1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would this FCC Development Pave the Way for a TIVO Bolt on Directv?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV DVR with TiVo Discussion' started by GordonGekko, Jan 27, 2016.

  1. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,738
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Are you assuming non-DIRECTV built equipment would be better or that competition would force DIRECTV to build better equipment than they will now the ruling has been made?
     
  2. JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,399
    45
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    The thing about apps is the content provider always writes the app. If you don't like DirecTV's UI, you can't switch to a competing UI without switching to someone other than DirecTV. Also, apps generally only work with a subset of features at this point. Sure, eventually apps are going to be "the way" TV works, but we're not there yet, and we're a long way away.

    I'm disappointed that this isn't going to happen, but it's too late in the game. Really what we needed was back when the FCC was mandated to come up with CableCARD, for them to come up with something better and something that would apply across providers, not just cable. If we were starting over 10 years ago, we could do better and by now there'd be a much better ecosystem. Now, it's too late to try to start fresh with anything other than apps.
     
  3. peds48

    peds48 Genius. DBSTalk Club

    19,924
    1,055
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Both. Better gear could be made, forcing DIRECTV to (perhaps) do better.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  4. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,738
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    When I see these sort of proposals I wonder what the cost of compliance will be. DIRECTV would be required to provide access to secure content via some common standard that they would need to support. Assuming that there would be some penalty for not being compliant with the standard, DIRECTV would need to divert development resources that could be used to make their own products better over to creating and maintaining a required interface. DIRECTV would also need to divert resources to people who would prove that any problems between their receivers/servers and any third party device was the fault of the third party device or quickly repair any problem that turns out to be on the DIRECTV side of the connection.

    Securing content is a primary requirement of any connection. That is a lot easier to do when one company controls both ends of the conversation.

    I would not say that competition automatically creates a better client. Just a more complicated world.
     
  5. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,529
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006

    And they and no one else ever would have... It would have been years and all kinds of other issues. I can still complain all I want about the inadequacies of Directv DVRS. They have had replaytv patents for ages and have done nothing with the gui in ages to advance it to be more useful, or go beyond 100 series links. You don't need to have multiple providers of dvrs on Diretv to complain about that. Heck, they have a tivo box and that didn't sway them at all.. I wouldn't be surprised if Tivo gets a new box on their platform again someday...

    To think this law would have pushed Directv to do more with their gui is short sighted. Its the people in charge who are afraid to do more that are causing this.
     
  6. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,529
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    I dont know of anything you cant do with an rvu directv you can do with a client. Heck the only thing the main genie can do that a client can't is PIP.

    As for the gui... Directv is better than almost all the others out there. Have you seen a cable gui lately? yuck. DIrectvs is fine and serviceable, as is a tivo and some of Dishes. Choice is nice (I hate tivo, some love it for some reason) but it needs to come from Directv allowing others to build a system, not being forced. Forced stuff is always half way anyway. And by the way, on what planet does everyone think there's all kinds of people waiting to start building dvrs for all the cable companies. Tivo doesn't even want to do it anymore!

    People forget, Directv used to have all their boxes made by other companies. Eventually they went all in house. One reason, none of the 3rd parties where making much money and many of them started quitting and not making devices anymore. They had to fill that void themselves. So the choice to go with one unified gui which would be easier to handle customer service wise was made... There aren't that many big companies making guis. In fact there is one. Tivo. Everyone else is really in house. And Tivo has show it can get in on its own so, what would the point have been? To force companies to allow some tiny companies to build one? Do you know the chances of them surviving? Very small.
     
  7. peds48

    peds48 Genius. DBSTalk Club

    19,924
    1,055
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Money talks bull pocky walks....



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  8. peds48

    peds48 Genius. DBSTalk Club

    19,924
    1,055
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Seem you to claim a lot on here but provide very little evidence. You have any links or support material to back that statement?

    Selling a TiVO box for almost $1000 and I see very little evidence of your claim. But I will wait for you to provide evidence.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  9. peds48

    peds48 Genius. DBSTalk Club

    19,924
    1,055
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Again, making claims without evidence. You seem to forgot a thread about this very same thing not too long ago.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  10. peds48

    peds48 Genius. DBSTalk Club

    19,924
    1,055
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Multiple manufactures is nothing new. DIRECTV did not have any issues about securing content back on the days, as a matter of fact, we still have multiple manufacturers today, they only difference is that DIRECTV tell them what they want. The new proposal would have free themselves and go their ow way.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  11. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,529
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    Yeah. I sold the things from all sorts of different brands and they all told me they where jumping ship because there sales where small and there's no money in it. This started happening before the TiVo Hi Definition DVR even. They wanted to focus on DVD players and other things. Sony jumped ship fast. Samsung barley even dipped their toe in the water and yanked it back out.

    Selling them oem was much better for them.

    It wasn't a matter of then all leaving in one day but many of them cutting back more and more till they had one receiver and then none. I got to talk to buyers about it. Was interesting. And if you saw the profit lines in the stores you'd understand.

    Other than TiVo we where headed to two makers. RCA and Hughes.
     
  12. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,738
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Multiple manufacturers is not the problem when they are all tightly controlled by one company. DIRECTV dictating the standard and controlling the entire process.

    The proposal would have required DIRECTV to work with designers that they did not control and meet standards that they did not set. They would need to secure their content while delivering it to a device that they didn't control. Which is not the same as dictating to hand picked manufacturers who could lose the ability to make DIRECTV products if they didn't follow the DIRECTV standards (or even on a whim, within the limits of their contract with DIRECTV).
     
  13. peds48

    peds48 Genius. DBSTalk Club

    19,924
    1,055
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Again, this is hearsay, any links, papers, etc. To back that up....


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  14. peds48

    peds48 Genius. DBSTalk Club

    19,924
    1,055
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Protecting content is not a new thing, is done to the movie and music industry with various STBs. Heck, DIRECTV could even make a little bit if dough my making a MFD (Made for DIRECTV) program to license gear that works on their platform.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  15. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,738
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It is a moot point since the FCC proposal is dead. If DIRECTV wants to work with specific manufacturers (and reject working with others) they can, of course do so. The proposal would have forced DIRECTV to work with any manufacturer
     
  16. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,529
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    So everything you say about installing is hearsay as well then.
     
  17. peds48

    peds48 Genius. DBSTalk Club

    19,924
    1,055
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Isn't that the purpose of this thread, to discuss the "what if"


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  18. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,738
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I was discussing the false assumption that having the government step in and force DIRECTV (or any other provider) to open up their content and distribution to third party equipment or apps would improve DIRECTV's equipment. The proposal would not have been a blessing for DIRECTV or the consumer. It would have been a burden.

    I have already explained my reasoning for those who are interested.
     
  19. peds48

    peds48 Genius. DBSTalk Club

    19,924
    1,055
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    This proposal was never to force DIRECTV or any other provider to open up their content and distribution to third parties OEM. This was about allowing OEM to build hardware that could access DIRECTV programming. DIRECTV would still be in the drivers seat as to distribution and control of their programming, after all those new STB would connect to a DIRECTV dish which connects to the DIRECTV system.

    Basically all this was an attempt to have boxes with different GUIs as most of the internals guts would be the same. Perhaps making them more responsive by adding better graphics and memory support. As I said before, DIRECTV could have a MFD program where they force these OEM to use specific satellite tuners.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  20. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,738
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    That is like saying "this isn't 1+2=3, this is 2+1=3".

    OEMs can build anything they want ... but without DIRECTV's permission they would have no interface to the content delivered over the DIRECTV network. The FCC proposal would have required DIRECTV to open up their system to OEM interfaces.

    Without DIRECTV's permission, the best an OEM can do would be to connect to the physical outputs of the receiver and mimic the remote control. And provide a connection that the receiver accepts so HDMI/HDCP does not block output of the protected content. With the FCC proposal DIRECTV would have had to open up their system and provide a platform for OEMs to control their receivers.

    The link to the dish would remain the same ... but the link from the receiver to the viewer could be corrupted.
     

Share This Page