ycurrent 12/5/2012 | 4:55:46 PM
re: Cable's Google Shield

Is there a similar arrangement in the industry regarding Cisco's STB?

ycurrent 12/5/2012 | 4:55:45 PM
re: Cable's Google Shield

Thanks. Very interesting.  I wonder how this type of "lock-in" differentially affects the perceived value of the STB/cable video solution business at Motorola Mobility vs. Cisco. It would seem that a greater premium would go to Motorola, than to Cisco (were Cisco to consider selling its STB business...).

Meanwhile Adara and Cisco have a hosted SDV offer that can co-exist with (and replace) Motorola digital video platforms...

Jeff Baumgartner 12/5/2012 | 4:55:45 PM
re: Cable's Google Shield

I'm not aware of anything similar to the degree of the Comcast-Mot deal from 2005, but it's a good question.  I believe there was some licensing terms Cisco had to agree to be involved in the universal DTAs that run on both Mot- and Cisco-based networks, but i think that's a much different animal since those boxes don't use full-fledged conditional access system. But perhaps there was some command and control concessions too. Any cable engineers in the house who can say? 

I'm also not sure there was as much concern about obtaining and implementing PowerKEY licenses back in the day as there was for Moto's CA.  Pace for a long while had a terribly hellish time trying to get boxes made that could run on Mot cable networks...Motorola made it very difficult on them by giving them incomplete info or just cause other interference to slow down Pace's progress... or so I used to hear. 

Meanwhile, TWC was able to get Scientific Atlanta to be a bit friendlier, allowing companies like Pioneer, Pace and Panasonic to obtain the CA licenses but also the other help they needed to at least develop SA clones that would actually  work on SA-based networks... though I'm not sure how many Panny ended up selling from that effort. Pioneer eventually gave up on the direct-to-MSO STB biz in 2004  because profit margins kept dwindling. I don't remember SA shedding many tears over that. JB

njguy 12/5/2012 | 4:55:29 PM
re: Cable's Google Shield

"Google would certainly own Moto's set-top box business and the devices themselves, but it would not be able to commandeer the bulk of U.S. cable TV networks"

Own the devices?  Commandeer??

Moto doesn't OWN these networks.  Moto sells equipment to service providers.  If Goog/Moto doesn't build equipment the providers want, the providers won't buy it.

Why do you write this up like we could all wake up to GoogleTV on our Moto boxes without the consent of the cable companies??

"But to be clear, there doesn't appear to be a rampant belief that Google, which has butted heads with cable now and then and has been viewed as a disruptor to cable's pay-TV business, would attempt to seize cable's Moto-based networks. But safeguards are in place."

Then what was the point of this article?

Sign In