I want to thank you for years of effort on Eudora. I still use it on OS X, and other than some occasional mailbox corruption issues when compacting mailboxes, it's been really solid for me.
I look forward to charting the progress of the new Eudora/Penelope.
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.
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.
Nevertheless, there are real legitimate reasons behind their actions that don't necessarily involve, "Let's screw the consumer!"
Well, that may not be the goal, per se, just a lucky side effect. It's no secret that the cable companies fought tooth and nail against letting the users of their service connect third-party equipment. It seems to me as if they're using this technical issue (bandwidth) as a lever to pry the CableCARD ready consumer electronics off of their cable system.
I think that there's a big difference in being competitive, and being profitable. It may eat into profits for a while to stay competitive. So be it. The cable industry seems like it want to have it both ways. To my way of thinking, if they are granted regional monopolies, they should be required to comply with the spirit of the FCC ruling.
Your argument is certainly correct as far as it goes, but it ignores the fact that CableLABS is really an extension of the cable cartel. The cable cartel wants to roll out SDV because it's cheaper for them to do than to build out more bandwidth. The "latest and greatest" in this case is a cost saving measure for the cable cartel. It may be expedient for them, but it is not good for consumers who have invested in CableCARD capable equipment. They could move the PPV and VOD over to switched video and I wouldn't care. My cable system has lots of channels allocated for various PPV sports events that are great candidates for switched video.
You mention "competitive advantage" (well, technically you mention "competative advantage", but I quibble). Who are they competing against? It's a rare city where there is more than one cable company. Satellite TV? DVD rental?
I would much rather have a slightly stale standard than a moving target when it comes to consumer electronics.
If CableCARDs don't work well, it's the Cable Cartel's fault. CableLABS is the cable industry's R&D outfit. They came up with CableCARD to satisfy the FCCs mandate that third-party equipment be interoperable with the cable system. The consumer is being shafted by a combination of the cable industry's greed, and the FCCs unwillingness to stand up to them.
Tell me why it's not using public property like the phone company? Where I live, it's run on the same pole as the phone line. Cities cede monopolies to the cable companies in exchange for their wiring of the city. Sounds more or less like a public utility to me.
Because of this monopoly the FCC stepped in to dictate that cable companies couldn't abuse their monopoly by only renting their own gear to consumers. The FCC mandated that the cable companies come up with a solution to letting consumer electronics companies make equipment to interoperate with cable. The cable companies hate this idea, but they were forced by the FCC, for the benefit of the consumer, IMO.
The solution that CableLabs, the cable cartel R&D arm, came up with was the cable card. They immediately started trying to to torpedo cable cards, however. I have a Series 3 TiVo that uses a pair of cable cards. I have had several problems with my cable cards. Each time it involved my cable company rolling a truck to my house to diagnose the problem. Each time the installer would call the head office and read some number off of my screen. Each time the problem was some data entered incorrectly in their database. The most recent time was the cable company turning on a stricter version of copy protection. Each time the installer complains about TiVo, or CableCards in general. Each time I point out that it is really a problem with their back end. Because the cable cartel does not really want to support third party equipment on their system, the support for third party equipment is bad. Go figure.
To me this is a good example of government trying to do the right thing, in the right way. They don't dictate a solution, they state the problem that needs to be solved, and they leave it up to the private industry to solve the problem. The solution is pretty simple from a tech perspective. The bummer is that the private industry involved is really greedy, and never wanted to do the right thing by the consumer. Switched video is a win-win for the industry. They don't have to invest too much in infrastructure, and they break existing CableCard devices in the process, thereby increasing their equipment rental income. Score!
I wish the FCC would stand firm on this one. I think that they did have the consumer in mind, and they should hold the cable companies' feet to the fire.
What everyone seems to be missing is that this essay is pretty much all "plagiarized" . The section titled "KEY: I IS ANOTHER" lists his sources and discusses his methodology.
He's making his point by putting together other people's words (and ideas) to craft his message. Very clever, in a meta sort of way, IMO.
lower life expectancy, and in general a much shittier life then you, and me.
Agreed
I for one do feel bad.
I do too, but not just because of worldwide inequality. I feel bad that global outsourcing is not enriching other people in other countries much. I feel bad that corporations are free to pocket vast profits, while escaping tax burdens. I feel bad that the US is sliding downwards instead of managing to pull the rest of the world up. As a resident of the US, I feel guilty that we seem to have an "I've got mine, good luck with yours" philosophy. The free market has costs.
Well, that can be said about pretty much any software. New OS releases (and new hardware releases) have a fairly good chance of breaking some piece of software you might have. Apple is one of the worst offenders, actually. Moving from a PowerBook to a MacBook Pro caused me to need two paid upgrades to Apple software, one if which I bought (Logic Pro @ $50), and one of which I didn't (Apple Remote Desktop @ $300).
Yes. I'm in favor of the idea, but want something based on science instead of something that comes across as something designed to hamper some economies and boost others. Re-write it so it includes reductions for all. No increase. Reductions for all.
Perhaps one approach is to come up with a target greenhouse gas amount, based on some reduction from the current total greenhouse gas emissions, then divide it by the population of the world, so that each person had a greenhouse gas amount associated with them. Finally, get each country to agree to only emit their population's worth of greenhouse gasses.
My guess is that Europe and the US would be hurt by this approach more than they would be by the Kyoto Protocol.
I was worried about that, too. I just upgraded from a 1GHz PowerBook G4 to a 2.33 GHz MacBook Pro. The MBP doesn't seem to tun hotter than my G4 when used for general email/web surfing, at least. I haven't used it much for media creation and editing yet.
Comparing the peak volume will not show much, if any, difference. Broadcasters are severely restricted as to how much power they can broadcast, so peaks are clamped.
The average volume is another story, though. Audio compressors can bring up the average volume a dramatic amount, reducing the dynamic range so that explosions and pitchmen have the same intensity. Once a commercial is compressed like this, the perception is that the commercial is much louder that the program.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to thank you for years of effort on Eudora. I still use it on OS X, and other than some occasional mailbox corruption issues when compacting mailboxes, it's been really solid for me.
I look forward to charting the progress of the new Eudora/Penelope.
Keep up the good work.
+1 Funny
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.Aw, really? Modded as a Troll? When the parent said things like "Most of us techs end up asking the customer how." ?
One thing to remember: the cable industry is staffed with people who couldn't get jobs in the rest of the telecommunication industry.
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.
Nevertheless, there are real legitimate reasons behind their actions that don't necessarily involve, "Let's screw the consumer!"
Well, that may not be the goal, per se, just a lucky side effect. It's no secret that the cable companies fought tooth and nail against letting the users of their service connect third-party equipment. It seems to me as if they're using this technical issue (bandwidth) as a lever to pry the CableCARD ready consumer electronics off of their cable system.
I think that there's a big difference in being competitive, and being profitable. It may eat into profits for a while to stay competitive. So be it. The cable industry seems like it want to have it both ways. To my way of thinking, if they are granted regional monopolies, they should be required to comply with the spirit of the FCC ruling.
Your argument is certainly correct as far as it goes, but it ignores the fact that CableLABS is really an extension of the cable cartel. The cable cartel wants to roll out SDV because it's cheaper for them to do than to build out more bandwidth. The "latest and greatest" in this case is a cost saving measure for the cable cartel. It may be expedient for them, but it is not good for consumers who have invested in CableCARD capable equipment. They could move the PPV and VOD over to switched video and I wouldn't care. My cable system has lots of channels allocated for various PPV sports events that are great candidates for switched video.
You mention "competitive advantage" (well, technically you mention "competative advantage", but I quibble). Who are they competing against? It's a rare city where there is more than one cable company. Satellite TV? DVD rental?
I would much rather have a slightly stale standard than a moving target when it comes to consumer electronics.
If CableCARDs don't work well, it's the Cable Cartel's fault. CableLABS is the cable industry's R&D outfit. They came up with CableCARD to satisfy the FCCs mandate that third-party equipment be interoperable with the cable system. The consumer is being shafted by a combination of the cable industry's greed, and the FCCs unwillingness to stand up to them.
The artifacts are a known HD TiVo problem that should be sorted out with the next upgrade. Series 3 TiVos (which are also HD) do not exhibit this.
Because of this monopoly the FCC stepped in to dictate that cable companies couldn't abuse their monopoly by only renting their own gear to consumers. The FCC mandated that the cable companies come up with a solution to letting consumer electronics companies make equipment to interoperate with cable. The cable companies hate this idea, but they were forced by the FCC, for the benefit of the consumer, IMO.
The solution that CableLabs, the cable cartel R&D arm, came up with was the cable card. They immediately started trying to to torpedo cable cards, however. I have a Series 3 TiVo that uses a pair of cable cards. I have had several problems with my cable cards. Each time it involved my cable company rolling a truck to my house to diagnose the problem. Each time the installer would call the head office and read some number off of my screen. Each time the problem was some data entered incorrectly in their database. The most recent time was the cable company turning on a stricter version of copy protection. Each time the installer complains about TiVo, or CableCards in general. Each time I point out that it is really a problem with their back end. Because the cable cartel does not really want to support third party equipment on their system, the support for third party equipment is bad. Go figure.
To me this is a good example of government trying to do the right thing, in the right way. They don't dictate a solution, they state the problem that needs to be solved, and they leave it up to the private industry to solve the problem. The solution is pretty simple from a tech perspective. The bummer is that the private industry involved is really greedy, and never wanted to do the right thing by the consumer. Switched video is a win-win for the industry. They don't have to invest too much in infrastructure, and they break existing CableCard devices in the process, thereby increasing their equipment rental income. Score!
I wish the FCC would stand firm on this one. I think that they did have the consumer in mind, and they should hold the cable companies' feet to the fire.
Sarcasm doesn't really work on the internets.
Probably not. Has yours?
I don't know about Tang, but Velcro's history is not related to NASA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro
http://www.velcro.com/about/history.html
The link above is dangerous.
He's making his point by putting together other people's words (and ideas) to craft his message. Very clever, in a meta sort of way, IMO.
1: Pr0n
2: Games/entertainment
3: Communication
4: Doing our work for us.
Well, yeah, but the same could be said for paper products.
I think that there are either;
-many other categories, such as art, research, etc,
-or only one category, which I would call "Stuff".
The US has:
Diebold
Cheney & Halliburton
Jack Abramoff
etc.
less access to medical treatment,
The US has a rising percentage of uninsured
because of spiraling costs
more disease,
Yeah.
higher infant mortality,
The US the second highest infant mortality rate in the modern world
lower life expectancy, and in general a much shittier life then you, and me.
Agreed
I for one do feel bad.
I do too, but not just because of worldwide inequality. I feel bad that global outsourcing is not enriching other people in other countries much. I feel bad that corporations are free to pocket vast profits, while escaping tax burdens. I feel bad that the US is sliding downwards instead of managing to pull the rest of the world up. As a resident of the US, I feel guilty that we seem to have an "I've got mine, good luck with yours" philosophy. The free market has costs.
Well, that can be said about pretty much any software. New OS releases (and new hardware releases) have a fairly good chance of breaking some piece of software you might have. Apple is one of the worst offenders, actually. Moving from a PowerBook to a MacBook Pro caused me to need two paid upgrades to Apple software, one if which I bought (Logic Pro @ $50), and one of which I didn't (Apple Remote Desktop @ $300).
Yeah, but House always gets good results.
Perhaps one approach is to come up with a target greenhouse gas amount, based on some reduction from the current total greenhouse gas emissions, then divide it by the population of the world, so that each person had a greenhouse gas amount associated with them. Finally, get each country to agree to only emit their population's worth of greenhouse gasses.
My guess is that Europe and the US would be hurt by this approach more than they would be by the Kyoto Protocol.
Do you find that whizzing sound distracting in day to day life?
I was worried about that, too. I just upgraded from a 1GHz PowerBook G4 to a 2.33 GHz MacBook Pro. The MBP doesn't seem to tun hotter than my G4 when used for general email/web surfing, at least. I haven't used it much for media creation and editing yet.
Comparing the peak volume will not show much, if any, difference. Broadcasters are severely restricted as to how much power they can broadcast, so peaks are clamped.
The average volume is another story, though. Audio compressors can bring up the average volume a dramatic amount, reducing the dynamic range so that explosions and pitchmen have the same intensity. Once a commercial is compressed like this, the perception is that the commercial is much louder that the program.
They may well be the last, at the rate that they are spreading, and undercutting smaller stores.