March 30, 2006 4:04 AM PST

Comcast, Time Warner back Cablevision DVR plan

Proposed service will let cable TV subscribers record programs on network servers, doing away with DVR boxes like TiVo's.

The story "Comcast, Time Warner back Cablevision DVR plan" published March 30, 2006 at 4:04 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

24 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment (Log in or register)
NetworkPVR
So what exactly would be the TV networks objection to cable companies offering network PVR? Is it they don't want viewers to have the flexibility to watch their shows when they want to? The net result of such a service would be more people watching shows. Since the shows are already paid for, what do the networks care when people watch their shows?

So what group of executives are the stupidest:

a) Movie studios, for resisting digital media, and insisting on encouraging the use of easily pirated DVDs?

b) TV networks, who are unable to grasp the concept of most new technology (e.g., NBC, in response to Apple selling ABC TV shows on itunes, offers to sell their shows on-line to subscribers who own PVRs)

c) cable companies, who refuse to deliver video over IP, which would enable everything on demand;

d) U.S. telephone companies, who had to be forced into offering broadband service by the CLECs, whom they subsequently killed off, and are patheticly inferior to most foreign telcos that offer much faster broadband speeds.

Answer: it's a tie, in a race to the bottom.
Posted by kgofsb (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Agree, basically they're all a bunch of dolts
It's almost fun to watch the video industry self destruct, like the music industry is.
Posted by bobby_brady (753 comments )
Link Flag
NetworkPVR
So what exactly would be the TV networks objection to cable companies offering network PVR? Is it they don't want viewers to have the flexibility to watch their shows when they want to? The net result of such a service would be more people watching shows. Since the shows are already paid for, what do the networks care when people watch their shows?

So what group of executives are the stupidest:

a) Movie studios, for resisting digital media, and insisting on encouraging the use of easily pirated DVDs?

b) TV networks, who are unable to grasp the concept of most new technology (e.g., NBC, in response to Apple selling ABC TV shows on itunes, offers to sell their shows on-line to subscribers who own PVRs)

c) cable companies, who refuse to deliver video over IP, which would enable everything on demand;

d) U.S. telephone companies, who had to be forced into offering broadband service by the CLECs, whom they subsequently killed off, and are patheticly inferior to most foreign telcos that offer much faster broadband speeds.

Answer: it's a tie, in a race to the bottom.
Posted by kgofsb (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Agree, basically they're all a bunch of dolts
It's almost fun to watch the video industry self destruct, like the music industry is.
Posted by bobby_brady (753 comments )
Link Flag
Yet Another Waste of Network-bandwidth (Y.A.W.N.) ...
following on the heels of the failure of Video On Demand. Most cable companies have maxed out at about seven percent of subscribers in peak VOD capacity, with much less than that in average usage. Where is the RS-DVR storage and processing capacity going to magically come from - converted VOD capacity, or yet-another wasteland of hardware that will siphon off revenue? The articles on this suggest the latter, as they seem to be leased server farms - perhaps reflecting the also-failed WWW server farms built during the Internet bubble).

The cable industry keeps crowing about how this kind of stuff is going to kill off the satellite TV industry, but the fact of the matter is that fully half of the U.S. population will never be served by cable due to last-mile (more like last 100 mile, in many cases) infrastructure costs. However, a large fraction of satellite subscribers are in the largest urban areas, where infrastructure costs for cable are the absolute lowest. The reason for this is that cable companies' customer service model continues to be rated right down there with used car salesmen, Mafia lawyers, and other bottom-feeders, and it will only get worse over time as the last-mile infrastructure built over the last few decades continues to rot (it's all copper, and replacing that with fiber, including very expensive optical interconnect at the set-top boxes, is out of the ballpark for cable operating costs). Cable revenue is going to eventually level off and decline, and top-tier services like RS-DVR will take the first hit as the Baby Boomers' budgets continue to become squeezed by job outsourcing, retirement, soaring energy and medical costs, and deaths of primary-income family members (men die an average six years before women in the demographic groups where cable prevails).

Then, there's the issue of content-producer control over the ability of subscribers to record, playback, and keep around recordings that services like RS-DVR will certainly contain. This shoe has yet to drop, mostly because of arguments over the broadcast flag, but sooner or later, it's going to happen (I'll leave it up to your imagination when it's more likely). The minute the content producers start restricting subscribers' abilities to manage their recordings, the subscribers are going to run, not walk, to get DVRs like TiVos, ReplayTVs, and even Home Theater PCs, so that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with that for which they've already paid to receive.

Meanwhile, the cable companies are going to continue to unwittingly aid and abet the cannibalization of their video business by Internet Protocol based content (e.g., IPTV), especially as subscribers become better educated about it. Continued pricing pressure due to competition from DSL, satellite, and especially terrestrial wireless technologies is going to maintain the race to the bottom for profits, precisely because broadband is a commodity, and people will quickly figure out how to get what they want via IP-based technologies without the intervention of the cable companies' content-delivery gatekeepers (witness the growing popularity of the Slingbox, which allows you to pull any video across broadband connections, and the direct delivery of content via iTunes, Google Video, whatever Yahoo is doing, etc.).

The continued quarter-to-quarter focus of media delivery corporations on their numbers is going to be their downfall if they keep tossing things like RS-DVR up on the wall to see if they will stick, because it doesn't look like there's any long-term strategy in anything they're doing. It's just more of the "keep doing what made us money in the past" mentality.

All the Best,
Joe Blow
Posted by Joe Blow (174 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Great Work Here
I just wonder who you work for? <--Sarcasm!!
Posted by Scottsteff (2 comments )
Link Flag
Yet Another Waste of Network-bandwidth (Y.A.W.N.) ...
following on the heels of the failure of Video On Demand. Most cable companies have maxed out at about seven percent of subscribers in peak VOD capacity, with much less than that in average usage. Where is the RS-DVR storage and processing capacity going to magically come from - converted VOD capacity, or yet-another wasteland of hardware that will siphon off revenue? The articles on this suggest the latter, as they seem to be leased server farms - perhaps reflecting the also-failed WWW server farms built during the Internet bubble).

The cable industry keeps crowing about how this kind of stuff is going to kill off the satellite TV industry, but the fact of the matter is that fully half of the U.S. population will never be served by cable due to last-mile (more like last 100 mile, in many cases) infrastructure costs. However, a large fraction of satellite subscribers are in the largest urban areas, where infrastructure costs for cable are the absolute lowest. The reason for this is that cable companies' customer service model continues to be rated right down there with used car salesmen, Mafia lawyers, and other bottom-feeders, and it will only get worse over time as the last-mile infrastructure built over the last few decades continues to rot (it's all copper, and replacing that with fiber, including very expensive optical interconnect at the set-top boxes, is out of the ballpark for cable operating costs). Cable revenue is going to eventually level off and decline, and top-tier services like RS-DVR will take the first hit as the Baby Boomers' budgets continue to become squeezed by job outsourcing, retirement, soaring energy and medical costs, and deaths of primary-income family members (men die an average six years before women in the demographic groups where cable prevails).

Then, there's the issue of content-producer control over the ability of subscribers to record, playback, and keep around recordings that services like RS-DVR will certainly contain. This shoe has yet to drop, mostly because of arguments over the broadcast flag, but sooner or later, it's going to happen (I'll leave it up to your imagination when it's more likely). The minute the content producers start restricting subscribers' abilities to manage their recordings, the subscribers are going to run, not walk, to get DVRs like TiVos, ReplayTVs, and even Home Theater PCs, so that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with that for which they've already paid to receive.

Meanwhile, the cable companies are going to continue to unwittingly aid and abet the cannibalization of their video business by Internet Protocol based content (e.g., IPTV), especially as subscribers become better educated about it. Continued pricing pressure due to competition from DSL, satellite, and especially terrestrial wireless technologies is going to maintain the race to the bottom for profits, precisely because broadband is a commodity, and people will quickly figure out how to get what they want via IP-based technologies without the intervention of the cable companies' content-delivery gatekeepers (witness the growing popularity of the Slingbox, which allows you to pull any video across broadband connections, and the direct delivery of content via iTunes, Google Video, whatever Yahoo is doing, etc.).

The continued quarter-to-quarter focus of media delivery corporations on their numbers is going to be their downfall if they keep tossing things like RS-DVR up on the wall to see if they will stick, because it doesn't look like there's any long-term strategy in anything they're doing. It's just more of the "keep doing what made us money in the past" mentality.

All the Best,
Joe Blow
Posted by Joe Blow (174 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Great Work Here
I just wonder who you work for? <--Sarcasm!!
Posted by Scottsteff (2 comments )
Link Flag
Another Revenue Model
Its only a great idea in the minds of the cable providers because it provides another revenue stream. Is it something the public is going to want?
Posted by (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Another Revenue Model
Its only a great idea in the minds of the cable providers because it provides another revenue stream. Is it something the public is going to want?
Posted by (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Will it remove the ads?
You'll still need a TV. This is retarded and for idiots.
Posted by baswwe (299 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Will it remove the ads?
You'll still need a TV. This is retarded and for idiots.
Posted by baswwe (299 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Mandatory DRM? Force consumers to watch commercials?
Is this similar to DVD's where they force you to watch certain previews and the FBI "warning" chapter? I have a feeling the reason behind moving the PVR to their side is for more control and DRM.
Posted by bobby_brady (753 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Mandatory DRM? Force consumers to watch commercials?
Is this similar to DVD's where they force you to watch certain previews and the FBI "warning" chapter? I have a feeling the reason behind moving the PVR to their side is for more control and DRM.
Posted by bobby_brady (753 comments )
Reply Link Flag
*I* would buy it
Why? Right now, my HD DVR has about 120GB. That's it. I can't
upgrade it, I can't buy more. With such a service, if I fill up my
120G, but can't bring myself to delete this season's Sopranos, then
I can order 20G more for some price. It gives me options.

I would gladly try out this service. My Time Warner HD DVR service
is wonderful. It's overpriced, but now that they fixed a signal
problem in my neighborhood, I'm quite happy with it.
Posted by chassoto--2008 (71 comments )
Reply Link Flag
yawn cable
Dishnetwork's AT 180 plan just cost $49 a month. You're being screwed.
Posted by paulsecic (301 comments )
Link Flag
*I* would buy it
Why? Right now, my HD DVR has about 120GB. That's it. I can't
upgrade it, I can't buy more. With such a service, if I fill up my
120G, but can't bring myself to delete this season's Sopranos, then
I can order 20G more for some price. It gives me options.

I would gladly try out this service. My Time Warner HD DVR service
is wonderful. It's overpriced, but now that they fixed a signal
problem in my neighborhood, I'm quite happy with it.
Posted by chassoto--2008 (71 comments )
Reply Link Flag
yawn cable
Dishnetwork's AT 180 plan just cost $49 a month. You're being screwed.
Posted by paulsecic (301 comments )
Link Flag
AT&T
is planning to pipe channels over their lines in their regions soon. This will be interesting.
Posted by paulsecic (301 comments )
Reply Link Flag
AT&T
is planning to pipe channels over their lines in their regions soon. This will be interesting.
Posted by paulsecic (301 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Good idea
I think its a great way of cutting costs as well as allowing for easy upgrading of the service (if i want more then 20GB of space).

What would also be cool, is if the cable companies allowed users to share there programs with others. For example if i record 24, and my buddy forgot to record it he can still watch 24 from his house if I allow access to my recording(s).
Posted by akhaja (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Good idea
I think its a great way of cutting costs as well as allowing for easy upgrading of the service (if i want more then 20GB of space).

What would also be cool, is if the cable companies allowed users to share there programs with others. For example if i record 24, and my buddy forgot to record it he can still watch 24 from his house if I allow access to my recording(s).
Posted by akhaja (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Bad Idea
My cable provider just rolled out their VoIP solution and ruined our neighborhood's broadband for a week. I already have issues with video on demand giving me error messages about not being able to contact the server when I use it. Now they are going to remotely record programs which I record in High Definition, requiring lots of storage space and will be bandwidth intensive. Anyone else see a problem with this idea??
Posted by fosterjt2 (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Bad Idea
My cable provider just rolled out their VoIP solution and ruined our neighborhood's broadband for a week. I already have issues with video on demand giving me error messages about not being able to contact the server when I use it. Now they are going to remotely record programs which I record in High Definition, requiring lots of storage space and will be bandwidth intensive. Anyone else see a problem with this idea??
Posted by fosterjt2 (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

ie8 fix

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

ie8 fix
  • Recently Viewed Products
  • My Lists
  • My Software Updates
  • Promo
  • Log In | Join CNET