# Great news!!! Will no longer be restricted to DirecTV equiptment.



## ajiuO (Jun 17, 2006)

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/in-blow-to-cable-lobby-fcc-wants-tv-to-be-available-on-any-device/

I love this. It will not only apply to hardware but software. It will be awesome being able to use an Apple TV or what ever you like to watch DirecTV and other cable services.... One less box 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Not a done deal ... just a desire.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

The '16 elections could make this a long-lost dream.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

To do that, they'd have to rework the entire encryption and security system unless they were just like RVU clients. Not saying it's impossible of course.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Years away and I still don't get why anyone things this would work with an appletv or fire tv pot anything like that. Those devices don't have hard drives and don't want hard drives. They are streamers. It'd take a whole new category and no one is going to begin investing today in DVRs. 

The only thing I see is echo star releasing the hopper 3 for any provider maybe. That's about the only people I see taking advantage and it will come with lots of software bugs too when it hits. It's just so late in the game... Should have been done when DVRs first came out.


----------



## thyname (May 10, 2015)

This is three years away at least (if ever)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Well, about 3 years ago it was announced that RVU was coming to the PS3. In terms of DirecTV support, we're still waiting for it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

ajiuO said:


> http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/in-blow-to-cable-lobby-fcc-wants-tv-to-be-available-on-any-device/
> 
> I love this. It will not only apply to hardware but software. It will be awesome being able to use an Apple TV or what ever you like to watch DirecTV and other cable services.... One less box
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It has been a long, long process. The FCC has been trying to make this happen for many years. (And DIRECTV has done their part with their support of RVU, which they presented to the FCC as a potential solution.)

I remain hopeful, though I no longer predict when it will happen. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

dpeters11 said:


> Well, about 3 years ago it was announced that RVU was coming to the PS3. In terms of DirecTV support, we're still waiting for it.


At some point it was Sony that needed to step up to that plate. DIRECTV helped make the specification, each company then needs to make it happen.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dpeters11 said:


> To do that, they'd have to rework the entire encryption and security system unless they were just like RVU clients. Not saying it's impossible of course.


RVU is built on open protocols and the encryption between the Genie and RVU clients is not Directv proprietary but DTCP-IP which is basically the equivalent of HDCP for carrying video streams over IP on a local LAN. It was originally used with Firewire but was later extended for regular ethernet. The company that created Directv's proprietary RVU "standard", Jethead, also created the Vidipath standard which has been discussed a lot as a likely basis for what the FCC ends up requiring (the two standards are likely very similar as they are built from all the same components)

There's absolutely nothing stopping devices like a Roku or Apple TV from supporting this and/or RVU except the will to do so. There's not much incentive to bother when the market is limited to only Directv customers (and why should you want to use your own Apple TV instead of Directv's client when Directv charges you the same fee either way?) If there was a standard everyone had to follow, all those devices would support it, and more importantly it would be built into all smart TVs.

There's a DCTP2 standard that was just released a few weeks ago that they would probably use instead of the current DTCP-IP because it makes the encryption tighter, adds better support for HDR and a way to flag where 4K content may be downconverted to HD content if a display only supports HD (i.e. here's how you finally get to display full 1080p on your HDTV - via 4K content )


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Years away and I still don't get why anyone things this would work with an appletv or fire tv pot anything like that. Those devices don't have hard drives and don't want hard drives. They are streamers. It'd take a whole new category and no one is going to begin investing today in DVRs.
> 
> The only thing I see is echo star releasing the hopper 3 for any provider maybe. That's about the only people I see taking advantage and it will come with lots of software bugs too when it hits. It's just so late in the game... Should have been done when DVRs first came out.


Why do you think no one would invest in DVRs? I think the key is whether they would be able to access the video streams and use their own UI, or would have to use the provider's UI (what Vidipath calls the RUI or remote UI) like RVU does. If you have to use Directv's UI, I agree there's no incentive for anyone (including Echostar) to sell DVRs into that market because there's no way you can improve the experience over what you get. Even if your provider has a decent UI you can't make it better (like say a three hour guide for those who think the Genie is a decent interface) and if your provider has a terrible UI you are stuck - no point in buying a Tivo if you're stuck with the horrible UI Mediacom's DVRs use.

If they're required to support both the RUI for clients directly attached to the gateway and direct access to the streams for enhanced devices that would effectively be an intermediary between the gateway and the clients, I think we'd see a variety of DVRs. From super cheap no frills like iView's $40 (plus the cost of adding your own USB drive) 3500STB to Cadillac solutions like the Tivo and maybe something from Apple.

It will take a while for this to shake out, and the elections could kill it if the makeup of the FCC shifts, but even if they go with the RUI only and you have to use your interface having a single standard everyone must follow instead of a Genie here, Joey there, whatever Comcast calls their clients and so forth they'd all be available in tiny cheap devices you could own, built into every new TV you buy, or you could still get them from providers if you like the current way of doing things.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

You are more likely to see third party cable boxes than third party Dish/DirecTV boxes because of different complexities.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> At some point it was Sony that needed to step up to that plate. DIRECTV helped make the specification, each company then needs to make it happen.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


And the same would be the case here as well.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> RVU is built on open protocols and the encryption between the Genie and RVU clients is not Directv proprietary but DTCP-IP which is basically the equivalent of HDCP for carrying video streams over IP on a local LAN. It was originally used with Firewire but was later extended for regular ethernet. The company that created Directv's proprietary RVU "standard", Jethead, also created the Vidipath standard which has been discussed a lot as a likely basis for what the FCC ends up requiring (the two standards are likely very similar as they are built from all the same components)
> 
> There's absolutely nothing stopping devices like a Roku or Apple TV from supporting this and/or RVU except the will to do so. There's not much incentive to bother when the market is limited to only Directv customers (and why should you want to use your own Apple TV instead of Directv's client when Directv charges you the same fee either way?) If there was a standard everyone had to follow, all those devices would support it, and more importantly it would be built into all smart TVs.
> 
> There's a DCTP2 standard that was just released a few weeks ago that they would probably use instead of the current DTCP-IP because it makes the encryption tighter, adds better support for HDR and a way to flag where 4K content may be downconverted to HD content if a display only supports HD (i.e. here's how you finally get to display full 1080p on your HDTV - via 4K content )


I can see RVU, but if some are wanting to see non DirecTV DVRs I see that as much more unlikely. And I really don't see the THR22 as proof of anything since it is still DirecTV hardware.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

When I first subscribed to DirecTV there were many 3rd party boxes to choose from. The best boxes I ever had were made by RCA, but Sony and several other companies also made boxes.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> _Years away and I still don't get why anyone things this would work with an appletv or fire tv pot anything like that. Those devices don't have hard drives and don't want hard drives..._


32-64gb SSD in the AppleTV current gen and cloud storage available for whenever they decide to switch on DVR capability. I don't think my system is especially hot; but, with 80211 a/c, 50mbps min download speed in my neighbrhood, 1 year-old Vizio P series TV, I stream HD upscaled to 4K perfectly fine. Same potential true for Amazon Prime and others.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dpeters11 said:


> I can see RVU, but if some are wanting to see non DirecTV DVRs I see that as much more unlikely. And I really don't see the THR22 as proof of anything since it is still DirecTV hardware.


It would require the FCC enforce rules for both cable and satellite providers (which seems very likely) and they make streams available from the gateway (your guess is as good as mine there)

If they do the latter the satellite tuners would be in the gateway, with the output standardized between providers so a DVR designed for that standard could record Directv, Dish, Comcast, OTA whatever - or more than one of those at the same time for those few people who subscribe to multiple providers. Since it would rely on the gateway only to deliver video streams (think of it as RVU going to a DVR instead of a client) the DVR would use its own UI instead of the provider's. So you'd use Tivo's UI, whatever Apple came up with, etc.

Will that happen? I have no idea, I hope it does but it depends on what rules the FCC sets and whether the upcoming election changes the FCC's balance of power to be more corporate friendly instead of consumer friendly. They can set whatever rules they want now but since it will take several years to implement at a minimum it could easily be undone by a new administration's FCC board appointments.

Even if they don't go that far and just standardize the client end it would be an improvement over what we have now where every provider goes their own proprietary way.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Getting a better or keeping a familiar UI would be benefits of a system that did not require customers to use the provider's UI. Keeping programs when changing providers would be even better.

On the UI side imagine a "set your own channel numbers" feature where one can organize the channels any way they want (or use a default list that matches their provider). Relearning channel numbers is another annoyance that keeps people with their familiar providers.

There are a lot of benefits POSSIBLE from having third party clients. Whether the systems we actually get ever end up with those benefits are yet to be seen.

Providers like their user experience. They invest a lot of money into their UIs and how their content is presented to viewers. The major providers will likely want to keep control of the user experience. And unless they are required to offer stream access with no remote UI I suspect they will push to keep control of their user experience. (And I do not believe providers should be forced to allow third party devices to circumvent their UI any more than allowing third party devices to circumvent the security of the recordings.)


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

James Long said:


> ... (And I do not believe providers should be forced to allow third party devices to circumvent their UI any more than allowing third party devices to circumvent the security of the recordings.)


Then as slice says, I frankly see the whole idea as DOA to the manufacturers if that's the way it turns out.

The providers will still have way too much control with the mfrs. relegated to making essentially dumb clients or dumb clients with HDDs or for cloud storage.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Providers were required to surrender their control over the UI as part of the cable card mandate, so this is hardly unprecedented. Cable companies managed to hamstring that effort, which is part of the reason why the FCC is looking at the issue again, since cable cards didn't solve the problem they were intended to solve.

Obviously providers don't want to surrender that control, they will scream and whine and claim the FCC rules will bankrupt them or require massive price increases. Once the rules are in place they'll adapt, just like automakers adapted to laws requiring airbags and so forth.

Some of the $20 billion a year cable/satellite providers currently collect in equipment rental fees will be lost when more people choose to own their DVR or use their own clients - especially once they're built into TVs. Of that amount they 'lose', some will be recovered since they will require less hardware since they will provide less to their customers. The rest will either take the form of reduced profits (if competition is helped by allowing consumers to switch providers more easily) or increased fees/prices in other areas (if competition isn't really affected so providers can make up the difference elsewhere)


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

fleckrj said:


> When I first subscribed to DirecTV there were many 3rd party boxes to choose from. The best boxes I ever had were made by RCA, but Sony and several other companies also made boxes.


I liked it that way and my old RCA box but the phone support must have been much more difficult for Directv. Each box had its owne GUI.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> and why should you want to use your own Apple TV instead of Directv's client when Directv charges you the same fee either way?)


But while the monthly fees would remain the same, I would not need to pay DirecTV $2-300 for a STB that I still didn't own. I would own the ATV and could do anything I want with it if I changed providers.

OTOH, the providers are going to price the services at the point that maximizes revenue vs. customer loss. So you may be able to go buy your own STB and hook it up and have it work. But your programming price just went up $10/month. The providers will always have the upper hand until enough people cut the cord for them to have to change their tactics.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> I would own the ATV and could do anything I want with it if I changed providers.


Until that Apple TV becomes a paperweight when Apple decides to stop giving it updates in a few years and the latest app for your new provider requires a newer OS that isn't available for it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> Until that Apple TV becomes a paperweight when Apple decides to stop giving it updates in a few years and the latest app for your new provider requires a newer OS that isn't available for it.


What "app for your new provider". The whole point of this endeavor from the FCC's perspective is that the providers would be required to support clients that work to a _standard_. A standard doesn't change because providers want it to, and there wouldn't be a Directv app, Comcast app, TWC app etc. - that's what the providers are trying to push as their preferred alternative because they know it would be a disaster for those obvious reasons that would guarantee the status quo persists.

The standard doesn't change on a provider's whim so even if your client device stops getting updates it will still work for years later since the standard is still the standard. Tivo Series 3s haven't receive updates for quite a few years now but they still work fine because the cable card standard is the same. They function exactly as well as they did on the day the last update was received (they still get guide data from Tivo, just not software updates)

FWIW it is likely your smart TV will stop receiving updates long before your Apple TV does. Apple released the second gen Apple TV in Sept 2010 and released the last update for it in Sept 2014. Try finding a smart TV that receives a new update four years after it was first sold...


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

KyL416 said:


> Until that Apple TV becomes a paperweight when Apple decides to stop giving it updates in a few years and the latest app for your new provider requires a newer OS that isn't available for it.


And that is different than the current state of the HR20-23's?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Some of the $20 billion a year cable/satellite providers currently collect in equipment rental fees will be lost when more people choose to own their DVR or use their own clients - especially once they're built into TVs.


Providers should be able to keep charging their outlet fees. Call it a per connection fee for the "gateway".


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Providers should be able to keep charging their outlet fees. Call it a per connection fee for the "gateway".


Maybe they do, but not having boxes that are rented may result in different providers pricing in different ways. If you have a choice in providers and one charges per TV with lower package prices and another doesn't charge per TV but with higher package prices there will be better options out there for people with lots of TVs and those with only one TV.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> ... (And I do not believe providers should be forced to allow third party devices to circumvent their UI any more than allowing third party devices to circumvent the security of the recordings.)


Content and UI are not the same level of Intellectual Property. There are contracts requiring protection of the content. And content is leased to the customer. There is nothing that similarly necessitates Comcast customers be forced to use a Comcast UI. The closest similarity would be Comcast gets to protect their UI from being used by someone not authorized. An opposite model of protection.

Besides, why should I be forced to use Comcast's UI simply to get at the content they serve? How is that a help to the greater public good? It only serves to stop innovation, not foster it.

Wouldn't this be like forcing phone customers to use rotary dial phones because that is what AT&T wants for a UI? 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Besides, why should I be forced to use Comcast's UI simply to get at the content they serve?


In theory, Comcast is so proud of their UI that they consider it part of their service. They do not want you to get the content without their ambiance. They are not reselling content in a plain brown wrapper. Bypass their UI and you're not getting the Comcast experience.

Can you get to Amazon or Netflix delivered content without using their UI (or a UI approved by the company)?


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Maybe they do, but not having boxes that are rented may result in different providers pricing in different ways. If you have a choice in providers and one charges per TV with lower package prices and another doesn't charge per TV but with higher package prices there will be better options out there for people with lots of TVs and those with only one TV.





James Long said:


> Providers should be able to keep charging their outlet fees. Call it a per connection fee for the "gateway".


They should not be able to change for the gateway or modem if they say it's for protection of the content / network / etc then it must be part of the base price.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> In theory, Comcast is so proud of their UI that they consider it part of their service. They do not want you to get the content without their ambiance. They are not reselling content in a plain brown wrapper. Bypass their UI and you're not getting the Comcast experience.
> 
> Can you get to Amazon or Netflix delivered content without using their UI (or a UI approved by the company)?


Sorry, but only AT&T in the '40s and horse and buggy whip makers really bought that ancient theory. Content is king, UI is nothing. 

I don't need a fancy "record" button from comcast. I want content.

As for Amazon--why do they let people embed links into their websites, thus bypassing the Amazon experience? Cuz experience doesn't pay the rent. Buying something does. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Sorry, but only AT&T in the '40s and horse and buggy whip makers really bought that ancient theory. Content is king, UI is nothing.


Exactly. That's why I brought up the guide at halftime of the Superbowl, I wanted to experience the UI... :grin:

I can't help but think we are on the verge of a disruptive change in this industry that will allow Microsoft, Google, Apple, and others do what they do best... Sell targeted advertising.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> Providers should be able to keep charging their outlet fees. Call it a per connection fee for the "gateway".


I think the FCC is fine with various pricing models, so long as any fees tied to specific equipment is also available from 3rd parties. My personal guess is the industry will go to a concurrent stream pricing model as the current RVU pricing per device can't last.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

wmb said:


> Exactly. That's why I brought up the guide at halftime of the Superbowl, I wanted to experience the UI... :grin:
> 
> I can't help but think we are on the verge of a disruptive change in this industry that will allow Microsoft, Google, Apple, and others do what they do best... Sell targeted advertising.


Ok, I confess. I sit and watch the PLAYLIST on DIRECTV for hours at a time. I so love that one screen... And the feeling when it updates... oh my... 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Sorry, but only AT&T in the '40s and horse and buggy whip makers really bought that ancient theory. Content is king, UI is nothing.
> 
> I don't need a fancy "record" button from comcast. I want content.
> 
> As for Amazon--why do they let people embed links into their websites, thus bypassing the Amazon experience? Cuz experience doesn't pay the rent. Buying something does.


Thank you for you opinion.

I did not realize that one could embed Amazon's paid streaming content in their own website. Sure, one can embed ads for products that link to Amazon (using Amazon's UI to complete the sale). But being able to embed Amazon's streaming in one's own website and completing a streaming sale without their UI is not something I have seen done. Can you provide an example?

As far as Comcast's button ... it is not your needs as a customer that matter. It is their needs as a seller. Perhaps you prefer a vanilla content provider. If so, it shouldn't be hard to find one if Comcast (or your provider) decides not to offer UI free content.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> I think the FCC is fine with various pricing models, so long as any fees tied to specific equipment is also available from 3rd parties. My personal guess is the industry will go to a concurrent stream pricing model as the current RVU pricing per device can't last.


That would work. Pay DIRECTV for up to five concurrent streams and use them as one wishes throughout the month. Concurrent stream six gets blocked. If you want six streams pay for six streams.

If such charging is instituted I'd prefer being charged by output instead of input. Paying per concurrent stream output from the Hopper 3 (today's actual pricing model - except Sling and the main TV is "free") would be better than paying for 19 or 20 input streams.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wmb said:


> I can't help but think we are on the verge of a disruptive change in this industry that will allow Microsoft, Google, Apple, and others do what they do best... Sell targeted advertising.


DISH, DIRECTV and similar providers may not do it best - but they are in the targeted marketing game and will likely fight to stay in that game. Ads inserted by the DVR in one's own home are common. Marketing in the UI is common. I don't see providers giving that up without a fight.

The customer is the product being sold to marketers.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> Thank you for you opinion.
> 
> I did not realize that one could embed Amazon's paid streaming content in their own website. Sure, one can embed ads for products that link to Amazon (using Amazon's UI to complete the sale). But being able to embed Amazon's streaming in one's own website and completing a streaming sale without their UI is not something I have seen done. Can you provide an example?
> 
> As far as Comcast's button ... it is not your needs as a customer that matter. It is their needs as a seller. Perhaps you prefer a vanilla content provider. If so, it shouldn't be hard to find one if Comcast (or your provider) decides not to offer UI free content.


I wasn't thinking of Amazon's streaming, I was thinking of their other sales. Then again, their "UI" varies greatly across the canvass of compatible devices. So long as the name is spelled correctly--and the user is correctly authenticated, they want sales. UI drives sales but doesn't pay for anything itself.

In the long run, *it is* my needs as a customer that matter. If Dish thinks so highly of their UI they want to charge for it--no worries--I'll stick with someone who doesn't charge for a UI. 

When was the last time you heard the old saw, UI is king? 

Don't worry, if you still want the Dish "experience", you'll be able to pay for it if you want to. You might be able to still buy AT&T landline phones if you want (though I don't think they rent them anymore). Or Comcast cable modems. You still have choices. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> I wasn't thinking of Amazon's streaming, I was thinking of their other sales.


Then you might as well be thinking about printed newspaper ads. We're discussing streamed content delivery in this thread.

At the end of the day we will face the same problem we have with content packages. We will be able to complain until our fingers fall off about our provider's UI ... but if Comcast or DISH or DIRECTV won't let us change it then our choice will be to go to another provider with their own forced UI. Just like now our primary choice is to go to another provider with their own package levels (or "cut the cord" and lose access to content that cannot be purchased outside of packages).

Perhaps in a Utopian world customers will be king. We're not headed toward Utopia.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> DISH, DIRECTV and similar providers may not do it best - but they are in the targeted marketing game and will likely fight to stay in that game. Ads inserted by the DVR in one's own home are common. Marketing in the UI is common. I don't see providers giving that up without a fight.
> 
> The customer is the product being sold to marketers.


Part of disruption means new pricing models will emerge. Dish, comcast won't get UI ad $$. (DIRECTV doesn't now.) But those ads are a small part of the revenue models.

Now, ad sales in the video streams will be an interesting fight. I expect the FCC might have to set some guidelines on this one. DIRECTV, Dish, etc. have negotiated contracts for ad insertions. Roku probably won't be allowed to insert ads into DIRECTV streams (either linear or VOD), yet they might be able to pick up UI ads.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> Then you might as well be thinking about printed newspaper ads. We're discussing streamed content delivery in this thread.


We're also talking about resistance to try current technologies. And user interfaces. And disruptive technologies. And how sticking to ancient technologies tends to reduce innovation.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Dish, comcast won't get UI ad $$. (DIRECTV doesn't now.)


They don't? That is surprising. Perhaps it is a missed opportunity ... but seeing a UI add for a channel or a PPV/VOD helps drive customers to that content. The programmer would get viewers for their channel or a cut of the PPV/VOD sale. The extra income should be worth something to the programmer. If not on a per display or per click basis at least as part of a marketing deal with that programmer.

I'm surprised we don't see UI ads for Cialis and other drugs. They seem to buy a lot of ad space.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> We're also talking about resistance to try current technologies. And user interfaces. And disruptive technologies. And how sticking to ancient technologies tends to reduce innovation.


In my opinion Tivo is about the only UI that competes with the proprietary UIs of the satellite and cable providers. The other UIs I have seen for TV leave a lot to be desired. Winning the battle to have one's own UI separate from the provider may be losing the war to have a decent UI.

If we can get there through market forces great ... but if the government needs to step in I'd rather keep the provider's UIs. Personal preference.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> They don't? That is surprising. Perhaps it is a missed opportunity ... but seeing a UI add for a channel or a PPV/VOD helps drive customers to that content. The programmer would get viewers for their channel or a cut of the PPV/VOD sale. The extra income should be worth something to the programmer. If not on a per display or per click basis at least as part of a marketing deal with that programmer.
> 
> I'm surprised we don't see UI ads for Cialis and other drugs. They seem to buy a lot of ad space.


DIRECTV does have content suggestions, which I think of differently than an ad sale--unless there is money for listing the ad.

Yet, DIRECTV will still see results of innovative UIs from other devices. What will UI innovations create--more content delivery. For which DIRECTV gets either more money or happier, more loyal customers. They don't need their own UI as "the experience." Anyone's UI that makes happier customers will do.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> They don't need their own UI as "the experience." Anyone's UI that makes happier customers will do.


We will see how AT&T Entertainment handles it. I expect the major satellite and cable providers will continue to work to make their proprietary equipment and UI the best way to experience the content that they are delivering. Their corporate ego dictates that their way is the best way of accessing the content they deliver.

If in a few years AT&T is required to open their system to third party clients I expect they will comply with the law ... and not much more. They will continue to provide their own clients and compete with Tivo and the upstarts.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> We will see how AT&T Entertainment handles it. I expect the major satellite and cable providers will continue to work to make their proprietary equipment and UI the best way to experience the content that they are delivering. Their corporate ego dictates that their way is the best way of accessing the content they deliver.
> 
> If in a few years AT&T is required to open their system to third party clients I expect they will comply with the law ... and not much more. They will continue to provide their own clients and compete with Tivo and the upstarts.


Yes, I think they should continue with their UIs and their offerings. There will be customers who will want the simplicity of dealing with one company. (And would buy/rent AT&T TVs if available.)

When AT&T was forced to allow other phones onto their network, the whole industry got better. AT&T benefited from the competition and better access. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> They should not be able to change for the gateway or modem if they say it's for protection of the content / network / etc then it must be part of the base price.


The gateway would be required to translate from their delivery method to the open standard. I don't see why you would say "it must be part of the base price". What if you want more than one? Should they be required to supply you with as many as you want for free?

So long as the pricing is available I don't care if they charge me $50/month for the gateway and the package is $10, if that $60 is less than I would pay from a competitor then it would be the best deal for me.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> If we can get there through market forces great ... but if the government needs to step in I'd rather keep the provider's UIs. Personal preference.


The government is already stepping in all over the place. The franchise agreement your city probably has with the cable company. The FCC allowing Dish and Directv to use certain frequencies from certain orbital locations to deliver their programming. The must carry and STELA rules, and so on.

The government is acting here (or thinking about acting here) to increase competition. Why would you want to deny yourself the possibly of something better and be saddled with only what the provider wants to give you? If you don't want any government regulation, nothing would stop Dish, Directv, Comcast and TWC all merging into one giant entity, and providing a crappy low budget UI that's worse than the worst any of those four deliver now and service that makes you dream of getting customer service as good as you get from the IRS. If you say "oh but I want those anti-monopoly laws" then you are picking and choosing what regulation you want and what you don't want.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

There are multiple reasons for this, but I'll probably stick with DirecTV hardware no matter what comes out in the future from other providers. Would be interesting to see what happens overall, if anything.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Where the potential for disruptive change lies is the realization that what was once a single business, cable TV, is now two separate businesses, the physical infrastructure to provide the data stream (maybe a public utility), and the actual content. One of the reasons that AT&T bought DirecTV was to be able to provide content to people that they could not physically provide infrastructure connections to.

I'll also add that I find it hard to believe that companies with the data delivery infrastructure aren't looking at the grief recent carriage disputes and saying to themselves that they don't need that headache, so why deliver content when we can make good money delivering data.

Other things converging now are standardized mp4 encoding of content, low cost hardware capable of streaming the content, and data delivery systems capable of delivering the content.

The outcome of these forces make the whole STB thing a big, fat, meh.

Oh, and cloud storage + on demand streaming make the DVR obsolete. They have joined other great inventions of my lifetime that are now obsolete: CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray, fax machines, etc.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

wmb said:


> Oh, and cloud storage + on demand streaming make the DVR obsolete. They have joined other great inventions of my lifetime that are now obsolete: CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray, fax machines, etc.


It really hasn't, particularly for many DirecTV or Dish customers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Why would you want to deny yourself the possibly of something better and be saddled with only what the provider wants to give you?


I am more concerned with getting something worse due to government interference.
I am not pushing for "abolish all government". We need some control of public resources (airwaves and satellite slots) to make sure companies don't step on each other. But there are lines I do not want to see the government cross.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

First I like the Directv desktop box and all that goes with it - could it be better sure anything will. The one thing that is guaranteed is that this future will cost more than today. Whether it is content or number of connections or UI costs or increased cost of the non-box box on your TV it will cost more. I'm sure there will be some combination for some people that will cost the same but for most of the world it will cost more. The cost of delivering the service to you will remain close to what it is and the vendors will just find different ways of splitting it up so we pay more. And if you don't subscribe to all the home shopping and advertising channels the suppliers will just move that lost revenue to other charges you have.
Do you pay less for phone service today than you did when AT&T ran it all? Sure you may get more but you pay a lot more for it.

I want a DVR cloud services and demand do not let me skip ads and that is the most important service provided to me by DVRS


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> I am more concerned with getting something worse due to government interference.
> I am not pushing for "abolish all government". We need some control of public resources (airwaves and satellite slots) to make sure companies don't step on each other. But there are lines I do not want to see the government cross.


While I appreciate your fears, as we've seen history where government interference has both failed and succeeded, this particular goal of the government has a good track record. The FCC standards have allowed competition for TVs, VCRs, HD broadcasts, incredible growth in the phone industry, etc. Your cable company's "UI" wasn't necessary for VCRs or TVs. Why is it mandatory now?

The trick is to set underlying standards and to not dictate things like, well the UI. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CTJon said:


> First I like the Directv desktop box and all that goes with it - could it be better sure anything will. The one thing that is guaranteed is that this future will cost more than today. Whether it is content or number of connections or UI costs or increased cost of the non-box box on your TV it will cost more. I'm sure there will be some combination for some people that will cost the same but for most of the world it will cost more. The cost of delivering the service to you will remain close to what it is and the vendors will just find different ways of splitting it up so we pay more. And if you don't subscribe to all the home shopping and advertising channels the suppliers will just move that lost revenue to other charges you have.
> Do you pay less for phone service today than you did when AT&T ran it all? Sure you may get more but you pay a lot more for it.
> 
> I want a DVR cloud services and demand do not let me skip ads and that is the most important service provided to me by DVRS


The problem with your phone example is 40 years of time. Of course the phone bills have gone up in 40 years. Very, very few things have not gone up in that time.

The question is to really examine how your phone bill changed the year the FCC changed the rules. My phone bill went down; they stopped charging me per phone. Look at cable internet bills. My bill is cheaper when I use my own modem than if I pay an absurd lease fee for what is a $50 modem (their cost.)

Yes, PayTV bills will eventually be higher in the next 40 years. Imagine how much worse they'd be if we let them charge lease fees for $100 DVRs...

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Of course the phone bills have gone up in 40 years.


I would disagree with that premise. My freshman year in college (1984) I had a GF back home. My phone bill was routinely $100+ month. And I was limited as to how much I could talk to her due to funds. Today for $50, I could talk to her as much as I want.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> I would disagree with that premise. My freshman year in college (1984) I had a GF back home. My phone bill was routinely $100+ month. And I was limited as to how much I could talk to her due to funds. Today for $50, I could talk to her as much as I want.


You are comparing little green apples to red delicious apples. Sure both are apples but they ain't the same.  Long distance charges have gone down to the point where they frequently are no longer billed by the minute but rather billed as all you can eat. Long distance is one of the very, very few things that has gone down. As have internet rates.

A better comparison would be the base line costs with per phone charges. Did your phone bill in 1984 include any per phone charges? If not, go back farther to when your company changed because of FCC regulations.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

I am constantly amazed about the amount of discussion of UI. I do not care at all about the UI as long as I can find what I want and watch it. I have never tried Dish, but DirecTV's interface is functional, and that is all that matters to me.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

fleckrj said:


> I am constantly amazed about the amount of discussion of UI. I do not care at all about the UI as long as I can find what I want and watch it. I have never tried Dish, but DirecTV's interface is functional, and that is all that matters to me.


Bingo


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CTJon said:


> Do you pay less for phone service today than you did when AT&T ran it all? Sure you may get more but you pay a lot more for it.


Say what? Back in the day you could only rent your phones not own them, so you had to pay for every extension in your house. Long distance charges were sometimes as much as a dollar a minute - and they called it "intrastate long distance" even calling 20 miles away around here! If you adjust for inflation even the basic service rates are much lower now than they used to be.

You're on crack if you think phone service costs more now than say 1970.

Check out page 279 and on of this, it shows historic rates of various types from 1950 to 1995:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Your cable company's "UI" wasn't necessary for VCRs or TVs. Why is it mandatory now?


My analog cable had no UI but digital cable used the cable company's boxes and UI. My last cable company was analog before I dropped them and subscribed to satellite so I missed any "benefit" of cable card TVs or DVRs.

I have relatives with digital cable ... they use the cable company's boxes and UI. The TV is set on HDMI input and only gets changed (to another HDMI input) if they are playing a DVD.

Their (and my) TV's UI is forgotten since it is so rarely seen. Most of the work is done through the cable or satellite receiver's UI passed through the TV.

Cable and satellite have changed quite a bit from the days of the VCR. Back when VCRs were prevalent analog cable was more common with digital cable available in more advanced markets. The focus was on channel delivery and on screen marketing was limited to head end inserted commercials on some cable channels.

Today's cable and satellite receivers are less utilitarian and more "one stop content control". A modern satellite receiver can not only show linear satellite fed content (video and audio) but can also content pre-loaded from satellite or downloaded from the Internet or other sources. One can also (depending on receiver) watch other providers such as Netflix, Vevo and Pandora. Innovation has moved cable and satellite providers away from delivery of raw channels and their receivers have become entertainment centers.

Stepping away from that and going back to being a raw feed provider is not progress. It is also not profitable in the long term. AT&T Entertainment and DISH Network are both moving beyond the raw feed. They certainly do not want to go back to the "horse and buggy" days of analog cable and VCRs.

Like it or not, their UI is part of their service. I expect they will protect their service.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James, I think you would like this UI. This new UI knows which channels you like and tailors a guide to your viewing habits. Or you can do the full guide if you want. I think AT&T is going to use this one since they are partnering with Ericsson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ8YlkkVcpc


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Tailors a guide to what it "thinks" is your viewing habbits, provided you fit into certain categories and you're the only one using that TV.

If you're somebody who watches a huge variety of content, or share your TV with other people where remembering to switch to their personal viewer profile each time is too much of a hassel, it's just ends up being a cluttered mess.

For people who post on forums like this online, yeah that might not seem like a big deal, but we're only a tiny fraction of DirecTV's user base. People just want to turn on their TV, turn on whatever channel and see their show, press a button, get to their recordings, press a button, see what's on. Not navigate a bunch of menus before they can get to live TV and only see the channels that some algorithm thinks you would want to watch.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

KyL416 said:


> Tailors a guide to what it "thinks" is your viewing habbits, provided you fit into certain categories and you're the only one using that TV.
> 
> If you're somebody who watches a huge variety of content, or share your TV with other people where remembering to switch to their personal viewer profile each time is too much of a hassel, it's just ends up being a cluttered mess.
> 
> For people who post on forums like this online, yeah that might not seem like a big deal, but we're only a tiny fraction of DirecTV's user base. People just want to turn on their TV, turn on whatever channel and see their show, not navigate a bunch of menus before they can get to live TV and only see the channels that some algorithm thinks you would want to watch.


I think they might be choosing Mediafirst because its designed to work with SatelliteTV and IPTV.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> My analog cable had no UI but digital cable used the cable company's boxes and UI. My last cable company was analog before I dropped them and subscribed to satellite so I missed any "benefit" of cable card TVs or DVRs.
> 
> I have relatives with digital cable ... they use the cable company's boxes and UI. The TV is set on HDMI input and only gets changed (to another HDMI input) if they are playing a DVD.
> 
> ...


If their UI is so awesome then they will be able to successfully compete with Roku, Sony, Samsung, LG, and Comcast. Dish could make money from Comcast customers.

Or they could license their UI to Hisense or anyone who doesn't want to invest in their own UI.

This lets the market decide which is the hot UI. Competition is good. Proprietary is stagnant.

I thought the Dish split-up was a great idea. A box maker and a satellite service. Now they can finally realize all the value of that prophetic move.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> James, I think you would like this UI. This new UI knows which channels you like and tailors a guide to your viewing habits. Or you can do the full guide if you want. I think AT&T is going to use this one since they are partnering with Ericsson.


Ok read the code... Tailored to your likes is code for marketing channels we think you'd like you don't yet watch. No thanks. I have my own ways of finding new content.

And as we have mentioned before DIRECTVs in house people will be building the new UI from all indications for both platforms. I don't see that changing at all.

I believe Ericsson is being brought in for their back end and distribution hardware. Not their gui in the set top boxes. That is what makes the most sense.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> Ok read the code... Tailored to your likes is code for marketing channels we think you'd like you don't yet watch. No thanks. I have my own ways of finding new content.
> 
> And as we have mentioned before DIRECTVs in house people will be building the new UI from all indications for both platforms. I don't see that changing at all.
> 
> I believe Ericsson is being brought in for their back end and distribution hardware. Not their gui in the set top boxes. That is what makes the most sense.


I forgot about that they also do encoding and I think they said they have worked with DTV before on that. So I guess DTV will work on an all new guide that will work for both SatelliteTV, IPTV and mobile?


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

The rule was passed:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/18/fcc-approves-new-set-top-box-rule.html


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

longrider said:


> The rule was passed:
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/18/fcc-approves-new-set-top-box-rule.html


A little more info on what it actually means:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/18/11046948/fcc-cable-box-set-top-vote

In other words, we're still not out of the water. It's now open for comments (like the Net Neutrality business was a few years back) and the rule can be amended/finalized. It will then go to another vote before becoming law. Regardless, a big step in the right direction.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

And even if the FCC votes to pass it, it will take some time to work with various parties to come up with what sort of standard they'd use, and then decide on timelines. It will go well past the current administration, and if the FCC balance shifts the whole thing could be changed or dropped entirely depending on who is appointed to the FCC. I think there is one new appointment each year, with the balance 3-2 democrat when a democrat has the White House and 3-2 republican otherwise.

So we're a long long way from even knowing what we'll arrive at, let alone being there. But it is a step in the right direction at least.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

I have to wonder how many users will actually take advantage of this. We have been told many times that the users of boards such as these are a very small minority of customers. So will a regular customer seek out a different box or will they just go ahead and accept what provider offers? If so, will the volume be high enough to properly develop and produce a competing box? And will people be willing to pay for it?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe most people will take the easiest route.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

My basic thinking is "pricing rules." Why do people switch cable companies--for the best deal. If they could keep their content, favorites, etc. and save a few bucks along the way, this could be a hit. Thinking about TVs, phones, etc.

But... How many people rent their internet modems/routers? I don't have a sense of that.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Assuming there is some standard for client devices, it would be built into every TV you buy. Over time everyone would make use of that.

If they go a bit further and made it possible to use your own DVR I think there would be a lot more than Tivo gets now because it wouldn't be as much of a hassle as getting a cable card is, or cost nearly as much as Tivo. Whether it is a small single digit minority of users or a larger minority would depend on how all the numbers shake out.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Assuming there is some standard for client devices, it would be built into every TV you buy. Over time everyone would make use of that.
> 
> If they go a bit further and made it possible to use your own DVR I think there would be a lot more than Tivo gets now because it wouldn't be as much of a hassle as getting a cable card is, or cost nearly as much as Tivo. Whether it is a small single digit minority of users or a larger minority would depend on how all the numbers shake out.


DVRs are part of the target. That we aren't tied to the payTV companies' boxes for anything beyond the gateway. (And market pressure will keep the gateways cheap too.)

Peace,
Tom


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

From what I've seen and I haven't looked at all today's choices let alone what would exist when this actually happens I'd stay with what I have today - DirecTV box and service. Going to something seemingly more complex (even if it isn't in the long run) just isn't worth a couple of $$ to me. Sure there are a few stations I might want elsewhere but I've had, in the last 5 years, DirecTV, cable and UVERSE and DirecTV is the best combination to me.
I require a DVR, ability to record anywhere and watch on any TV in house, etc. 

BUT, as we all will, I will obviously see what is available in the future and what the costs and complexity will be.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CTJon said:


> From what I've seen and I haven't looked at all today's choices let alone what would exist when this actually happens I'd stay with what I have today - DirecTV box and service. Going to something seemingly more complex (even if it isn't in the long run) just isn't worth a couple of $$ to me. Sure there are a few stations I might want elsewhere but I've had, in the last 5 years, DirecTV, cable and UVERSE and DirecTV is the best combination to me.
> I require a DVR, ability to record anywhere and watch on any TV in house, etc.
> 
> BUT, as we all will, I will obviously see what is available in the future and what the costs and complexity will be.


Do you rent or own your internet modem/router?

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Do you rent or own your internet modem/router?


I own mine, but that is a $99 piece of equipment. How many people by their own $700 iPhone or Android? Or do they let their carrier finance it?

Not sure what the price point on these devices will be, but to buy a DirecTV box is what? $7-800? And I need 5 of them. No thanks.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> I own mine, but that is a $99 piece of equipment. How many people by their own $700 iPhone or Android? Or do they let their carrier finance it?
> 
> Not sure what the price point on these devices will be, but to buy a DirecTV box is what? $7-800? And I need 5 of them. No thanks.


How many roku DVRs could you buy at $100 instead of paying $8/month? 

How many VCRs did you own at your peak?

How much did AT&T phones cost before competition brought the price down to $5 for a phone?

How much do Motorola G phones cost? (Hint, lots less than $800.) 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Do you rent or own your internet modem/router?


The first one was supplied when I signed up for service. The replacement was purchased from a local store. I own my modem/router. Some companies make that more difficult.



Herdfan said:


> How many people by their own $700 iPhone or Android? Or do they let their carrier finance it?


It is still owned even if financed ... and paying "retail" (or some third party price) for a new device has become more popular than getting a discount in exchange for a commitment.

In my case, I have been with Verizon for many years. My last contract phone was in 2011 with the contract ending in 2013. I got a discount for the two year commitment. I did not want to lose a grandfathered data plan so I replaced my phone with a second hand phone in 2014 instead of extending my commitment and accepting a new plan. Last November Verizon doubled the rate on my grandfathered data package making it no longer worth the price. So I cut back my bill to a lower data plan (and ended up paying $6 less per month than with my grandfathered plan).

Now it is time to replace my 2014 phone ... and I CANNOT get a discount. If I click around enough on the website I can see an offer to buy a phone with a two year commitment (and a $377 discount) but I cannot get that offer into the cart. The options I can put into the cart are a full retail price up front or a full retail price divided by 24 months (no interest). I suppose it is better in the long run ... I either keep my low monthly payment now or have my bill go down in 24 months when I have paid off the no interest loan. I paid my 2011 contract price for nearly six years without it going down after paying off the phone.

I hope satellite does not move to that plan. While the concept of paying less per month because one is not paying for subsidized equipment is good one still has to pay SOMEONE for the equipment I do not expect the "less per month" to last. Both DISH and DIRECTV charge additional receiver fees regardless of if the additional receivers are owned or leased. If I were to return a "leased" Joey and connect an owned Joey the fee would still be $7 per month. I expect that if I disconnect a Joey and use a Tivo or a Roku as a client I'll still be paying a $7 per month outlet fee. Where is the savings?

Replacing the core box with a third party device *might* offer a savings. Especially if the core device could be used by clients or TVs without an additional receiver fee. But I suspect that DISH and DIRECTV will still figure out a way to charge for the number of simultaneous streams from their systems to the core box. I have faith in the corporate mindset.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> ...
> I hope satellite does not move to that plan. While the concept of paying less per month because one is not paying for subsidized equipment is good one still has to pay SOMEONE for the equipment I do not expect the "less per month" to last. Both DISH and DIRECTV charge additional receiver fees regardless of if the additional receivers are owned or leased. If I were to return a "leased" Joey and connect an owned Joey the fee would still be $7 per month. I expect that if I disconnect a Joey and use a Tivo or a Roku as a client I'll still be paying a $7 per month outlet fee. Where is the savings?
> 
> Replacing the core box with a third party device *might* offer a savings. Especially if the core device could be used by clients or TVs without an additional receiver fee. But I suspect that DISH and DIRECTV will still figure out a way to charge for the number of simultaneous streams from their systems to the core box. I have faith in the corporate mindset.


A couple thoughts and a question:
DIRECTV and Dish are pretty straight shooters. They haven't been gouging customers on the per box fee--too badly. Then again...
They don't currently allow cablecard systems. Unfortunate.

The question: Presuming satellite is forced into the same FCC regulated gateway concept as other PayTV, and further presuming all PayTV players will be welcome to continue to make and sell their equipment, now with competition--and therefore you would be given the choice to continue using the Dish equpment--is there a problem with the rest of us having the choice to not use their equipment?

(Is meant as a sincere question--as in am I missing something?)

My thinking is this will be innovation enabling competition. Innovative for pricing and innovating for features. My further thinking is that, in fact, the innovation will happen anyway--Roku, Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. have shown new innovative technologies. The traditional MVPDs may have stalled too long, giving the new players an opening. The FCC should have stuck to their original plans--from 20 years ago. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> The question: Presuming satellite is forced into the same FCC regulated gateway concept as other PayTV, and further presuming all PayTV players will be welcome to continue to make and sell their equipment, now with competition--and therefore you would be given the choice to continue using the Dish equpment--is there a problem with the rest of us having the choice to not use their equipment?


The first problem is that it ties up resources that could be used to improve their current receivers. If the satellite providers are required to design and build a gateway for third party connections as suggested who will pay the development costs? Most likely the customers through a "per connection" fee - similar to today's per receiver fee (which is also charged for soft clients). And when there is an issue between the satellite provider and the third party box who gets blamed? How much time will the satellite companies spend debugging third party devices to prove that it is not their gateway causing the problem? How much time will be spent in court defending against some third party that claims a satellite company is not open enough to third party equipment?

While the satellite companies are working on the unfunded mandate of building a box compatible with some common scheme, what happens to the development of their own receiver/interfaces? Given a choice of following the mandate or improving their own equipment, satellite providers will be forced to spend their research on following the mandate - lest they be penalized by fines.

That is one way how your desire for "innovation" affects customers who want to stay with their company's own equipment. The unfunded mandate to create a product (the gateway) that they do not wish to create.

If their in guide advertising (including suggesting other programs to watch) and DVR inserted ads are lost then that also can affect revenue for the satellite companies. If their guide is completely lost and the gateway becomes a raw feed delivery system then what becomes of shopping and infomercial channels? Channels that pay to be on the satellite provider's lineup (per channel, per hour or per response compensation) that may not be seen if the channels are not in the guide where they negotiated their position. Why pay to be on satellite if your content isn't being seen?

Anything that affects revenue affects all customers ... not just those who want an 'innovative' interface.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> The question: Presuming satellite is forced into the same FCC regulated gateway concept as other PayTV, and further presuming all PayTV players will be welcome to continue to make and sell their equipment, now with competition--and therefore you would be given the choice to continue using the Dish equpment--is there a problem with the rest of us having the choice to not use their equipment?


No problem. But who is going to pay for the inevitable problem when the new Roku won't interface properly with a gateway? Does DirecTV have to support that or does Roku? Or will they each blame the other leaving the customer out in the cold?

Other customers are free to do what they want, but unless the new boxes have one-button ToDo List access, I am will stick with the DirecTV offered equipment.

Edit: I see James beat me to it.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Isn't DTV already doing this with that new gateway central hub that they are coming out with by 2017 anyway? In that news article about AT&T not doing UVerseTV boxes AT&T's new gateway central hub would tie satelliteTV, IPTV and wireless together and be able to stream it to any device.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

In essence the Genie and the Hopper are both "central hub" type of receivers. The difference today is the clients that are allowed to connect. We won't know until it is closer to being released what AT&T Entertainment's unified receiver will be capable of serving. The design will likely need to change to be compliant with the new rules.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> The first problem is that it ties up resources that could be used to improve their current receivers. If the satellite providers are required to design and build a gateway for third party connections as suggested who will pay the development costs? Most likely the customers through a "per connection" fee - similar to today's per receiver fee (which is also charged for soft clients). And when there is an issue between the satellite provider and the third party box who gets blamed? How much time will the satellite companies spend debugging third party devices to prove that it is not their gateway causing the problem? How much time will be spent in court defending against some third party that claims a satellite company is not open enough to third party equipment?
> 
> While the satellite companies are working on the unfunded mandate of building a box compatible with some common scheme, what happens to the development of their own receiver/interfaces? Given a choice of following the mandate or improving their own equipment, satellite providers will be forced to spend their research on following the mandate - lest they be penalized by fines.
> 
> ...


So in summary:
*Fear*: Costs, apparently rampant. 
*Uncertainty*: Which technology? How much cost? How will companies recover the costs? How will they support customers?

*Doubt*: Dish isn't capable of doing these changes economically. Dish isn't able to compete against anyone else in the free market. Dish isn't able to support...

The Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are all real. Money is a big concern, the uncertainties drive into those fears, and then doubt magnifies them. So let's honor them with some analysis.

Working backwards a bit, removing the magnifiers first: I'm sure Dish has or can hire programmers who can do this feature. That they will be able to compete and support these technologies. Why...
Because the preliminary drafts of all this indicate they will build upon technologies that are basically free and in many cases already part of the DIRECTV and Dish products. Hopper and Genie, as client/server technologies already incorporate DLNA, copy protections, etc. Indeed, DIRECTV proposed RVU as a potential solution. If that gets picked, DIRECTV has nearly zero new development/testing costs. (Not sure how Dish does theirs, what if something close to their technology is picked?) Either way, the incremental development costs beyond the existing servers will be manageable. 
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Broadcom picks up part of the tab by adding this to their basic libraries they ship with their chips. Dish doesn't do all the codecs--Broadcom does.

Or at least most of the heavy lifting. 
So costs? If it incrementally takes more than 10 man years to fully implement, test, and support using basic technologies, many free, off the shelf, then perhaps Dish doesn't need to stay in this business. Ok, maybe 10 more man years cuz the wheels of documentation and support are larger than I thought.

Say 20 man years--$2M. Across 20 million customers. A dime per customer. Or 15¢ for Dish. One-time, plus a nickel per year for support costs.

Now lets add in some opportunities: Dish/Echostar will now be able to sell their units to Comcast customers. Hoppers on Charter networks. Joeys on Cablevision. Monies that can offset the costs. If Dish has anything worth competing, they should enter the game--instead of hiding from it.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> No problem. But who is going to pay for the inevitable problem when the new Roku won't interface properly with a gateway? Does DirecTV have to support that or does Roku? Or will they each blame the other leaving the customer out in the cold?
> 
> Other customers are free to do what they want, but unless the new boxes have one-button ToDo List access, I am will stick with the DirecTV offered equipment.
> 
> Edit: I see James beat me to it.


Fear: Who is going to pay?
Uncertainty: How much will they have to pay?
Doubt: No one could possibly manage this without it costing whole lots more...

Who will pay? We will. Roku and Sony and Dish and DIRECTV and Jethead will come out with competing products. Competition is the mother of innovation in both new cools and reducing costs. 
How much? Not that much. because the technologies will be off the shelf if they aren't already. 
And of course companies that can compete will succeed. Companies that can't will die away eventually.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> Isn't DTV already doing this with that new gateway central hub that they are coming out with by 2017 anyway? In that news article about AT&T not doing UVerseTV boxes AT&T's new gateway central hub would tie satelliteTV, IPTV and wireless together and be able to stream it to any device.


Yupper! 

And everyone has something in their labs or their hardware manufacturers labs, well underway. I'm sure Broadcom has a working model in their shop--ready to showcase their next round of chips.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> But I suspect that DISH and DIRECTV will still figure out a way to charge for the number of simultaneous streams from their systems to the core box. I have faith in the corporate mindset.


Maybe so, but who says every provider will do that, or exactly how it will work? Today if you have a Genie with five clients but never watch more than three TVs at once, you still pay for all six TVs. If they charged per stream, you'd only pay for three, paying for the right to use three simultaneous streams, so there's already savings for most people.

If they charge per eligible end device like they do today you'd still pay for six - but I don't think that model is tenable. You'll simply buy a box that can receive multiple streams and direct them to one or all TVs as you choose which would defeat the "charge you for every TV" model so you'd only have to pay for the number of unique streams you need. i.e. two in a two person household, no matter how many TVs you have or how many rooms you might have the same program on in - i.e. if you are cleaning your house, doing laundry, making dinner at all once. Kids come home from college in the summer? Maybe you temporarily add another stream or two for a few months.

Increased competition between providers will find some carving out a niche by not charging for streams and advertising a single flat rate price per package that includes everything "with no hidden fees". Big families with a lot of TVs who watch different things might find a provider with flat rating pricing a better deal, while single person households would find one with lower prices that charges per stream a better deal.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

UverseTV doesn't charge per stream right only per box?


----------



## turbulence (Feb 22, 2016)

DirectV already allows people to sign up to plans, which only offers the directv programming through laptops, tablets, phones and no box and no dish, only through your internet. Interesintly it isn't killing the old box setup. 

Here is one little problem though. Until the internet isn't fast enough to switch around channels and your internet connected apple tv or android isn't capable of giving you the same experience (channel guides, pip, recording schedules etc, having your programs recorded on a physical disk in your room), then it's nothing revolutionary yet. Just another reminder though... You will still need a cable tv internet, or fiber or whatever is available to have internet in your house. 
If a storm takes out the telephone posts , you'll loose both internet and power. 
If you got a generator and a dish on your roof, you can be still watching sat TV, while the internet and cable only folks will have nothing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Say 20 man years--$2M. Across 20 million customers. A dime per customer. Or 15¢ for Dish. One-time, plus a nickel per year for support costs.


You are good at spending someone else's money. Shouldn't what they develop be the company's decision?

Downplaying the costs and impact does not change the fact that those impacts exist. If the changes will only cost "a couple of million" why not have the third party companies that will benefit from the changes pay DIRECTV and DISH for their development costs?

Being forced to design and provide a gateway for third party connections to their satellite network will not help either satellite carrier deploy their receivers to cable subscribers. The satellite gateway is useless to cable subscribers unless they subscribe to satellite.

Nickles and dimes add up ... in a declining market seeing costs added by mandate is not good. And I believe the cost of designing and providing gateways will be more than nickles and dimes. Perhaps DIRECTV with their $20 per month per customer profit level can absorb the loss. DISH's profit margins are lower and customers will be affected.



Tom Robertson said:


> ... and therefore you would be given the choice to continue using the Dish equpment--is there a problem with the rest of us having the choice to not use their equipment?


If DISH is forced out of business by the mandate that violates your hypothetical. Existing customers would not have the choice to keep their service. In order for your hypothetical question to remain valid you need a path where customers *CAN* continue to use their DISH equipment. Not a path that destroys the option.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I think it is easy to argue that this would REDUCE cost for Directv and Dish in the long term due to 1) having to provide fewer client STBs to customers and 2) making the client STBs they do provide cheaper to acquire due to new entrants in that market.

Directv is already realizing some savings in #1 because of customers who have RVU TVs they are using instead of a Directv-provided client. When the capability is built into every new TV and many customers have boxes from Apple, Roku and others capable of acting as 'standard' clients that will work for Directv, this will save Directv a lot of money they are spending today to build new client STBs to provide to customers. Because of all the new entrants in the market increasing competition and the fact that everyone will use the same standard increasing volumes, the client STBs they purchase will cost them less than they do today leading to even more savings in client STB costs.

Now maybe all these changes upset the apple cart and Directv find they can't charge per TV anymore. If so it is hard for them to complain "you took away some of our income we previously had due to having a monopoly on STBs" when taking away that monopoly to save money for consumers is the reason the FCC is stepping in in the first place!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> Shouldn't what they develop be the company's decision?


As if there are no regulations the company is required to develop toward... This is simply another regulation. And pretty trivial compared to the requirements of maintaining a satellite. 



James Long said:


> Being forced to design and provide a gateway for third party connections to their satellite network will not help either satellite carrier deploy their receivers to cable subscribers. The satellite gateway is useless to cable subscribers unless they subscribe to satellite.


No one is forcing them to stay in the business of PayTV. But if they want to stay in, like ALL businesses, must exist within the framework of regulations.



James Long said:


> Nickles and dimes add up ... in a declining market seeing costs added by mandate is not good. And I believe the cost of designing and providing gateways will be more than nickles and dimes. Perhaps DIRECTV with their $20 per month per customer profit level can absorb the loss. DISH's profit margins are lower and customers will be affected.


If you think my math is wrong, point out where? How expensive do you think it will be to adapt a Hopper to gateway function? $10M? $20M? $100M? (I suggest you show your homework--how many _incremental _man years should it take? 100? 200? 1,000?)

I'm pretty certain a good developer, with familiarity with the code, could work up the changes for the Hopper in less than a month. A great developer (and a friendly specification) could get it marginally operational in a weekend and a couple pizzas. Now, I am completely aware these are not the costs to a completed solution. I back of an envelope budgeted 2 man years of development, 2 man years to test, and 3 or 4 to setup the support cycle. Plus some hardware and verification costs. Then doubled that for $2M. Assuming the companies are paying $100k/year for each of the staff involved.



James Long said:


> If the changes will only cost "a couple of million" why not have the third party companies that will benefit from the changes pay DIRECTV and DISH for their development costs?


That is called DLNA, IEEE, RVU, etc. Many trade organizations formed to jointly pay for things exactly like this... 

Remember, Dish will have the opportunity to sell their equipment to comcast customers. So they become one of the third parties that benefit and thus pay for the changes...



James Long said:


> Downplaying the costs and impact does not change the fact that those impacts exist. If the changes will only cost "a couple of million" ...
> 
> If DISH is forced out of business by the mandate that violates your hypothetical. Existing customers would not have the choice to keep their service. In order for your hypothetical question to remain valid you need a path where customers *CAN* continue to use their DISH equipment. Not a path that destroys the option.


Downplay or analyze to remove the FUD?

These arguments sound very fearful of uncertainty and not driven by critical thinking. Anyone hyping about $2M one-time for a corporation with $13.5B market cap as company ending, earth shattering, and end of the universe probably should wake up and smell the coffee. Or the company should simply admit it failed if it really is that close.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Regarding pricing per TV or location, here is what I would like to see if the gateway model is used. Pay per tuner. Say DirecTV develops an 8 tuner DVR. When you sign up, you tell them how many tuners you want active and are charged accordingly. Only want 2, then pay for 2 or want all 8, pay for 8. It then becomes irrelevant how many are used for recordings on one TV vs. how many TV's are hooked up.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> Regarding pricing per TV or location, here is what I would like to see if the gateway model is used. Pay per tuner. Say DirecTV develops an 8 tuner DVR. When you sign up, you tell them how many tuners you want active and are charged accordingly. Only want 2, then pay for 2 or want all 8, pay for 8. It then becomes irrelevant how many are used for recordings on one TV vs. how many TV's are hooked up.


I've toyed with this from several angles. Right now I record 5 things simultaneously a couple times a week--plus a backup device of 5 more. (First time I've done it more than one brief moment on multiple nights.) 

Yet I still only watch one thing at a time most of the time. Or two when the kids are visiting. (Not to mention two or three [PIP] during Football season.) So 10 recording streams (eight in your example) would over charge from the current model if I only had two devices.

Which is why the pricing models will likely change a fair bit, probably some experimentation and competition.

As we've mentioned earlier, DIRECTV used to slam Dish for the number of different fees--now they charge most the same fees too. Will that pendulum swing back?

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> A great developer (and a friendly specification) could get it marginally operational in a weekend and a couple pizzas.


Now you have reached the point of ridiculous it is obvious that there is no point in countering your posts.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> Now you have reached the point of ridiculous it is obvious that there is no point in countering your posts.


Actually I'm serious. If it can't be done in a hopper in a good weekend by a great programmer, I am pretty sure it could be done in a Genie. Many of the building blocks are already there: DLNA, RVU, copy protection, etc.

Heck, if the final spec is RVU, DIRECTV is already there. :Won't even take a pizza or 10 minutes. 

But I don't expect RVU. I expect the final spec to be based on the same technologies as RVU yet skip the U part for a local UI.

And note the careful wording--marginally operational. Not fully tested and certified. That would be the next weekend. 

Do I know some programmers this great? You betcha, I sure do. I worked with several in various jobs. And I've scoped out several projects like this.

We still await some serious discussion as to what is wrong with my $2M estimate.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Yet I still only watch one thing at a time most of the time. Or two when the kids are visiting. (Not to mention two or three [PIP] during Football season.) So 10 recording streams (eight in your example) would over charge from the current model if I only had two devices.


Yes, but how many of us have receivers/DVR's on TV's we rarely use. I know I am guilty of this, yet I pay the fee every month. There is no one good way to charge everyone perfectly fairly. Some will over pay, others will underpay.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> Yes, but how many of us have receivers/DVR's on TV's we rarely use. I know I am guilty of this, yet I pay the fee every month. There is no one good way to charge everyone perfectly fairly. Some will over pay, others will underpay.


Yup. The system is broke. DIRECTV is driving people to the most costly delivery since streaming is "free" and TVs are not.

How many people stream to tablet displayed on a TV to avoid fees? Bet that number grows... 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> How many people stream to tablet displayed on a TV to avoid fees? Bet that number grows...


I have actually never tried that. I have sent "home movies" to an ATV via an iPhone/iPad, but have never tried streaming a TV show.

Does it work? How's the quality?

When I get time I am going to move my wife's old Mac Mini down to the HT and hook it up for this purpose, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Don't know if that will be a good solution or not.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I wonder what those ultra thin clients are that John Stankey of AT&T talked about? Over at the Solid Signal Blog he said their are rumors of making the clients being the size of USB flash drives. I wonder if they could even have a the tuner built into that small of a device?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder what those ultra thin clients are that John Stankey of AT&T talked about? Over at the Solid Signal Blog he said their are rumors of making the clients being the size of USB flash drives. I wonder if they could even have a the tuner built into that small of a device?


There's no reason they can't make the clients that small, and while they could build a tuner into a thumb drive sized device there's no need since clients don't have a tuner.

The big problem with this idea is that HDMI ports aren't required to provide power, and the standard only allows 1/4 watt for those that do which just isn't enough to power it, so the benefits of such a tiny form factor are lost.

Personally I think it would be a neat solution for power to be delivered over the coax to the client, but while that's possible I wouldn't hold my breath. So probably we'd see clients the size of a DECA that would be powered via USB (either using the TV's USB port or a USB power adapter you plug into the wall)


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> There's no reason they can't make the clients that small, and while they could build a tuner into a thumb drive sized device there's no need since clients don't have a tuner.
> 
> The big problem with this idea is that HDMI ports aren't required to provide power, and the standard only allows 1/4 watt for those that do which just isn't enough to power it, so the benefits of such a tiny form factor are lost.
> 
> Personally I think it would be a neat solution for power to be delivered over the coax to the client, but while that's possible I wouldn't hold my breath. So probably we'd see clients the size of a DECA that would be powered via USB (either using the TV's USB port or a USB power adapter you plug into the wall)


I like that idea of clients the size of DECA's.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The big problem with this idea is that HDMI ports aren't required to provide power, and the standard only allows 1/4 watt for those that do which just isn't enough to power it, so the benefits of such a tiny form factor are lost.
> 
> Personally I think it would be a neat solution for power to be delivered over the coax to the client, but while that's possible I wouldn't hold my breath. So probably we'd see clients the size of a DECA that would be powered via USB (either using the TV's USB port or a USB power adapter you plug into the wall)


That is what Chromecast is doing. TV USB power or a small power adapter. Chromecast is a simple device with the work being done elsewhere. (I think of it as a remote monitor, not a client.) The additional circuitry to handle a remote control shouldn't make it much larger (for a standalone client that is not "cast" via a PC). If the work is going to be done on a PC then the design work is done ... just clone Chromecast.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> That is what Chromecast is doing. TV USB power or a small power adapter. Chromecast is a simple device with the work being done elsewhere. (I think of it as a remote monitor, not a client.) The additional circuitry to handle a remote control shouldn't make it much larger (for a standalone client that is not "cast" via a PC). If the work is going to be done on a PC then the design work is done ... just clone Chromecast.


The Chromecast is a simple device that offloads most of its work but you can get devices that do it by themselves in a USB stick form factor. Heck, you can buy full fledged Windows PCs in that form factor.


----------



## turbulence (Feb 22, 2016)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder what those ultra thin clients are that John Stankey of AT&T talked about? Over at the Solid Signal Blog he said their are rumors of making the clients being the size of USB flash drives. I wonder if they could even have a the tuner built into that small of a device?


A tuner may not, but as a client (without a tuner), it's possible. Miniaturization continues, by the end of 2016, we may see clients smaller than the remote or small as a USB stick. I would even suspect, that DirecTV (or let's call it AT&T) decides that owners of Smart TV won't even get clients, or you will have to separately purchase it if you really want it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

turbulence said:


> A tuner may not, but as a client (without a tuner), it's possible. Miniaturization continues, by the end of 2016, we may see clients smaller than the remote or small as a USB stick. I would even suspect, that DirecTV (or let's call it AT&T) decides that owners of Smart TV won't even get clients, or you will have to separately purchase it if you really want it.


Only a few brands of TVs have RVU support, so that's not really an option. Not to mention that you can't depend on TV OEMs to keep firmware current, since they typically abandon a model once after a year or two. They already have your money, they don't care anymore. A client is a better option than a RVU TV today - and generally more responsive as well.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Herdfan said:


> Regarding pricing per TV or location, here is what I would like to see if the gateway model is used. Pay per tuner. Say DirecTV develops an 8 tuner DVR. When you sign up, you tell them how many tuners you want active and are charged accordingly. Only want 2, then pay for 2 or want all 8, pay for 8. It then becomes irrelevant how many are used for recordings on one TV vs. how many TV's are hooked up.


That is pretty much exactly what I have argued ever since the Genie/Mini Client setup was released. It is silly that DirecTV charges per RVU client past 3 when you can only use 3 at one time. I always said they should charge by tuner, or if they insisted on charging by client it should be capped at a maximum of 3, and any past 3 are free.

I believe the FCC is going to push for something more like this. I think they want to see the cost based on functionality, not based on how many devices, what they are, etc. Just like when they changed it for phone service, no more per outlet/per phone fees. You just paid for the number of different lines you have, the different features like cal waiting, caller-id etc.

So maybe the providers will charge say $7 per stream, so if you have 10 TVs, but only need 3 live streams at any time you only pay $21 instead of $70. Then if you want out of home streaming you pay another $10/month, if you want Genie Go like functionality where you can transfer to a portable device and take it anywhere without internet service you pay another $5/month, etc.



slice1900 said:


> Only a few brands of TVs have RVU support, so that's not really an option. Not to mention that you can't depend on TV OEMs to keep firmware current, since they typically abandon a model once after a year or two. They already have your money, they don't care anymore. A client is a better option than a RVU TV today - and generally more responsive as well.


That't the thing though, RVU clients shouldn't need firmware updates at all. They should just be asking the server for a stream, and then decoding that stream. That stream format shouldn't ever need to change, and the commands to request it shouldn't need to change. The RVU server is the only thing that should need firmware updates to change the GUI etc.

As far as the Genie Clients being better than RVU built into TVs, I'm not so sure that is true anymore. I'm reading more and more about people having better experiences, and better picture quality from the RVU clients built into TVs than from the stand alone clients, especially with 4K programming.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Beerstalker said:


> I believe the FCC is going to push for something more like this. I think they want to see the cost based on functionality, not based on how many devices, what they are, etc. Just like when they changed it for phone service, no more per outlet/per phone fees. You just paid for the number of different lines you have, the different features like cal waiting, caller-id etc


The FCC is not permitted to regulate how providers bill. They are discussing setting standards for set top boxes so customers have the choice to buy their own, whether it actually affects how customers are charged is up to the providers.



Beerstalker said:


> That't the thing though, RVU clients shouldn't need firmware updates at all. They should just be asking the server for a stream, and then decoding that stream. That stream format shouldn't ever need to change, and the commands to request it shouldn't need to change. The RVU server is the only thing that should need firmware updates to change the GUI etc.


If that was the case Directv would never need to update firmware on the clients, but they do this all the time. If instead of RVU Directv was using a true standard (like the one the FCC may help instigate) then they'd need updates less often but there would still be the need to fix problems in the standard (look how many revs both HDCP 1.x and HDCP 2.x have gone through) whether security related or just gray areas that need to be tightened down.


----------

