Cable Industry Responds Regarding HD TiVo Problems

Lauren Weinstein writes "The day after the issue of cable system incompatibilities with the new HD TiVo and similar devices was discussed on Slashdot, the cable television industry has responded with a workaround proposal in a new FCC filing, though key issues remain to be fully resolved."

Comments

Blog promotion sucks.

[garcia]

Let's skip the pointless blog promotion and go straight to the real article here.

Re:Blog promotion sucks.

[ccs.gott]

Umm... The article isn't much better.

Re:Blog promotion sucks.

[Ohreally_factor]

However, I do like the way the summary is written as if the cable companies were responding to the discussion on slashdot. Oh, hell yeah! Those companies don't want to rile up the mighty slashdot community! If they hadn't done something quickly, we just might have sat on our fat asses and vociferously complained some more! FIGHT the POWER!

Re:Blog promotion sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

blog promotion only sucks when the blog doesn't add any insight. I haven't RTFB, so I can't say what the deal is here- but just warning against generalizations.

Re:Blog promotion sucks.

[jlarocco]

Umm... The article isn't much better.

Linking to the original article isn't done for quality. It's done because blogging tards don't deserve credit for ripping off other people's work.

Re:Blog promotion sucks.

[ccs.gott]

Good point.

Re:Blog promotion sucks.

[heinousjay]

It's not often I say this to quasi-anonymous strangers who are probably male, but I love you.

Re:Blog promotion sucks.

[gfxguy]

Cool! Slashdot sounds a lot like the U.N.

Re:Blog promotion sucks.

[WeblionX]

The U.N. just happens to pay a lot better.

Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[swb]

You kind of get the feeling they want to own the network and the devices, which I guess is an appealing idea from a monopoly standpoint.

I'm curious, though, how much money they actually make on set top boxes vs. what has to be nearly constant breakage and wear and tear.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The cable companies would love to own the devices allowed on the network. That's why in 1996 the FTC ruled that they *have* to allow cable card standards to exist, so customers can use off-the-shelf set top boxes in the name of competition. Ten years later, and we still can only *barely* do this -- the cable companies have dragged their feet at every turn. It's frustrating.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[ivan256]

And they still own the cable cards, and in many cases have managed to charge almost as much for the card as they used to for a set top box...

Most people aren't going to pay for an off-the-shelf set top box when they still have to pay the fee to rent cablecards. People should be able to buy the cablecards too.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[swb]

That doesn't make sense; Microsoft allows you to buy a device to steal software (ie, a computer), why should the cable company be in the hardware business *at all*?

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[hedwards]

I don't think that would stand up. It would more likely be narrowed to a select group of set top box manufacturers.

What I don't get though is why none of the manufacturers has really pushed things in order to get access to the market. I seem to remember boxes being advertised in the late 80s which would do the trick.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[ivan256]

Since when do CableCARDs allow you to steal cable? They need to be activated and receive keys from the network before they can decode the programming.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[Speed Pour]

While I'm certain that this won't lead to the death of the cable company, it will almost certainly ensure that a lot of people will begin going online to get some/more/all of their video needs. In many cases, and increasingly more, the content of each network is making it to the internet in legal channels...and that's disregarding the illegal methods which happen to serve up greater quality.

Compare the ease of ANY method where the user goes online to get a video to the complications that are coming along with any of the new "standards" or hardware that are involved in HD. One week your expensive HD TiVo works, the next week it's dead. This of course comes after spending hours with CableCards which didn't work without being replaced a few times, or even having a failed activation. While confused or uneducated users won't rush to the internet, as long as these problems continue, especially if they are preventing people from watching the TV they want to see, it'll eventually end with many of them seeking a new solution...especially when the cost is also increasing so much with the cable providers while online video options are only likely to get cheaper.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[Speed Pour]

Oops, I started responding and forgot to emphasize a main point, that unlike cell phone carriers, people have the choice to leave the cable companies behind. No real alternative exists to the cell carriers since WiFi-based phones aren't realistic in a huge percentage of the country yet, and any form of satellite phone is still largely hopeless.

As for Cable Providers, so goes the rule of competition...if people can find it cheaper, better, and more reliably; they will eventually buy elsewhere

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[pete-classic]

I work in the industry. My work is pretty far removed from this particular question, but I'm pretty sure that STBs are seen as part of the cost of doing business, not a profitable part of the business.

I think they want to own the box for a few reasons. First, they want as much control over the CA as possible. Second, there's always concern (justified or no) about having third party hardware on any private network. Additionally, they want to control the software so they can change the experience in a controlled way.

-Peter

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[Anonymous Coward]

In comparison to the Conditional Access Modules used in Europe with all (terestial, cable and satellite) DVB versions, CableCARD seems to be a rather broken standard, trying to do everything in the card, and therefore too complex and inflexible. CAMs on the other hand just perform the key exchange part of the decryption, everything else is handled in the receiver. There's no "multi stream" version of CAMs, because the receivers that can receive multiple channels at once can also decrypt multiple channels. Program information (EPG Electronic Program Guide) is also standardized with DVB, and runs unencrypted. A smartcard is inserted into the CAM for authentication, so the part that belongs to the cable company is really cheap. I don't think there's a satndard for two-way communication in DVB-C, but I could be wrong - and it should be easy to define one.

Now, CableCARD2.0 enhances the stupidity of the standard far beyond what any sane person could imagine and mandates a Java environment on the reciever. Are the cable companies actually trying to emulate their old proprieatry receivers in software? Why doesn't the FCC mandate real open standards, that are easy and cheap to implement?

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[edmicman]

Just like a cable modem allows you to steal cable Internet access? I can buy my own modem and not have to pay the lease fee from the cable co, but they still have to authorize it and provide access. Why should the TV aspect of it (cablecard) be any different?

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[SpecTheIntro]

Why doesn't the FCC mandate real open standards, that are easy and cheap to implement?

Because then it would be doing its job and protecting the consumer, which would involve effort and foresight. This way, they can just do what the cable companies ask them to, and everyone who matters goes away happy and rich.

(Okay, I'm not normally this anti-establishment, but the FCC has convinced me that it doesn't give a flying fuck about the American people.)

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[ivan256]

You've basically hit the nail on the head.

Unfortunately the cable company have succeeded in convincing almost everybody, even some very smart people with relevant domain knowledge, that VOD, SDV, and the like can't be done any other way. There is no good reason any of these services require anything but a simple decryption module and some sort (STB vendor's choice) of access to a public packet network.

The cable company's response to the integration ban in the US is to move the entire cable box inside the cable card itself, thus leaving things exactly as they were, but smaller. It's really an embarrassment that they get away with what they do and nobody stops them, or even points out how blatantly we're getting taken for fools.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[PPH]

but I'm pretty sure that STBs are seen as part of the cost of doing business, not a profitable part of the business.

If that's the case, then the benefits of monopolizing the user interface must be sufficient to justify these costs.

I think they want to own the box for a few reasons. First, they want as much control over the CA as possible.

But they should be allowed only the control they need to ensure efficient delivery to customers according to the terms of the service agreements with those customers.

Second, there's always concern (justified or no) about having third party hardware on any private network.

Telephone companies have had to address this issue. Its about time the cable companies did as well.

Additionally, they want to control the software so they can change the experience in a controlled way.

I don't want my 'experience' controlled by anything other than my remote control. I like the menus and program guides on my TV set a lot better then the crap the cable company generates.

I'm surprised that the cable companies haven't figured out how to benefit from opening up their systems a bit more. As it stands now, I've either got to buy the existing cable company's bundle of products as it is or drop the service entirely (I've chosen the latter). Other customers might stay longer, butting up with less than satisfactory service until such time as it reaches some lower threshold and they too leave the system. Why not allow customers to pick and choose the services and features they desire? If there is something that nobody wants, then nobody will select it. But they don't need to switch providers altogether and the result is that the cable company can discontinue unpopular products without losing customers altogether.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[wavedeform]

I think they want to own the box for a few reasons. First, they want as much control over the CA as possible. Second, there's always concern (justified or no) about having third party hardware on any private network. Additionally, they want to control the software so they can change the experience in a controlled way.

I have problems with most of these reasons. One of the main reasons that someone would buy something like a TiVo is to get the TiVo experience, not the cable company experience. The cable company seems to think that revenue streams from PPV and VOD are their sacred right, and allowing a box that doesn't have these features is unthinkable.

And at the end of the day, the FCC mandated that the cable industry come up with a way to allow third-party equipment on their network. The cable cartel came up with CableCARD, through their research outfit CableLABS. The FCC didn't dictate how the cable cartel should go about letting third-party equipment operate on their network, they just stated that as a goal. Third-party manufacturers started making equipment to this standard. Consumers started buying equipment that uses CableCARD. Now the cable cartel wants to break their own standard. The cable cartel should be forced to live up to the FCC regulation here. They had their shot on implementing something that they could live with. The fact that they didn't have enough foresight to envision their bandwidth crunch, and are trying to take the cheap way out, at the expense of the consumers that bought into the solution that the industry itself came up with is despicable.

The cable cartel is just trying to insure profits by using SDV to save money on building out infrastructure for increased bandwidth. I say that this is just part of the cost of doing business, if you are granted a limited monopoly, like the cable companies usually are. The cable cartel's collective feet should be held to the fire on this one, IMO.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Allowing that proved to be a horrible, horrible idea. And, yes, if you know how to alter the firmware in your cable modem, you can steal cable service.

You're right, CableCard isn't any different: allowing completely open access to CableCards would allow people to steal cable.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[Jafafa Hots]

For about 100 years, the phone company wouldn't allow anyone to connect their own equipment to their network. You had to lease your phone. That ended around 1969, when the government ruled that they had to allow people to own their own phones, etc. They ruled this after a company called Carterphone sued... because they provided what was basically an acoustic coupler modem for people to use with their phones.

If it had gone the other way, there would be no internet as we know it. Sprint followed Carterphone, letting people "steal" long distance calls by paying them rather than ma bell.

Openness drives innovation, which creates new industries and technologies - which corporations then try to own completely and milk every last cent out of, while killing any competing technology.

It was a boon for AT&T to have a stranglehold on communications, they were the wealthiest company on earth. But it held technological progress back by decades. Hell, they didn't even introduce phones in colors other than black for over 50 years.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What moron modded this up? I don't know if you noticed, but the telephone industry isn't the cable industry. I know a TV looks a lot like a phone, but they're not exactly the same thing. For one thing, you've been able to always been able to use any TV you want with cable.

The cable box is not equivalent to the telephone. It's equivalent to the NID. And you still can't buy your own NID, it's owned by the telephone company.

Not to mention that the telephone company was a government-regulated monopoly. Cable service isn't a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. Even if you don't live in one of the many areas where there are multiple providers, you can still choose to use over-the-air broadcasts or one of the satellite providers. There are other choices.

So your analogy fails on all fronts.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[pete-classic]

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to make any sort of qualitative statement about the situation. But now I am going to argue with you just a bit.

DirectTV uses open boxes. Echostar uses proprietary boxes. DirectTV is basically dead in the water when it comes to any sort of interactive service. (As far as I know, they can't even do push-VOD.) I'm pretty sure that Echostar is the world leader in interactive STB deployments. I think that this does give the customer some value.

If that's the case, then the benefits of monopolizing the user interface must be sufficient to justify these costs.

Yup. That's how I make my living.

But they should be allowed only the control they need to ensure efficient delivery to customers according to the terms of the service agreements with those customers.

Allowed by whom? I hate that cable is a series of local monopolies, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. Right or wrong, the operators feel they need this control, largely due to pressure from the programmers.

It's helpful to remember that, in the scheme of things, TV viewers are the product and advertisers are the customer.

Telephone companies have had to address this issue. Its about time the cable companies did as well.

Interesting. The telephone network you seem to be talking about is still analog at the terminal equipment. For practical purposes TV has made the switch to digital, but telephony has only gotten there through various end-runs (VoIP and cell) around this network you hold up as an example.

For all its warts, the cable industry is trying to deliver more to the customer. What have the phone carriers done for us lately? Caller ID is the latest "big feature" those dinosaurs have given us.

Terminal equipment on the phone network is infinitely simpler than contemporary TV. If the Satellite and Cable operators were forced to only use open boxes they'd only be able to offer the services available on a large portion of those boxes.

That very well could be a better thing in the long run, but in the short run it would mean fewer features for the customer.

I don't want my 'experience' controlled by anything other than my remote control. I like the menus and program guides on my TV set a lot better then the crap the cable company generates.

That's cool that you find your TV so satisfying. Does is support push-VOD? Or Switched Digital? Or some other feature that someone just dreamed up yesterday and will be pushed out to operator-owned STBs in a year?

I don't want my 'experience' controlled by anything other than my remote control. [again]

Your comment reveals a deep misunderstanding about what's going on. Is it your position that your operator should support any and all features your particular TV manufacturer chooses to implement in your particular TV model? (Which implies that the manufacturer has a better idea of how to get the most value out of the network than the operator does!) What about what my TV manufacturer thinks?!

And when some subtlety in your particular TV's implementation of some feature doesn't work with the operator's, who fixes it? Why should the operator change it if it works for every other TV on the network? Why should the manufacturer care if it works on other networks?

Why not allow customers to pick and choose the services and features they desire?

That's an easy one! It costs them to control who has access to a feature, but costs them nothing extra to roll it out to everyone. These features are dependent on software in the STB.

You don't seem to realize that these features are either custom software on the STB, or network features that are accessed by . . . custom software on the STB. If that doesn't clarify why they want to control the STB for you, I don't think anything will!

-Peter

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[pete-classic]

It's easy to find nasty things to say about the cable industry. I won't argue with you.

That said, any industry wide standard (in any fast-moving industry) is going to be shot by the time it hits the street. If they put every pie-in-the-sky feature into CableCARD you'd be crying that doubles the cost of the TV.

Also, it isn't cheap for an operator to roll out a new feature. Ever. Retiring STB models is fantastically expensive. Implementing new features in software on existing models isn't cheap either.

I don't know if they are living up to the FCC rule or not. If not, then they assuredly should be held responsible. If you're suggesting the FCC should prevent operators from rolling out new features because the FCC mandate didn't anticipate them I'd say that's a pretty backward point of view.

Also, you want "ensure".

The cable company seems to think that revenue streams from PPV and VOD are their sacred right, and allowing a box that doesn't have these features is unthinkable.

Well, I can't blame them for trying to lock in revenue, or blame you for trying to cut them out.

For the second part, you seem to have forgotten that the programmers largely drive CA. If you could get your favorite show from your favorite channel onto a non-secure box trivially, then your favorite channel would drop your cable operator.

I couldn't be more certain that if that happened you'd be grousing about how your operator fucked you over.

-Peter

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[TriggerFin]

Even if you don't live in one of the many areas where there are multiple providers, you can still choose to use over-the-air broadcasts or one of the satellite providers. No, I can't. The mountains block the broadcast signals, and the forest blocks the satellite signal.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[PPH]

You don't seem to realize that these features are either custom software on the STB, or network features that are accessed by . . . custom software on the STB. If that doesn't clarify why they want to control the STB for you, I don't think anything will!

I realize that. What I also realize is that there is a significant number of people out there who, given the choice of 'features' that they don't really want anyway and a STB which interferes with the operation of some more advanced features that their system has, they'll just take the plain old analog feed.

If the cable companies want to switch to an all digital system, they are going to have to figure out a way to make it work with consumer equipment. A simple TV set with a remote control. A Cable Card system might be the most they will put up with.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[wavedeform]

That said, any industry wide standard (in any fast-moving industry) is going to be shot by the time it hits the street.

Ethernet, USB, FireWire, 802.11, PCI, and a host of other standards would seem to argue otherwise. I also have a little trouble with the Cable industry being depicted as a "fast-moving industry", but maybe that's just me. Do you know long there was between the FCCs ruling and any kind of CableCARD deployment? Here's the Wikipedia entry to refresh your memory DVB, which is used in Europe and some of Asia, doesn't seem to be plagued with the same sort of foot dragging, kicking and screaming problems as the CableCARD deployment.

If they put every pie-in-the-sky feature into CableCARD you'd be crying that doubles the cost of the TV.

All I'm asking is for there to be a standard wherein the user can buy a piece of equipment from a third party, add in some sort of Cable Cartel sanctioned encryption card, and be able to do the same things that a box rented from the cable company can do. That's pretty much what the FCC said had to happen, and what the Cable Cartel has been fighting against for over ten years.

I don't know if they are living up to the FCC rule or not. If not, then they assuredly should be held responsible.

In my opinion, the FCC rule is being flaunted by switching over to SDV. It's not unlike bait and switch: here's the method for using your third party equipment on our network like the FCC said we had to do, and that we've been working on for ten years. Oh, and after we've been shipping it for a few months, we're going to make it obsolete by changing it. The mandate was stated in terms of goals, not implementation (albeit in turgid government prose). It was the industry parties involved, both from the Cable Cartel camp, and from the Consumer Electronics camps that hammered out the spec.

If you're suggesting the FCC should prevent operators from rolling out new features because the FCC mandate didn't anticipate them I'd say that's a pretty backward point of view.

Are you seriously suggesting that SDV is a feature? It's not. It is a way for the Cable Cartel to save money on infrastructure. They want to squeeze in more channels. They could start adding infrastructure to achieve higher bandwidth, which is inevitable and the only good long term solution, IMO. What SDV gives them is a way to squeeze a little more out of the existing bandwidth, at the risk of pissing people off who have equipment that uses CableCARD (and hopefully, the FCC).

For the second part, you seem to have forgotten that the programmers largely drive CA. If you could get your favorite show from your favorite channel onto a non-secure box trivially, then your favorite channel would drop your cable operator.

I'm not suggesting that at all. TiVo Series 3 does a great job at what it does. Much better, IMO, than the crappy Moto boxes Comcast distributes, for example. TiVo has gone through CableLABs certification, and is deemed secure to their standards. Now, because SDV changes the way data is sent over the cable, CableCARD customers are going to be shut out of whatever channels are transmitted using SDV. It's sort of like needing a new computer when a new network protocol is developed.

Also, you want "ensure".

Thanks. That one always gets me.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[pete-classic]

If the cable companies want to switch to an all digital system, they are going to have to figure out a way to make it work with consumer equipment.

Why do they have to do that?

-Peter

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[demon]

DirectTV uses open boxes. Echostar uses proprietary boxes.

Actually, I think you got that the wrong way around - the DirecTV systems use Hughes' proprietary DSS system, whereas the Dish receivers I've seen use DVB, an open standard (specifically DVB-S, but whatever). I don't know what that does for interactivity, but from what I've seen of modern DirecTV reception hardware (my parents have a Samsung DirecTV HD receiver), the "interactivity" is pretty much absent there. Not that I'd care much - the only "interactivity" that I've seen via cable is the On Demand and PPV stuff (gag me with a spoon kthx) and the stupid polls during shows like Top Chef (I don't watch it, but I was at a friend's place when he did - even worse, and so pointless).

TiVo or death.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[EtherMonkey]

I pay $16.20/month to Optimum Online for equipment ($9.95 for DVR upgrade, $6.03 for the digital tuner box (dual-tuner HDTV 80GB), and $0.22 for the remote). I've had the same equipment without replacement or service calls for three years, for a total cost of about $580. If I had TiVO I'd have paid more for the hardware plus the monthly TiVO service fee. I feel like I'm still ahead of the game, and prolly will be for another 3-5 years.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[pete-classic]

All Dish Network boxes are Echostar boxes. Your parents have a DirecTV box not made by DirecTV.

The upshot is that DirecTV has no control over the box, so they can't push out any sort of middleware, like OpenTV (I work for OpenTV) or OCAP. No middleware, no interactivity.

DVB is more "open" than DSS, but DirecTV's overall platform is more open in that they allow 3rd party boxes.

As for interactive services, you might be more interested than you think. If you find yourself sitting in front of a TV on Dish Network hit the silver "dish" button on the remote and check it out.

-Peter

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[PPH]

Because a significant (albeit minority) set of users will just drop cable on the day they turn on their analog set, which is directly fed from the cable drop, and it ceases to work.

There is a significant segment of the market that, given the choice of the next service tier (digital, with a STB) with its price, or no cable, will choose no cable. In my neighborhood (served by Comcast), it appears to be about 20%. Cable companies have failed to provide a digital package that is either reasonably priced and/or of comparable functionality to an analog feed. That is, some sort of service which is effectively 'invisible' to the user (no extra menus, no multiple remote controls) that impedes the operation of the rest of their equipment.

I'm guessing that this is of some concern to them, as all of the non-adopters get one or two mailings a week advertising how good digital cable is going to be, if they'd only pay more, accept delivery of half a dozen boxes, yards of cable and a crippled entertainment system.

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[pete-classic]

So your position is that you understand their business better than they do? That they need to sacrifice important (to them) new features to maintain their least profitable customers?

You know your analog TV tuners are going to stop working with over-the-air broadcasts in less than a year and a half, right? Have you considered that maybe you're being a Luddite?

I don't have any sort of TV service. I don't see the value proposition. I think we are in basic agreement there. Maybe you'd be happier just not having cable. (Like me!)

-Peter

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[c0d3h4x0r]

Your comment reveals a deep misunderstanding about what's going on.

No, his comment reveals a correct understanding of the ethics of the issue. No company should hold unnecessary control over its customers. Consumers should always have choices. Everything should always be open and in the customers' best interests.

IANAL but

[dreamchaser]

I wonder if there are grounds for a Class Action lawsuit, the Class being everyone who has had any problems using a third party box with their cable?

Re:IANAL but

[mh1997]

I wonder if there are grounds for a Class Action lawsuit, the Class being everyone who has had any problems using a third party box with their cable?

Yes, a class action lawsuit is just what is needed here. A law firm getting millions of dollars while the chumps that signed on for the lawsuit get a coupon for $5 off their next cable purchase.

My favorite tech related class action lawsuit was against Iomega where Iomega agreed to pay legal expenses of at least $650,000 while the losers that signed up for the lawsuit got product discount offers, free dedicated technical support. Oh yeah, Iomega also paid a $1,000,000 charitable donation to someone but I didn't feel like researching the recipient.

Re:IANAL but

[NMerriam]

Yes, a class action lawsuit is just what is needed here. A law firm getting millions of dollars while the chumps that signed on for the lawsuit get a coupon for $5 off their next cable purchase.

My favorite tech related class action lawsuit was against Iomega where Iomega agreed to pay legal expenses of at least $650,000 while the losers that signed up for the lawsuit got product discount offers, free dedicated technical support. Oh yeah, Iomega also paid a $1,000,000 charitable donation to someone but I didn't feel like researching the recipient.

The purpose of the class-action lawsuit statutes is not to compensate millions of people for small losses, it's to make the cost to corporations high for making small but widespread violations of consumer rights, misleading marketing, etc. Making the cost to corporations higher will encourage them to fix problems rather than just see that it will cost less to stonewall than it would to do the right thing.

Re:IANAL but

[jamstar7]

The purpose of the class-action lawsuit statutes is not to compensate millions of people for small losses, it's to make the cost to corporations high for making small but widespread violations of consumer rights, misleading marketing, etc. Making the cost to corporations higher will encourage them to fix problems rather than just see that it will cost less to stonewall than it would to do the right thing.

Maybe in theory, but every time I read about a class action lawsuit in the papers, it seems designed to generate millions in billable hours for the law firm filing the suit. It seems to be getting to the point where it's all about the billables and less about helping the consumer.

Re:IANAL but

[NMerriam]

Maybe in theory, but every time I read about a class action lawsuit in the papers, it seems designed to generate millions in billable hours for the law firm filing the suit. It seems to be getting to the point where it's all about the billables and less about helping the consumer.

Yes, the lawyers filing the suit make a bunch of money. That's what encourages them to file the suit. Class actions are about basically using free market principles to enforce regulations -- provide a huge financial incentive to find violators and in turn you'll reduce the number of violations. Some states offer similar incentives to whistleblowers -- where you get a percentage of the fine generated if you turn in your employer for breaking some laws. Greed overcomes the desire "not to get involved" or the legitimate fear of retaliation. Make it worth people's while to do the right thing and then you don't have to rely on sheer altruism or extensive, expensive, intrusive government oversight.

The net result is that companies start caring about perpetual billing "mistakes" (always in favor of them for some reason) and other minor violations that they know are "too small" for government regulators to do anything about and too expensive for any individual to sue them for.

Again, the point is not to individually compensate millions of people for the $5 they lost -- it's to punish the company for unjustly taking $5 from a million different people. Whether the money goes to a charity or lawyers or gets rocketed into the sun makes no difference to the company's profits -- it still costs them a lot more than fixing the problem in the first place would have and they will hopefully fix such problems faster in the future.

Re:A usb dongle does not work when TV don't have u

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, Joe's back with his amazing reading comprehension skills again. Maybe you missed the part where this is referring to a problem with the new HD TiVo devices? But that's only mentioned in the fucking article title, so I can see how you might've missed it.

Open letter to the NCTA

[ivan256]

In its comments to the FCC Friday, the NCTA opposed the CEA's proposal, saying it would "strip away the most exciting interactive services and features that distinguishes [sic] cable from its competitors."

Dear Cable Companies,

Features which are implemented in a set-top-box are not features of your network. You do not have some "right" to charge for features implemented in a device that is attached to your network unless that device is: A) Creating traffic on your network, and B) you charge the customer per unit traffic. Your proposal would strip away the most exciting services (the ability to pay once for things your company charges a recurring fee for) and features (the ability to skip commercials, and other crap that you haven't thought of) that distinguish the makers of competing set-top-boxes from you and each other.

Nobody with more than half a brain is fooled into thinking you have anybodies best interests but your own in mind, but the FCC's job is to look after the public's interest, not yours.

Love,
Your reluctant, but trapped, customers

Re:Open letter to the NCTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reluctant, but trapped, customers

Whether or not your "trapped" depends on your ability to handle not watching TV. Perhaps you should look at why you "need to watch TV". Several years ago I was told by the local office of the then contracted local monopoly cable company that they would never offer cable internet here because there was not enough potential customers here for them to do so. When they said this to me they were under a contract with the city that specified they would work on getting cable internet to this city within x years.

My eventual reply was that I was discontinuing my cable subsciption till they put in cable internet, still no TV here because there is still no cable internet. The local cable company has been traded many times amongst the big cable companies and each time that is used as an excuse to explain why they haven't gotten cable internet when in talks with the city. This isn't a large city but it is a university city.

The university wired their dorms for broadband internet and started building more apartment style dorms once the old dorms quit sitting mostly vacant after they wired for broadband. Some of the new apartment dorms are up and full and more are under construction. The local telco did finally add DSL recently so perhaps the off campus apartment complexes will stop going empty.

The next city over faced the same problem with the cable company, their response was to put in their own cable company with broadband. When the cable company and telco were unable to stop them the cable company quickly added broadband and the telco quickly added DSL. Now their citizens can chose between two cable providers and multiple DSL providers. This was done before the state inacted regulations preventing cities from providing such services, hopefully more cities will do so if recent changes in Federal regulations work properly. Many of the local university students live and commute from that city that has more choices.

Faced with competition the cable company reacted quickly and fulfilled their contractual obligations with the neighboring city, here they continue to ignore them while changing parent companies as the deadline approaches each time and the city again foolishly grants them an extention. No doubt the cable companies are using a similar song and dance routine regarding technology changes that in their arguements means they no longer provide the type of service that the FCC required them to make more open and therefore they need new regulations that are more directed to the new service before they have to change them to be more open. Openess should be required to be built in, if could find a way for their to be real competition in these areas then that openess might finally get here, provided of course that enough customers demanded it and followed up with their dollars. Of course it would also help if local, state and federal governments would strip away their contracts and licenses when they failed to meet their obligations properly.

We need to broaden our activism, unfortunately too few are willing to simply disconnect to get the point across and there is seldom an available alternative that meets our needs to make it easier for people to vote their dollars without giving up their TV addiction.

Re:Open letter to the NCTA

[ivan256]

Whether or not your "trapped" depends on your ability to handle not watching TV. Perhaps you should look at why you "need to watch TV".

You've missed the point entirely.

You're trapped whether you discontinue (or never sign up for) cable company service or not. Cutting the cord and discontinuing service doesn't magically make you able to manipulate and timeshift television signal in whatever legal methods you might choose... It just means you're not watching TV. The only way it would make you not "trapped" is if not watching TV suddenly gave you more options. It doesn't it gives you less options.

Besides that "trapped" point, you're applying free market thought to a non-free market. You can't "vote with your dollars" when the market is heavily regulated. You vote with you vote in that case. It's not the cable companies that are failing us in this scenario, it's the regulators who are appointed by our elected officials. Canceling your service... even half your community canceling their service... wouldn't provoke any change. Your own example proves this.

Re:Open letter to the NCTA

[wiredlogic]

FWIW. The FCC doesn't actually have the authority to tell the cable companies to do anything since they do not broadcast over the public airwaves. The mandates for supporting hardware features such as cablecard are directed only at device manufacturers and are conducted by the FTC with appropriate FCC coordination. This is why the cable companies get away with their delay tactics.

The last time this was done is when TVs were mandated to support the higher UHF channels. Back then it was no big loss for the cable companies to forgo the rented STB since they were only losing out on PPV sales and they were still needed for scrambled premium channels. Now you have cable companies vying to sell triple-play services, PVRs, guide data, and targeted advertising. They don't want to allow any chink in their armor that could lead to an AT&T style de-monopolization.

Re:A usb dongle does not work when TV don't have u

[ivan256]

It's a problem with more than just HD TiVo devices. They are merely the most used CableCARD devices out there now, and are thus getting all the attention. Don't worry, unless you've got a DOCSIS chipset in your television (you almost certainly don't) your CableCARD "compliant" television is equally as hosed by SDV.

You should apologize to the the guy for making fun of his reading comprehension, since he was actually right.

As a cable guy who installs this shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I would much rather eat my thumb then hookup a TiVo to a digital box (DCT). Not only does that add on an additional 1 hour to the install, most of the time the picture doesn't come in on the TiVo. I honestly have no idea why the company I work for has us install them, as the said company provides NO documentation on how to install it. Most of us techs end up asking the customer how.

Re:As a cable guy who installs this shit

[DrSkwid]

Why would you eat your thumb before hooking up a TiVo ?

Re:As a cable guy who installs this shit

[wavedeform]

One thing to remember: the cable industry is staffed with people who couldn't get jobs in the rest of the telecommunication industry.

Re:As a cable guy who installs this shit

[wavedeform]

Aw, really? Modded as a Troll? When the parent said things like "Most of us techs end up asking the customer how." ?

Re:As a cable guy who installs this shit

[Andy Dodd]

Disregarding other people's comments:

"I honestly have no idea why the company I work for has us install them"
They are legally required to support CableCard. Well, sort of... They keep finding loopholes (which is what this article is about.)

"most of the time the picture doesn't come in on the TiVo"
This is your employer's fault. Maybe they should have done a better job when designing CableCard...

Sounds like a cable guy to me

[Anonymous Coward]

More ass crack than brains

Does anyone remember when TV was simple?

[ConceptJunkie]

Does anyone remember when TV simple to use, and most of the shows were better?

My goodness, the media industry has turned watching TV into something about as fun as dealing with Microsoft software.

There's nothing that can't be turned into a total nightmare by adding technology.

Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple?

[vertinox]

Does anyone remember when TV simple to use, and most of the shows were better?

I remember when MTV used to play music videos.

Boy... I'm old.

Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple?

[gEvil (beta)]

My goodness, the media industry has turned watching TV into something about as fun as dealing with Microsoft software.

You should try using Windows MCE--the best of both worlds...

Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple?

[TheRaven64]

I don't remember the shows being better, but I do remember TV having fewer competitors for my attention. Now, with the addition of cheap postal rental of DVDs and the Internet, broadcast TV has a hard time competing for the time I have for entertainment. The only thing it ever really had going for it was convenience, and it doesn't really have much of that anymore.

Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple?

[DrSkwid]

I remember the days *before* MTV existed !

Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple?

[jedidiah]

They shows may or may have not been better. Just assume that they were the same. Now shrink down the number of channels dramatically. What you are left with is a better quality "density". It's hard to percieve anything but a massive quality drop on TV because there's so much drek that you have to wade through if you want to get to anything interesting.

You need the DVR just to help you sort it all out for you.

Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple?

[ConceptJunkie]

I remember when MTV showed mostly music videos that didn't suck. IMO that ended around 1991.

Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple?

[ConceptJunkie]

Now, with the addition of cheap postal rental of DVDs and the Internet, broadcast TV has a hard time competing for the time I have for entertainment.

And yet they insist on doing everything they can to further antagonize me. Random schedules, reality shows, more advertising per hour, advertisements _during_ the programs... I cancelled my satellite subscription years ago and with Netflix and my own personal collection (including The Simpsons, MST3K and plenty of other nerdy shows), I don't miss network TV at all.

Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple?

[gfxguy]

I remember that, and when they started VH1 for all the "older" people who started complaining, and then VH1 became nothing but shows...

The same thing happened with CNN... then they started Headline News. At least Headline News still shows news instead of shows.

Re:A usb dongle does not work when TV don't have u

[Secrity]

TFA is specifically about TiVo, it does not address any other devices that may also be hosed.

TiVo is unique from most other CableCARD devices because it contains what is essentially a general purpose computer running Linux, it can be connected to the Internet, it is remotely programmable, and it has standard USB ports.

No apology is necessary.

Motorola, SA, CSG systems

[grumling]

Most of the problem is centered around Motorola and SA spreading FUD in the industry about signal theft. Instead of using standard encryption techniques (like your bank and just about every secure web site), they put together a system that is just about as closed as you can get. Then the .gov comes in and says they have to open it up. Rather than scrap the existing system and use something that will be secure and open to other manufacturers, they continue to try to adapt their encryption to the new rules, without letting too much information out there, hoping to avoid the hacking that went on in the satellite industry.

The other big problem is that the cable billing systems were never intended to deal with customer purchased equipment that requires authorization, and most of that code was hacked on at the last minute and doesn't work very well. The customer service people have minimal training on the system (they are there to provide customer service, not enter data), so they end up making a lot of mistakes. The billing systems make it much harder than necessary, and the screwy way cablecards interface makes it much more difficult.

Finally, the cablecard spec is still only 1 way. The real spec will be the 2.0/ocap system, but there still seems to be some work to do. This will allow 2 way services to be implemented but there is a lot of back office stuff that needs to be addressed, some of which has never been tried outside of a lab. The 1.0 cablecard slot is not compatible with the 2.0 cards (it is not a firmware upgrade).

It is going to require a lot of training and attitude change from the entire industry. In the long run, if the industry adopts the standard and actually uses the features available to them, it will be a great system. Imagine picking up a set top at Best Buy, taking it home, entering you WiFi key and getting on your home gateway. Your set top will autoprovision with services based on your subnet, and will share data with any other set tops in your home network. All this stuff is possible today, but will require a lot of rethinking by the cable companies. Motorola showed off the DVRs that share data, and Cisco/Scientific Atlanta has the home networking tech.

Re:Motorola, SA, CSG systems

[The Vulture]

Disclaimer: My personal opinion, not that of the company I work for.

Actually, the big part of it is that Motorola and SA know that with a fully open encryption system, cable operators wouldn't have to continue to purchase their equipment, operators could choose to integrate competitors' equipment in the mix more easily. Working for an upstart competitor, one problem that we see is that cable operators just spent a ton of money on Mot/SA equipment, and don't want to lose that "investment".

If they would actually have an open standard, made by somebody other than CableLabs (having dealt with CableLabs in the past, it left a bad taste in my mouth), we would see a whole new world of features.

-- Joe

Re:Motorola, SA, CSG systems

[teebob21]

Again, I am forced to post in a Cable Industry thread.

Finally, the cablecard spec is still only 1 way. The real spec will be the 2.0/ocap system, but there still seems to be some work to do. This will allow 2 way services to be implemented but there is a lot of back office stuff that needs to be addressed, some of which has never been tried outside of a lab. The 1.0 cablecard slot is not compatible with the 2.0 cards (it is not a firmware upgrade).

Regarding CableCARDs, please know your stuff before posting consumer FUD. CableCARD 1.0 has always been 2-way compatible, provided you have a 2-way TV. With the exception of one model from Samsung which isn't on the general market anymore, NONE of the consumer electronics companies have built this feature into their sets.

"The media has frequently reported that first-generation CableCARD 1.0 modules are one-way devices1. This is simply not true. CableLabs had always intended to develop the CableCARD module and host receiver standards with two-way capability. However the manufacturers of digital TVs requested that a host standard be developed that only had one-way capability. This one-way cable-ready receiver was defined by the FCC's Plug & Play order and by the Joint Test Suite (JTS). It is the definition of this one-way receiver that lacks the ability for two-way functionality, not the CableCARD module. While the FCC defined the elements of the one-way cable-ready receiver, CableLabs continued to define specifications for two-way receivers.

When a CableCARD 1.0 module is used with a two-way receiver (e.g., Samsung HLR5067C) that card supports all the necessary two-way functionality for VOD, SDV, and other interactive services."

Citation: http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.h tml

I would suggest reading that page thoroughly before ever speaking publicly about CableCARDs again.

Secondly, to say that cable customer service reps have minimal training is in accurate. Yes, when I was a field technician, I would joke that CSSR's were dumb as a box of rocks when they made mistakes, but when I moved to the billing department, I was amazed by the complexity of it. There is a lot of training involved to learn it, and yes, part of the job description is data entry. Some of those girls can pound a 10-key like you've never dreamed of... Anyway, My company uses Cable Data from Amdocs (formerly DST Innovis), so I cannot speak for CSG companies.

I would address the rest of your comment, but I have a feeling Baby just dropped a steamer...

Re:Motorola, SA, CSG systems

[demon]

Thank you for doing what I was going to do anyway - seems every thread involving CableCARD requires at least a few people to drag out the "but CableCARD is only one way isnt that stupid lolz" crap.

Re:Motorola, SA, CSG systems

[NateTech]

So you're attempting to argue that CSR's at cable companies getting tons of training to handle internal inefficient broken systems is supposed to be a comfort to those of us stuck at the end of the phone line, wasting our time, waiting for the overworked CSR who knows how to 10-key well...?

The same CSR who's so overloaded they don't know anything about how their own network works, and can't figure out how to actually handle our problem? A problem that we're sure others have had, and the company could train the CSR's on?

This isn't just cable companies. Many companies have deployed internal data systems that are so bloody inefficient and require so much data entry, that people tasked with "customer service" as a title are really "CRM drivers who might also know something about what the customer wants".

What you've described is a sweatshop, not a true customer service environment.

"rolandsgirlfriend"???

[5pp000]

"rolandsgirlfriend"??? Come on taggers. This is offensive. You know perfectly well that Lauren Weinstein is a man. He has been making a real contribution in the security field for many years.

Too bad I can't mod a tag as -1, troll.

Re:"rolandsgirlfriend"???

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off you whiny effeminate Jew.

Re:"rolandsgirlfriend"???

[5pp000]

Ah -- I see the tag is gone. Excellent.

Re:A usb dongle does not work when TV don't have u

[ivan256]

Did you actually read "TFA", or even the blog post that linked to "TFA"?

The mention of TiVo in the blog post is in reference to a previous post. The actual article (linked through the blog post) isn't about Tivo. It's about "Consumer Electronics Devices".

Both the article and the blog post assume some level of familiarity with the technology in order to fully understand them. The fact that you consider the TiVo "unique" in the context of a discussion about alternatives to the Open Cable Platform because it has a general purpose processor and runs linux clearly shows you shouldn't be butting in. Rudimentary reading comprehension would have shown you that it's not something "unique" about this class of devices, but actually the proposed standard, even if you weren't familiar with the issues involved.

At least you had the decency not to hit the "Post Anonymously" box this time though.

FCC bending-over for what?

[MilesNaismith]

I used to find hooking up TV equipment fairly easy.

I got a TiVO HD last week and getting it to work was a NIGHTMARE

First I couldn't find anyone at ComCast that seemed to know how this CableCard junk works. My local office wouldn't just give me one and let me hook it up myself, I had to have a "technician" for that.

I requested a visit and specified it was for TiVO HD, and I needed a MultiStream card.

THREE guys show up. Two of them were n00bs being trained. The supposed experienced hand doing the training, hadn't heard of an M-card, and only had one single-stream card with him.

Next he informs me none of it will work until I upgrade to "Digital Classic" I can't do it with just basic digital service.

Says I'll need to call in again and schedule another truck roll after I've upgraded.

Useless! How many mornings off am I supposed to request from work, so I can hope they will show up and figure this out?

They've made it so frakkin complicated their own people don't know how it works, and they won't let you do it yourself in many places. This is like the old AT&T monopoly. This half-baked idea is supposed to replace analog cable by 2009. Ugh! The CableCo has frakked this up through sheer incompetence or spite, and the FCC is asleep at the switch. This stuff should be kept SIMPLE not layered up with a bunch of unneccessary widgets. Adding MORE widgets will not fix a broken design.

Yes I returned my TiVO HD within the 30 days for full refund. I ABSOLUTELY do not blame TiVO in this, the returns lady was very gracious and didn't try to talk me out of it or anything. TiVO is just trying to play the hand it was dealt.

Re:FCC bending-over for what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard several stories like this about Comcast (and other cable providers) across the Tivo forums and it made me reluctant to switch. I've had satellite for years but its hard to turn down the Tivo HD. Needless to say I called Cox (in Santa Barbara) and scheduled an install. The service rep knew what an M-card was and put a note on the service order that I'd like one. The installer showed up with a box of SA M-cards and said they'd been deploying them for about a month and has installed them in several Tivo S3s and HDs. He cycled through a couple of cards, but finally found a working one and I've had 0 problems since. Granted there is still two way communication with the cable HE, Cox does not offer on demand here and does not use SDV. That only leaves PPV which I can live without. Now I just hope they don't start rolling out SDV, but so far the service has been excellent in my area.

One Post to Clarify Many

[Bad Mamba Jamba]

I've been reading this thread and there are many fictions here I thought one general post would be better than trying to reply and correct them all.

• First of all TiVO's main gripe here is the introduction of Switch Digital Video (SDV) by the cable industry breaks their product. SDV, in a nutshell, is a technology that increases network efficiency by monitoring when people are watching a given show. If no-one is watching the bandwidth is allocated to another show that is being watched. Sort of like IP multicast, where you use IGMP to sign up for a multicast group, the router streams as long as you're signed up, but when no-one is signed up it doesn't bother broadcasting the stream. The part the breaks TiVO is the program is no longer broadcast on a stable frequency and PID on the network so TiVO can no longer tune reliably. SDV is not an cable wide standard and therefore TiVO is left out in the dark unless they implement drivers for every provider in the country. Assuming they can even get the specs. It has been suggested that switched digital video support be moved into the Cable Card specification to resolve this problem, but that's all still in the works.

  Note the big driver for freeing up bandwidth is HD content. HD requires 3x to 4x bandwidth to broadcast over a standard def channel. This incurs substantial cost to the cable company in terms of content revenue per bandwidth unit. One might give a nod that broadcast providers are trying to help us out here and make that shiny new HDTV in our living rooms even better. Even satellite is making this move - though they can't do switched due to their restricted 2 way capability, and instead had to launch a few new satellites and work other magic to increase their bandwidth.

  An alternate to SDV would be to increase plant bandwidth like the satellite guys and add additional channels. This requires substantial capital investment whereas switched is primarily a software solution and therefore significantly cheaper. Like order of magnitude cheaper. I guess in a way you can thank Wall Street for SDV because the investors really love this stuff and it makes stock prices go up.

• Second - somebody dragged in Cable Cards and said something about cable cards only being 1 way. WRONG! Time Warner Cable is deploying 2 way cable card devices in major markets such as NYC right now. http://www.timewarnercable.com/Corporate/Products/ CableCard/CableCard.html. Comcast does not offer two way service as of yet. But the spec is complete and available on the CableLabs website.

• Third, and slightly off topic, but the word monopoly irks me to no end; somebody said cable companies are monopolies. Strictly speaking - WRONG! Cable companies have to sign franchise agreements with every city, and may be fined, or even kicked out for violating those agreements. However ANY company is free to come in and compete. Verizon FIOS and AT&T are doing just this. DirectTV is there with Satellite. The main barrier to competition is cost. And the cost to build a network and maintain it is staggering.

  Remember the whole point of business is to make money while moving toward the best solution by virtue of competition. Not to give stuff away for free because it makes a company feel warm and fuzzy. You vote with your dollar be it buying stocks, paying taxes to support public infrastructure, or paying for goods and services. If you don't like cable go sign up for something else. Each broadcast technology has it's pros and cons, pick what works for you. If you're not happy with anything then cancel and get outside or take up a hobby. Hell start your own broadcast video company. Just no more whining!!!

Re:One Post to Clarify Many

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. And someone could have come and competed with Standard Oil, if they'd just had the money to drill enough holes in the ground.

There are many kinds of monopolies. Infrastructure is usually considered a "natural" monopoly, in that it doesn't make sense to have a hundred power lines (for an actual, historical example) running to each home. However, since a market can't function under a monopoly, we have to replace market regulation with government regulation.

So yes, cable is a (local) monopoly, under the legal definition. That's why the franchise agreements exist--they're the local government regulation that are supposed to prevent abusive practices. That someone with big pockets like AT&T (with existing physical plant) or Verizon (with FiOS) could one day compete changes nothing. 99% of consumers still have no choice in the matter.

Re:One Post to Clarify Many

[SillyNickName]

Third, and slightly off topic, but the word monopoly irks me to no end; somebody said cable companies are monopolies. Strictly speaking - WRONG! Cable companies have to sign franchise agreements with every city, and may be fined, or even kicked out for violating those agreements. However ANY company is free to come in and compete. Verizon FIOS and AT&T are doing just this. DirectTV is there with Satellite.

In most places only one company has the legal right to use the required right-of-ways to operate a cable system. The idea that just ANY company is free to come in install their own system is just not true and anyone foolish enough to try such a stunt would be arrested and taken away. This constitutes a government protected monopoly, NOT free competition. Strictly speaking.

Yeah, other companies compete indirectly, but then again all companies indirectly compete with each other for the same dollar. That still doesn't mean that there are no such things as monopolies.

Re:One Post to Clarify Many

[demon]

Actually, your statement that an HD channel takes about 4x the bandwidth of an SD channel may be true - if you're comparing to a *digital* SD channel. However, many major cable MSOs still broadcast their basic lineup, as well as several other channels, in *analog* SD - those channels actually each take about the same bandwidth as an HD channel. The question remains, then, why not just move more SD channels to digital transmission? They could free up ridiculous amounts of bandwidth that way.

Re:One Post to Clarify Many

[bluephone]

Because there are a lot of people like me who don't want to pay the crazy fees the cableco wants for a digital box and digital service. If they want to save money and bandwidth by delivering my basic cable digitally, I'm fine with that, but don't charge me MORE so they can save money.

Re:It's Sunday Morning

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody mod this fool down. And, I believe the word is "eradicate"

To be the Devils Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the top complaints voiced by cable customers?

My bills to high, cable is a monopoly. I want more bandwidth. Selection of channels, or lack there of, and picture quality.

Telco is coming back for a second round to fight for their share of video customers. I'm not just talking about FIOS with it's fiber, as sadly, it will still be a while before most of the country has light to the curb let alone to the house; I'm talking about twisted pair. Switch video will be the reason that Phone companies can roll out their competing video services sooner for they will not have to upgrade their whole network. More competition = price war

The essence of switch video is that instead of having hundreds of channels just sitting there waiting, only the channel your watching and maybe the channel above or below will be broadcast, just like on demand.

Cable bandwidth 101: Their upstream is generally from 5MHz-48MHz, although only from about 16MHz-30MHz is usable. Their downstream is about 52MHz-1GHz (most systems are still 750MHz). Channels are allocated into 6MHz blocks.
6MHz = 1 analog channel = 1 HD channel = 4-16 digital channels (depending on their compression or modulation). Since they haven't pulled the plug on analog yet, that means from about 450MHz-1GHz (usually 750MHz) is actually usable for HD, digital channels, on demand, PPV, and broadband.

Most area cable companies are currently at or near capacity. Switch video is the answer to their prayers of more bandwidth for less cost. This will open the doors for more content, faster internet speeds, and better quality, less compressed video.

I am not defending the cable companies. As a former extremely disgruntled employee and current customer I have more to be miffed about than the average customer. I am merely exploring another side of the story. The digital/HD switch is and will be difficult and rife with complications, finger pointing, and growing pains with the consumer bending over and recieving the short side of the stick through most of the process. Hopefully, it will be worth the pain.

USB "dongle"

[Cramer]

It's called a cablemodem, people. And I have a stack of paychecks that says they'll f*** that up just as bad as cablecard installs. And, btw, doing it like this is in violation of the cablecard spec and UDCP license. (and would still require the SDV client app within the device. not a huge issue for tivo, but certainly is for everyone else -- how do you update the firmware on your TV?)

Re:USB "dongle"

[Milikki]

how do you update the firmware on your TV?)

If its a Samsung, you ask the company to mail you a cablecard with the update on it, stick it in the tv, power up and it automagically updates the firmware.

Kevin