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



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/technology/fcc-proposes-changes-in-set-top-box-market.html?_r=0

The caveat being that the five member panel votes in favor of this but if they do would it not be inevitable
that TIVO's Bolt would be able to work on Directv?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well not really. TiVo in general maybe but the bolt that's out now would never work. And I'll believe all that when I see it. Plus we are several years out for anything g to come of that if it did.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

inkahauts said:


> Well not really. TiVo in general maybe but the bolt that's out now would never work. And I'll believe all that when I see it. Plus we are several years out for anything g to come of that if it did.


You are writing that they could not alter a few things on the Bolt to make it compatible with Directv in a few months, why not? If the FCC voted to open up access to cable and Directv, you believe it would take several years for Apple, Google, Tivo and others to make boxes that would work with those services, impossible to believe it would take more than six months to get in the game.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Well not really. TiVo in general maybe but the bolt that's out now would never work. And I'll believe all that when I see it. Plus we are several years out for anything g to come of that if it did.


It doesn't matter because as you say it would take a few years for something to come of it. If the FCC ruled tomorrow in favor of consumers and made this a requirement, they'd put it out several years in the future. And then companies like Comcast and Directv would probably try to claim they need more time and request an extension.

Since the Bolt (and the Roamio and Premiere before it) are able to record IP streams, they'd probably just need a software update to be compatible. Remember they just need to interface with a 'gateway' via IP they don't need satellite tuners, those would remain within the gateway. Of course Tivo would have no reason to bring new life to old hardware when they can get you to buy new hardware, so whether it is possible on the Roamio and Premiere is irrelevant, they would never do it.

Pretty sure they'd enable this functionality in the Bolt just to claim they are first to market and insure buyers felt secure they could use cable card today, and remove the cable card and have it connect via IP to the cable gateway down the road. Otherwise no one would buy a Tivo knowing it would have a limited life (though I'm sure cable companies would be required to support cable cards for several years after the implementation date of this change to allow a smooth transition so they'd have a decent life, just not the 10+ years some people get out of their Tivos)


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

GordonGekko said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/technology/fcc-proposes-changes-in-set-top-box-market.html?_r=0
> 
> The caveat being that the five member panel votes in favor of this but if they do would it not be inevitable
> that TIVO's Bolt would be able to work on Directv?


Couple of important points:
This has been in the works in this flavor for at least 5 years. I'm very glad they are making headway again. I'm not sure why it stalled (beyond the cable company lobby stalling...)
This is something the FCC and Congress have tried and wanted for more than 20 years, with cable card. I'm really glad they continue to try. 
This is no surprise to the cable companies or Tivo.
And there have been several drafts of the technical solutions in the works.

So, Tivo is probably ready with their hardware and software, merely waiting for the final rulings. 
Therefore, the Bolt could be all set hardware-wise and one update away with a few tweaks.

The other thought I have is the FCC might not extend this out too far. Normally they like to give manufacturers 18 months to 2 years--one development cycle. Yet this has been cooking in committees for at least 5 years. The FCC even had a date set at one point. So they could (though probably won't) tell manufacturers they only have one year this time.

Or tell cable companies they have to stop charging fees after a year--take as long as you want to develop boxes. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

GordonGekko said:


> You are writing that they could not alter a few things on the Bolt to make it compatible with Directv in a few months, why not? If the FCC voted to open up access to cable and Directv, you believe it would take several years for Apple, Google, Tivo and others to make boxes that would work with those services, impossible to believe it would take more than six months to get in the game.


How Bolt could show up on DIRECTV: 1) FCC rules, 2) DIRECTV either updates the Genie or issues a gateway, 3) Bolt gets updated to the new specs.

Timing will be everything. Tivo might have time to create a new model after the Bolt so "Bolts" might not connect to DIRECTV, yet something definitely will. 

Who knows, we used to be able to buy Sony VCRs--soon we might be able to buy Sony DVR/Streaming/BD devices. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

GordonGekko said:


> You are writing that they could not alter a few things on the Bolt to make it compatible with Directv in a few months, why not? If the FCC voted to open up access to cable and Directv, you believe it would take several years for Apple, Google, Tivo and others to make boxes that would work with those services, impossible to believe it would take more than six months to get in the game.


As of Today right now the hardware isn't compatible. Period. New hardware from one or both would be needed depending on how they implemented it.

I do think something new is coming from
DIRECTV that might make it easier but Im hesitant to say it'd work easily with TiVo or anyone else because they use a very specific kind of security and I'm Not sure how they'd be able to ever get that into an existing TiVo without a total rewrite or more. And TiVo sucks at doing any programming within a short time frame. Took ten what three years to do the last DIRECTV box? Don't hold your breath. 

So yeah it's not something that could ever happen quickly.

The best chance is what Tom said, probably DIRECTV agreeing with TiVo to let them program a genie with bolt software. But since the last time they did that it took 3 years.... That agreement is coming to an end next year I think??? So maybe there will be negotiations.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> As of Today right now the hardware isn't compatible. Period. New hardware from one or both would be needed depending on how they implemented it.
> 
> I do think something new is coming from
> DIRECTV that might make it easier but Im hesitant to say it'd work easily with TiVo or anyone else because they use a very specific kind of security and I'm Not sure how they'd be able to ever get that into an existing TiVo without a total rewrite or more. And TiVo sucks at doing any programming within a short time frame. Took ten what three years to do the last DIRECTV box? Don't hold your breath.
> ...


Which hardware is incompatible?

Tivo's is probably compatible today. Merely one software update away.

DIRECTV's (and Dish's) are probably compatible today. Any Genie or Hopper already has a client server model built in. One update and they could serve more than Samsung TVs or mini-genies. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

I would suggest the same points apply to Directv and Dish, not just the cable companies. I'd be willing to bet that hardware is a cash cow for all providers (not just cable) and all providers (not just cable) would be against something like this.



Tom Robertson said:


> Couple of important points:
> This has been in the works in this flavor for at least 5 years. I'm very glad they are making headway again. I'm not sure why it stalled (*beyond the cable company lobby stalling...*)
> This is something the FCC and Congress have tried and wanted for more than 20 years, with cable card. I'm really glad they continue to try.
> This is no surprise to the cable companies or Tivo.
> ...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

raott said:


> I would suggest the same points apply to Directv and Dish, not just the cable companies. I'd be willing to bet that hardware is a cash cow for all providers (not just cable) and all providers (not just cable) would be against something like this.


You are absolutely right. Sorry, I was sloppier than normal with my terminology. By "cable" I really meant all MVPDs, definitely including DIRECTV and Dish. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

I'm so sick of waiting for anything.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-wheeler-set-top-box-rules-20160908-snap-story.html

Here are the proposed rules and sadly I don't think it allows for Tivo to develop their own Bolt for Directv.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

That proposal will never ever work as he wrote it. Never. To much fragmentation on to many things...


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

inkahauts said:


> That proposal will never ever work as he wrote it. Never. To much fragmentation on to many things...


Basically the FCC's solution is for a digital app, would watching live television via the internet really be more reliable than simply using your cable box or directv receiver? Directv just announced that most of their channels will be available live on any device but will anybody here get rid of their receivers because of that option?


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

You can only watch everything if you have a Genie with Mobile DVR, which takes up a tuner, otherwise you're limited to just what they have the streaming rights to.


----------



## pjs344 (May 21, 2014)

This would be a big deal and pay day for Cable and Sat receiver/DVR manufacturers. They have has 5 year+ to get these recovers engineered and tested. There just waiting for the Gov to give them the go to start the assembly lines and to get them on the market asap.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Awh, no... that's a nice dream but they don't need permission to do it. They will do it if they are forced. Otherwise they will head towards apps.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

The new chairman of the FCC has cancelled this proposal, there is not going to be a forced opening of the set top box market.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I've never thought there needed to be. Apps on tvs are cheaper and is where they will all want to go in their own. Just another showing that government regulation of tech like this doesn't work because it can't keep up with what actually makes sense to have happen.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

For those in favor of this ruling, don't want to hear no complains how the DIRECTV receives are so slow and the GUI is so out of date. Had this ruling been kept it only would benefit customers as they would have their choice on their receiving equipment. 

DIRECTV is not going go give their keys to a 3rd party developer to built on their platform. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Are you assuming non-DIRECTV built equipment would be better or that competition would force DIRECTV to build better equipment than they will now the ruling has been made?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> I've never thought there needed to be. Apps on tvs are cheaper and is where they will all want to go in their own. Just another showing that government regulation of tech like this doesn't work because it can't keep up with what actually makes sense to have happen.


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

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


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> Are you assuming non-DIRECTV built equipment would be better or that competition would force DIRECTV to build better equipment than they will now the ruling has been made?


Both. Better gear could be made, forcing DIRECTV to (perhaps) do better.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

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

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

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


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> For those in favor of this ruling, don't want to hear no complains how the DIRECTV receives are so slow and the GUI is so out of date. Had this ruling been kept it only would benefit customers as they would have their choice on their receiving equipment.
> 
> DIRECTV is not going go give their keys to a 3rd party developer to built on their platform.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


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

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


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JosephB said:


> The thing about apps is the content provider always writes the app. If you don't like DirecTV's UI, you can't switch to a competing UI without switching to someone other than DirecTV. Also, apps generally only work with a subset of features at this point. Sure, eventually apps are going to be "the way" TV works, but we're not there yet, and we're a long way away.
> 
> I'm disappointed that this isn't going to happen, but it's too late in the game. Really what we needed was back when the FCC was mandated to come up with CableCARD, for them to come up with something better and something that would apply across providers, not just cable. If we were starting over 10 years ago, we could do better and by now there'd be a much better ecosystem. Now, it's too late to try to start fresh with anything other than apps.


I dont know of anything you cant do with an rvu directv you can do with a client. Heck the only thing the main genie can do that a client can't is PIP.

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

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


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Its the people in charge who are afraid to do more that are causing this.


Money talks bull pocky walks....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> I One reason, none of the 3rd parties where making much money and many of them started quitting and not making devices anymore. .


Seem you to claim a lot on here but provide very little evidence. You have any links or support material to back that statement?

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

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> I There aren't that many big companies making guis. In fact there is one. Tivo.


Again, making claims without evidence. You seem to forgot a thread about this very same thing not too long ago.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


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


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

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Again, making claims without evidence. You seem to forgot a thread about this very same thing not too long ago.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


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

Selling them oem was much better for them.

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

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


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Multiple manufactures is nothing new.


Multiple manufacturers is not the problem when they are all tightly controlled by one company. DIRECTV dictating the standard and controlling the entire process.

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


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Yeah. I sold the things from all sorts of different brands and they all told me they where jumping ship because there sales where small and there's no money in it. This started happening before the TiVo Hi Definition DVR even. They wanted to focus on DVD players and other things. Sony jumped ship fast. Samsung barley even dipped their toe in the water and yanked it back out.
> 
> Selling them oem was much better for them.
> 
> ...


Again, this is hearsay, any links, papers, etc. To back that up....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> Multiple manufacturers is not the problem when they are all tightly controlled by one company. DIRECTV dictating the standard and controlling the entire process.
> 
> The proposal would have required DIRECTV to work with designers that they did not control and meet standards that they did not set. They would need to secure their content while delivering it to a device that they didn't control. Which is not the same as dictating to hand picked manufacturers who could lose the ability to make DIRECTV products if they didn't follow the DIRECTV standards (or even on a whim, within the limits of their contract with DIRECTV).


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

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

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


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Again, this is hearsay, any links, papers, etc. To back that up....
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


So everything you say about installing is hearsay as well then.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> It is a moot point since the FCC proposal is dead. If DIRECTV wants to work with specific manufacturers (and reject working with others) they can, of course do so. The proposal would have forced DIRECTV to work with any manufacturer


Isn't that the purpose of this thread, to discuss the "what if"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

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

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


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> I was discussing the false assumption that having the government step in and force DIRECTV (or any other provider) to open up their content and distribution to third party equipment or apps would improve DIRECTV's equipment. The proposal would not have been a blessing for DIRECTV or the consumer. It would have been a burden.
> 
> I have already explained my reasoning for those who are interested.


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

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> This proposal was never to force DIRECTV or any other provider to open up their content and distribution to third parties OEM. This was about allowing OEM to build hardware that could access DIRECTV programming.


That is like saying "this isn't 1+2=3, this is 2+1=3".

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



peds48 said:


> DIRECTV would still be in the drivers seat as to distribution and control of their programming, after all those new STB would connect to a DIRECTV dish which connects to the DIRECTV system.


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

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


----------

