Adjusting for Comcast’s new numbers the top five MSOs, Cablevision, Charter Communications, Comcast Corporation, Cox Communications, and Time Warner Cable, collectively deployed 557,296 CableCARDs. Extending that to the top ten MSOs gives a small bump to 595,296, which shows how many customers are concentrated into the largest MSOs. By way of comparison, these same ten MSOs have installed more thsn 32,000,000 CableCARDs in MSO provided STBs. And that is the best evidence of just how badly CableCARD has flopped in the retail market.

At this point TiVo is effectively the only retail CableCARD vendor left! There are a handful of PC CableCARD tuner products, but the total sales are negligible. CableCARD enabled TVs are all but gone from the market. And now that Moxi is gone I think TiVo is the last retail CableCARD DVR. Personally I think this demonstrates why we need AllVid to create a truly competitive open market.

Cablevision reports 27,472 CableCARD subscribers, an increase of 8% over the previous report. But before you get too excited, the new numbers include subscribers from Optimum West, which was integrated into Cablevision during the quarter. These 27,472 subscribers account for 39,462 CableCARDs, so there are a number of multi-card households. During the reporting period they actually had 5,288 new CableCARD installs, 57% of which were self-installs. The rest opted for professional installs, which cost an average of $34.95. The good news is they average 1.0 truck rolls per install, so they get it right the first time. And they charge $2/month per card.

Charter reported a total of 31,884 CableCARDs in service. And they still average 1.5 truck rolls per professional installation, the worst of the lot. I can believe it, I’m a Charter customer. The techs I’ve worked with have all been great, but many have expressed a desire for more training on CableCARD and TiVo. I’ve heard from a number of them that they’re really not being trained, and it seems like there are a couple of ‘experts’ in the area that they always end up calling. (I’ve had to have Charter out a couple of times for CableCARD and/or Tuning Adapter issues. Invariably it ends up being a back end problem, but the phone techs give up and insist on sending truck. Then the tech ends up calling around until he finds the right person to fix the issue.) Charter also charges $2/month per card, and an average of $35.00 for professional installs.

Comcast, from their corrected 2/23/12 numbers, has 370,407 CableCARDs in customer homes. Since the last report they installed 25,789 new cards, with only 29% being self-installs. It seems like Comcast customers opt for professional installs 71% of the time, which I find surprising, though it might be explained by the pricing. While they charge an average of $26.00 if it is a separate trip, it drops to $7.15 if it is part of a larger installation. And it takes an average of 1.04 truck rolls, so odds are good they’ll get it right the first time. Comcast’s first card is generally free, and additional cards in the same device average $1.50. (It isn’t in the report, but I believe additional cards in other devices are normally $2/month.)

Cox has 52,479 CableCARDs in service, at an average cost of $1.99/month. Customers who opt for a professional install pay an average of $24.00, though it takes an average of 1.1 visits. So your more likely to get to have the chance to get to know your installer better than with Cablevision or Comcast.

TWC has 75,542 CableCARDs in use with 54,575 subscribers, so again we know there are a number of multi-card households. TWC’s cards are the most expensive, at an average of $2.37 (I’ve heard that they charge quite a bit in some areas, which would explain the elevated average). Surprisingly their install numbers are even most skewed than Comcast’s, with 83% electing professional installs, which cost an average of $28.16. Why do so many people opt for professional installation? I’d love to know the motivation there.

All in all, not much has changed since the last report. I wish the different MSOs would normalize their reporting – some report self-install vs. professional installs. Some report costs with more granularity. Subscribers vs. number of cards. It’d be nice if they’d all report the same things in the same way. I can dream.

That’s how much of a flop CableCARD has been at retail, less than 2% of the cards deployed are used in retail devices, like TiVo. I don’t blame the retail devices, but rather the pain involved in obtaining CableCARD (self-installs only mandated 8/8/2011) and the artificial limitations on retail CableCARD devices (no OnDemand, for example). tru2way is an even bigger flop, basically being stillborn. And this is why I don’t feel like we can rely on cable industry developed solutions, but rather we need something like a solid AllVid mandate backed by and FCC with some teeth to make sure it happens.

But I digress, let’s get back to this report and look at each of the five MSOs reporting.

Cablevision has 25,303 CableCARD subscribers with 36,692 cards deployed, an average of 1.45 per household. For this reporting period, which spans time before and after the self-install mandate, 43% or 1,395 were professional installs and 57% or 1,851 were self-installs. They charge $2/month per CableCARD. And if the customer elects for a professional installation there is a fee that averages $34.95, but the average number of truck rolls per install is just 1.0, so it seems like they get it right the first time.

Charter Communications had 31,425 CableCARDs in service as of August 31, 2011. They begin allowing self-installs on August 1, before that a professional installation was required. Interestingly Charter says their average number of truck rolls per install is 1.5, which indicates they’re customers probably have some more trouble getting it working. I’m a Charter customer and I have required multiple truck rolls in the past due to installers not having working cards on their truck, etc. Charter also charges and average of $2/month per CableCARD, and there is an average $35.00 fee for professional installs.

Comcast is the big one, with 367,064 CableCARDs in customer homes. In this reporting period they installed 38,403 CableCARDs, split almost exactly 50/50 between professional installs and self-installs. The average truck rolls per install is 1.03, so it seems like they get it right nearly every time. Comcast also has the best pricing, the first card is free and each additional card is $1.50/month. For professional installation, if it is part of a larger install it is an average of just $7.15. For a trip just to install a CableCARD they charge an average of $26.

Cox Communications has 50,791 CableCARDs in the field. Each card costs $1.99/month. For professional installations they charge an average of $24 and it takes an average of 1.1 truck rolls. So not as good as Cablevision and Comcast, but certainly a lot better than Charter.

Time Warner Cable has 74,047 CableCARDs in place with 53,503 customers. Until 8/8/2011 and the FCC mandate they required a professional installation, since they they’ve allowed self-installs. Which helps explain the 87%/13% split for the reporting period. The good news is they seem to get it right with an average of 1.03 truck rolls for professional installs, which cost an average of $26.64. CableCARDs run an average of $2.50/month.

So it seems like Charter is having the most trouble getting CableCARD working right the first time, and Cox is struggling a little, but Cablevision, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable are doing fairly well in that department.

There’s more interesting information in the full report, if you care to read it.

The body of their suggested letter reads:

As a consumer interested in protecting competition, innovation, and legitimate use of cable TV content, I urge you to refuse requests for waivers of 47 CFR 76.1204(a)(1) by NCTA, Charter, Verizon, and all other cable providers. The FCC’s integration ban, which in effect requires cable companies to integrate CableCARDs into their own set-top boxes, remains good policy today.

Now ten years after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, cable companies have dragged their feet long enough on competitive alternatives to proprietary set-top boxes, thus hampering innovation and harming consumers. The integration ban will also help market competition prevent further restrictions on cable subscribers’ ability to make legitimate use of recorded content.

By adopting content protection limits (encoding rules) in docket no. 97-80, the Commission recognized the importance of allowing consumers to make certain uses of TV content, regardless of a particular cable provider’s or copyright holder’s wishes. With competition spurred on by the integration ban, consumers would have the freedom to choose the least restrictive cable-compatible device available. The CableCARD standard already prescribes restrictions that harm consumers by limiting non-infringing uses, and such restrictions will get even worse if cable providers’ set-top boxes are unchecked by competition.

Please refuse requests for waivers of 47 CFR 76.1204(a)(1).

I decided to toss my support behind this effort as well, and I inserted some text of my own:

As a tech blogger I’ve followed the evolution of CableCARD closely, and it has been a string of disappointments. Between the delays, the limitations on what UDCPs may support, the unpalatable requirements of OCAP/tru2way which discouraged CE vendors, the broken promise to fully deploy tru2way by July 2009 (July 2010 for Charter – it is now August 2011), SDV and Tuning Adapters, MVPDs having to be forced to allow self-installs and to use fair pricing, etc., etc., they have an extremely poor track record.

As an IT professional I know the value in “eating your own dog food”. When cable MSOs were required to begin using CableCARD in their own devices, overall support improved. Of course, they took shortcuts by pre-pairing the cards and permanently installing them in their STBs, so they didn’t need to use the same installation and activation process, but it still exercised the infrastructure. They should be forced to continue using CableCARD until such time as a new system, such as AllVid, is available to *all* devices.

I believe that cable MSOs should be required to use the same systems available to consumer electronics companies. This helps to force them to improve the systems for their own sake, and not neglect them unfairly. I think it would also put pressure on them to work toward a better solution, like AllVid, which would benefit all parties – especially consumers. If they’re allowed to roll their own solutions, independent of what is available to CE vendors, they have little to no incentive to adopted unified, open standards and robust systems for CE products.

It is probably obvious where my sympathies lay, I think we need AllVid. While the cable industry, through the NCTA, argues that a mish-mash of MVPD-unique apps to bring content to phones and tablets is all we need, that allowing each MVPD to slap their interface across any device is innovative, and that the industry should decide how open it needs to be, I do not agree. I feel that all of these are just more of the same. Same shit, different device. Cable system user interfaces almost universally suck, I don’t want that UI on my CE devices. That kind of solution was a major factor in the failure of tru2way. Consumer electronics vendors – like TiVo, Sony, Samsung, etc. – should be able to create one UI that works with all MVPDs, not have to make deals with them one at a time and create unique apps to work with each one.

For just one example look at TiVo’s efforts to support cable OnDemand on their DVRs. They have to invest a lot of time and effort in just lobbying each MSO to make a deal. And once they’ve made the deal they have to implement a variant on their solution to deal with the different MSO requirements, because there is no standard. Consumers get screwed in the end because we get a pot luck of solutions. If you want OnDemand from RCN, Suddenlink, or (soon) Charter, then you need to get your box from them. Oh, but then you have to give up Netflix, and possibly other OTT content. You’ll be able to use your retail box with Comcast or Cox. But you’re SOL with Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, Brighthouse, FiOS, etc. Of course, you can’t even use a modern TiVo with DirecTV, Dish Network, or AT&T U-Verse, because they’re closed, proprietary networks.

And that’s what AllVid is about – providing standard interfaces and opening up networks to real competition and innovation in CE devices. The NCTA claims that if the original AllVid proposal were in effect we wouldn’t have the iPad apps, etc., we do today. I think that’s bullshit. My understanding of the original proposal is that it wouldn’t forbid development of these apps alongside providing an open, IP-based interface for 3rd parties. It wouldn’t tell cable companies they had to stop innovating, just that they would also need to provide the required standard interfaces to their content streams.

The FCC filing makes their feelings pretty clear:

The featured list of “innovative approaches” that begins on the first page of the NCTA letter includes not a single thing that would make MVPD programming or services available on competitive devices. Rather, “progress” is cited in these areas:

• Internet delivery of some “cable video”
• Extensions to a few specified portable devices
• IP-based interfaces that deliver only the MSOs’ own guides to their own leased settop boxes
• Limited availability of standards-based home networking
• Reliance on “cloud” delivery

Citing these advances as a “march of progress,” however, merely continues NCTA’s tactic over the last 15 years of pointing to incremental achievements to sidestep or forestall proposals from the Commission and the consumer electronics, information technology, retailer, and public interest sectors that would achieve the goals of Section 629 in full. The reality is that greater progress in device interoperability and home networking has been achieved in other sectors, such as Internet-based video delivery, where competition exists.

We need the equivalent to Carterfone for MVPDs. The Carterfone decision forced telcos to open up their networks to 3rd party devices. No longer did consumers have to get their telephones from the telco. It opened the market up to an endless variety of competing phone designs, to answering machines, fax machines, and, probably most important of all, to modems. Without the open access provided by Carterfone, who knows how much innovation would’ve been retarded. Before the decision the telcos certainly weren’t moving very quickly to introduce new devices. They were happy with the status quo.

We’re in a similar situation today with MVPDs. CableCARD is such a pain to deal with, and so limited, that CE vendors just avoid the market. So we have a dearth of options to choose from. HDTV makers have actually pulled back from including CableCARD tuners. TiVo is really the only notable CableCARD product available to consumers. Moxi has basically dropped out of the market. And there are a handful of CableCARD tuner products for PCs, but they’re a fairly small niche.

Remember the days before digital cable, when analog cable was basically wide open? There were scores of ‘cable ready’ devices. Nearly every TV & VCR had a cable tuner. There were many DVR & DVR recorder products available. But as cable moved to digital the MSOs used the opportunity to lock out 3rd parties by encrypting the signal. That’s what CableCARD was supposed to solve, but the final solution is so flawed as to make it nearly non viable. And the MSOs have done a lot to discourage use, while the FCC has only addressed the issues slowly and piecemeal – like the upcoming self-install mandate. And, of course, after we got CableCARD SDV came along, adding more pain with tuning adapters. And, of course, OnDemand and Pay Per View content isn’t supported.

I want to go back to those analog cable days, at least in terms of consumer choice. When you could walk into a store and select from a wall of VCRs, DVRs, or DVD Recorders. When you could buy most any TV, plug it into your cable, and access all of the content you were paying for. Today, even if you’re willing to deal with CableCARD, the choices just aren’t there because the pain is enough to keep CE vendors from entering the market. Those that tried when CableCARD was new got burned. And the CE industry has been burned multiple times by cable, remember the June 2008 pledge to have tru2way fully deployed by July 2009 (July 2010 for Charter)? Yeah, how’d that go? This is why the CE industry is wary of just leaving things up to the cable industry. When they do, they get screwed – along with consumers.

CableCARD technically works, but it is a complete failure when it comes to the original goals. The cable industry has managed to make CableCARD so painful that it isn’t worth dealing with. But CableCARD was always meant as an interim solution on the way to something better – and that something better is AllVid. It’d restore the balance that existed before the digital lock out. CE vendors could product products that only needed to support one standardize interface to handle cable, satellite, IPTV, etc. Linear content, SDV, OnDemand, and PPV would all be supported. CE vendors would be free to create their own UI to differentiate their products, like a TiVo Search that provides unified results from linear content, VOD, PPV, and OTT content (Netflix, YouTube, etc.)

The cable industry doesn’t like this because they want to control every aspect of the consumer relationship. They don’t want you to have a choice. They want you to use a Comcast STB at home with a Comcast UI, and a Comcast app on your phone or tablet. They want to control everything end to end, so it isn’t as easy to turn to Netflix, Amazon, etc., for content. They want to lock the consumer in and put up barriers to choice, but making it too much trouble, if not impossible, for CE vendors to create innovative products that blur the lines.

The NCTA points to TiVo’s work with VOD as a reason we don’t need AllVid – I say it is exactly why we do need it. If we had AllVid TiVo could’ve implemented and deployed VOD by now – for all MSOs, not to mention satellite support. And so could every other CE vendor. Right now TiVo has negotiated deals with five cable MSOs, but if Sony wants to implement VOD support they’ll have to negotiate their own individual deals. Samsung would have to do the same. And LG. Etc. It is slow, cumbersome, and expensive.

If you’ve ever wondered why you don’t have VOD or PPV on your TiVo, or why you can’t use TiVo with satellite, or if you’ve ever lamented the quality of the software on your provider’s STB and wished for choice, or were frustrated by online access to your provider’s content being iPad online and not on Android, or your PC or Mac, or if you just want to be able to have choice as a consumer, then you should be in favor of AllVid.

I’m glad to see these groups out there keeping the pressure on the FCC through their filings. I know many of them have their own interests, but I believe those interests better align with consumer interests than the cable industry’s do. Carterfone didn’t kill the telcos, in fact it was one of the best things that ever happened to them as the innovations that followed increased usage of the PSTN, which meant increased revenues. Likewise, AllVid won’t kill the MVPDs. I think it would create a surge in demand for their services as people would have many new ways to access the content and unlock the value therein, currently trapped in a narrow scope of applications.

This would allow consumer electronics vendors, such as Sony or TiVo, to build devices that would be able to plug into any programming source – cable, satellite, or fiber – and to access the full range of content. Not just linear channels, but also SDV, PayPerView, and OnDemand content. You may be aware that TiVo has deals in place with a handful of cable MSOs to access OnDemand content. RCN & Suddenlink already provide TiVo hardware to their customers which can access OnDemand, and Charter will begin doing so this year. And Cox & Comcast have agreements with TiVo to allow access to OnDemand via retail TiVo units in the coming months.

But this is piecemeal. TiVo has to pursue individual deals with each MSO, and then customize their software to work that that MSO’s OnDemand head end. There isn’t a standardized interface, and TiVo remains locked out of other MSOs. Not to mention they’re still locked out of satellite and IPTV fiber services like U-Verse because CableCARD is only mandated for cable MSOs. (FiOS uses cable standards for linear content, but IPTV for OnDemand.) And that’s just TiVo, if Sony wanted to provide the same kind of access on their products they’d have to make the same kind of individual deals with the MSOs. And then Samsung. Etc. It just isn’t the same as having open, defined standards that every vendor can implement.

AllVid is the vision for that new standard, and it would supplant CableCARD, hopefully eliminating the many shortcomings that have restricted its popularity with consumers. (Like the lack of access to OnDemand content.)

Of course, the industry, primarily in the form of the NCTA, is resisting any effort to mandate the AllVid vision. They want to be left alone, claiming that industry innovation makes AllVid unnecessary. They point to things like the TiVo-MSO deals, and a growing number of new services like Comcast’s Xfinity mobile apps. But that’s apples & oranges, saying you can stream content on your iPad isn’t the same as being able to access it on your TV with a set top box you purchased because it has the features you want. And the AllVid Alliance argues just that, in a new filing with the FCC. Just a sample:

Section 629 of the Communications Act is not satisfied by consumers being able to download an MVPD’s app on a particular brand of television set or “cable systems…developing new ways to use the Internet.” While MVPDs point to the latest
“shiny thing over there,” they ignore the Section 629 mandate of the Communications Act. The Commission must not lose sight of the fact that Congress directed the Commission to foster a competitive retail market for navigation devices used by consumers to access the full range of services offered by MVPDs, and to access that programming and those services through manufacturers, retailers and other vendors not affiliated with any MVPD

And:

An AllVid gateway would empower a consumer to use any consumer electronics (“CE”) product to receive any programming offered by an MVPD on a subscriber basis, and would allow any CE product to work securely with respect to multichannel content. Consumers would no longer need to be concerned about how to port content to or store content on TV, computer, game, tablet, or mobile platforms, and whether programs would be lost if the consumer switches to a different MVPD or even to a different device. Consumers would have the option of choosing multichannel programming interactively without worrying about a potential cap on their use of Internet bandwidth. Multiple CE manufacturers–not just those that have negotiated deals with MVPDs–would be able to respond to consumers with innovations that directly address their needs and desires.

They go on to cite the historic Carterfone decision of 1968, which allowed consumers to stop renting their phones from AT&T and to connect non-AT&T telephones, and other telephony devices, to the phone system. Significantly ‘other telephony devices’ includes computer modems. Without Carterfone the early growth of online services may have been stifled. At least acoustic couplers would’ve had a longer run I suppose. I was born in 1970, and I’m just old enough to remember a lot of remaining ‘AT&T’ industrial looking phones and the first wave of all the new, then-radical designs which broke the mold from the standard, archetypal ‘telephone’. The AllVid Alliance is looking to open up television services in the same way.

Ironically, the cable industry themselves have shown that the AllVid vision isn’t so hard to fulfill, despite their claims that it would bring hardship and exorbitant costs. A recent demonstration at a CableLabs interop event showed cable STBs running tru2way middleware were able to stream content over an IP interface to DLNA enabled media devices, using DTCP-IP content protection. This is based on a home networking spec from CableLabs themselves, and could serve as the core for an AllVid implementation. So why the objections to the FCC mandating some baseline standard to ensure a level playing field to start?

Personally, I hope the FCC does mandate AllVid, and that it has some teeth. I think they were too soft with CableCARD, especially in allowing tru2way, which was so unloved it seems everyone, cable and CE industry alike, are mostly trying to forget about it.

Via Multichannel News.