without the concern of the product being incompatible with the MSO.
Seperable Security always had a cost component of service from the MSO to it. The buying of the box at retail was for feature-shopping and open market pricing options to the consumer, it was never meant to lower the overall cost of service! In fact, it was made to put the cost of service on to the open market, which over time will do nothing but increase as our society demands entertainment at an increased rate year after year. The 1996 Telecom Act was protection to the CEA, not the consumer. Do not confuse "open market" and "retail" with "consumer protection". The seperable security law was specifically crafted to unlock the SA/Moto stronghold so that members of the CEA could enter the market. Companies such as TiVo and Moxi will benefit consumers the most from the statute. Tru2way has the potential to truly be "retail" as most of us define it. The Panasonic models were actually for sale in Circuit City near Chicago, which is closer to how consumers envisioned the 1996 law. Market pressure brought about Tru2way, not Congress. See Moto's DCH line-up for what the answer to the 1996 telecom act was without market pressure. |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
| reply to CableTool
said by CableTool :They are not obligated to not only sell you a card but provide a warranty for it The cards are 75.00 last I saw. It sounds like the manufacturers are ripping off the cable companies and by extension the general public. There is no way it would cost that much if it was sold on the open market by multiple manufacturers. But part of the blame lies with CableLabs. They should license it to any manufacturer willing to make them.
You can get wireless network cards which have encryption/decryption build into them for cheaper than that at retail. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| reply to DaveNJ
Beyond all the other corrections other folks have made to what you've written, note that the CableCARD is a regulated item. MSO must report usage and prices, and are subject to price controls imposed for CableCARD. Complaining about the price of CableCARD, or the necessity for paying for it, has as much significance as complaining about the necessity for paying for water. You can complain, surely, but it doesn't mean much. |
|
CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12
| reply to DaveNJ
said by DaveNJ :So basically there will never be customer owned equipment under this scenario. The cable cos will always get more cash, for a service they dont provide. The box is now a card. They need a way to safely encrypt and decrypt the services you are paying for. To do this they need a certain amount of control. No one is forcing motorola to NOT sell you a cable box There are one or two out there for purchase. And they are put on subscriber accounts.
CableCards are the same deal. If you can get Motorola to sell you one then by all means. This has nothing to do with the cable cos.
They are not obligated to not only sell you a card but provide a warranty for it The cards are 75.00 last I saw. You are paying 2.50 a month. Im not sure if over two years for a break even point is really worth this much typing. Not to mention if you bought your card when they came out not only were they more but they were NOT multistream...
Investing any amount of money in Cable Technology is short sighted. Look at technology and how FAST things are moving. Then ask a cable tech how often he swaps bad CPE.
--
CableTechs.org/"Horrible People with Integrity" |
|
gar187er
Premium Alcoholic
join:2006-06-24
Dover, DE
| reply to DaveNJ
a box is a box, a card is a card...
how arent the cable co's providing you a service? they are providing you digital service, correct?
again, take your issues (which seems to be many) up with the equipment makers....they should be the target of your grudge. |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | reply to wanger
So basically there will never be customer owned equipment under this scenario. The cable cos will always get more cash, for a service they dont provide. The box is now a card. |
|
wanger
join:2008-04-20
Reading, PA
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to koshoka
Gotta agree with koshoka on cable cards... My only question is, why so upset over $2.50? If you want service then you have to pay for the additional service. If you don't want to pay for the extra cost then don't. People have choices, what they decide on is ultimately their own decision. Don't go thinking that Comcast needs to hand out free service because a person pays so much for their bill and is "entitled" to those services. |
|
koshoka
join:2006-12-01
Pottsville, PA | reply to bicker
cable cards are the spawn of satan |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to markofmayhem
That, but also it is a matter of if they sell to us, they have to provide us direct support instead of just referring us to our cable company. |
|
markofmayhem
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
| reply to bicker
Errr.... maybe... or!
If Samsung sells to Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc. then they get an order of 10,000 including the cash to purchase it and Samsung responds with "thank you, we'll begin manufacturing; delivery will begin in 90 days". Where as if they sell to us, they have to manufacture first then hope we buy it. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| reply to gar187er
And that's perhaps the most telling aspect of all this... Those companies will not sell to consumers. And it continues... Samsung just came out with an HD DVR (the 3090), and they too refuse to sell to consumer, so far.
Are folks getting the message from that? They don't want to deal with us. Why? Just look at these threads and you can see!  |
|
gar187er
Premium Alcoholic
join:2006-06-24
Dover, DE
| reply to DaveNJ
oh please stop trying to make analogies....not gonna happen man...fact is comcast sells a service, TV, and other companies make products for that service (cablecards)....those same compaines elected not to sell to consumers. so comcast charges a fee for you to use the device...if it breaks they get you a new one, if you have problems, they come and make things right....do you NEED this product for comcast service to work?? NO!!! , but you do need A device....(maybe a box)...so pick your poison....either way take it up with moto/SA who said they arent going to sell their product to you!
/thread |
|
markofmayhem
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to DaveNJ
Never heard of a car retailer, most are dealerships that act as a 3rd party broker between manufacturer and consumer. |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| reply to gar187er
said by gar187er :sorry man, they arent authorzied to sell them... SA or whoever is the manufacturer....comcast comes out with a replacement and then sends the old one off to get repaired thorugh a 3rd party (and they have to pay for it), or they buy a new one... they are not a retailer..retailers sell products.... Oh you mean like a lease on a car, from a car retailer, right ?
--
They Live... We Sleep...
“Spreading the wealth around” never results in a better outcome for people. It always results in destruction.
|
|
gar187er
Premium Alcoholic
join:2006-06-24
Dover, DE
| reply to DaveNJ
sorry man, they arent authorzied to sell them... SA or whoever is the manufacturer....comcast comes out with a replacement and then sends the old one off to get repaired thorugh a 3rd party (and they have to pay for it), or they buy a new one...
they are not a retailer..retailers sell products.... |
|
