|
Vista Media Center
-
The reason I got into Media Center so many years ago was that it was the only decent PVR platform available to me in Canada. Five years has gone by, and given the proliferation of HD signal types that simply don't work with Media Center in Canada, I've decided to give the market another look. I'm interested to hear from the community what options you've played with recently and what works. From my quick scan of the market. Bell Expressvu - Canadian provider that uses Dish Network equipment. They have the best UI available, but if I switched to them I'd have to source receivers for the "low value" TV sets in the house as well. The guest room, a little TV in the kids play room, and the kitchen are all TVs I'd like to use but am not willing to purchase an STB to use. There is also no way for me to share content between the family room and the bedroom, which are the two "high value" TV viewing locations that require access to content. Cogeco Cable - Canadian cable provider that uses Motorola equipment, currently the DCT6412 PVR. From what I've seen, the UI on these devices is pretty terrible and I still don't have the ability to share content between the family room and the bedroom. However given that they are a Motorola shop I wonder if they might be getting the DCX3400 soon. That does appear to have the capability to share content over coax around the home. And that about sums up my options. There is no cablecard up here, so Tivo is out. I could continue to mix standard-def cable with OTA high definition if Microsoft decides that Canada is a first-class nation but I'm not holding my breath on that one. I may consider moving to SageTV or some other platform, but if I'm going to switch then I might as well go with something that works natively with digital cable or satellite. Has anyone used the new Moto boxes?
|
-
In my attic, I have mounted two Channel Master 4221 antennas that drive my high-definition Media Center PVR. Based on advice from people on various forums, I have always kept my antennas pointed in the same direction (I decided to mount two in an attempt to improve long-distance reception). At first, they were pointed towards Buffalo since the Toronto stations weren't fully rolled out yet. Earlier this year, I hauled myself up into the attic and pointed the antennas towards Toronto with its now almost complete coverage of broadcast television in OTA High Definition. However I've found that there are still some scenarios where I need to record from Buffalo stations, and the reliability of doing so has really suffered this TV season. One might ask - if you have two antennas, why not point one at Buffalo and the other at Toronto? I've resisted doing so to this point because combining those signals may actually cause things to get worse. Take for example Fox Buffalo (WUTV). If I get a weak signal from Buffalo and then combine that with static from Toronto, then the sum of those two signals is an even weaker signal for WUTV. Similarly, a strong signal from CTV in Toronto combined with static from Buffalo combines to provide an overall weaker signal for that channel. That's the theory anyways. In practice the angle difference between Toronto and Buffalo is less that 90 degrees, so what I get is a combination of an excellent signal with a good signal and I would hope the combination could pull in a "pretty good" signal from both directions. So I hauled my large frame through the tiny hole in the closet up into the attic to play around again. I brought my laptop, a USB ATSC tuner, and a copy of TSReader to check on signal quality in real-time while I adjusted the antenna directions. After about an hour of play, I stepped away from the setup with a good lock on every single station from Toronto, Buffalo, and Hamilton. On Sunday anyways, this would appear to support my theory of getting a "pretty good" signal all around. However only time will tell, as atmospheric conditions vary from season to season and even day to day, whether I've been able to realize my goal of consistent signal quality from all of the major transmission locales in my area.
|
-
When it comes to Media Center in Canada, Microsoft just doesn't seem to get it. While I can't seem to locate much in the way of statistics on the subject, I would suggest based on community participation that Canadians have adopted Media Center in comparatively significant numbers despite being practically ignored as a customer group since the product's initial launch. Let's look at the track record: February 2002 - Media Center launches in the US, Canada, and Korea supporting standard-definition antenna and cable. October 2005 - Media Center 2005 UR2 launches and introduces high-definition ATSC for the USA and Korea (but not Canada). July 2005 - Users in Canada hack MCE 2005 to allow ATSC reception in Canada January 2007 - Vista Media Center launches, with most of the Online Spotlight content disabled in Canada. I publish a new hack to get ATSC working in Canada. March 2007 - Media Center users in Canada report en masse that misapplied copy protection flags render the MCE PVR useless in many Canadian markets. This remains unfixed. September 2008 - TV Pack for Media Center launches with significant new TV features and international TV format coverage, except Canada. TV Pack breaks previous hacks that allow HDTV to work in Canada, and plugs the hole that made them possible. Now I don't believe that anyone has malicious intent here, it's just that Media Center is lacking in focus with respect to Canada. Rather than compare the attention that the US has gotten in Media Center to Canada, I think a more appropriate case study would be Korea. Why, one might ask, is Microsoft doing so much for South Korea and not for Canada? Let's set the stage with some comparative stats: | | Canada | South Korea | | Population | 33 Million | 49 Million | | Population Growth | 5% | 0.4% | | GDP per capita | $38,200 | $26,277 | | GDP Growth | 2.7% | 5.1% | | Average Net Income | $22,512 | $24,888 | | TV Signals | NTSC, ATSC, QAM | NTSC, ATSC, T-DMB | | Distance from Redmond | 150km | 8,430km | | Official Languages | English, French | Korean | The message here is that they're pretty similar as far as markets go. Both medium-sized countries with medium-sized economies and medium-sized incomes after deductions. They both use transmission standards that are shared with the US, most notably ATSC. Where Canada is a closer match, one might assume, is that we're practically right next door to the Microsoft campus and we speak the same language. I'll pause before continuing this post to state that I don't know the answer to my earlier question - I do not know why Microsoft seems to ignore the Canadian Media Center market. But I can take a few guesses based on my experience as director of product management for a large software company and a little bit of knowledge of how Microsoft operates. - There is no Media Center champion within the Microsoft Canada subsidiary. MS Canada has alot of great people in it, and from personal interactions I know that many of them are really excited about Media Center. However when it comes to big issues where someone really needs to have ownership, I have come up empty in my attempts to engage the local subsidiary. I have always assumed that Korea has someone who is pushing for their market, putting together business cases for features to get done, and acting as a focal point for the MCE team back in Redmond
- Canadian projects fall into that product management "dead zone" that exists between things that are really easy to get done and things that are really complex and get a team of dedicated resources. I know, I've been there and every software company has a massive list of things that you really should get to but never do because they live in this dead zone. For example, with ATSC support you can't just "make it work" but you also can't put together the same level of business plan and excitement that something like "integrate with DirecTV" would allow. It just goes on the pile until someone (see point #1) makes it a priority.
- Partners drive much of the priority, and most of the partners that operate in Canada are actually managed as North American partners. So if you're sitting down with HP to figure out what the North American market needs, you spend most of your time talking about the United States and simply drop anything that doesn't fit with Canada. That is a very different discussion from the one you would have with a partner who is targeting Europe or targeting Asia, where diversity is assumed to be part of the plan.
- I'd bet that nobody has ever, or at least in a long while, put together a plan that demonstrates value created by MCE and its ability to sell more seats of Windows in this market.
Of the points above, I believe that local subsidiary ownership is the most likely culprit and one of the first things that would need to get fixed if MCE is to have any hope of turning around in Canada. However that point is moot unless you truly believe that Media Center adds value and helps to drive Canadian revenue. I submit the following uniquely Canadian traits that I believe do make this a legitimate market for Media Center. - The competition US-style competition amongst cable and satellite providers to continuously deliver better devices into the living room simply doesn't happen here. We have a few massive companies with a virtual monopoly, and none of them are spending time on creating a truly decent end user experience. They ship garbage, and the Canadian market eats it up. There is no DirecTivo up here, there is no amazing end to end set top box experience, and there is very little investment into doing much beyond the bare minimum. This is the reason I bought into Media Center six years ago, and it is a hook that Microsoft could use to really gain market share.
- The regulatory environment is ripe for innovation. The CRTC (Canadian equivalent of the FCC) has a new chairman who has been spending the last year changing the culture of that organization to be "less regulation is best for the country". Now is the time to do something grand, to push forward new distribution models, and to challenge the existing order.
- Following up on that point, there is very little happening up here in the way of digital distribution. There is a huge opportunity to do well with something like Xbox Live Marketplace for movie rentals because there is a gaping hole there in the market. Anyone who is spending effort on this area is languishing in a North American strategy where they launch what is a pretty decent service in the USA but don't bother to go after distribution rights in Canada leaving them with nothing but public domain content when accessed from the Great White North. If you can get MCE and XBox into Canadian homes truly working as the center of the universe, you could own this market.
It wouldn't be a rant from me without some honest suggestions of how to fix the problem. It would appear that I am big on bullet lists in this post, so let's continue the trend with my five-point plan to revive Media Center in Canada. - Decide if MCE is important to the Canadian market. I assume that the answer is yes, but the degree of that yes as measured by local investment is what is really needed here.
- Announce that ATSC will be supported in Canada with Windows 7, and announce it now. Given recent history, the assumption of most Canadian enthusiasts would be (or already is) that Microsoft has abandoned this market and if you want them to stick around they need to be given hope. Without an affirmation that Microsoft loves Canada, they will find alternatives.
- Invest in technology that allows the local Windows team to develop a revenue plan worthy of investment. My top priority would be to invest in Media Center machines that are aware of each other. They can share content over the network, share tuners over the network, and share the guide over the network. Partner with a company that can crank out small almost extender-like PCs that will form a matrix of digital media in the home. Immediately your market opportunity moves from "up-sell the existing home PC to the latest version of Windows" to "sell multiple copies of Windows into a single home".
- Tag someone with ownership of Media Center penetration in Canada, divide their time between internal advocacy and external evangelism, and put a revenue number on their head.
- Target at least one online project that will be delivered with Canada in mind to show partners how to leverage the gaps in this market using Media Center and XBox as the base.
Do that, and I'll stick around to see where this all leads. I love Media Center as an application, I admire Microsoft as a company, and I respect everyone on the MCE team and the energetic people I've met at Microsoft Canada. I want to see Media Center succeed in my home market, but my faith is very much being tested. It may be too late. How about the rest of you Canadians, will you stick with MCE for just a bit longer if Microsoft shows you some commitment?
|
-
For those of you who obtained "early access" to TV Pack 2008 for Windows Vista aka Fiji, you may have noticed that my previously published hack to enable ATSC in Canada no longer works. I've spent a significant amount of time working on this problem, both from the technical angle and via my contacts at Microsoft to see what could be done about it.
Here's the bottom line: ATSC will not work in Canada with TV Pack 2008 for Windows Vista.
In the past, Media Center would check at setup time for the capabilities of your region and write out these values to the registry accordingly. I leveraged this mechanism to "fool" Media Center into thinking that it was capable of tuning in ATSC in Canada. Of course it doesn't take much fooling since ATSC in Canada and the US work exactly the same and there is no technical reason why it shouldn't "just work". But I digress...
With TV Pack 2008, the capabilities for your region are re-checked every time you download a guide update. Not only are the capabilities updated every day, but they're no longer stored in the registry and are instead stored in the common MCE database along with the guide and other key data. As you can probably guess, the capabilities for Canada are set to ATSC = false. The good news about this new method is that theoretically Microsoft could choose to enable ATSC capabilities at any time (although I have no reason to believe that this will be the case). The bad news is that it makes hacking the capability in before they choose to officially support it becomes very difficult, or at least beyond my technical capabilities.
So what would I recommend?
- For anyone using MCE in Vista right now with the ATSC hack, steer clear of TV Pack 2008.
- For anyone with a few programming skills, I suggest the following as the next areas of investigation:
- Figure out the database format that is being used and write a service to overwrite the capabilities on a daily basis
- Figure out a way to proxy the guide updates and flip the ATSC capability bit from "false" to "true"
As for how this makes you feel about Microsoft's commitment to Canada, I'll post a separate blog entry on that. What I can say is that I am 100% sure that nobody at Microsoft went out of their way to actively break ATSC in Canada. Breaking the hack was very much an unintentional consequence of what appears to be an otherwise sound design change to the way that Media Center handles setup. However there is clearly a business decision that was made to not support ATSC in Canada despite the relative technical ease of making that happen. Given that like the US, Canada is shutting down analog broadcast toute suite in favour of ATSC one has to wonder why this feature request has languished for so long.
|
-
I spent some time this morning going over the comments posted by the CRTC regarding "Review of the regulatory frameworks for broadcasting distribution undertakings and discretionary programming services". I haven't gone into all of the postings, but did hit most of the big cable companies and comments from individuals. Here is my summary of comments: Regarding set-top-boxes: Several people (21 by my count) wrote in regarding their dissatisfaction with the requirement for set top boxes, and their suggestions on changes that the CRTC can make to improve the situation. Most everyone agreed with my position that basic cable be delivered unencrypted, and pay cable be delivered in a way that allows 3rd party devices to watch, record, and play back the content. The big cable companies: In general, the big cable and satellite companies are asking for the following: - Reduction or elimination of regulation on their market
- The ability to carry foreign (ie US) channels like ESPN, Comedy Central, etc.
- The right to insert their own commercials into those foreign channels
- Reduction of Canadian content requirements
- Elimination of linkage rules (ie you subscribe to only the channels you want, not bundles)
- Acceptance of the notion that programming can be delivered in many ways, including Internet distribution (and fear that over-regulation in Canada will cause more people to get their content over the internet from foreign markets.)
Community Channels Besides set-top-box arguments, the other major grassroots issue seems to be around community television and the requirement to carry that programming. Several individuals and groups wrote in on this issue, especially those in Quebec, to reinforce that community television should be kept as a requirement. The knee-slapper award: I'm not a Rogers cable customer, but I think that most of their customers will appreciate the humour in Rogers' recommendation that the CRTC "Refrain from introducing new customer service standards or a new body to oversee them, which would represent an inefficient duplication of efforts and resources given the existence of longstanding and effective cable industry customer service standards." Now I'm not saying that I think that the CRTC needs to regulate this, but I think the notion that Rogers thinks they are running a top-notch customer service organization is laughable. My position: After reading several of the submissions, I'd say that I'm generally in agreement with the overall call for less regulation. I know, that seems odd given that I've been pushing for more regulation in the area of content access. Perhaps a better way to state my position is this; that overall lower regulation on the content provided is warranted and that consumer choice will dictate the market, but that certain regulations should be put in place to prevent distributors from colluding on consumer-unfriendly practices such as price-fixing, device lock-in, and negative billing. Give the cable companies the freedom they desire, but in trade ask (ie require) that they promise to do so in a way that does not hurt consumers.
|
-
-
Thanks to my fellow Canadian and MVP Jason Tsang for passing along a notice from the CRTC that they've extended the timelines for the upcoming hearing. This means that you now have until October 19 to submit your comments to the CRTC regarding the future of cable and satellite distribution here in Canada. I have templates and links set up at dropthebox.ca which you can use to get started. Here are the new dates: - October 19, 2007 - Submit comments to the broadcasting notice (ie if you have anything to say about the regulatory framework or anything that they've talked about in the broadcast notice itself, do it by October 9).
- November 16, 2007 - Submit replies to the comments (ie if you would like to dispute anything that anyone sent in on October 9, do it by November 5)
- February 4, 2008 - Show up in person if you so wish to address the commission.
|
-
-
I've had some requests for sample content to make it easier for people to submit letters to the CRTC. While I'd prefer that you use your own words so that the CRTC gets multiple points of view, here is some sample text that you can use to get started. Remember, letters are due in to the CRTC by October 9. I'd like to express my support for Peter Near's proposal to open up the broadcast of digital high definition over Canada's cable networks. I have always valued choice in the products that I purchase, and there is no technical reason why the cable networks should be limiting what I can connect to my digital cable. Specifically, I would like to request that the CRTC consider the following at the upcoming hearing: - That HDTV basic cable broadcasts which are available unencrypted over the air be delivered to my home by the cable companies in their original unencrypted form. This will allow me to connect my TV directly to the cable so that it works with my TV's built-in digital tuner today.
- That premium cable broadcasts be delivered to my home by the cable companies in a way that allows me to choose the device that I use to watch this premium content. This will allow me to choose from multiple devices available on the market that are compatible with premium digital cable. The technology for this already exists in the United States, it's not significantly different from what is already in place here in Canada, and now is the perfect time for the Canadian cable companies to get involved in version 2 of the cablecard technology.
|
-
So, I've written quite a bit about cablecard in Canada over the last few months. I've written a very beurocratic sounding letter to the CRTC, I've written a very newsy sounding press release, and I've written a web page with just the facts and instructions on how to get involved. What I haven't really gotten to yet is just a candid discussion of the issue. So here it is, the "sitting down for a beer with Pete to get his thoughts on Cablecard" post. I'll start with an analogy. Do you remember when VCRs were all the rage? You could go to any electronics store and choose from about fifty different models of VCRs - the four head VCR, the HQ VCR, the black one and the silver one with cool rotating tape graphics. And then came the innovation stage, where they came up with VCR+ to make it easier to record scheduled shows, downloaded guide data encoded in PBS signals, and even the one that set its own clock. The point is this - you could choose your own quality from cheap garbage to over-priced nirvana and manufacturers constantly challenged each other to come up with new features. It was low-tech compared to today's standards, but that was innovation. Wondering where the analogy comes in? Well imagine that someone from the cable company went to the store for you, said "I'll take the cheapest one with the worst features" and then forced you to buy that (for a slight markup of course). Wouldn't that make you mad? Well in a nutshell, that's the problem right now in Canada - we should have choices, we should have competition creating innovation, we should have products that don't suck. Instead, the cable companies are telling us "you can have any colour you want so long as it's black." I suspect that most people put up with it because they don't really know any better. If you want to get high-def, then you get the high-def box from the satellite or cable company. And it seems pretty cool when you see that high-def picture for the first time and the first time you pause live TV, but then you start to notice that it doesn't always work right or you have to spend hours with your parents because they can't figure out the awful interface. It's at that point that most people settle with what they've got thinking that it's really the only option. But it's not the only option. In the United States, they are using the exact same technologies as us to distribute cable and they have choice (and in my opinion, some pretty cool choices too). The difference is that in 1996, the FCC recognized the inherent problem of tying television service to a proprietary set top box and mandated that the cable companies work with third-parties who develop devices that would use their high-definition digital signals. In a compromise that would allow the cable companies to control at least the security aspect of their networks, the cable companies and the FCC eventually settled on a technology called "cablecard". While any device could then work with the digital cable, the cable companies still encrypt or "scramble" the signal and that signal can only be decrypted when you get a special key from the cable company. That key is called a cablecard, and it is only given out to work with hardware that has been tested and proven to maintain the security that the cable company requires. And here we are... So has cablecard been a resounding success in the United States? I would say that no it has not. While the concept is sound, the technology itself has limitations that make it difficult to implement. Additionally, the cable companies themselves have appeared to be reluctant to extend any reasonable amount of goodwill in getting their end of the compromise, the security card, deployed and running in other people's homes. But like I said the concept is sound and with must-have gadgets like the Tivo Series 3 driving demand things are getting better. Am I suggesting that Canada plunge in and adopt Cablecard right away? Actually no, I have specifically asked that the CRTC direct the cable and satellite companies to investigate existing technologies and report back on the best way to meet the goal of allowing third party devices to connect to their networks. In reality, this will take several years and I think that it's perfect timing for the Canadian cable companies to jump in and participate in the latter stages of cablecard version 2, which has the potential to solve many of the issues that were discovered by the early v1 adopters in the United States. But the real win for me in the short term is the other side of my proposal to simply transmit basic cable channels (ie the high definition equivalents of the big broadcast networks) without encryption whatsoever, which alleviates the need for cablecard for the most common cable channels. If I can get an unencrypted signal in high definition using an antenna, then what possible reason would the companies that own the rights to those channels possibly have for encrypting them? The content is already available and will continue to be available in its raw form over the air, so the arguments surrounding piracy of that content via the cable networks are moot. For basic cable, there is absolutely no reason why it can't be sent over the cable in a way that can be displayed on your HDTV today. The technology is called QAM, it's what everyone is using in North America, and if they'd just stop scrambling/encrypting the signals the all of the thousands of TVs with QAM tuners would simply work. Just plug in the cable to the TV, turn it on, and watch TV like you've always done. No set top box, no cablecard, no problems. Why not go all the way and just stop encrypting all of the channels, including the pay channels? While that would certainly make this whole problem much simpler to resolve technically, I don't believe that's a reasonable thing for us to expect. The pay channels provide us content that isn't available anywhere else, and it is unique content that the owners need to protect. The producers of "Gray's Anatomy" have already made a choice to use the public airwaves to broadcast to as many people as possible, make their money on ad revenue, and accept that their content is available without encryption. However, the producers of "The Sopranos" have never made that choice and indeed have a business model that lives and dies by the number of people who are paying a fee directly to HBO through the cable companies. I believe that HBO has a right to protect that content and set the rules by which it is consumed. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I've now laid out my case for what I believe is reasonable and right: - We as consumers should have choice in our consumer electronics and not have it dictated to us by opportunistic cable companies
- We as a society need to continue to foster competition and creativity amongst the makers of these devices
- There is no reason other than opportunism that cable companies would need to encrypt content that is freely available over the air
- We need to respect the need for pay TV content producers to preserve their business model via some form of encryption, namely cablecard or it's future iterations
That's all well and good that I think that, now what am I going to do about it? Well call me old fashioned, but I really do believe in democracy. The government isn't a big faceless organization, it's a bunch of guys like you and me who happened to be chosen to represent the will of the people. They put their pants on one leg at a time, they go to work during the day and they come home in the evening to spend some time with the family and relax in front of the TV. In essence, the people who can make my vision a reality are living pretty much the same life as me. My goal is to connect with those people, let them know that there are options out there, and help them to fight on our behalf against the companies who are doing exactly what they're supposed to - maximizing the profits for their shareholders. There are no bad guys here, just a bunch of people trying to do their jobs the best that they can. If I can help my team (ie my representatives in government) by providing them with good information and reasonable down-to-earth arguments then I really do believe that we can resolve this little policy oversight.
|
-
Milton, Ontario - September 24, 2007 - The cable box sitting on top of your television may not be long for this world if Peter Near has anything to say about it. The United States clamped down on cable companies in 1996 and required them to do away with mandatory set-top boxes. This resulted in a wave of new HDTVs, PVRs, and other gadgets that connect directly to digital cable systems south of the border. This is not the case however in Canada, where television lovers must still buy or rent a digital cable terminal from their provider in order to receive a high-definition picture. The latest crop of digital-cable savvy electronics sport an impressive array of features including the ability to record high-definition TV, transfer recorded TV to an iPod, browse family photos and videos on the big-screen, and rent movies over the internet. As to their availability here in Canada - Microsoft sells their media center products with HD digital cable support disabled in Canada, and Tivo's HD offerings aren't available for sale in this country at all. The Canadian Radio-Television and Telephone Commission (CRTC) is responsible for regulating the cable industry, and has announced that they will be holding hearings in January to review the regulations governing cable distribution in this country. Mr. Near has written to the CRTC formally requesting that they review the issue of set-top-boxes and consider adopting regulations similar to those in the United States which require cable companies to work with third-party consumer electronics. Mr. Near commented, "I can understand why the cable companies wouldn't embrace this concept - if you can only use their box, then it becomes easier to lock you in to extra paid services like video on demand. But without competition there is no incentive to innovate. What we're left with here in Canada are mandatory cable boxes that funnel profits into one spot while failing to be innovative, failing to provide a smooth user experience, and failing to provide us with any real choice. As someone with a passion for high-tech, frankly I'm disappointed." The CRTC has requested that comments regarding this matter be sent in by October 9, 2007 and will be considered at the upcoming hearing. A website has been set up at www.dropthebox.ca which provides additional information, including simple instructions and a template that other concerned citizens can use to submit comments to the CRTC. The website also encourages consumers to contact their local member of parliament to request their support for this initiative. Speaking to the topic of timeframes, Mr. Near stated "There are really two separate types of HDTV signals that we're talking about here - the big broadcast networks that are part of basic cable, and the pay channels that you can only get with premium cable. My proposal requests that just like with basic analog cable, the cable companies send along the broadcast network channels without scrambling them. These channels can be unlocked tomorrow by the cable companies literally with the flip of a switch and most HDTVs will immediately be able to pick them up. The latter category of pay channels will require more work, and I expect it would take several years for Canadian cable companies to implement the technology to encrypt and decrypt these channels without the use of a set-top-box." In the meantime, he offers this suggestion "Be aware of what's already out there. First, never feel that you have to pay your cable company any extra fees to receive the most popular high-definition channels. By law, basic cable includes your local broadcast stations like CBC, CTV and Global TV in full high definition even though they might not advertise that fact. Second, it may be time to reconsider using an antenna. The US and Canadian broadcast networks have all been told that they need to switch to digital antennas, which means that the airwaves are full of completely free, crystal-clear high definition television signals." It remains to be seen if the CRTC will consider regulation of set-top boxes, but the movement has already gathered significant interest on blogs and technical web forums. For the most part, Canadians aren't even aware that there is an alternative to the set top box but perhaps that is about to change. ### For further information: Peter Near, pnear@dropthebox.ca
|
-
With two weeks to go for people to give comments to the CRTC on the future of television broadcasting in Canada, I've launched a new website, dropthebox.ca. This website is a simple attempt to inform Canadians of the issue, and provide an easy way for them to write their own letters to the CRTC expressing their opinion on the subject. So to all of you who have asked me in the past "what can I do to help?" you now have your answer. Visit dropthebox.ca, click on "Write Your Own Letter" and send along your comments to the CRTC. Tell your friends about it, and send an email to your MP. The goal here is to get noticed, and if there's more than just me writing in to the CRTC it is more likely to get noticed. Press releases will be going out today to media outlets.
|
-
I had a cascade of recording failures tonight as MCE rushed to find a channel where it could successfully record "Kid Nation". With each channel it tried, I got a message that it could not be recorded due to restrictions set by the broadcaster. The local broadcaster is CH television in Hamilton, Ontario and the cable carrier is Cogeco. Here in Canada cable operators are forced to do what is called "simsubbing". Basically this means that if any US channels are carrying the same show as a local Canadian broadcaster that the cable company is forced to broadcast the local broadcast on all channels. Long story short - every channel that was showing "Kid Nation" at the time was showing the CH feed. Were you able to record Kid Nation tonight? If yes or no, please let me know where you live, what channel you watched it on, and what cable provider you are using. I have some angry letters to write and would appreciate having your data to back up what I've experienced.
|
-
Many thanks to everyone who contributed edits, suggestions, and comments to the CRTC submission. I have submitted the letter below to the CRTC today. Mr. Robert A. Morin
Secretary General, CRTC
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A ON2 Dear Mr Morin: RE: Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2007-10, Review of the regulatory frameworks for broadcasting distribution undertakings and discretionary programming services. 1 Per Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2007-10, I would like to propose an issue for consideration at the public hearing which is related to distribution and linkage. At issue is the delivery of digital signals to consumers, and the additional burden that has been placed on consumers by the technology and business choices of BDUs. 2 Traditionally, using analog technology, consumers had a choice in many aspects of how they accessed and interacted with the content being delivered to them by their service provider. This included the ability to directly connect a cable to a television and browse channels in a simple manner, the ability to connect a VCR of one's choice to record and play back unrestricted content, and the ability to use a DVR such as Tivo to access advanced interactive guide and PVR functionality. 3 However with a shift to digital technology in the Canadian marketplace BDUs have removed, some would argue opportunistically, much of this consumer choice. In order to consume digital content subscribers must pay additional fees to BDUs and connect set-top-boxes to their televisions which limit interactivity to one provider. The majority of digital content delivered to the home is encrypted and not available to be used outside of the BDU's closed set-top-box environment. This practice limits consumer choice and competitive opportunities in an increasingly convergent marketplace that is dominated by large corporations. 4 Technology exists today that allows BDUs to offer consumers choices beyond their limited set-top-box offerings without compromising the security of their network or content , due largely to a 1996 decision by the Federal Communications Commission to "...assure the commercial availability to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor." (Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 629). 5 I believe that it is possible for the CRTC to enforce a similar requirement on Canadian BDUs which would fulfill the sentiment of this statement in Public Notice CRTC 2006-23, "...the Commission has sought to achieve the following objectives: encourage the transition to digital and eventually high definition distribution; permit BDUs to take advantage of the flexibility of digital distribution technology, to the benefit of consumers..." 6 If third-party vendors are allowed to participate in the Canadian market, the potential for creative and fulfilling user experiences through convergence abound. However if content is locked into proprietary and quite frankly unexceptional set-top-boxes then I fear that Canada will be left behind. This would certainly not be to the benefit of consumers in this country. 7 With that in mind, I propose the following for discussion: a. Basic cable services including priority over-the-air (OTA) digital signals and other services that the Commission has mandated for basic carriage should be delivered to consumers with security features that do not exceed those found in the original broadcast. Ie. Content that is available OTA without encryption should be freely available to basic subscribers without encryption. This would allow the majority of HDTVs on the market today with QAM tuners to simply connect the digital cable to the television and consume basic cable content. b. Pay and specialty services should be available to subscribers through commercially available equipment from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor. BDUs should evaluate the existing technologies implemented in other jurisdictions (ie CableCards, Satellite CAMs) and report back to the CRTC on how to best provide a separable security access device which could be used by third-party devices to access digital television content in Canada. 8 I strongly believe that consumer choice in service delivery and content interaction will be a benefit to all Canadians. The devices that already exist which can take advantage of this type of technology are light years ahead of the STBs available in Canada in functionality and design creativity. One can only imagine the possibilities that the near future brings if the Commission takes steps now to ensure that competition is alive and well in this space. Sincerely, Peter Near
(my home address omitted in the blog post) Email : peter@thenears.com *** END OF DOCUMENT ***
|
-
Microsoft is building an ice house in Yonge-Dundas square starting tomorrow and running into the weekend as part of the Windows Vista launch. I'll be there tomorrow (Tuesday) manning the "ask the expert" booth, so come on by and say hello. I believe that they have carved out (literally) a section for me inside the digital home where I'll be dispensing MCE and general Vista advice through my chattering teeth. 
|
More Posts Next page »
|
|
|