Cable Companies no longer have to provide Cable Cards

[trk2]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

Now, if Ajit Pai said “in 2025, mandatory support will end”, I’d have no problem.

They did say it, back in 2015 when Obama repealed mandatory support for it.

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

How do you know, are you working for Cox board of billing directors? And if usage rates are so ridiculously low, then I don’t see how mandatory support hurts the massively profitable cable company.

The intent of cable card was to provide an option for consumers to watch cabletv without using the cable company supplied set top box. That mandate still exists. The mandate is being upheld because the cable companies are offering iptv streaming, which is a far better solution to their customers than cable cards. So everything is working as it should and better for most customers except for the tiny niche who prefer cable cards. I'm sorry that the tiny niche includes the both of us. But not sorry enough that I support using the power of the government to compel support for a tiny niche of cable card enthusiasts.

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by wayner

I agree that CC was a failure, but I wonder why that is the case? Why did we not get more competitors to the cable company boxes, especially when, for so many years, the UI was crappy and innovation was non-existent? The cable box should have been an area where we saw lots of disruption, but this never happened. How many devices did we ever see that used CCs? TiVos and a handful of tuners for PCs from SD, Ceton and Hauppauge. Even having TVs that accepted CCs would have been useful for many, but those disappeared very early in the CC era.

Because the cable companies didn't want it to succeed. Cable cards meant lost set top box revenue. The original cable company DVRs were terrible, and some people looked to alternatives, but the cable companies quickly realized that DVRs were the future and they worked hard to make them better. Once they were on par with the alternatives, people were inclined to stick with the cable company's offerings, even if it cost more money over the long run.

That, and then once Microsoft killed off Windows Media Center and therefore lost interest in CableCards, there was no big players to lobby to keep them around.

[trk2]

Originally Posted by wayner

I agree that CC was a failure, but I wonder why that is the case? Why did we not get more competitors to the cable company boxes, especially when, for so many years, the UI was crappy and innovation was non-existent? The cable box should have been an area where we saw lots of disruption, but this never happened. How many devices did we ever see that used CCs? TiVos and a handful of tuners for PCs from SD, Ceton and Hauppauge. Even having TVs that accepted CCs would have been useful for many, but those disappeared very early in the CC era.

The general public has only ever heard of Tivo...maybe. They don't know of media center, Ceton, Silicon Dust or Hauppauge. In their minds Tivo = dvr. So when the cable companies offered DVR and told people it was "similar to Tivo" most were satisfied. And since most people have never used Tivo, or Media Center or Sage they never knew what they were missing. Even the crappiest DVR was better than what everyone had to do previously which was record on VHS, so most people were happy. That's my belief at least.

[nyplayer]

Originally Posted by trk2

The general public has only ever heard of Tivo...maybe. They don't know of media center, Ceton, Silicon Dust or Hauppauge. In their minds Tivo = dvr. So when the cable companies offered DVR and told people it was "similar to Tivo" most were satisfied. And since most people have never used Tivo, or Media Center or Sage they never knew what they were missing. Even the crappiest DVR was better than what everyone had to do previously which was record on VHS, so most people were happy. That's my belief at least.

I fully remember Macrovision on VHS... even had a dual VHS ... then DVDCOPY now Playon.

[Tiki]

The other big problem that kept CC from taking off was that they intentionally hobbled it- they didn’t support VOD. Video on demand was not that common in the 90s when the cable card standard was being developed and the government did not force the cable companies to support it with the cable card. They had Pay per view, but not on demand. But they started pushing VOD in a big way around the same time that cable card started rolling out. So the few TV makers that included cable card support got complaints from their customers who found out they couldn’t do everything with just a cable card and would still need a separate box to do VOD. That was something that was never corrected even when the government started forcing cable companies to use cable cards in their own set top boxes.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by Tiki

The other big problem that kept CC from taking off was that they intentionally hobbled it- they didn’t support VOD. Video on demand was not that common in the 90s when the cable card standard was being developed and the government did not force the cable companies to support it with the cable card. They had Pay per view, but not on demand. But they started pushing VOD in a big way around the same time that cable card started rolling out. So the few TV makers that included cable card support got complaints from their customers who found out they couldn’t do everything with just a cable card and would still need a separate box to do VOD. That was something that was never corrected even when the government started forcing cable companies to use cable cards in their own set top boxes.

Bingo - Cox has spent the last three years telling me “we’re not sure why VOD isn’t working with your TiVo”. They absolutely crippled it, and then we were always told “but this isn’t a problem with Cox Contour systems”.
Ugh. The worst part is TiVo is STILL a better, more intuitive interface, and I can OWN IT! In Canada, satellite companies allow ownership of equipment. I’m so tired of monthly bills and subscription services. TiVo alleviated that.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by trk2

They did say it, back in 2015 when Obama repealed mandatory support for it.



The intent of cable card was to provide an option for consumers to watch cabletv without using the cable company supplied set top box. That mandate still exists. The mandate is being upheld because the cable companies are offering iptv streaming, which is a far better solution to their customers than cable cards. So everything is working as it should and better for most customers except for the tiny niche who prefer cable cards. I'm sorry that the tiny niche includes the both of us. But not sorry enough that I support using the power of the government to compel support for a tiny niche of cable card enthusiasts.

From what I read, that’s NOT what Obama signed, and in a democracy, WE’RE the government, correct?

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by KeithAbbott

What new system?

I've looked everywhere for the article I read. I guess I must have misread it, but I swear it said that cable companies where moving to a new digital broadcast protocol and that CableCards were not able to support. The article made it sound like this could be done on a channel by channel basis, so that they could phase it in as new channels were introduced into their system.

EDIT - I should note that I am aware of ATSC 3.0 and this was not what they article was talking about.

[wayner]

Probably an IPTV based system. Cable companies are going to this across North America. One would think that within a few years the traditional cable delivered via RF will be shut down.

Comcast has an IPTV system called Xfinity. Here in Canada Rogers Cable has licensed Comcast's technology and calls it Ignite TV.

With these systems you don't need RF cable to each room as the signal is generally delivered by your Wifi or ethernet network. You just have a small box to connect to your TV. In some instances rather than having a cable box you may be able to just use an app on your TV (or Roku or FireTV) as your endpoint. Or if you are using the cable companies small box they may provide access to common streaming services like Netflix, Youtube, etc.

One downside to these systems can be that it is harder to use your own router and other networking hardware as the client boxes depend on a certain configuration for your LAN.

[AlphaCrew]

The FCC commissioners said cable companies are still required to “provide separable security,” but they said that condition could be met by providing streaming applications that allow cable customers to access programming on streaming devices like Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV or Android TV devices. Most cable companies have offered these apps for years without government regulation or intervention, the FCC noted, and as long as they continue to do so, they’ll meet the separate security requirement.

So does this mean ALL programming? Hmmm.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by AlphaCrew

So does this mean ALL programming? Hmmm.

If the 'cable company' is supplying anything, aka apps, then they would be on boxes we have to RENT from them. So, not really competitive, is it?

[KryptoNyte]

Originally Posted by sic0048

I've looked everywhere for the article I read. I guess I must have misread it, but I swear it said that cable companies where moving to a new digital broadcast protocol and that CableCards were not able to support. The article made it sound like this could be done on a channel by channel basis, so that they could phase it in as new channels were introduced into their system.

EDIT - I should note that I am aware of ATSC 3.0 and this was not what they article was talking about.

That sounds like TV Everywhere. You can login to any network's website with your cable company user/pass and watch [almost] any channel to which you subscribe. This is one of the systems that the Channels DVR software is leveraging.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

If the 'cable company' is supplying anything, aka apps, then they would be on boxes we have to RENT from them. So, not really competitive, is it?

That's not necessarily going to be the case. For example, Xfinity Stream. This is from https://forums.xfinity.com/t5/TV/ANS...k/ta-p/2940367

I believe this is still in beta and may never reach a fully mature form. And they may charge you an additional outlet fee to install this app on your own hardware.

Comcast is collaborating with equipment manufacturers to bring the Xfinity Stream app to compatible Roku devices, Samsung Smart TVs and other Partner Devices. The Xfinity Stream app delivers live broadcast channels, linear cable channels, cloud recordings and video on demand, all without the need to rent an Xfinity TV Box from Comcast.

The Xfinity Stream app is currently offered in a "beta" version that does not include the full set of features and functionality included in the Xfinity Stream app for mobile devices and web portal. Future releases of the app will include additional features and functionality, as well as improved stability and optimization. When using the "beta" app, you will not be charged an "additional outlet" service charge. Pricing may change in the future.

Please note that we continue to believe Xfinity X1 is the best way to watch Xfinity TV, and not all features of X1 are available if you choose to use a Partner Device

[AlphaCrew]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

If the 'cable company' is supplying anything, aka apps, then they would be on boxes we have to RENT from them. So, not really competitive, is it?

I don't think that is what "provide separable security" means. I think it means they must still provide a system for subscribers to consume media outside of the providers equipment.

The question is what must be included in the system as it relates to channels/media.. I'm guessing VERY little.

[AlphaCrew]

Originally Posted by KryptoNyte

That sounds like TV Everywhere. You can login to any network's website with your cable company user/pass and watch [almost] any channel to which you subscribe. This is one of the systems that the Channels DVR software is leveraging.

With my Verizon package, I had TVE access to a small fraction of the total channel line up, and as such I did not renew my year subscription with channels.

[KryptoNyte]

Can't speak for Verizon, but with Spectrum I'm currently getting about 95% of the channels that I subscribe to via TV Everywhere, and the support seems to grow continually. The other 5% are channels that I have never watched.

The point being that this is the only "other" universal system that I'm aware of. Even as a SageTV diehard, Channels DVR is doing quite an amazing job rolling all the TVE stuff into one guide, along with my OTA tuner.

[KeithAbbott]

Originally Posted by KryptoNyte

Can't speak for Verizon, but with Spectrum I'm currently getting about 95% of the channels that I subscribe to via TV Everywhere, and the support seems to grow continually. The other 5% are channels that I have never watched.

The point being that this is the only "other" universal system that I'm aware of. Even as a SageTV diehard, Channels DVR is doing quite an amazing job rolling all the TVE stuff into one guide, along with my OTA tuner.

I started thinking today that I need to be ready for the day that my cable cards no longer work, and the Channels DVR/TV Everywhere combo seems like a definite possibility. I have a couple of questions about the offering, however:

1. Channels DVR and/or TV Everywhere was in beta status. Is that still the case, or are they officially supported products?
2. TV Everywhere was initially offered at a lower video quality. Is the quality today on par with the corresponding cable channel?
3. Is 5.1 audio present/available, or is it strictly stereo?
4. And the most important question, what functionality does SageTV offer that Channels DVR/TV Everywhere doesn't?

[KryptoNyte]

Keith, I love SageTV. Even more so, I love this little community. Like you, I see the writing on the wall with cablecards, the constantly changing software/hardware that requires constant maintenance (usually just change for the sake of change unfortunately), and the old hardware not being able to do the job anymore.

That said, I try to encourage the SageTV developers that remain as much as I am able. I also support other developers like the guys over at Channels DVR. The primary difference between SageTV and Channels DVR is that the developers over at Channels pretty much do whatever they like. SageTV has always been a platform that encouraged maximum flexibility to the user, and even outside developers, which Channels really doesn't do. That said, they have made a lot of progress on the non-apple related front in the last few months, good stuff.

1) Channels DVR will probably always be in "Beta" status regardless of what they call it, as it's constantly evolving, like just about any platform these days. It does, however, miss less recordings at this time than my Sage system does, somewhat due to my convoluted Sage tuner configuration forced by DRM. There are a few isolated conditions where Channels can miss a recording that the developers could fix (a recording that Sage would not miss) and blame it on someone else. I despise not being able to move backwards in the guide a day or two to see why Channels missed a recording, so I have to send all my logs and bother the developers apparently. The developers are, however, constantly active in the forum ... CONSTANTLY - they will respond to serious issues on a Sunday morning if necessary.
2) In my opinion, the quality of TV Everywhere is not quite where my direct cable streams are in Sage. I'd say they are at about 80% of so, but not totally there. A good 4k TV does a heck of a job with any of this media, worth noting. Of course when I record a channel in SageTV using an HDPVR of some kind, I don't get things like closed captioning, which can be helpful for some folks.
3) To my knowledge, there is no 5.1 channel audio on TVE, at least I haven't noticed it - it's all stereo, which is a step backwards in my mind to some degree. I have found that most of my TV watching hasn't been occurring lately on my fancy multi-channel audio system in the living, but on some old flat panel TV, so I don't miss it quite as much. For archiving important programs, if you're into that kind of thing, I miss 5.1 channel audio. My hopes are that TVE streams will eventually deliver 5.1 channel (or better) audio.
4) SageTV offers a few things that Channels DVR developers either can't figure out (unlikely), aren't interested in, or can't find the time to be interested in:
- Live comskip. I really miss this when watching a sporting event [or anything that I start watching 15 minutes behind] using Channels DVR. I just realized this last week that one reason why Channels DVR can't handle live comskip is because LIVE TV is treated differently than other pre-recorded channels, with LIVE TV using a buffer on the client alone, whereas pre-recorded programs are saved on the server. This is something that the developers there need to seriously re-think, my opinion of course. Losing live comskip with Channels DVR is big, and unfortunate.
- Tuners. SageTV can handle a PLETHORA of tuners. Channels DVR only works with Silicondust HDHR tuners, and the TVE streaming. This isn't a small issue, but on the other hand there aren't many folks out there making tuners for our little community any more.
- The idea behind SageTV was developed before anyone had a real whole home DVR platform (maybe TIVO?). This is a huge advantage for Sage. No matter what I do in Sage, it's just ... seamless. Little things that Channels hasn't caught up to, like the ability to click on a show in the guide and see all future airings of that offering.
- For those of us that still have an HD300 (or even an HD100 or HD200), that's a major advantage. The HD300 hardware basically *NEVER* changes. I see the developers both here in Sage and Channels DVR in a CONSTANT struggle to deal with the various pieces of newer hardware, and the daily changes to the software behind the hardware. I have no suggestion for this, because the world now believes that any piece of hardware/software that remains stationary in any way for more than a few months must be bad, evil, and full security flaws. Just today, Josh mentioned that the miniclient might be broke by Android 11, and now he has to waste time chasing something that wasn't his/Sage's fault instead of creating. I have to believe that if Channels DVR were to gain enough popularity that they may consider selling a hardware device with a firmware that they control - of course this only goes so far when some other system will force that hardware to cease functioning as it should.
- Sage's plugins. When Sage was in active development, and there was high interest by numerous outside programmers, the plugins allowed the software to gain features exponentially without taxing the original small development crew. Channels developers are mostly native to apple stuff, so regardless of what the 1984 commercial seemed to suggest, they don't believe in giving the power to the people. They will supply a purple background on all clients, and you will like it, or you will leave. Sage's plugins can't be understated. Being able to harness the minds of countless creators was ... extraordinary.

Channels DVR has the opportunity to do things right, if the developers are willing to embrace the idea of flexibility. In some respects they do, in other respects, they have decided to keep the software their own, which is their prerogative. At the end of the day, I try not to see it as a competition, so I support both causes as much as I can - no reason not to in our little world.

[KryptoNyte]

One other thing worth mentioning - Josh and a few other developer here in Sage have worked their butts off in their free time since Sage went open source. Josh is currently working on the miniclient and the server transcoding. That must be a huge undertaking. His current Patreon account supports him with a whole $48/month for his efforts (thank you to those of you that contribute!), and the other few developers have worked for way less than that I would imagine. $48 gets us what ... realistically, 15 to 20 minutes of programming time per month. I wish there was a way we could support the Sage guys more, but there just aren't enough of us left.

I give the Channels DVR guys 8 bucks a month, and hopefully a bunch more people do, too, so they can create something amazing.

[tvmaster2]

Yeah, I’m depressed my mind doesn’t work the way programmer’s minds do, ‘cause I could help more. Josh is a rock star. SageTV is like TiVo: superior product that no one realizes or cares about. I’ve got four TiVo’s, and my neighbor says to me “I thought they went out of business years ago.” That sucks.