ECHOSTAR is Suing the FCC
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 48
- Views 5K
Just because their products are not sold in the US doesn't make them a failure...
The HDC-800R looks pretty sweet.
Dang, why don't they offer that to Dish Network customers here? It states up to four tuners can be placed into it. Maybe it's due to the signal coming in on one cable through the cable company is a lot simpler than having to bring a signal in off of an lnb through satellite?
Who said anything about the US ? And posting PDFs doesn't prove anything...Just because their products are not sold in the US doesn't make them a failure...
I absolutely share your vision and ideals. I wish it would be the case, but, unfortunately the problem is it won't make any economic sense for any CE company to produce a 3rd party box when NEARLY all subs will chose the far less expensive or FREE option provided by the MVPD's. Further, the marketplace is littered with the carcasses of 3rd party STB makers who have either gone out of business, sold to another company or just LEFT the retail arena and offer STB to MSO's only. Even TiVo would be out of business by now except they had great decisions in their favor against Echostar and got the cash settlement that saved them. And they just got another cash settlement (but with more restrictions on the defendant) from AT&T that has a few onerous conditions for payments of future licensing. Not at all the much better "clean break and Echostar OWNS the TiVo patents" settlement our dear Charles negotiated. It is TiVo's patents that are of value, not really its retail boxes
In fact, TiVo is slowly moving AWAY from the retail business. Ol' Tom Rogers has stated plain and clear. He want to get OUT of the costly retail 3rd party box business. The future for TiVo is providing boxes to MSO's or MSO's paying TiVo licensing fees for using what TiVo believes is its technology on their (the MSO's) house brand. So, if TiVo is leaving the retail arena (with its lead in about a million subscribers and HUGE brand name identity and loyal following--although a lot of TiVo fan boys have kissed TiVo goodbye, some with great sadness, because of frustrations with the Premiere), and surveying the other failed 3rd party attempts, what CE company in their right mind is going to R&D, manufacture, market and advertise, pay for shelf space at CE retail stores, then charge the $700 retail price when they will be competing with the MVPD's GIVING AWAY several boxes or at least one Hopper and 3 joeys, and only $199 for that 2nd Hopper, as one example.
Do you recall the great Sony DHG HDD 500 (or 250)? That was a really good 3rd party box for OTA and MSO's. The problem was it cost real money to buy as opposed to getting the equipment from the MSO. The reason we only have TiVo as the most significant 3rd party DVR at this point (again, Tom Rogers is fleeing the retail scene, so there won't be a RETAIL 3rd party STB not too long from now) isn't because of a lack of a technical standard across MVPD's, but because the MARKET just won't support it.
I would further argue that sometimes, technical standard across all MVPD's would actually IMPEDE innovation or lock in OLD technology or restrictions that would otherwise be improved if the market were free to allow one or more companies to use new or different technology. AllVid limited to 6 tuners into your home is just one example. In the old days it made sense to enforce a standard for OTA TV because we wanted to be certain that anyone can purchase a TV from any manufacturer and it would meet the tech standard and allow for competition to sell TV sets. Add to that, though, the OTA TV had not seen any real INNOVATION of the many decades precisely because a standard was enforced, and we later got NTSC (Not True Color Standard) as are AWFUL system for color TV's, but it HAD to meet the standard and had to work with black and white TV's and on and on. But, in those days, everybody was watching TV via OTA, so it did make sense. Today, we have choice of TV providers using various technologies that aren't standardized (except for the Cable Lags standard for all Cable TV) and can choose the provider who offers us what we think fits our needs and desires. I LOVE how all the MVPD's do things and offer different things as a choice to the consumer, but it is really because they are all using DIFFERENT standards. The vast majority of people no longer depend on the OTA standard.
Even today with digital OTA, we are STUCK with an awful standard that we will probably NEVER be able to rid of for many years because of its enforcement: namely the MPEG2 standard (although, in addition, ATSC can be argued inferior to DVB-T). A lot of the multiplex channels look AWFUL or are in SD because MPEG2 just isn't efficient. Meanwhile, DBS, for example, free to use whatever standard they choose, can move quickly to adopt new tech and choose to pay to carry their customers over, if they wish. This aint gonna happen with OTA. And what INNOVATION has come from it (OTA broadcasters) since we all went digital OTA? It can't innovate because it is STUCK. MPEG4 (and an efficient modulation scheme) would allow for several HD channels on the multiplex of OTA broadcaster and they could probably really fix the current PSIP to be far more robust to accommodate a number enhancements similar to what the MVPD's provide, but that would mean a lot of folks HDTV would no longer be able to receive OTA broadcasts. This kind of frozen in time approach was fine in the 50's and 60's and beyond because technology changed at a snail's pace. Today, technology changes far too quickly to be married to a standard that will LOCK us all in for decades. DBS (both DirecTV and Dish) offer superior experience and features compared to cable, IMHO, and have INNOVATED more and faster than cable precisely because there was NO STANDARD that land locked them. And DBS moves quickly because they don't have to go to the long, drawn-out process of proposing a new standard to the FCC, Dish commenting they are against SWM for cost or whatever reason (maybe just to gum up DirecTV), then the 2 sides can't agree, and the FCC moves at its usual glacial pace . . . meanwhile YEARS later, no INNOVATION. We wouldn't have SWM technology in use today, nor either BSS or CSS tech for DBS. What innovations of either DirecTV or Dish for each of its Whole Home DVR system would have been KILLED to accommodate an agreement so there could be a standard. "DirecTV opposed Dish's proposal for a Prime-Time Anytime because we have a few of our HD LIL's on ConUS, and we don't think we should have to become INefficient by providing mirrors of at least the 2 major DMA's in HD more than one transponder. This would reduce our ability to provide more channels for consumers because of teh waste of bandwidth, while Dish, because of its past violations regarding out of market locals, has the unfair advantage of nearly all its HD LIL's on a single spot beam. We urge the FCC to DUMP PTA from the proposed standard, for it would put us at a competitive disadvantage to Dish." Of course, DirecTV's motive may be just to DENY Dish a great feature when DirecTV is doing really well the way things are now, especially since they offer a 5 tuner box and a PTA feature for Dish would take the pressure off of Dish's comparatively limited 3 tuner Hopper STB compared to DirecTV's 5 tuner unit. Having NO innovation would always serve one side or the other in situation of an enforced standard.
So, the market can't support it. More importantly, things are working well and in favor of the consumer as things are now. The idea is for the government to stay out of the way, unless it needs to "police" violations of the law or impose ORDER (such as granting rights to frequencies, etc.) or intervene if the consumer or pubic is NOT being served. The public is being well served with choice and massive innovation where the DBS companies are free to use the technology that fits them best.
Last edited:
I've seen this repeated in other posts on this forum and others and I think the misinformation/misunderstanding of the Allvid proposal is skewing the opinion of people who have not read the FCC's proposal. From section 25 of FCC 10-60 "In the second configuration, the AllVid equipment would act as a whole-home gateway, capable of simultaneously communicating with multiple navigation devices
within the home, and providing at least six simultaneous video streams within the home (which would
allow picture-in-picture in three different rooms), possibly through a modular system that could
accommodate more streams as necessary. " This clearly states a minimum of 6 streams not maximum. It also seems to me that the current hardware/provider setup is like leasing your computer from your ISP. You get whatever hardware and software they choose to support, not what works best for you, and when you decide to change providers, all your personal information is lost and needs to be rebuilt, recordings/timers/favorite channel lists = music/pictures/internet bookmarks
within the home, and providing at least six simultaneous video streams within the home (which would
allow picture-in-picture in three different rooms), possibly through a modular system that could
accommodate more streams as necessary. " This clearly states a minimum of 6 streams not maximum. It also seems to me that the current hardware/provider setup is like leasing your computer from your ISP. You get whatever hardware and software they choose to support, not what works best for you, and when you decide to change providers, all your personal information is lost and needs to be rebuilt, recordings/timers/favorite channel lists = music/pictures/internet bookmarks
A nice article on Echostar technology licensing and marketing.
EchoStar Blends Assets to Serve Multiscreen Needs of All Players
EchoStar Blends Assets to Serve Multiscreen Needs of All Players
Similar threads
