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

Soon, It will be a whole new ballgame

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by ToddD, Mar 17, 2010.

  1. hilmar2k

    hilmar2k Hall Of Fame

    5,251
    4
    Mar 18, 2007
    "Ambitious" is the key word in that sentence.
     
  2. netraa

    netraa Godfather

    483
    0
    Mar 27, 2007
    This is going to be nice and dandy right up until the RIAA, and the MPAA figure out that they are going to have a hard time suing anyone.

    Someone shows up with a perfect digital copy of something that obviously came off XXX service provider.

    MPAA sues the service provider, and they say don't call us, it's encrypted right up until it hits the back of that FCC mandated box. they got it off the STB sue that provider

    MPAA then sues the STB provider and they say don't call us, we just took the signal that the fcc mandated box gave out and put it on a tv sue the computer manufacturer for allowing it to read a stream

    MPAA then sues IBM, IBM says you can't sue us for what the consumer does with a federally protected personal use issue, we can't control what the user does, sue the person that allowed the signal to go out in the clear on open accessible standards.

    MPAA then sues the FCC... supreme court shuts that one down in a heartbeat.

    MPAA then sues the Grandma on the corner of fifth and main that had her grandson use her IBM computer to record the signal off the hacked lowest bidder built STB that was hooked into the FCC mandated grey box that the service provider was forced to feed and use with open accessible standards.

    After years of bad press and huge legal bills.... the MPAA decides it's cheaper to take their ball and go home and build their own distribution system.
     
  3. Rob

    Rob Icon

    613
    9
    Apr 22, 2002
    By the end of 2012 they have to start implementing? Won't happen. This should have stayed in the CE forum; I guess I don't have the technical know how to grasp how this would be implemented in less than 3 years. How long did it take to get the ATSC standard?
     
  4. Beerstalker

    Beerstalker Hall Of Fame

    3,556
    70
    Feb 9, 2009
    Peoria, IL
    You acted like I would be stuck with whatever GUI Comcast comes up with though. I'm saying you could get Comcast service, but then buy a Tru-2-Way server box from Tivo, Motorola, Sony, whoever you want and you would have their GUI instead of Comcasts. You could also buy the small RVU client boxes from any company you wanted as they would either overlay their own GUI or accept the one that the server box sends out.

    The big thing here is if they try to force E*, D*, and the cable companies all start using the same kind of tuners. (Like Tru-2-2way but for satellite and cable both). It would be nice if they could do that, but I think it will be too dificult as the way the satellite companies send their channels out is very different from the way the cabel companies do. I would think forcing either satellite to do it like cable, cable to do it like satellite, or come up with some new system would be way too expensive and complicated to have done in less than 2 years.
     
  5. Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    This is really about Cable TV .. I'm not even entirely sure that it has anything to do with DIRECTV .. Either way, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Cutting Edge. That was definitely the wrong forum for this discussion.
     
  6. curt8403

    curt8403 Hall Of Fame

    4,481
    0
    Dec 27, 2007
    I just hope the new ballgame is not Bouillabaseball.
     
  7. WholeHomeDVR

    WholeHomeDVR AllStar

    64
    0
    Oct 8, 2008
    The lines from the grey box to the devices could have a universal encryption. Providers content would be protected. For example the encryption on DirecTV to PC. The STB can have a unique ID and can have some sort of universal provider encryption. All this technology probably exists.

    Convergence could add more competition between providers, STB makers and give consumers more choices.

    DirecTV only offers one model of a DVR. The most cost reduced model they can make. They do not offer their customer any choices. For example they do not offer Tivo, and Tivo does not work with DirecTV hardware. They do not offer 4 tuner boxes with PIP.

    After this convergence you would have a choice of what hardware you want. STB research and development makers would be more independent of the providers – Like Tivo stand-alone and FTA STBs. Right now the providers are a third party buying what the chip makers and stb makers offer.

    Maybe you could change providers without changing hardware, or maybe have more than one provider on one box. (Yes you’d have to get the feed or additional dish installed). If you could choose more than one provider. You could buy all your sports from DirecTV, Movies from Cable, PPV from Netflix, Stream off a PC and have basic Package from Dish. DirecTV could have a special programming package “What dish does not have” for dish subscribers, and vice-versa.
     
  8. Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    First off, I don't expect to see this happen, but you never know. Secondly, if it does happen, I think it will stifle innovation to the lowest common denominator.
     
  9. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    The FCC's plan is crystal clear that they want this to apply to all TV providers:
    If this actually goes through, and I really hope it does, it would be ridiculous to exclude satellite providers. Luckily, the FCC has recognized that.
     
  10. Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    Ah thanks for pointing it out to me ..
     
  11. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    How so? The current system has already given us that, I can't see how fully opening it up could be any worse.
     
  12. netraa

    netraa Godfather

    483
    0
    Mar 27, 2007
    because way more than most people don't give a flying rat what STB they have.

    they want to call the 'cable co' and make it work.

    therefore, the 'cable co' will still be providing way more than most of the STB's. and they are not going to be looking to add features to the standard box, just looking for more places to cut corners to make up for the cost of developing and changing the delivery platform. Who exactly do you think is going to pay for the billions of dollars in suddenly antiquated equipment that the providers have lying around?

    So, the way fewer than barely any are going to drive prices for the rest of the population because now the providers have to completely change they way they do buisness.

    the 'average' consumer couldn't even get the digital set top boxes done in time, do you really think they give a care what 'black box' provides the picture on the tv?
     
  13. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    I think that's partially because current STBs are such crap. Why should they care if they get Crappy Brand X or Crappy Brand Y? If the barrier to entry were reduced to practically zero, it would open the door to all kinds of companies that simply don't have the resources to compete now. Look at how many different companies produce STBs for viewing pictures and videos. There are tons of them! STBs for TV viewing is a much bigger market, and I don't see why it would be any different. I bet you'd see a bunch of the same companies doing it. Popcorn Hour, now with TV!
     
  14. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,139
    28
    Sep 16, 2006
    Most people I know, want to call the cable company, have then install the cable, and be able to change channels on their televisions, without having a set top box, like it was in the analog days.

    If the FCC pulls this off, Television manufacturers can create a television which will work with these gateways, allowing people to use any provider and just plug the ethernet cable into their TV to make it work.
     
  15. raott

    raott Hall Of Fame

    2,295
    70
    Nov 23, 2005

    Actually, the complete opposite will happen. Proprietary hardware and closed systems are what stifle innovation and keep prices artificially high - ie spending $200 for the pleasure of leasing a DVR, that is possibly a refurb, with a monthly fee on top of that.
     
  16. JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,399
    46
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    How exactly would more competition stifle innovation to the LCD? That's exactly what we have now with sub-par DVRs provided by the program providers. If Tivo, Moxi, and simliar CE companies could get in with a minimal trouble (Cablecards are a ghetto), then if the program providers want to keep providing equipment, they will have to improve their offerings, whereas right now they don't.
     
  17. Nicholsen

    Nicholsen Godfather

    391
    0
    Aug 18, 2007
    Many thanks to the OP for this link! Competition and choice is good for the consumer.

    TV is already dis-aggregating. The method of delivery is becoming largely irrelevant. STBs that follow that trend will be the next big thing.

    Only the established and entrenched providers (D*, Comcast, etc.) want to retain closed systems. Boxee, TiVo, Moxi, AT&T, NetFlix, Apple and Google all now want part of the "TV" content, search and delivery space.

    Who needs a DVR with a "series scheduler" and a huge hard drive when nearly every TV program and movie is out there in the cloud somewhere, available on demand, and most people have broadband?

    DirecTV is currently not well positioned for this fight, because the cost and limitations of satellite delivery don't compete well with the internet for an on demand from the cloud service. They would be smart to get ahead of the curve with a quality STB that can deliver this type of service (Tivo Premiere anyone?) on top of a very high quality HD broadcast signal for sports and new movies.

    I am hard pressed to see why I would buy a crippled TiVo just in order to stay with D*, if I can (i) own a Tivo Premiere, an Apple Mini with Boxee, or similar state of the art device , and (ii) use OTA for the networks and the internet for movies and popular "cable" shows. I also expect more and more sports will be available live on the net, much like the NCAAs are now.
     
  18. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    1) All those theories are under the assumption that economical and unlimited bandwidth for Internet delivery exists or will soon - nothing could be further from the truth. High Internet fees and restriction caps are growing in popularity. There is only so much bandwidth out there, and the expansion is slow and costly. A significant portion of the U.S. doesn't have any bandwidth at all yet - at least not in the 3.0Mbps or higher range.

    2) DirecTV is actually better positioned than most (not all) other providers, in that they have a mixture of standard delivery, MRV delivery, PPV delivery, and web-enabled DVR device delivery to the end user.

    3) The third myth is that Internet delivery of HD content is viable or going to be mainstream anytime soon (let alone at any kind of affordable price). There are plenty of folks, including me, who have been experimenting with various Internet-delivered HD content....and unless you have high-speed fiber to your wall outlet...it simply is "acceptable" - not great, not stellar, but OK. So if it costs more for that...most folks wouldn't forecast a high adoption rate.

    4) One possible solution is to leverage a whole-house-server access to the connectivity, and distribute data/content within an internal high-speed home network framework. Oh wait - that would be SWM and DECA....MRV...and the pending HMC30 unit....it appears the sky is not falling after all.
     
  19. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    And that's a possible solution to what, exactly?
     
  20. Nicholsen

    Nicholsen Godfather

    391
    0
    Aug 18, 2007
    I think Mr. Fan is trying to find a reason why D* not having an extensive "on demand" capability is not a problem, without really addressing my argument that on demand may turn out to be the "killer app" for future TV services.

    There is a reason Comcast pushes "on demand" in their ads.
     

Share This Page