fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to baineschile
Re: For what
When a TON of customers buy boxes, they too are "buying in bulk" .. that is IF there is this flood of customers rushing out to buy a "consumer owned box".. which has still yet to happen even though the law changed a while back.
Seems there just isn't a market for this..
I think it's funny how we're now back to.. what was it again...? .. oh yea, "Legislating from the bench".. the Republican battle-cry from the past few years. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Speakeasy
| What did I miss? What box can I buy anywhere that will work with my FIOS TV connection?
The law changed. Why no product? Truly because manufacturers don't believe there's a market? Or because CableLabs is dicking around with the standards?
I would love to buy two HD boxes and 1 DVR box instead of paying $45/month for them.
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
caddyroger
Premium
join:2001-06-11
clubs: | TiVo can work with fios I believe.
--
Caddy |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to KoolMoe
What you're missing is reality...
It's not CABLE'S responsibility to make boxes for consumers - THEY ARE consumers.. The laws changed.. no one cared to produce boxes.. cable labs has nothing to do with this.. cable card enabled devices have been on the market now for ALMOST 5 years now.. obviously there isn't much of a demand for them.
So.. but yourself 3 Tivo boxes.. and, I do also believe that Verizon applied for a waiver to excuse themselves from the requirement to have separable security boxes.
I'm sorry if this doesn't fit in the spirit of factless based bashing of greedy corps. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| I don't think the issue is not having someone make cable boxes for consumers, I think the problem is that consumers should be allowed to purchase the models currently being used by Comcast, complete with standard definition menu screens, a measly 160GB hard drive, and video on demand support. There are alternatives that exist, if you are willing to pay the money for it and give up some exclusive features. Right now there is no option for the consumer to purchase the Motorola or Scientific Atlanta boxes used in most Comcast areas. It's either rent at whatever price they set, or buy a more expensive Tivo or Moxi but lose PPV ordering through the on-screen guide along with video on demand services. (through Comcast)
Disregarding the potential for switched digital TV, all that is currently missing from Tivo and Moxi HD DVR's is really just the lack of the VOD through the cable service. I'm not sure how often the cable company switches out equipment and forces everyone to exchange their boxes for new ones, but I was using the same model HD DVR for nearly 5 year over 2 different cable operators. Who cares about the consumers whining? I'm not about to go purchase a DOCSIS 1.0 modem and cry because I can't get the Ultra package using my own modem. I don't think this is a viable excuse to withhold these STB's from the public. Most people looking to drop $500 or more on a cable box probably do their homework before making the decision to purchase. I think we will be fine, give us the option. |
|
wesm
tmb.org
Premium
join:1999-07-29
Lewisville, TX
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy  :So.. but yourself 3 Tivo boxes.. and, I do also believe that Verizon applied for a waiver to excuse themselves from the requirement to have separable security boxes. I'm sorry if this doesn't fit in the spirit of factless based bashing of greedy corps. It does, however, fit in the spirit of being wrong. Verizon applied for a waiver of the requirement for separate conditional access devices but it expired July 1st, 2008. That exemption only applies to the boxes Verizon themselves hands out. They have been required to furnish CableCARDs upon request since the introduction of their FiOS TV service.
I can assure you that the TiVo Series 3 and the TiVo HD work splendidly with FiOS TV. How do I know? I'm watching the output from a TiVo HD that's displaying an encrypted channel (576, Fox Sports Southwest) via FiOS TV right now.
--
Opinions expressed here are mine and not my employer's. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to jmn1207
I don't have issues with anyone buying boxes either...
Just like I said.. two fold:
1) It's stupid in the current environment becuase they are proprietary to the systems they are in so compatibility is rather small.
2) My issue is that people are attacking the cable companies. This has nothing to do with them.. it's the makers they should be suing. I don't think that Comcast or TWC or Cox should be required to SELL those boxes.. they purchased them, their selves, to lease. If people want to buy boxes, they should be going after the makers..
The way I see it.. this would be no different that me, if I were a carpet layer, going to do a job and someone wanting to buy my tools so they could do the job themselves.. they could go to the store and buy 'em themselves.
Around here, at least, you're a rare character. The theme HERE on BBR is that people do whine. They would buy a 1.0 modem and complain that they can no longer use it for what ever and feel wronged.. that's the very issue that will ultimately come out of box buying.. but like you said, and I agree.. that's their problem if they want to take that risk. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | reply to wesm
Nothing I said was "wrong"... sorry you're confused.. Either way, VZ is not REQUIRED to SELL "boxes".. which is on topic.. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207 :I don't think the issue is not having someone make cable boxes for consumers, I think the problem is that consumers should be allowed to purchase the models currently being used by Comcast, complete with standard definition menu screens, a measly 160GB hard drive, and video on demand support. Then your beef is with Motorola and Cisco. You want to compel them to sell to the public. In the United States, there is no requirement to sell retail. Requiring that goes well beyond what government is allowed to do. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| It's not necessarily my particular "beef", it's what the lawsuit is set out to accomplish. I was simply trying to clarify this issue as it pertained to the involvement of my immediate discussion. I am not aware of why Comcast was chosen to be sued in this matter. Perhaps it has been found through investigation that Comcast is the entity that is blocking all attempts for customers to purchase and use an equivalent model cable box? I wouldn't know the reason, I can only speculate, as I have not looked into any of this too closely. It seems odd that Motorola or Cisco would refuse to sell their products without some sort of contract in place preventing them from doing so.
|
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
1 edit | I can also only speculate, but my bet is that Comcast was sued because Comcast is hated, nothing more.
It is odd that Cisco and Motorola don't wish to sell these boxes to the public, but given the nature of this technology, and how much its reliability is affected by the environment it operates in (i.e., the service providers' network), the cost of providing customer support for these boxes is a serious concern. There is no evidence that anything is preventing them from selling their boxes, other than their own decision not to sell them. |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | I would think Cisco and Motorola enjoy the market as it currently exists. Right now they have guaranteed demand for STB's at grossly inflated prices. Why give that up unless forced to by Congress or the courts. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| said by Zoder :I would think Cisco and Motorola enjoy the market as it currently exists. Right now they have guaranteed demand for STB's at grossly inflated prices. Why give that up unless forced to by Congress or the courts. Perhaps they do enjoy the market as it currently is (perhaps for the reason I mentioned earlier), but under what tenet of law would you justify your suggestion, that they be forced to sell their products in a manner that they have chosen not to? |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
| The only one I can think of would be antitrust. As the dominant market players, if they were colluding to keep the market as it currently exists and keep out new competition, the government has the right and obligation to correct the market failure. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| Indeed: No collusion; no violation. Consumers are complaining about prices. That's not very interesting. Consumers always complain about prices. Mass-market consumers are, in general, cry-babies. However, in the real world, with the law, facts are what is important, not whining. |
|
