Cable Companies Despise PVRs

sbombay writes "I just came back from Broadband Plus (formerly the Western Cable Show) and was disappointed to find that cable companies despise PVRs. In his keynote speech, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said that the PVR amounts to 'the Napster of the future.' Cable World has a story about the speech and quotes from other cable execs bashing the PVR. The cable industry's opposition to the PVR boils down to two things -- PVRs help satellite companies (Dish and DirecTV) provide services like Video On Demand (VOD) and a PVR in a cable home cuts into VOD revenue. Any of the sessions at the show that touched the topic of PVRs were an opportunity for the cable industry to slam the PVR. The strongest attack came from Gary Lauder, a venture capitalist who has funded many cable related companies. During his 15-minute presentation, Lauder slammed his Replay box, 'it's too hot,' 'my wife doesn't know how to use it,' and he even tried to fry an egg on his PVR. He also openly called on the cable companies and Hollywood to sue the PVR companies for copyright infringement. If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend." Update: 12/09 18:33 GMT by T : Gary Lauder wrote to say that this account misquotes and misinterprets his speech on certain points. Read below for his reaction. Gary Lauder writes: "I have 3 PVR's and love the functionality. My wife knows how to use it. The misquotation is that she did not know how to reboot it when it locked up. This was a piece of data in support of the following position:

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):

1. 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
2. Disk noise wakes my wife
3. Replay box hot enough to fry an egg -- Is that a feature?
4. Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV
5. Available on every set-top in house Average of 1.7 PVRs/PVR household
6. No pro-activity/anticipation required
7. Records multiple concurrent shows
8. NW storage could always have max. res.
9. Uses existing deployed base
10. Moving parts break more often
11. 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."

Comments

Re:Hold it

[JohnnyBolla]

In fact, here is the link from right here at slashdot.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/1 1/18/139245 &mode=thread&tid=129
FUD. It's not just for Microsoft anymore.

Re:bullshit

[tmhsiao]

Because AT&T Broadband, despite all of their insipid customer service issues, doesn't have the paradigm block that Comcast apparently has. Either that or they recognize that despite objections, PVRs and PVR technology is the way consumers will want to view television in the future.

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

[wastedimage]

The problem is they think that they are loosing money from the commercials we skip. They don't realize that most of us (pvr users..) view commercials as just another crappy imposed spam that we are forced to deal with. They're going to bitch and moan, suprise suprise.., because they think their loosing profits and what not when the simple fact of the matter is they won't. It seems like every biz nowadays is trying to blame some new innovation for loss in profits this quarter intead of realizing that ITS A DEPRESSION (slight though..) enhanced by their own ignorance of the new coming tech toys. I also don't understand how they can say watching more tv is a bad thing, but I can see it from their pov..kinda..They just need to realize they should embrace the new stuff! Not fight it..I can't figure out how these companies think they can bully everyone and win in the long haul. Their ignorance is simply amazing. The sheer fact that (with my blessed tivo heh) an hour program is only ~45 mins is silly. Some half-hour shows are only like 15mins or less! They need to quit focusing so much on profits and rethink their primary business models..

Time Warner Cable seems to have a different view

[proxima]

I don't think every cable company hates PVRs. In fact, Time Warner Cable is rolling out their own PVR, called iControl. It has basic PVR functionality, but it's main purpose for the cable company is pushing on-demand movings that you can pause, etc. as if you rented it.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto. Time Warner in nycap(Upstate NY) just started rolling out their "DVR" offering here on Friday. It's a digital cable box with a hard drive that's rented for an additional 4.95/mo. Who wants to bet that they're carefully tracking each and every program that gets recorded back at the head?

Similarly,

[Anonymous Coward]

the movie/TV industry hated VCR's. And they now make most of their revenue off of it.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

HOA have no legal right to prevent you from installing a small dish if you own the property. Now there are a few other limiting factors, like having a mounting location with a clear line of sight to the satellite, but an HOA by law is not allowed to prevent this.

"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

Re:bullshit

[dfn5]

The other issue is cable companies losing the ability to sell/rent their own crappy boxes to their customers.

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

[jonabbey]

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.. 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?

[wunderhorn1]

So what the hell is VOD anyway? This is the first I've ever heard of it. Is it just pay per view under a different name? Rebranded so to speak?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Cox Communications down here in Arizona is also about to roll out a PVR offer and seems to think they are great devices. I think this article is full of shit. Just another journalist trying to feed off the hatred for big cable companies.

Re:bullshit

[Phillip Birmingham]

"If my parents didn't live where the HOA frowned upon it, I'd tell them to get DirecTV."

Tell them anyway. The FCC has ruled 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

[ncc74656]

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.

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

[wytcld]

AT&T Broadband was acquired by Comcast in what was essentially a hostile takeover. AT&T had been considering spinning of the Broadband division, but decided not to. Comcast put together an offer that the AT&T board, under pressure from shareholders, felt they could not afford to refuse. Comcast as a result become by far the largest cable co, with a near monopoly on the East Coast (aside from NYC). Much of AT&T Broadband's staff is about to be fired, btw. Comcast wanted the customers, not the employees. They have no reason to embrace AT&T's attitude towards PVR; they'll be happy to scuttle it.

Some thoughts (from Planet Replay).

[Tide]

I've been recently composing some thoughts for an upcoming article. This is merely a rough drafts, but pertinent to the subject at hand. A few snippets:

Many people say these lawsuits fall somewhere between the Sony Betamax case and the more recent Napster cases. In the Betamax case, media companies sued Sony over the recording features in the newly released betamax. The court found that while copyright violations were possible with the Betamax (just as they are possible with typewriters and copy machines) that the "fair use" of the machine greatly outweighed it. There are many legitimate uses for recording shows from PBS, religious stations, and whether copying was not objectionable to the copyright holder.

With the success of the VCR in this case, a tradition has clearly been establish of time-shifting a show for later viewing. This tradition extends to lending of time-shifted shows to other individuals. The technology behind SonicBlue's show sharing ReplayTV is very similar. You record a show, then when its over, you can send it to up to 15 friends (whom cannot resend that same show). The media is left in tact, commercials and all, just as it is with a VCR tape. Furthermore, since this tradition is well over 25 years old, no evidence has surfaced that these methods of time-shifting cause little to no negative impact on the plaintiff's business. It is my opinion that time-shifting only expands viewership of shows.

The main complaint over show sharing is this: The ReplayTV allows users to share shows they've recorded to other ReplayTV owners, possilby allowing people who have not paid for premium channels to watch premium content for free. But are they? Does anyone know if this is what people are using the device for? If I missed premium content I already pay for due to a power outage, am I not allowed to receive that content from another ReplayTV owner? Certainly that seems like fair use. The TV studios tried to find out exactly how much of their content was being traded and had their court order overturned. But someone certainly must know if people are sharing, and if so how much. Well, I do.

Enter Planet Replay. Planet Replay is an internet hub for ReplayTV enthusiasts created around the launch of the ReplayTV 4000. It is a place for Replay owners to discuss various topics involving the ReplayTV and find shows to borrow from other members. In show sharing Planet Replay is simply a directory of recorded material along with a directory of Replay owners. It tries to simply some of the work of sharing shows by matching users. All shows are shared between users and not through Planet Replay. It is up to both end users if they want to send the show to the other person, and do so via email contact. So just what do I track?

Sometime over the summer (not really sure when), Planet Replay introduced ratings system. The idea was simple, allow users to rate each other over the helpfulness of the person sharing the show. It would in theory help spur sharing on... but it didn't. Planet Replay even sends the requesting users ranks along with the request email, hoping to help further sharing. User rankings were so poor during the first 2 months, we were for to lower expectations of the system and the stars accordingly. Even as the owner of Planet Replay, I have sent maybe 20-30 shows. So just what are the real numbers?

After I received the subpeona, I ran statistics on the ranking system. A rank of 5 typically means the show was successfully transferred. In the first two months I started the system, there were an average of 10-20 a week claiming successful transfer. Out of 400-500 users thats really small. Last week (Nov 26th) there were 78 transfers for 670 requests and 1234 users. One week later 58 transfers for 1293 users and 770 requests. The request system tracks only that a request was made and the following rank, which lives for a week in our database. Why so many requests and so little transfers?

I missed the season opener of a show called "Firefly". I really wanted to see it. The S.F. Giants though were still being televised and shifted the show beyond what my Replay was set to record. And I really wanted to see it. I then went to Planet Replay and sent out 5 requests for it from various people. None came in after 2 days. I finally found someone to send it to me. Myself, like most users, have unforeseen circumstances where we'll miss a show... a baseball game runs late... the power goes out... scheduling conflict... ect. In an attempt to receive that show, we'll place multiple requests. Still even that number seems low. Why aren't people sharing?

Why should we share? We already own a Digital PVR. Perfectly programmed to record every single episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that even shows on any channel. Why would I need to borrow it from someone else? Well the circumstances above show us why. Given the numbers, ~60 shares for 1200 users a week, that would point us at the average Planet Replay user shares 1 show every 5 months. Wow. Compared to the number of ReplayTVs on the market with the ability to share, that number would be even smaller. Why else is that number so low?

Television shows are not music. This isn't Napster. I'm not going to download all the Buffy's I can and watch them in the car, on the plane, at the gym, in my iPod. TV shows are one-time viewings. Maybe two times for Buffy. This is why Blockbuster is so popular. People simply want to view video once, where as music is repeatable. Not only that, but the files are way bigger. The average one hour show can take around 2 days (yes 2 days) to transfer. That's a long time to wait for Buffy. I might as well just drive over to a friends house and borrow a VHS tape, it would be simpler and faster.

Re:They can't even get analogies right

[pacc]

You might be sad to note that an hour of Birds of Prey is currently only 39:47.
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

[Sc00ter]

"With TiVo, I'd need neither the channel guide nor the extra channels if I'm getting the basic channels that I want."

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

[dogbowl]

buy a Replay unut, and then check this out

http://www.planetreplay.com/
It is pretty close to Napster (and one of the reasons I bought a PVR)

Re:bullshit

[Rick the Red]

All the cable companies do this. There are advertizing companies that buy up slots on national networks, then re-sell those slots regonally. They sell the slot to 52 (or whatever) different car dealers (or whatever) in each of the markets; if they can't sell the slot, it runs with the national ad (Coke, Tampax, whatever).

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...

[JohnDenver]

First of all, I couldn't agree more with your post. However, when the original poster said...

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

[uradu]

> Sure, it takes a million years (well, hours) to upload the program

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?

[shreak]

I have Time Warner Cable (yes, I'm sorry too) I was forced to subscribe when trees grew up through my DishNetwork line of sight (that and my TV addiction, never forget, TV is not a necessity!)

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

[MaineGuy]

Disclaimer: I work for a large cable company. My comments are mine alone, and don't represent the views of my employer or the cable industry.

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.

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...

[Mr.Intel]

If I buy a spot on Comedy Central and it doesn't sell anything for me, its not likely I'm going to buy more time there.

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

[Fencepost]

The offer in question (a 40-hour box for $199 after $50 mail-in rebate) appears to be identical to the one that TiVo is offering directly from their web site. TiVo is also throwing in free shipping, I didn't notice whether AT&T was doing the same.

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

[sbombay]

I apologize to Gary's wife! She knows how to use their ReplayTV box. At Broadband Plus, Gary played a voicemail from his wife asking how to reboot the ReplayTV after it froze up.

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

[MaineGuy]

Disclaimer: I work for a large cable company. My comments are mine alone, and don't represent the views of my employer or the cable industry.

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), an integrated box isn't at the top of cableco's to-do list.

-Ray