[opendtv] Re: PR: Majority of New HDTVs Powered By ATI
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:20:32 -0500
At 6:57 PM -0500 11/22/04, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>STBs are evolving, but only in terms of adding new
>features such as VOD, correct? That is, unless the
>customer wants to subscribe to new services, for an
>additional fee, his old STB still soldiers on,
>right? So the same will happen with built-in
>receivers. (And two-way built-in capability is next
>in the cable/CE manufacturer agreements, it seems.)
NO Bert.
STBs are evolving into gateway devices that integrate a range of
functions for the display and speakers to which they are attached.
VOD may be an important service for cable companies, however, I'm not
a believer in the long term success of this service. I believe that
local caching is going to dominate over VOD for a number of reasons:
1. People will want to cache their favorite programs, rather than
paying a small premium to watch them on demand from a remote server.
2. Unless the laws are changed, local caching does not involve
additional payments to the rights owners (because of the Fair use
doctrine). VOD revenues must be split by the cable company and the
rights owners.
3. MUCH DEEPER on-demand services will be offered directly by content
owners more cheaply via the Internet as broadband speeds increase.
Ironically, the cable companies are providing the broadband
infrastructure to bypass their own entertainment networks.
Integration of services is CRITICAL in the STB (or receiver) when we
start to talk about the evolution of digital media appliances. In
order to sell STBs with PVR capabilities you need the traditional
STB functions (tuners), an electronic program guide, and cache
storage.
The reality is that more than 50% of U.S. homes are using digital
STBs on at least one set in their home. This includes more than 25
million DBS subscribers, and more than 25 million digital cable
subscribers. This is a CONSIDERABLY LARGER audience than the 20%
number you have been throwing around.
>
>My bet is that a customer who buys a new integrated
>set with cable card will be very happy to be rid of
>the STB. Especially when he notices the prices
>dropping for these new sets, to where they were for
>comparably sized NTSC sets just a couple of years
>ago.
My guess is that they will not notice the difference, until the cable
company adds a news service that they cannot use without a STB from
the cable company.
> > > Note: I'm not talking about a PVR or other
>> > recording device with integrated receiver in the
>> > description of what an STB is.
>>
>> Why not? My current STB is a dual tuner HD PVR.
>> Whether you call it a cable STB with integrated
>> PVR or a PVR with integrated cable tuners, it's
>> still a set-top box of some description.
>
>Because that's cheating!!
NO BERT.
Because THAT'S reality.
>I've never differentiated between TVs or recording
>devices, when talking about the benefits of the
>built-in ATSC/cable receiver. What makes sense for
>one makes sense for the other. If you include the
>recorder in your definition of the STB, you've
>acknowledged that the built-in receiver is a
>must at least for that product category.
Duh.
>
>In the case of DVRs and DVDRs, the recorder is not
>any cheaper than most TV sets. So your concern
>about rapid obsolescence of the built-in receiver
>is just as valid for them as it is for the TV set.
So why include tuners in these products at all? Would it not make
more sense to put IEEE-1394 ports on the STB/GATEWAY/TUNER component,
and just send the compressed data to recording devices?
I will acknowledge your disagreement in advance.
>
>> I also prefer to rent it from Cox rather than
>> purchase it.
>
>Well, fine, but now you're paying more too.
>You've bought the recording device with only a few
>months of rent. Not only that, but you can buy
>exactly the recording device you want, rather than
>be forced to accept what the cable company rents.
A few months?
More like a few years.
>
>Renting might be a great psychological trick, but
>it just puts the American consumer deeper in debt.
>Who are we trying to fool?
Mandated tuners that hardly ANYONE will use will put American
consumers deeper in debt as well.
>
>Furthermore, the same holds for DBS. We know that
>combination DBS/ATSC receiver design is well
>understood these days, because many DBS STBs
>already do this. So the only group preventing
>combined DBS/cable/ATSC receivers from existing
>must be the DBS folk themselves. I mean, wasn't
>the cable/CE manufacturer agreement a voluntary
>one between only those two groups? Who's stopping
>this? Certainly not the FCC.
More like the cable companies and the FCC.
The lack of a mandate from the FCC to include DBS tuners in new
receivers stinks like my garbage can on a hot summer afternoon. How
can the government mandate that you buy the equipment needed to
receive two of the four or more TV services available in most
markets, but not the others?
What is even more ridiculous is that for a small percentage of U.S.
homes, neither cable or OTA reception is a viable option. Their only
choice is DBS; so for these poor suckers they must pay for two
receivers they will never use.
One more thing Bert.
It would be trivially easy to design new DTV receivers with plug in
tuner modules that would be fully integrated in the set. Just buy the
modules you will use. It would not even cost much more for such an
approach. Then again, you can do exactly the same thing with a STB
and IEEE-1394.
Get over it Bert. This is not your Dad's, or even your own analog TV.
This is the beginning of a new era of digital media content that will
be far more flexible than the analog media that it replaces. Please
stop trying to force fit the future into your legacy attitudes about
the way TV should be.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
