Cable Companies Despise PVRs 726
My position that I expressed in my speech and that was inaccurately portrayed: PVR functionality should be provisioned from the headend for the following reasons (which ultimately will benefit consumers):
-
VOD servers cost much less
- If video servers @ $350/stream (Soon Component cost declining 40%/year
- @ 10% simultaneous use, costs $35/sub.
- PVRs cost >10X more
- When simultaneous use = 50%, server costs will have declined >5X
- Disk noise wakes my wife
- Replay box hot enough to fry an egg -- Is that a feature?
- Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV
- Available on every set-top in house Average of 1.7 PVRs/PVR household
- No pro-activity/anticipation required
- Records multiple concurrent shows
- NW storage could always have max. res.
- Uses existing deployed base
- Moving parts break more often
- Box complexity means more crashes & customer support costs
My basic thesis is that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch, and since it's unambiguous that cable needs to get the copyright clearances to offer programming from the head-end, they should start now. It is the case that I suggested that if a Supreme Court case was brought on the legality of each feature of PVRs were brought, some would lose. I also suggested an alternative business model to make everybody happy to avoid the all-or-nothing result that has been occurring in the RIAA vs. Napster wars.
I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable. I also suggested that targeted advertising could be a win-win for all involved by delivering ads in areas that are of greater interest to the viewer so that there would be less incentive to skip and fewer ads would have to be delivered due to the higher prices paid for the targeted group. I also predicted that this dynamic combined with competition between satellite and cable would ultimately make both services free."
Re:Hold it (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/
FUD. It's not just for Microsoft anymore.
Re:What's a PVR? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
The other issue is cable companies losing the ability to sell/rent their own crappy boxes to their customers. Their revenue stream from these boxes can be two-fold--ads and sales/rentals.
I know that when I visit my parents in Miami, and use their shitty digital cable receiver box, I get big ads and huge banners which obscure the picture on the television. If my parents didn't live where the HOA frowned upon it, I'd tell them to get DirecTV.
Re:They can't even get analogies right (Score:3, Informative)
Time Warner Cable seems to have a different view (Score:5, Informative)
Ironic that Time Warner Cable would do this, as it's part of the much larger AOL Time Warner which seems torn between the content provider and the content producer mode - the company owns lots of record companies and movie studios. Yet AOL and Time Warner Cable seem to be doing things the content part of the company doesn't like. It's like watching Sony make mp3 players and yet be distributing copy-restricted CDs.
Re:bullshit (Score:2, Informative)
Similarly, (Score:1, Informative)
You mean they don't have this DVR ? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
"Satellite Consumer Bill of Rights, a regulation released by the FCC on August 6, 1996. This regulation PREEMPTS area zoning ordinances and Homeowner Association covenants and restrictions on DBS dish antennas. This rule was required by Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act."
Link to FCC fact sheet about this subject.
FCC Fact Sheet [fcc.gov]
Re:bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
TiVo doesn't replace the set top box if you have cable. TiVo has a model with an Integrated Sat descrambler, but not a Cable descrambler. My TiVo has to change the channels on my cable box via an infrared wire.
But I'm moving to an area without broadband so looks like I'm going to ditch Cable. Screw them anyways.
Re:Time Warner is onboard...kind of (Score:3, Informative)
Time Warner Austin is deploying the same box. It's a Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8000; they can come with different sized hard drives. Time Warner Austin markets these as having 50 hours worth of storage, but it uses variable bit-rate compression for the digitization, so you never know for sure just how much you can store.
The Explorer 8000 hardware is very nice. Two tuners, so it can be simultaneously recording two separate shows on two separate channels (either analog or digital) while you're watching something in playback. I can't tell any difference between playback and live quality, which is better than you get with a (non satTV) Replay or TiVo, where the compression is generally quite noticeable. The 8000 works better as well than the SA Explorer 2000 digital cable box.. changing channels is faster, etc.
Unfortunately, the firmware in the box is pretty crappy still. They have been improving it, but even with the latest firmware release, there are a whole lot of issues. [makeashorterlink.com]. The experience of using it is not nearly as nice as a TiVo, and it is completely lacking anything like the TiVo 'Season Pass' or 'Recommendations' functions, so if you tell it to record every episode of the Daily Show, it will do so.. four times a day as Comedy Central shows repeats three times a day. At other times, the box seems to simply forget to record a show you told it you wanted, usually if the show changed times after the 8000 initially made a note as to the time and channel to record. The SAE 8000 uses Time Warner's standard cable guide, seemingly, and it appears that the cable guide provided by the cable system doesn't provide enough data to do the kind of smart tricks a TiVo can do.
For 10 bucks a month, it's quite a bit cheaper than a TiVo or Replay, but if you've got one of those, I wouldn't advise ditching it in favor of the Time Warner box. If Time Warner and Scientific Atlanta keep working at it and continue to put out firmware upgrades, it might turn into something quite nice indeed. As it stands, having the Time Warner box is better than not having the Time Warner box, but not as nice as having TiVo or Replay.
Re:Video On Demand? (Score:5, Informative)
And if so... do they REALLY think we're that stupid?
I happen to have worked in the cable industry. Video on Demand, or VOD, is a sort of "instant" Pay Per View (PPV), or more accurately DVD rental without having to go to the store.
Rather than calling the cable company and telling them you want to watch Movie X when it comes on at 12:00pm, you press a button your cable remote and the movie is streamed instantly to your cable box. You can pause, stop, rewind, or fast-forward, and you get a certain time window (48hrs or something) within which you can watch your selection as many times as you want.
The cable office has racks of servers packed full of disk space and bandwidth that can singlecast video streams to hundreds of subscribers. Companies are currently working on getting all the DVD functions like different audio streams and camera angles as well as special features into the VOD package, and the eventual goal is to make Blockbuster obsolete.
So it's more than PPV rebranded, but I'd guess they still think you're pretty stupid.
Re:AT&T Selling TiVo (Score:2, Informative)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Tell them anyway. The FCC has ruled [fcc.gov] that homeowners' associations cannot stop people from installing satellite dishes of 1 m diameter or less (among other things, like wireless broadband antennae.)
Re:bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
If they're in a condo or townhome, they can put up a dish as long as it doesn't attach to common property. If they have a south-facing porch or balcony, you can attach the dish to the guard rail. Several people where I live have various mini-dishes installed. (If they don't have a view to the satellite, they're stuck.) If they're in a home, they can put up a dish on their property. If the HOA gives them grief, they can tell the HOA to go fsck themselves...several years ago, the FCC decreed that HOAs, CC&Rs, etc. can't be used to keep people from putting up antennas and dishes for TV-reception purposes.
AT&T, Comcast (Score:5, Informative)
Some thoughts (from Planet Replay). (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They can't even get analogies right (Score:3, Informative)
The site has some interesting comments and facts on commercials growth. I'm only missing a graph showing how it increases by time, but everyone must have noticed that this is manipulated in many ways for example by having less commercials than normal in the opening episodes of 24^2 which of course will backlash by more than that amount in the conclusive episodes...
Even though premieres would sync up to us here in Europe I suspect that I would still find my shows on the net with the ads pre-cut.
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
TiVo gives you a guide that is FAR better then any cable company supplied guide.
Re:PVR is the next VCR, not the next Napster (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.planetreplay.com/ [planetreplay.com]
It is pretty close to Napster (and one of the reasons I bought a PVR)
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't limited to cable, either; you'll find regional ads on broadcast TV as well. Don't worry, if your local station can't find a buyer for that 30 second spot at 6:07, the network has a backup ready to go. The one truth of TV is you NEVER see "dead air" in a commercial break.
Re:If you like progress... (Score:3, Informative)
My personal belief is that if this goes unchecked it will be the death of western civilization (assuming our contempt for our own environment doesn't get us first, except that is really part and parcel of the same phenomenon.)
I'm assumed he means: If we let these grubby oligopolies use the government and FCC to regulate PVR's and other liberating technologies (P2P, wireless networking), THEN it will be the death of western civilization.
You have to remember that today's (Demo)/(Republi)crats don't give a shit about the free market or smaller government.
Re:They can't even get analogies right (Score:3, Informative)
What do you mean, "Sure"? That "Sure" is the key that makes video swapping on the ReplayTV currently a gimmick. Even on a cable modem uploading a 600MB file to someone takes forever (mine only does about 128Kbps upstream), making the entire notion of show swapping purely academic (pun in hindsight not intended). It's not the home users on a cable or 56K modem that pose any file swapping danger, it's the university dorm guys living on multiple T1s. And compared to the numbers of households their numbers are peanuts. They only mentioned Napster because it's the Evil-Consumer trait du jour.
Re:Video On Demand? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway. Time Warner has started offering iControl, which has a huge potential IMO. It's real VOD with pause, play, FF, RW. We've seen the occational bug, but it's mostly stable. The real potential is the increasing library of movies.
I watched Michael J. Fox in "The Frightners" the other night. I missed the movie when it came out many years ago and I always seem to find it in the middle when it shows up on a super-station. So the other night I wasn't interested in any of the new releases for $4.00 (less than BBuster) but I saw "The Frightners". It was priced at $1.75! That is totally cool! An old movie, cheap, no driving, right now. They had "African Queen", "Singing in the Rain" and a bunch of other oldies, all for $1.75.
Now I hear that they are going to include iControl stuff from DIY, FoodTV, HGTV... for NO CHARGE. This is what VOD is all about. Now if the networks/sci-fi/original movie crowd would jump on the band wagon, I could watch whatever I wanted when I wanted.
So, Time Warner still sucks, but at least they have a product I can enjoy...
Later
=MikeT
A cable guy speaks, er, types (Score:3, Informative)
No, cable companies don't hate PVRs. To my knowledge every major MSO (Multiple System Operator) is in some stage of developing a PVR service. Why haven't they launched such a service yet?
1. Lack of consumer demand. In the US, more people still use out-houses than PVRs. That's not to say it's not a cool technology -- 'cause it is -- but it's not yet mainstream. Won't be for a while. Note that TiVo and SONICblue aren't yet raking in the dough.
2. High cost. While Series 1 TiVos can be purchased for $150, most decent PVRs are still ~$300, with a ~$10/month subscription fee. Sure, you can build your own PC-based PVR and get TitanTV.com for free, but this solution doesn't appeal to the majority of consumers.
3. Unattractive business model. Consumers are conditioned to lease their digital set-top box (STB) from their cable company, which means the MSO must purchase the STB from the manufacturer and keep the capital cost of equipment on its books. Most MSOs are limiting captial expenditures as they move toward free cash flow, so new services that require heavy capital spending are scrutinized. Especially new services with limited (albeit growing) appeal (see #1 above).
Product development is simple:
1. What do customers want?
2. How much will they pay?
3. Can we make money charging that?
For a more detailed look at Product Development 101, see this post [slashdot.org].
Changing gears for a moment, let's talk about rising cable rates. <soapbox> Why do MSOs raise their rates? Mostly because of increased programming costs. You see, MSOs have to pay the content providers for some of the most popular channels. It's been published (so I'm not giving away any secrets here) that ESPN raises the price it charges MSOs by ~20% per year, and won't let MSOs move the channel(s) onto a premium tier. Gotta stay in basic, as that's accessible to all viewers.
Ah, so we blame ESPN! Not so fast. *Their* costs are rising, too. The money to pay for Alex Rodriguez's $252 million contract isn't coming from ticket and beer sales. It's TV money. The Yankees can afford the highest payroll in baseball in part because of their TV contract. Follow the money: players' salaries skyrocket, which dramatically increase broadcast rights fees, so video networks (such as ESPN) charge more for their content, and cable companies are forced to increase their rates. Salaries, broadcast rights, and carriage fees increase much more than the typical 5% cable rate boost. </soapbox>
Thanks for reading. Bring on the flames!
-Ray
Re:That doesn't help the cable companies... (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps, but my perspective is strictly from rate setting. I can charge $X based on X viewers from the previous sweeps period; this is 'air value'. Air value is determined primarily from ratings because there is no tangible way for advertisers to connect returns to specific marketing strategies. Returns are secondary to ratings at best, pie in the sky 'what ifs' at worst. Furthermore, returns are less likely to be noticed by large nationwide chains (which have larger wallets) than by mom and pop shops, therefore further decreasing their value.
Why doesn't anyone see this?Perhaps because it is wrong?
Appears to be identical to TiVo's (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, there's no way to determine whether you're going to get a TCD1 model or a TCD2 model (with USB2.0 instead of 1.1). The only guaranteed way to get a TCD2 model right now appears to be buying an 80-hour unit. There don't appear to be any 60-hour TCD2 units.
Followup to Gary Lauder (Score:3, Informative)
To clarify, Gary is a big fan of PVRs but thinks they should be in the cable-head not in the consumer's house. However, he also thinks we should pay for skipping commercials. That's like buying a copy of Time magazine and having to pay extra for not reading the ads.
In general, Gary is a bright guy and a hilarious presenter. He raised some good points about PVRs quality and ease of use.
In response to other comments, some people have pointed out that AT&T and other cable companies offer PVRs. The cable companies are responding to market pressure from DirecTV and Dish to offer PVR functionality integrated in to the Set Top Box. The cable companies would have preferred that PVR functionality only existing in the network/cable head-end rather than in the consumer's house. Again, this is for two reasons.
1. PVRs allow satellite TV companies to offer additional services like VOD. Cable companies hate satellite companies. Satellite companies can not offer network/head-end based PVR functionally. Therefore, the cable companies hate set-top box PVRs.
2. PVRs may eventually cut in to ad revenue and VOD revenue.
The cable companies are also annoyed that they have to pay a license fee to the content owners to offer network PVR functionality in the cable head-end when the satellite companies don't have to pay a license fee to content owners to put PVR functionality in the set top box.
This debate will mostly like end up in court and we have to make sure that the consumer wins. What does it mean for the consumer to win? The consumer must be able to continue to use their PVR for legitimate time-shifting purposes.
Let your cable companies know that you like your PVR and you want to keep using it. This must not be another Napster-like case where the industry sues the consumer electronics company for providing a product the customer wants.
In their battle against satellite companies, cable companies may end up hurting their customers. We can't let this happen.
Re:Ra Ra Retards (Score:2, Informative)
While the concept of a bundled STB (Set Top Box) and PVR is good, it's difficult to implement. A few problems:
1. Cost. Current digital STBs are already ~$400. Double that for one that includes two tuners and a fat hard drive. Few consumers will pay $800 for this device. Given the current economic climate, it's doubtful that cablecos will lease the device to the customer, as that requires a *large* initial capital outlay, and cable companies just aren't in a position right now to justify that to Wall Street.
2. Price. Let's say cablecos do lease these boxes to their customers. Assuming a simplistic three-year payback model, the monthly charge for the box alone would be ~$25. Again, not many consumers would add this to their monthly cable bill.
3. Conditional Access. Scientific-Atlanta STBs talk with S-A head-ends, and Motorola STBs talk with Motorola head-ends. Let's say you're currently served by an S-A headend, so you buy an STB/PVR with S-A's encryption technology. Then you move to another area, one that uses Motorola gear. The STB portion of your box, along with all the neat integrated features, no longer works. A big chunk of your investment is stranded. You would not be happy.
4. Reality. Movie studios aren't yet comfortable enough with encryption technolgy to allow their intellectual property to be downloaded to a consumer device. Period. They know it's only a matter of time before the digital files are ripped from the boxes. It costs *a lot* to develop and test this technology, and the uncertain payback makes this an investment few are willing to make.
So, until there is enough consumer demand (see my previous post [slashdot.org]), an integrated box isn't at the top of cableco's to-do list.
-Ray