leadvocal
08-22-2003, 06:44 AM
http://www.msnbc.com/news/954998.asp?0dm=C19NT&cp1=1
 |
|
|||||||||||||
View Full Version : The beginning of the end of the STB?
woodman
08-22-2003, 06:07 PM
No, Mr.Vocal the proposal does NOT signify the end of STBs. There will be a bigger and bigger STB market as time goes on, due to the need by so many consumers for a device that will enable their present equipment tpo function in the coming "digital age" of television.
The bill introduced in Congress merely tries to get the cable industry to get their heads outta their butts and get on board the bandwagon and quit dragging their feet over the transition. It's my personal hope that the cable industry will continue on their present course and continue to lose market share to satellite. It would be the ultimate irony, IMO.
The bill introduced in Congress merely tries to get the cable industry to get their heads outta their butts and get on board the bandwagon and quit dragging their feet over the transition. It's my personal hope that the cable industry will continue on their present course and continue to lose market share to satellite. It would be the ultimate irony, IMO.
mikehbkwm
08-22-2003, 07:34 PM
Woodman sorry gotta disagree with ya... not all cable co's are bad.... again i agree that some suck and always will but not all do.... also cable can say this and sat. really cant in that cable is local and provides jobs for people. most people completely forget about this point that even if you think cable is bad, it is locally in your community and is providing jobs for people. I work for Cox and it was my dream that I work here about 3yrs ago and I finally got on last September..............
leadvocal
08-23-2003, 04:31 AM
Woodman, I also disagree with you. The proposal was developed by cable operators (along with the electronics companies) to speed along the digital transition. It's the broadcasters that are dragging their feet.
Also the proposal, if passed, would allow cable subscribers with integrated sets to recieve a digital signal without the use of a STB. Now of course there will be STB's for those with non-integrated monitors but after the digital transition is complete, I beleive you'll see more integrated sets on the market and less STB's, especially if this bill is passed.
Also the proposal, if passed, would allow cable subscribers with integrated sets to recieve a digital signal without the use of a STB. Now of course there will be STB's for those with non-integrated monitors but after the digital transition is complete, I beleive you'll see more integrated sets on the market and less STB's, especially if this bill is passed.
DoubleDAZ
08-23-2003, 09:20 AM
Well, a lot depends on how they decide to cope with premium channels and premium services like DVR, etc. These could continue to require STBs of some sort or just some add-on plug&play equipment.
I personally don't like integrated stuff because it limits innovation. Added capabilities have to wait until the next advancement or you still end up with extra boxes. What I'd like to see is a simpler, standard connection to make it easy to buy the box(s) of choice and hook it up much like the VDR. Unfortunately, there's still folks out there that don't know the difference bewteen the RF connector and the s-video. :(
I personally don't like integrated stuff because it limits innovation. Added capabilities have to wait until the next advancement or you still end up with extra boxes. What I'd like to see is a simpler, standard connection to make it easy to buy the box(s) of choice and hook it up much like the VDR. Unfortunately, there's still folks out there that don't know the difference bewteen the RF connector and the s-video. :(
kevinw
08-23-2003, 02:19 PM
Lets think back to when cable first started. You had to have a STB to use it on your TV with a rotary dial set to channel 3. Lo and behold TV manufacturers started building cable ready TV's. What happened next? To combat cable theft, the cable providers started scrambling anything above basic, again requiring the honest viewer to have a STB.
To elimanate boxes all together would mean that all systems be identical or compatible with your tv no matter where you lived. Not 5 different STB manufacturers devoloping equipment only compatible with a certain provider.
Is Gerrold,Motorola or Scientific-Atlantic going to fold up just because?
Now let us take this 10-20 years into the future when all programming is HD. I do not think I will need a STB for my locals or the Shopping Channels, afterall all tv's by that point will be HDCABLE READY, but you can bet I will need one for HBO or any other premium subsciption.
Mike as for your employer, It is providing cable services to a very small market Tulsa and the surrounding county has a population of about 571 thousand compared to Atlanta at 404 thousand residing in the city as well a 3.5 MILLION living in the Metro area.
If Cox is providing to City residents only compare that to Time Warner in NYC or Comcast in the Metro Atlanta area with about a Million subscribers. Atlanta Metro is not exclusive to Comacast. The market is shared by Benchmark and Adelphia that I know about.
If only 10% of cable subscribers are unhappy(theoretically speaking) That would be 40 thousand Tulsans not satisfied compared to 300 thousand Metro Atlantans. It is much easier to be good when taking care of a few but much harder to take care of a lot with the same resources.
I am not knocking your company but you can not compare your experiences with other parts of the country that have much larger poplutions. They are both fruit but they are not both apples.
One good Yugo does not make all Yugos good.
To elimanate boxes all together would mean that all systems be identical or compatible with your tv no matter where you lived. Not 5 different STB manufacturers devoloping equipment only compatible with a certain provider.
Is Gerrold,Motorola or Scientific-Atlantic going to fold up just because?
Now let us take this 10-20 years into the future when all programming is HD. I do not think I will need a STB for my locals or the Shopping Channels, afterall all tv's by that point will be HDCABLE READY, but you can bet I will need one for HBO or any other premium subsciption.
Mike as for your employer, It is providing cable services to a very small market Tulsa and the surrounding county has a population of about 571 thousand compared to Atlanta at 404 thousand residing in the city as well a 3.5 MILLION living in the Metro area.
If Cox is providing to City residents only compare that to Time Warner in NYC or Comcast in the Metro Atlanta area with about a Million subscribers. Atlanta Metro is not exclusive to Comacast. The market is shared by Benchmark and Adelphia that I know about.
If only 10% of cable subscribers are unhappy(theoretically speaking) That would be 40 thousand Tulsans not satisfied compared to 300 thousand Metro Atlantans. It is much easier to be good when taking care of a few but much harder to take care of a lot with the same resources.
I am not knocking your company but you can not compare your experiences with other parts of the country that have much larger poplutions. They are both fruit but they are not both apples.
One good Yugo does not make all Yugos good.
57U
08-23-2003, 03:20 PM
Standard (non PVR) STBs could become a thing of the past. Cable & TV manufacturers have agreed on a "POD" (Point Of Deployment) which is like a PCMCIA card. The POD can be programmed by each individual cable operator, then inserted into your TV. The first TVs with POD are coming out this fall (perhaps 1 or 2 are already out).
http://www.sciatl.com/news/03jun09%2D1%2Dprint.htm
http://www.sciatl.com/news/03jun09%2D1%2Dprint.htm
mhdiab
08-25-2003, 04:06 PM
57U - will the interim solution be an STB for this card then connected to the tv? thinking that oing forward that is great, but going back you would have to make something work as well right?
57U
08-25-2003, 04:36 PM
You would either use a POD, or any of the plethora of existing and future STBs.
DoubleDAZ
08-25-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by kevinw
To elimanate boxes all together would mean that all systems be identical or compatible with your tv no matter where you lived. Not 5 different STB manufacturers devoloping equipment only compatible with a certain provider.
Yes, and how would this be different from what a satellite system is today? That was my point. Cable continues to screw themselves by fighting each other with competing systems and proprietary junk. One can only imagine 10 different satellite systems trying to compete with each other. DirecTV and Dish can barely make a go of it (though that may be a poor choice of words) and I'm not sure if anyone knows how financially solvent either is. They cannot continue the agressive marketing forever as (some) cable systems meet or exceed HD offerings. Then we'll start to see how all this will play out and were loyalties lie.
The POD agreement will be great for cable because it has to potential to standardize most aspect of cable across the nation with people actually being able to take whatever STB (DVR) remains with them if they move. When you can once again simply hook up the cable to the TV and everything is digital or HD, who needs anything else, unless you live in a non-cable area in rural America (or Canada :) )? As far as I remember, satellite got it's start by servicing these areas and there were a lot more of them than there are today, my hometown included. Satellite has gotten a foothold on the market and they will not go away, nor should they, but cable is here to stay also. Does the POD only apply to cable or will it also serve satellite?
To elimanate boxes all together would mean that all systems be identical or compatible with your tv no matter where you lived. Not 5 different STB manufacturers devoloping equipment only compatible with a certain provider.
Yes, and how would this be different from what a satellite system is today? That was my point. Cable continues to screw themselves by fighting each other with competing systems and proprietary junk. One can only imagine 10 different satellite systems trying to compete with each other. DirecTV and Dish can barely make a go of it (though that may be a poor choice of words) and I'm not sure if anyone knows how financially solvent either is. They cannot continue the agressive marketing forever as (some) cable systems meet or exceed HD offerings. Then we'll start to see how all this will play out and were loyalties lie.
The POD agreement will be great for cable because it has to potential to standardize most aspect of cable across the nation with people actually being able to take whatever STB (DVR) remains with them if they move. When you can once again simply hook up the cable to the TV and everything is digital or HD, who needs anything else, unless you live in a non-cable area in rural America (or Canada :) )? As far as I remember, satellite got it's start by servicing these areas and there were a lot more of them than there are today, my hometown included. Satellite has gotten a foothold on the market and they will not go away, nor should they, but cable is here to stay also. Does the POD only apply to cable or will it also serve satellite?
kevinw
08-25-2003, 08:47 PM
POD may standardize equipment but not programming offered. If this helps push out the mini dish industry then cable will have no competition what so ever. At least now it has something that can compete. Without Direct/Dish the cable companies would fully be monopolistic. Cable does not fight each other just the satelite companies for subscribers. Satelite has no territories exclusive to its own use.
DoubleDAZ
08-25-2003, 09:07 PM
I agree, I forgot about the programming part. But, I still think we are not that far from the day when all cable systems will carry all HD channels. Just because some are behind and very closed-mouthed right now doesn't mean they aren't making plans or won't merge with bigger, more capable systems. Let's face it, cable is trying to offer 3 relatively new systems at once (HD, internet, telephony) and they seem to have chosen to put the most emphasis on those that promised the most and quickest profits. Not sure I can fault them for that.
kevinw
08-25-2003, 09:50 PM
I don't fault them for emphasis on telephony and internet. After all they have stockholders to account to. Too bad cable is not held to the same rules that the other phone service provider are. Call it a competitive edge. The ability to bundle television,phone service and internet all into one is a great marketing plan and a chance to make revenue from 3 different sources.
By the way if I ever get out to AZ, I'd love to sit and have beer with you. This forum seems to have a wealth of intelligent,informed and like me, opinionated users which always makes it fun.
By the way if I ever get out to AZ, I'd love to sit and have beer with you. This forum seems to have a wealth of intelligent,informed and like me, opinionated users which always makes it fun.
DoubleDAZ
08-25-2003, 10:05 PM
Well, Qwest here did offer all 3 too, so it is NOT a cable monoploy. Problem is that Qwest was losing money on the digital TV part of it, so they've dropped any further expansion and are supporting current TV customers only. Of course, that won't include HD, etc., so they will gradually lose those customers and eventully shut the whole thing down. The only thing they can't offer yet is long-distance, but that too is only a short time away now.
The problem as I see it that even if they split areas up like they do Atlanta, that doesn't really provide any meaningful competition. Only when they can share lines, like phone companies do, will there be any competition and even that is suspect in that phones rates remain too high despite competition.
I think we may have reached a saturation point. Even cell phones are not much competition to each other though they may keep prices down and we certainly have a plethora of companies to choose from. Trouble is rates and features are virtually the same, hence the saturation point. I've always been amazed at how gas prices, cell phone rates and plans, cable rates, satellite rates go up and down or add features all in sync, but a single company never stands out in the crowd. There used to be a day when there were differences in company products, but the lines have sure blurred, haven't they?
The problem as I see it that even if they split areas up like they do Atlanta, that doesn't really provide any meaningful competition. Only when they can share lines, like phone companies do, will there be any competition and even that is suspect in that phones rates remain too high despite competition.
I think we may have reached a saturation point. Even cell phones are not much competition to each other though they may keep prices down and we certainly have a plethora of companies to choose from. Trouble is rates and features are virtually the same, hence the saturation point. I've always been amazed at how gas prices, cell phone rates and plans, cable rates, satellite rates go up and down or add features all in sync, but a single company never stands out in the crowd. There used to be a day when there were differences in company products, but the lines have sure blurred, haven't they?
jp_texas
08-28-2003, 08:46 AM
The problem with HDTV cable AND Sat is the same.
Content, Content, Content. There is not enough to sell the market. A person goes out pays between $1500. and $10,000. for a device that is HDTV "ready" and then has to kickin more for 2 channels, Dicovery and 1 HBO or settle for just a DVD Console. Sorry, I will stick with my OTA box and more choice.
Those who are willing to pay a lot more to get HDTV on 2 or 3 channels with either supplier are fewer than those that are willing to pay a little more to get most local channels HDTV via OTA broadcast. The problem is most newbies are somewhat misled about what they have waiting for them when they buy the new TV and expect spectacular HDTV images out of the box from their friendly local cable or SAT provider.
The solution, IMHO is for the "cable" channels (History, AMC, etc...)to buy band width from the local HDTV OTA broadcast towers and eliminate the wait for the middle men (cable and sat) to, as someone said "get their heads out of their butts."
JPeek
Content, Content, Content. There is not enough to sell the market. A person goes out pays between $1500. and $10,000. for a device that is HDTV "ready" and then has to kickin more for 2 channels, Dicovery and 1 HBO or settle for just a DVD Console. Sorry, I will stick with my OTA box and more choice.
Those who are willing to pay a lot more to get HDTV on 2 or 3 channels with either supplier are fewer than those that are willing to pay a little more to get most local channels HDTV via OTA broadcast. The problem is most newbies are somewhat misled about what they have waiting for them when they buy the new TV and expect spectacular HDTV images out of the box from their friendly local cable or SAT provider.
The solution, IMHO is for the "cable" channels (History, AMC, etc...)to buy band width from the local HDTV OTA broadcast towers and eliminate the wait for the middle men (cable and sat) to, as someone said "get their heads out of their butts."
JPeek
DoubleDAZ
08-28-2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by jp_texas
The solution, IMHO is for the "cable" channels (History, AMC, etc...)to buy band width from the local HDTV OTA broadcast towers and eliminate the wait for the middle men (cable and sat) to, as someone said "get their heads out of their butts."
I'm sorry, but that sounds a little silly to me (poor choice of words maybe). I don't know why some cableco's are taking forever to add channels that have a significan't amount of HD content, but most will add any channel as soon as HD content reaches a certain point.
If AMC started offering a good amount of HD tomorrow, there is no doubt that they would be added to the lineup. We don't have CBS here yet, but it's not because the cableco won't add it, it's because the local affiliate is not broadcasting it yet.
And, based upon what our local CBS affiliate is going through to get the HD signal online, it is not a simple matter of buying bandwidth. Their Programming Director has kept us apprised of progress for the past couple of months now and we are all amazed at what it takes at the local level. It's possible they were ill-equiped to begin with, but the fact remains that the cableco is not the culprit in this case.
NBC though is another question. We've been told cable wouldn't talk to them until primetime content reached 80%. Since that will happen when the new fall season begins, they are now in 'negotiations', so it looks like they will be added soon.
Some cableco's obviously use different criteria to decide when to add a digital channel. One must remember that even though cable bandwidth is quite large, other equipment, particularly MUXs, etc., may be needed to make use of that bandwidth. I don't know what such equipment costs, but I assume it all figures into the equation. Most see no reason to broadcast a digital version of the analog channel, so they generally use HD content to make the decision. If it were as simple as buying bandwidth off a tower, I suspect a lot of channels would be falling all over themselves trying to do just that. I think the government plays a role in that too.
The solution, IMHO is for the "cable" channels (History, AMC, etc...)to buy band width from the local HDTV OTA broadcast towers and eliminate the wait for the middle men (cable and sat) to, as someone said "get their heads out of their butts."
I'm sorry, but that sounds a little silly to me (poor choice of words maybe). I don't know why some cableco's are taking forever to add channels that have a significan't amount of HD content, but most will add any channel as soon as HD content reaches a certain point.
If AMC started offering a good amount of HD tomorrow, there is no doubt that they would be added to the lineup. We don't have CBS here yet, but it's not because the cableco won't add it, it's because the local affiliate is not broadcasting it yet.
And, based upon what our local CBS affiliate is going through to get the HD signal online, it is not a simple matter of buying bandwidth. Their Programming Director has kept us apprised of progress for the past couple of months now and we are all amazed at what it takes at the local level. It's possible they were ill-equiped to begin with, but the fact remains that the cableco is not the culprit in this case.
NBC though is another question. We've been told cable wouldn't talk to them until primetime content reached 80%. Since that will happen when the new fall season begins, they are now in 'negotiations', so it looks like they will be added soon.
Some cableco's obviously use different criteria to decide when to add a digital channel. One must remember that even though cable bandwidth is quite large, other equipment, particularly MUXs, etc., may be needed to make use of that bandwidth. I don't know what such equipment costs, but I assume it all figures into the equation. Most see no reason to broadcast a digital version of the analog channel, so they generally use HD content to make the decision. If it were as simple as buying bandwidth off a tower, I suspect a lot of channels would be falling all over themselves trying to do just that. I think the government plays a role in that too.
jp_texas
08-29-2003, 11:38 AM
"I'm sorry, but that sounds a little silly to me (poor choice of words maybe). I don't know why some cableco's are taking forever to add channels that have a significan't amount of HD content, but most will add any channel as soon as HD content reaches a certain point"
Y'know what's Silly Dave, is people, who theoretically have no vested interest, making excuses for Cable and Sat Suppliers.
Y'know what is even further Silly, it is estimated that approximately 30 million HDTV sets will be sold in 2003. Figuring a low average investment of $3000. per unit that amounts to $Billions invested by the public with the expectation that they will have a better picture when they watch the game on Sunday or a broadcast movie or whatever and they wont.
The industry apologists are working full time making excuses for the cable / Sat providers and why they are to be pitied, because their costs are high. Gee I thought they were in the business of selling air time they got for free from the public, to the public.
Really, if the supplier can't perform Then put a warning label on all new HDTVs, This product is capable of providing better performance than your local cable and/or Sat provider can provide. Buy this set at your own risk!
Y'know what's Silly Dave, is people, who theoretically have no vested interest, making excuses for Cable and Sat Suppliers.
Y'know what is even further Silly, it is estimated that approximately 30 million HDTV sets will be sold in 2003. Figuring a low average investment of $3000. per unit that amounts to $Billions invested by the public with the expectation that they will have a better picture when they watch the game on Sunday or a broadcast movie or whatever and they wont.
The industry apologists are working full time making excuses for the cable / Sat providers and why they are to be pitied, because their costs are high. Gee I thought they were in the business of selling air time they got for free from the public, to the public.
Really, if the supplier can't perform Then put a warning label on all new HDTVs, This product is capable of providing better performance than your local cable and/or Sat provider can provide. Buy this set at your own risk!
Stepmback
08-29-2003, 11:47 AM
I call them MFDs because that is what they are. They will be the next big thing. They will be robust, fast and most important simple to use. Almost like a computer for your tv, but you will have on demand music, pvr, dvd. All through one unit. The Moxi is an example. From what I have heard the software if pretty darn good, the hardware needs a little work.
I would give these devices two to three years before they really take off, but they will. Image a single device, easy to use.
I would give these devices two to three years before they really take off, but they will. Image a single device, easy to use.
DoubleDAZ
08-29-2003, 09:58 PM
jp_texas. I think you missed (or ignored) my point. I meant that if it were as easy as buying bandwidth on a local tower, we wouldn't be where we are. There is a lot more than that involved and I suspect you know it.
The only thing they get for free is the OTA channels and I'm not even sure about that. They certainly don't get AMC, ESPN, and all the rest free to resell to us. They pay for it and we reimburse them for it. If you call that apologizing for them and satellite, then so be it, it's only the truth.
I'll grant you they have us when it comes to package pricing by making us pay for a lot of channels we don't want. But, as I've said before, I'm not in a position to know what it takes to make a reasonable profit or how they might package things differently and still make a profit. Besides, if there were other ways to do it, I've got to believe there would be some rogue cableco out there doing it and I just don't see that.
BTW. Did you buy an HDTV thinking you'd be able to get every channel in HD or something?
The only thing they get for free is the OTA channels and I'm not even sure about that. They certainly don't get AMC, ESPN, and all the rest free to resell to us. They pay for it and we reimburse them for it. If you call that apologizing for them and satellite, then so be it, it's only the truth.
I'll grant you they have us when it comes to package pricing by making us pay for a lot of channels we don't want. But, as I've said before, I'm not in a position to know what it takes to make a reasonable profit or how they might package things differently and still make a profit. Besides, if there were other ways to do it, I've got to believe there would be some rogue cableco out there doing it and I just don't see that.
BTW. Did you buy an HDTV thinking you'd be able to get every channel in HD or something?
jp_texas
08-30-2003, 12:29 AM
DoubleDaz,
I guess we're even because you seem to have missed my original point. No, I stand corrected. You didn't miss it you thought it was "silly" At the risk of even more silliness, I will use more detail in leiu of powerpoint.
The cable/Sat providers compete only with each other as they all offer the same access to the same venues and compete by, as you said "packaging" They at present have little incentive to improve their product to the customer because where will the customer go. Dish customers will go to Direct, Cable will go to Sat, and Sat will go to cable. It's a closed market. While there is the appearance of competition, for the customer, it is really the choice of one inferior product over another.
The cable/sat providers have no real incentive to satisfy the HD demand by means of increasing their access to HDTV content and so they limit the demand by charging more for the little they carry.
The only threat to their game is OTA. OTA, where available, has far better images and resolution and much lower cost to the customer. The limitation is product. Therefore, my point was, if the "locked in cable/Sat broadcasters" would initiate a direct access via HD OTA and make their money the way all broadcast networks do by advertising (via a better product High Res commercials) they would just cut out the middle man(Cable/Sat).
Then finially the cable/sat providers would have to compete to keep customers from bailing out of the closed game by simply paying for an OTA reciever once and hooking up an antenna.
More competition, better products and more choice for the public. Now I put it to you. Does that sound "silly"?
I guess we're even because you seem to have missed my original point. No, I stand corrected. You didn't miss it you thought it was "silly" At the risk of even more silliness, I will use more detail in leiu of powerpoint.
The cable/Sat providers compete only with each other as they all offer the same access to the same venues and compete by, as you said "packaging" They at present have little incentive to improve their product to the customer because where will the customer go. Dish customers will go to Direct, Cable will go to Sat, and Sat will go to cable. It's a closed market. While there is the appearance of competition, for the customer, it is really the choice of one inferior product over another.
The cable/sat providers have no real incentive to satisfy the HD demand by means of increasing their access to HDTV content and so they limit the demand by charging more for the little they carry.
The only threat to their game is OTA. OTA, where available, has far better images and resolution and much lower cost to the customer. The limitation is product. Therefore, my point was, if the "locked in cable/Sat broadcasters" would initiate a direct access via HD OTA and make their money the way all broadcast networks do by advertising (via a better product High Res commercials) they would just cut out the middle man(Cable/Sat).
Then finially the cable/sat providers would have to compete to keep customers from bailing out of the closed game by simply paying for an OTA reciever once and hooking up an antenna.
More competition, better products and more choice for the public. Now I put it to you. Does that sound "silly"?
