[mythtv-users] MS finally gives up on OEM for cablecard

[Brian Wood]

On Thursday 10 September 2009 18:31:40 Richard Morton wrote:
> Sorry Brian,
>
> I cant agree with your statement cable companies in many territories
> give the cable boxes away or sell them at a loss; Sky TV and Virgin
> Media are two examples.

Aren't those both UK operations? I keep forgetting that the entire world is 
not USA capitalists.

I'm not aware of any USA cable company that gives away boxes, at least I have 
never encountered one, won't say it couldn't happen.

I thought the whole CableCard thing was to allow consumers to purchase their 
own equipment, the cable companies dragged their heels as much as they could, 
even proposing a whole new standard that would take years to develop.

CableCard was never successful at what it was meant to do, and now MS sees an 
opportunity to turn it into a profit center.

>
> Secondly selling great software would be just as profitable but that
> opens up the code to more rigorous re-engineering and hacking by a
> wider community of people with those skills. (Hacking common PC
> software is a wider skill than reverse engineering embedded
> hardware/firmware.
>
> The reason for cable boxes is simply control; control over media and
> its distribution and a protectionist mentality.

Yup, that's certainly part of it, but the cable companies still want to make 
money. It would be a different thing if their rental charges were more 
reasonable, $5 a month for a $20 or $30 box is a bit steep, especially if 
there's no buyout option for the consumer. 

>
> Now I also don't subscribe to everything should be free. We should all
> be worried that the flexibility of DVRs (especially commercial
> skipping techniques) in general erodes the number of eyes viewing
> adverts. This means less revenue for TV companies, and smaller amounts
> of money to pay for content to be produced. Production costs having to
> cut leading to...
> Less money will mean wages getting squeezed - no bad thing for
> overpaid successful actors (not that good actors shouldn't be paid
> well; they should be paid well but no-one is really worth 8 figures a
> year).
> and
> Lower budgets for special effects and other high expense items.
>
> Lower quality will only reduce our viewing pleasure.

I made my living in the TV business for decades, so I agree with what you are 
saying. I've never had a problem with paying for what I get, and I have never 
knowingly "stolen" any material or service.

I do wish they would decide what is commercial-supported and what is not. I 
guess the most extreme form of this lately is when you pay $12 to go to a 
movie theater and get: Commercials. Or you pay $20 or even $30 for a DVD and 
get?, well you see my point.

I'd guess this is more of a problem in the USA, but what isn't?

-- 
Brian Wood
beww at beww.org