# Tuning Adapter: YES! ...Now onto the CCI flag



## skaggs (Feb 13, 2003)

While I have been upset for some time about the lack of TTG and MRV availability for programs recorded on my TiVo HD units, the lack of SDV channels was, in my eyes, the foremost issue.

Now that we finally have Tuning Adapters working properly (at least here in Albany, NY), I suggest we focus on getting the cable providers to change their CCI flagging policies.

Here in Albany, we have Time Warner Cable. They have set all the CCI flags as 0x02 (except local broadcast stations), which means Copy Once - The DVR can make a recording, but can't transfer it via MRV or TiVotoGo transfers. A comprehensive explanation of all CCI byte flags can be found here.

After reading nearly all the info posted here in TiVo Community on CCI byte restrictions, it seems as though complaints to the FCC don't result in anything. Complaints to your local cable office result in being told it is a corporate policy. Complaints to corporate cable headquarters result in being told the broadcast companies have set the CCI byte and it is passed along.

Does anyone know where the rules are listed as to what should and shouldn't have CCI byte set at 0x02?

It would be nice to get a sense of direction from the powers-that-be at TiVo, inc. For example...should we focus on the corporate angle or the local franchise? Is TiVo, inc. doing anything about this issue?

I'll gladly draft a letter or make a phone call, but some detailed information from those more knowledgeable than me would help.

When I attempt to file a complaint through the FCC, I am taken through a set of multiple choice questions where there are no answers that allow you to file a complaint concerning cable companies' unfair practices. Here's how it goes:

1. Go to the _File a Complaint_ section of the FCC website at: http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm

2. Choose: _Broadcast (TV and Radio), Cable, and Satellite Issues_

3. What to choose in this menu? Either #6 _Cable modem issues, cable signal leakage_ OR #7 _DTV issues_???

What is a TTG fan to do?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

LOL, I have the mirror image problem. CCI is 0x00 on most everything except premium channels for my provider but TA is not available even though some channels are under SDV.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

I am in the Dallas-Fort Worth area with TWC. Currently Almost everything has the Copy once protection flag on it other than the *LOCALS*. There are a few channels that *DON'T *have the copy protection flags set. Although I don't ever record anything on those channels so it's a moot point. One example of this is ABC Family HD & SD channels are not being copy protected currently. However ESPN (All channels), SCI-FI, BBC America, HDNET/HDNET movies to name a few *ARE* being Copy Once protected.

Here are the rules about the CCI flag.

Federal law prevents use of the CCI flag for all *LOCAL* station broadcasts & rebroadcasts by Cable/Fios/Sat services.

*ALL *other cable stations are allowed to use the CCI flag for "_Copy Once_".

PPV & VOD are allowed to use the CCI flag of copy never, thus preventing you from even recording that on your TiVo at all.

There is some contrevery over HBO/Showtime etc on if they are considered to be allowed for the copy never flag or not. However *CURRENTLY* HBO/Showtime etc... do allow "Copy Once" so you can at least record the show for later viewing. Just no MRV/TTG capability.

After contacting a freind who works for HBO and they checking into thing. HBO *DOES *require that all cable companies enable the "Copy Once" protection flag on *ALL* HBO channels. Since Time Warner also owns HBO as well as their Cable division. One can see where that leads. This requirement is setout in the contracts between HBO & the Cable/Sat providers.

After contacting Mark Cuban, One of several owners of "HDNET" and a fellow Dallas, Texas citizen. HDNET Does* NOT *require that *ANY *cable/sat company to use the Copy Protection flag. They prefer that the copy protection flag at any level *NOT* be used. However, Thier contracts with the local cable/sat companies do *NOT *prevent them from using such flags. Thus, if your cable/sat company is using the "Copy once" flag on HDNET/HDNET movies they are allowed to do so.

Many other cable channel networks are this way as well. Some require that the cable/sat provider use the _Copy Once_ flag, others leave it up to the cable/sat provider if they want to use it or not.

*So WHO do we COMPLAIN to?*

*1.* Write your Congressman & Senators to get the Federal law changed about the use of the CCI bit & Copy protection flags. Voice your concerns to them.

*2.* The Coporate office of your cable/sat provider. Let them know you do *NOT* like them using the CCI bit for copy protection. Let them know in this letter that you know several channels that they are Copy protecting are not setting this CCI bit at the headend. Such as HDNET/HDNET movies. Let them know that once you have a option to switch providers you may just do so.

*3.* Some states have Utlitities/corporation commisions that cable companies (Not satalite) are liable to. Thus those commisions have some *CONTROL *over how those cable companies opperate and the services they provide. They can control the prices to some degree as well. Not all states have these commisions that allow enforcement on cable companies. Some do. *IF YOUR STATE's *Utility commission has some form of control/enforcement over your local cable company. Then I would write a letter and complain to them as well.

*4.* Many news stations have a "In your Corner" reporter that investigates and reports on consumer affairs with various business's in their area. They report on bad business practices or other concerns local consumers should have. Contact them. Let them know whats going on. They might see the use of this CCI bit/Copy protection as being news worthy. Cable/Sat companies hate haveing *"BAD PRESS"*.

*5.* Check with your local government as well. City/County/State. They do have SOME jurisdiction over how cable companies opperate & where they can opperate as well. For instance... at one time Dallas-Fort Worth was under COMCAST.... Time Warner has since bought out the DFW area from Comcast. This buy out of our area did require local goverment approval. For us I don't remember if it required approval by the state, or by the City governments of our area.

I would make use of all 5 suggestions. I do agree with you. Currently, writing/complaining to the FCC does little to no good about the CCI/Copy protection bit. The law has to be changed first. Changing the law is what our congressmen/Senators do. That is why I suggested writing them.

I have allready done *ALL* of the above 5 things. Now is everyone eles's turn! 

Good luck, and would love to hear what reponses you get.

TGC


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

I managed to get Comcast to set CCI=0x00 on all channels except premium, PPV, and VOD in my area a couple of years ago. I wrote a polite, professionally-worded email to the chairman of my local cable franchise authority explaining what the CCI byte was, how it affected my fair use of the content. I used Cable in the Classroom as an example of how Comcasts policy not only assumed the provider wanted their content protected, it often ran directly counter to it.

I pointed out that CiC allowed teachers to make video tapes for use in the classroom and DVDs were the equivalent in digital world. It was no more reasonable to ask the teacher to carry their TiVo into the classroom than it was to ask them to carry their VCRs when tapes and DVDs were available. I concluded by pointing out that the analog world and VCRs were about to die and, if Comcast maintained their policy, CiC would effectively die with it.

I admitted I was not a teacher and that was one example, but there was no good reason to have that flag set, preventing people from moving away from tapes and on to DVD.

After a few more emails and a couple of weeks, all the flags were cleared but one -- Encore Movieplex, which specifically requests protection. I was told their policy would be to not set the flag unless the provider requested it.

*TGC*: You might want to add another item to your list. Write to the Cable in the Classroom folk and see if you can engage them as an advocate to battle the cable company using the argument I present above.

http://www.ciconline.org/home

There are few channels that don't provide at least some CiC programming -- even HBO does.

You can also reach out to the CiC contacts at networks and the cable operators. Their contact info is here:

http://www.ciconline.org/cablecontacts


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

It's important to remember that Tivo is not completely off the hook on this one, so part of any actions to deal with this should also include Tivo.
For MRV purposes with CCI=0x02 Tivo could still allow *streaming* of the recording to other Tivos in the house instead of current method of copying. A worse implementation would be to move content from 1 unit to another, but that is not as good as streaming.
Of course that would still not address the TTG issue (getting content to your PC), but it would be a good start that would immediately fix the MRV issue and at the same time may encourage existing customers to purchase more units since MRV would actually be useful to them.


----------



## Teeps (Aug 16, 2001)

moyekj said:


> LOL, I have the mirror image problem. CCI is 0x00 on most everything except premium channels for my provider but TA is not available even though some channels are under SDV.


What cable co?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Teeps said:


> What cable co?


 Cox Orange County, CA. It's a Motorola headend and I have not seen any any public rollout of Motorola TAs mentioned anywhere in these forums or elsewhere. Thus far they have all been Cisco/SA headends (likely because most headends deploying SDV happen to be Cisco/SA).


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

moyekj said:


> It's important to remember that Tivo is not completely off the hook on this one, so part of any actions to deal with this should also include Tivo.
> For MRV purposes with CCI=0x02 Tivo could still allow *streaming* of the recording to other Tivos in the house instead of current method of copying. A worse implementation would be to move content from 1 unit to another, but that is not as good as streaming.
> Of course that would still not address the TTG issue (getting content to your PC), but it would be a good start that would immediately fix the MRV issue and at the same time may encourage existing customers to purchase more units since MRV would actually be useful to them.


TiVo isn't to blame for the CCI bit/Copy Protection problem. They are not the ones that came up with the idea nor the implementation of it. So they are not the ones to be blamed.

Now.. Is it possible for TiVo to *HELP* alleviate the problem and make it more palatable for us? Sure they can. However... It requires Time & Money to make programming changes to the software. Taking allready hired programers from whatever they are currently working, or even hiring NEW & ADDITIONAL software programmers. Don't forget about the additional software analysysts needed for software testing. All of this takes *MONEY.* Money that as we know is hard to come by in today's economy.

Microsoft is laying off 6,000 people across the country. Intel just laid off 1500 here in the Dallas area alone. Texas Instruments just layed off 800 people as well here in the Dallas area. Dell another Texas company is cutting back jobs as well and cut 300 _UNFILLED_ positions as well.

So yes, TiVo could make changes to their software and allow it to *STREAM* content to other TiVo's. They have *YET *to do this & the S3 has been out for 2 Years. I am making an educated guess here, but there has to be a logical reason why they haven't implemented this feature yet. It could be legal, *or* it could be that all the *LATEST* Market research shows that the *ROI* for *T*iVo *t*o *T*iVo *s*treaming *isn't* large enough. It could also be that they are working on TTTS but are having major programing issues.

I own a restaurant. I have removed many menu items from my menu's because while they did sell, the *ROI* for those menu items wasn't good enough.

TGC

P.S. I would love to see TTTS implemented. As well as many other features. Just have to be paitient. The CCI bit issue though is something that could be fixed in a better way with better local/state & Federal laws.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

Just want to add my support for the suggestions in this thread. I have made a few comments on the subject in the past,

TiVo being the most affected by this would be a logical place to try to reach out to to see what they have done and what they think should be done and what they'd like to see their subscribers do to help change this situation.


----------



## bhoch99 (Jan 21, 2003)

Tivo is not completely off the hook, for the simple reason that I refuse to buy a 2nd Tivo until the CCI byte issue is resolved, and there are probably others out there waiting as well, so it ultimately effects sales. Tivo has many more resources and expertise in persuading the cable companies to set this correctly than I have to offer. I already contacted Tivo about a few months ago, though I'm not sure if there's been any progress.

For me, it's simple: When the CCI byte problem is fixed, I will buy another Tivo (maybe two!). 

TivoStephen, do you have any news or thoughts on the matter?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Tivo is only doing what they are required to do BY LAW on this issue. They are REQUIRED to honor the flag if it is set. They do have an interest in it but their hands are tied until the law is changed.


----------



## bhoch99 (Jan 21, 2003)

Yes, Tivo is not "required" by law to do it. On the other hand, Tivo does significant marketing with regards to MRV and TTG features. Some folks might buy a Tivo instead of the cable company (CC) DVR beacuse of these features. But when they discover that the CC doesn't allow for MRV or TTG, they might just go for the inexpensive route of using the CC DVR.

One might argue fraud on Tivo's part (advertising features like TTG and MRV which can't exist on cable systems with mass implementation of the CCI byte), but I think there's enough disclaimer in the fine print that "legally" it's not Tivo's fault.

The moral of the story is, the issue is not about doing what's legally required, it's about doing what is right for Tivo subscribers...


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

bhoch99 said:


> [...]I already contacted Tivo about a few months ago, though I'm not sure if there's been any progress.
> 
> For me, it's simple: When the CCI byte problem is fixed, I will buy another Tivo (maybe two!).


And have you contacted your cable company? Have you taken a look at the contact list I published a link to and contacted your cable company's CiC rep to discuss the matter? Do you have a local franchise authority?


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Well with the *ECONOMY* in as bad a shape as it is now. Texas Intruments as well as Dell, and Microsoft have all together layed off about 9,000 employees or more. I don't think that TiVo has the resources to fight the CCI bit issue. When you compare the Assets of TiVo again'st TI, or Dell, or Microsoft. They are only a drop in the bucket compared to those big 3.

As much as I would like TiVo to do more & take more action into correcting Cable Companies incorrectly setting the CCI bit. That isn't the problem.

Here are a few problems...

*1.* *OBAMA's* administration is trying to do away with the *LOBYISTS*... Therefore, if Obama has his ways. The money TiVo would spend on *LOBYISTS* to get congress to change the laws on the CCI bit would be a futile effort.

*2. *TiVo doesn't have the financial resources to pay LOBYISTS the millions of dollars they want to fight the CCI bit laws.

*3. *Even if you *CAN* get a cable company to correct the CCI bit settings. Many cable stations might decide to add it themselvs. Such as HBO/Showtime who* DO *require the CCI bit to be set. ESPN requires it as well on all *NEW* contracts. Some cable companies haven't done it for ESPN yet. Sci-Fi & BBCAmerica it seems are trying to get more cable companies to enable the CCI bit on their channels as well. Especially the HD versions.

There are also alot of "FIGHTS" going on between Cable providers, Cable Stations & the Production companies.

One big example of this is *Warner Brothers *who produces _"The Mentalist"_ and _"The 11th Hour" _for *CBS*. Warner Brothers has just recently *REQUIRED* that CBS remove the capability to *WATCH* full episodes of these shows online at CBS.com. As of just as recent as a week ago. You can no longer watch the full length episodes of these two shows online at CBS.com. You can however still watch pirated/bootleg versions of these shows elsewhere online.

One other point to make as well. TiVo isn't the only DVR that prevents you from Copying, MRVing, or even TTGing copy protected shows. Cable Company DVR's aren't allowing that capability either.

*THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO SOLVE THE CCI BIT ISSUE, IS TO CHANGE THE LAW!*

The only true way to change the law... is to write our congressmen AND Senators.

I wrote them about the DTV transition delay. Texas House Republican Joe Barton happend to be the leader in *KILLING* the DTV transition bill in the House.

I have written him on the CCI bit issue as well. I received a letter stating that he too beleives that the *USE* of the CCI bit is being *ABUSED* by the cable companies, TV stations, & content production companies. He has told me that the more letters he gets, as well as other congressmen & senators on this issue, the better.

*SO WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN & SENATORS PLEASE!*

TiVo can't do it alone they simply don't have the financial means in *TODAY's* economy to do what is needed.

TGC


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> ...
> One other point to make as well. TiVo isn't the only DVR that prevents you from Copying, MRVing, or even TTGing copy protected shows. Cable Company DVR's aren't allowing that capability either.
> ...
> 
> TGC


no other DVR allows copy- but there are devices that do MRV. See the moto whole house DVR that fios has- presumably with streaming. (i would GUESS an IP-less version is availible to cable too although i dont know if anyone uses it). Look at cablecard HTPC's- they can stream to media center extenders all day long too.

I think the "fault" is with the law. But the reality is others have figured out how to work around the law and implement streaming so Tivo is at a disadvantage untill they do also.

personally it's not killing me now, but over time it might be enough of an annoyance to make a difference as more and more channels go digital and get the flag applied. - in mymind the end game is likely that every single channel with the exception of locals will have the flag applied so eventually makes MRV much less usefull.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> no other DVR allows copy- but there are devices that do MRV. See the moto whole house DVR that fios has- presumably with streaming. (i would GUESS an IP-less version is availible to cable too although i dont know if anyone uses it). Look at cablecard HTPC's- they can stream to media center extenders all day long too.
> 
> I think the "fault" is with the law. But the reality is others have figured out how to work around the law and implement streaming so Tivo is at a disadvantage untill they do also.
> 
> personally it's not killing me now, but over time it might be enough of an annoyance to make a difference as more and more channels go digital and get the flag applied. - in mymind the end game is likely that every single channel with the exception of locals will have the flag applied so eventually makes MRV much less usefull.


Very true. I never said that there *WEREN'T* any other devices that would allow streaming &/or MRVing &/or TTG type stuff. I just said that for the most part 98% cable companies don't have MRVing/streaming/TTG.

Verizon for the most part from what I have found or understand hasn't implemented copy protection on any channels other than HBO, PPV, VOD. For any DVR device. TiVo, Moto, HTPC etc...

The HTPC's *WITH* cable card *DON'T* MRV or TTG any of the channels that have implemented Copy Protection. I also beleive that the Motorolla units that have MRV capability also don't allow MRVing Copy protected content either, *UNLESS* the cable company enables that feature as well. Very possible they *COULD* disable that capability as well.

Some Cable Companies have investigated the option of enabling MRV capability on their own DVR's for an *ADITIONAL* fee of $10 a month *PER* DVR.

The answer is still with making adjustments to the law first and second to equipment.

As much as I wish TiVo would implement streaming from TiVo to Tivo. I do realize that there is a reason why TiVo *HASN'T* implemented this feature yet. Obviously no one form TiVo has officialy commented on this feature yet. Maybe the reason is legal, maybe they are having issues with implementing it. This could be with programing issues, or issues with ROI.

ROI, is probably the most debateable issues. How much ROI should be expected or should be fair and moral.

TGC


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Scientific Atlanta 83XXHD series supports MRV, but I don'r know who has implemented it. I don't know the sharing mechanism, but imagine that it was the cable coax. This would probably be a customer support nightmare for the average cable customer.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> ...The HTPC's *WITH* cable card *DON'T* MRV or TTG any of the channels that have implemented Copy Protection. ...
> 
> TGC


I'm no expert- but are you certain of that?

I was under the impression that MS is streaming away to their extender devices.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I'm no expert- but are you certain of that?
> 
> I was under the impression that MS is streaming away to their extender devices.


It is possible that some of them could stream. Although streaming doesn't allow for the TTG equivelent either. I also beleive the Copy Never flag also prevents streaming as well.

The problem with a HTPC though is it isn't still considered a CE device for the average home user yet.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

vstone said:


> Scientific Atlanta 83XXHD series supports MRV, but I don'r know who has implemented it. I don't know the sharing mechanism, but imagine that it was the cable coax. This would probably be a customer support nightmare for the average cable customer.


I don't know of any cable companies that have implemented it yet. Then even if they have. I am sure that the SA unit will also folow the CCI "Copy Protection" bit and still be back in the same boat your with on a TiVo.

I do beleive TiVo *COULD *add Streaming capability in the future. But it isn't a *CURRENT *feature *YET*.

Streaming is a *SATISFACTORY* work around for *SOME*. However, streaming still doesn't allow for th TTG equivelent etiher.

There are reasons why TiVo hasn't added it as a feature yet. They haven't told us why they haven't yet. But they haven't, Since they haven't their is a reason. I would suspect that the reasons are any combination of these 3... Financial, Legal, Programming issues.

The main point I keep trying to say though... is we can find work arounds for going from TiVo to TiVo. But those are still just work arounds. Still doesn't satisfy some consumers true need of moving &/or copying & TTG capability.

The True & only solution for the CCI bit & Copy Protection is by changing our federal laws.

I personally care more about the TTG capability than Streaming or MRV. Although TTG with TTCB is the same feature as MRV without streaming.

TGC


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

Did anyone make any calls or write any letters yet?

No point defining the problem anymore; time to complain and hope the volume of complaints motivates their targets.

ie...



sinanju said:


> I managed to get Comcast to set CCI=0x00 on all channels except premium, PPV, and VOD in my area a couple of years ago. I wrote a polite, professionally-worded email to the chairman of my local cable franchise authority explaining what the CCI byte was, how it affected my fair use of the content. I used Cable in the Classroom as an example of how Comcasts policy not only assumed the provider wanted their content protected, it often ran directly counter to it.
> 
> I pointed out that CiC allowed teachers to make video tapes for use in the classroom and DVDs were the equivalent in digital world. It was no more reasonable to ask the teacher to carry their TiVo into the classroom than it was to ask them to carry their VCRs when tapes and DVDs were available. I concluded by pointing out that the analog world and VCRs were about to die and, if Comcast maintained their policy, CiC would effectively die with it.
> 
> ...


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Here are the people I have written to about this issue:

1. My congressmen

2. My Senators

3. Local Cable office

4. Time Warner Cable HQ

5. Texas Corporation commission

6. Texas Governor

7. Texas State House congressmen

8. Texas state Senators

I have not yet written to the Cable in Classroom people yet. Although since you can record just about anything directly to VHS tape &/or DVD stll. I am sure they aren't to concerned. As at least here in Texas there aren't any schools using TiVo's yet.

My wife is a Teacher here in Texas. They receive cable directly into the classroom. They use a DVD recorder to record any shows they want/need for later use. Then the DVD is passed around accordingly.

Although I am going to contact them to see just what their thoughts are about this issue.

TGC


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> It is possible that some of them could stream. Although streaming doesn't allow for the TTG equivelent either. I also beleive the Copy Never flag also prevents streaming as well.
> 
> The problem with a HTPC though is it isn't still considered a CE device for the average home user yet.
> 
> TGC


I'm pretty sure I've read in more then one place that they CAN stream.

Totally correct that doesn't give you TTG- but MRV is way my important TO ME (obviosuly everone will feel differently).

based on the fact they CAN stream and the various other instances of how the content providers some how treat streaming as different from a copy- i'm basically certain that streaming is NOT banned at all by the copy once of copy no more flags that we are talking about. Copy never permits 90 minute pause only and is only permitted for PPV.

Completely agree that an HTPC is NOT a user friendly CE device. But point is overtime though the difference between streaming and copying will be more of an issue and tivo will need to get going with streaming.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> ...
> I have not yet written to the Cable in Classroom people yet. Although since you can record just about anything directly to VHS tape &/or DVD stll. I am sure they aren't to concerned. As at least here in Texas there aren't any schools using TiVo's yet.
> 
> My wife is a Teacher here in Texas. They receive cable directly into the classroom. They use a DVD recorder to record any shows they want/need for later use. Then the DVD is passed around accordingly.
> ...


just an aside- there was an article in the paper the other day that the last blank VHS tape was recently sold. Apparently they havne't been made or marketed in years. Some guy bought up all he could find and was distributing them- he ran out and the party is officially over.

but that is a very interesting point- although the CCI flags seem to have the abiluty to force macrovision to close down analog outputs I haven't seen any mention anyplace of blocking analog- it's just these digital copies that seems to make the cable people panic.

What's funny is a high quality analog source to a dvd recorder can frequently be better then some of the crap that comes over on SD digitial channels.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> just an aside- there was an article in the paper the other day that the last blank VHS tape was recently sold. Apparently they havne't been made or marketed in years. Some guy bought up all he could find and was distributing them- he ran out and the party is officially over.
> 
> but that is a very interesting point- although the CCI flags seem to have the abiluty to force macrovision to close down analog outputs I haven't seen any mention anyplace of blocking analog- it's just these digital copies that seems to make the cable people panic.
> 
> What's funny is a high quality analog source to a dvd recorder can frequently be better then some of the crap that comes over on SD digitial channels.


Absolutely.

What gets me even more is that now it seems *ALL* channels and TV shows have that stupid bothersome *WATERMARK* in the bottom right corner. Some channels/shows are even more obtrusive than others. CW is the WORST at this. (IMHO). Not like we will ever forget where we recorded the show in the first place.

I haven't used my VCR in years and still have 2 cases of TDK S-VHS tapes that still haven't been used. I guess I need to get them on EBAY! LOL

TGC


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

TexasGrillChef said:


> [...]As at least here in Texas there aren't any schools using TiVo's yet.
> 
> They receive cable directly into the classroom. They use a DVD recorder to record any shows they want/need for later use. Then the DVD is passed around accordingly.


So?

Why let extraneous facts get in the way of a good argument? If your wife caught a classroom-worthy show at home on the TiVo and not at school, why should arbitrary whims of the cable company prevent her from enlightening her class?

I presented my approach here because it is one that actually worked with Comcast.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

sinanju said:


> So?
> 
> Why let extraneous facts get in the way of a good argument? If your wife caught a classroom-worthy show at home on the TiVo and not at school, why should arbitrary whims of the cable company prevent her from enlightening her class?
> 
> I presented my approach here because it is one that actually worked with Comcast.


And more to the point it is proof that in at least some instances the cable companies were blocking the intent of some of the cable networks. As pointed out in the other thread advertising is expensive and the network makes money off of it. Yet they went to the trouble and expense of periodically airing a portion of their broadcast day without commercials specifically so they could be recorded and used for educational purposes. They probably get a tax write off or some such because of it but... at least for the hours they are doing Cable In the Classroom they intend and promote for teachers to record the shows. In fact I can recall at least one station (TechTV) that advertised it as making it easier for the teachers to record. That implies (to me at least) that they didn't mind if you did it the hard way and edit out the commercials anytime or at least record with the commercials.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

sinanju said:


> So?
> 
> Why let extraneous facts get in the way of a good argument? If your wife caught a classroom-worthy show at home on the TiVo and not at school, why should arbitrary whims of the cable company prevent her from enlightening her class?
> 
> I presented my approach here because it is one that actually worked with Comcast.


Never said it wasn't a good argument. I agree almost any argument we can use to get them to change laws/policies about the CCI bit we should use. Just was pointing out why certain entities might not yet realize the potential of such use.

I like the concept of Cable in the Classroom. In our area, TWC has the Copy protection bit on Sci-Fi, HDNET, & BBCAmerica. All three of those have shows on them that can be used in the classroom.

TGC


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Maybe we can start pushing the networks that have CIC and are being protected on local cable systems to have them ask the cable companies to remove the flag. Use the argument that they are the ones promoting this wonderful educational experience and the local cable companies are ruining their campaign.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

MichaelK said:


> just an aside- there was an article in the paper the other day that the last blank VHS tape was recently sold. Apparently they havne't been made or marketed in years. Some guy bought up all he could find and was distributing them- he ran out and the party is officially over.
> 
> but that is a very interesting point- although the CCI flags seem to have the abiluty to force macrovision to close down analog outputs I haven't seen any mention anyplace of blocking analog- it's just these digital copies that seems to make the cable people panic.
> 
> What's funny is a high quality analog source to a dvd recorder can frequently be better then some of the crap that comes over on SD digitial channels.


Looking one step further down the road at this, the cable co also controls the _bit rate_. The next step after changing the flag rules could be that the Cable Co cuts your bit rate in half. Or the channel does the same...

HDNET for one says they want flag set to copy freely. That's two pretty decent channels of HD content right there. Pushing HDNET to press the cable cos now, and further in their future contract negotiations would be worthwhile.


----------



## jmoak (Jun 20, 2000)

What's a road warrior to do if he wants to watch what he wants _where_ he wants?

In this provider-centric environment, the only alternative is to don an eye patch and buy a parrot.

It's either that or pay for the programming two or three times over.

_Hoist the Colors! Arrr, matey!_


----------



## muerte33 (Jul 4, 2008)

Tivo needs to implement streaming ASAP, and optionally later a move function.
This seems to be all perfectly legal, and pretty easy to implement.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

jmoak said:


> What's a road warrior to do if he wants to watch what he wants _where_ he wants?
> 
> In this provider-centric environment, the only alternative is to don an eye patch and buy a parrot.
> 
> ...


I beleive you summed it up exactly- they want you to pay 2 or 3 times for the same show.

and as you point out- all it does is get the honest people to take the time to learn about the jolly roger. I beleive I read there's some outfit making a device to copy HDMI already- so it's all pretty stupid at this point- the professional pirates that this is all supposed to be about already won.

So the next step in the story is maybe it ISNT really about the professional pirates at all but rather fircing us to pay 2 or 3 times for the same item....

and now that apple has finally slayed the audio copy protection stupidity- hasn't the audio industry proven that this whole excersize is stupid?


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

berkshires said:


> HDNET for one says they want flag set to copy freely. That's two pretty decent channels of HD content right there. Pushing HDNET to press the cable cos now, and further in their future contract negotiations would be worthwhile.


HDNET/HDNET Movies would *PREFER* that the Cable Companies have the "Copy Freely" bit set, or in other words no copy protection bit used. However, as told by Mark Cuban, one of several owners of HDNET/HDNET movies their contracts do specifically *ALLOW *cable companies to set the CCI bit as they choose.

In future contracts dealings, they will start looking at changing that point in their contracts. TWC Dallas area contract with HDNET/HDNET movies doesn't expire for 3 more years. So at least for the next 3 years, TWC Dallas has the contractual right to set the CCI bit as they choose.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

jmoak said:


> What's a road warrior to do if he wants to watch what he wants _where_ he wants?
> 
> In this provider-centric environment, the only alternative is to don an eye patch and buy a parrot.
> 
> ...


Well if your a road warrior such as I am. The Slingbox is a great answer for being able to watch your TiVo anywhere that you have access to the internet. Only drawback to that solution, is if you don't have internet access!

TGC


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

skaggs said:


> When I attempt to file a complaint through the FCC, I am taken through a set of multiple choice questions where there are no answers that allow you to file a complaint concerning cable companies unfair practices.


It has been my experience with the FCC over the years that a concise, accurate, and professionally written business letter is a very effective means to involve the FCC in matters of this type. Don't waste your time with an email, however; they are practically non-responsive to email.

Year ago I once major problems with North DeKalb cable in Atlanta that the cable company would not address through normal channels. They had severe signal ingress and re-radiation in the aircraft frequency band and this was right next to DeKalb Peachtree airport. A letter to the FCC on this matter, and the cable company was all over the place fixing things. That got their attention.

Of course, your milage may vary, but again I have found the FCC very responsive to actual physical letters in the mail.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

One of the things also to do with this is offer reasonable alternative rules to the existing one.

For example, moving the default right to set the flag to the channel from the cable co, thus allowing content providers/owners the right to protect their content while not allowing cable co to overprotect.

Or getting a differentiation between MRV and TTG. MRV might be more open than TTG since it is secure within the home and tivo devices.

Note: CCI 5&6 are currently undefined; CCI 1&2 are treated the same by TiVo and perhaps could be modified in their meaning to something more practical.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

mrdbdigital said:


> It has been my experience with the FCC over the years that a concise, accurate, and professionally written business letter is a very effective means to involve the FCC in matters of this type. Don't waste your time with an email, however; they are practically non-responsive to email.
> 
> Year ago I once major problems with North DeKalb cable in Atlanta that the cable company would not address through normal channels. They had severe signal ingress and re-radiation in the aircraft frequency band and this was right next to DeKalb Peachtree airport. A letter to the FCC on this matter, and the cable company was all over the place fixing things. That got their attention.
> 
> Of course, your milage may vary, but again I have found the FCC very responsive to actual physical letters in the mail.


I have to say, in regards to this, I agree 100%. I have seen this happen before. When their are violations of FCC laws, rules & regulations, A Snail mail letter to the FCC will usually get some type of results.

The problem with the CCI bit, is that they will only take action should the cable company be violating a current FCC rule, law or regulation in regards to the CCI bit. Currently except in rare cases, Cable companies haven't been breaking any rules, laws or regulations in regards to the CCI bit. Thus the FCC won't & hasn't take any action.

Cable Companies may *LEGALLY* put "Copy once" CCI bit on *ALL* channels *EXCEPT* re-broadcast locals (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc..). PPV, VOD channels allow for the Copy Never flag, & channels such as HBO/Showtime allow for the Copy once flag.

The FCC *can't* change the rules or laws regarding the use of the CCI flag. It *REQUIRES* an *ACT* of *CONGRESS!*

Thus, we have to get our congressmen & senators to change the law.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

berkshires said:


> One of the things also to do with this is offer reasonable alternative rules to the existing one.
> 
> For example, moving the default right to set the flag to the channel from the cable co, thus allowing content providers/owners the right to protect their content while not allowing cable co to overprotect.
> 
> ...


This would be of some improvement, as some Cable Network stations would prefer not to have the CCI bit set. HDNET/HDNET Movies would be one of these networks that woudn't impose the CCI bit. Problem is channels such as _BBC AMERICA_, & _SCI-FI_ *WOULD* in fact make use of the CCI Copy Protection bit. As well as many other channels.

We could end up exactly where we are now with most of the networks enabling the Copy once flag.

Now I do agree changing the rules & making use of CCI bit 5 & 6 could in fact allow MRV capability between TiVo's/DVR's on the same network/subnet.

As far as TTG there are even ways around that now with many companies coming out with "Slingbox" clones as well, In addition to the fact that wireless cellular internet available everywhere including in vehicles.

Maybe even a CCI bit could be set to allow TTG for backup purposes. Such as I would be allowed to move it off the TiVo and onto my NAS. Though it wouldn't be able to be played until I copied it back to a TIVO on the same network that it was originally recorded on.

There are options we just need to find them

TGC


----------



## VideoGrabber (Sep 11, 2003)

MichaelK commented:
> _just an aside- there was an article in the paper the other day that the last blank VHS tape was recently sold. Apparently they havne't been made or marketed in years. Some guy bought up all he could find and was distributing them- he ran out and the party is officially over._ <

LOL. What a load of crap! Who's buying this nonsense? You'd better notify Sony, TDK, Maxell and Fuji, because they're still churning them out. Google it, and you'll find at least 20 online sources selling blank tapes that you claim no longer exist. How far ino the future are you gettig your newspapers from? 

Manufacture of _standalone VHS players_ was recently discontinued (JVC was the last holdout), but there are still ~90 million VHS machines in homes (out of the 900 million total sold). So I suspect blank tape will be available for quite some time yet.

If you take the time to re-read that article about Ryan Kugler, you'll find that it's *pre-recorded VHS tapes* with movies that are on their way out. Not blank tapes at all.

- Tim


----------



## VideoGrabber (Sep 11, 2003)

MichaelK wrote:
> _the professional pirates that this is all supposed to be about already won.

So the next step in the story is maybe it ISNT really about the professional pirates at all but rather fircing us to pay 2 or 3 times for the same item...._ <

Bingo! CP isn't about professional pirates, and never has been. They've always had both the means and the incentive to circumvent any CP mechanism.

But you missed the bulletin... the industry redefined a "pirate" several years ago. Since then it's meant anyone making a copy of a missed episode for their brother, a backup copy in case of damage, or a transfer into another format for place-shifted viewing. Those are the "pirates" that the industry currently seeks to squash. They used to be called "customers".

Forcing you to pay for the same thing 2 or 3 times would be good. But the ultimate goal will be to make you pay for it every time you watch it. Anything less is just "leaving money on the table" as they say in the industry. They've realized though that this isn't something they can just slam the door on (people have a lifetime of expectations, and wouldn't sit still for it)... it will take some time. The imposition of DRM will be a gradual process, starting with inconvenience and some limitations on the "rights" you have to material you purchase. Eventually though, your "rights" will become less and less, until you have none left.

Until then, the CCI bits should be set properly. As you can see evidenced already, if a DRM mechanism imposes improper limitations and excessive restrictions on content, nobody in the delivery chain gives a [email protected]

- Tim


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> I have to say, in regards to this, I agree 100%. I have seen this happen before. When their are violations of FCC laws, rules & regulations, A Snail mail letter to the FCC will usually get some type of results.
> 
> The problem with the CCI bit, is that they will only take action should the cable company be violating a current FCC rule, law or regulation in regards to the CCI bit. Currently except in rare cases, Cable companies haven't been breaking any rules, laws or regulations in regards to the CCI bit. Thus the FCC won't & hasn't take any action.
> 
> Cable Companies may *LEGALLY* put "Copy once" CCI bit on *ALL* channels *EXCEPT* re-broadcast locals (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc..). PPV, VOD channels allow for the Copy Never flag, & channels such as HBO/Showtime allow for the Copy once flag.


An exception to the exception (this is what TW Albany is doing):

re-broadcast locals that are digitally simulcast CAN be set to copy once.

Our locals (analog) are:
6, 8, 10, 13, 11, 15 (more or less)

Their HD equivalents are:
1806, 1808, 1810, 1813, 1811, and 1815

TW Albany set ALL of those to copy once.

After I called and complained, about a week later they set ONLY the HD Locals to CCI Byte copy freely. The others (local analog re-broadcast) are still set to copy once.

The reasoning (although TW never got back to me--surprise-- on this):

Those local "analog" signals are actually being digitally simulcast at TW Albany ONLY for cable card users (so if you look, they're not RF, but QAM), and therefore, they CAN (someone had pointed out the FCC language that actually allows for this) and ARE setting the byte to copy once (and that one copy is sitting on your Tivo).

I filed a complaint to the FCC regarding that and 3 months later got an email with a 2-page PDF that had something to do with cable card compatibility with televisions, so apparently the FCC thinks everything's resolved.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

berkshires said:


> One of the things also to do with this is offer reasonable alternative rules to the existing one.
> 
> For example, moving the default right to set the flag to the channel from the cable co, thus allowing content providers/owners the right to protect their content while not allowing cable co to overprotect.
> 
> ...


it makes no sense to me that cable company's get involved. It's my understanding if the channel owners added the CCI flag on their end that all the headend equipment knows to pass it along. I dont know why the channels do anything via contract- if hbo wants CCI 0x02 then why dont they just apply it at their uplink and be done with it so the whole country is covered? anyone understand this?

anyway- 01, and 02 being treated the same "by tivo" seems to be a decision by tivo as near as I can tell.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

VideoGrabber said:


> MichaelK commented:
> > _just an aside- there was an article in the paper the other day that the last blank VHS tape was recently sold. Apparently they havne't been made or marketed in years. Some guy bought up all he could find and was distributing them- he ran out and the party is officially over._ <
> 
> LOL. What a load of crap! Who's buying this nonsense? You'd better notify Sony, TDK, Maxell and Fuji, because they're still churning them out. Google it, and you'll find at least 20 online sources selling blank tapes that you claim no longer exist. How far ino the future are you gettig your newspapers from?
> ...




oopps sorry- spotty memory strikes again


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

m_jonis said:


> .... setting the byte to copy once (and that one copy is sitting on your Tivo).
> ....


I still dont "KNOW" that is the case- why then does 01 and 02 get the same treatment? If copy once means a copy is on the tivo then copy no more would need to mean tivo CANT make a copy on the box.

Since tivo treats both those flags the same- the logic SEEMS to follow that the recording on the tivo isn't a copy?

its an 'un-copy copy'


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

TiVo's website doesn't explain the difference between 1&2 very well. I forget the precise definitions myself.

I think the CCI flag rule is one of those things where there just weren't people with interest to speak up at the time to raise the warning flags. TCF is the obvious place to have debated it, but also there really weren't any consumers with equipment that would be affected by this at the time the rules were defined.

Like many things, the reaction comes after the fact when it hits you in the face.


----------



## Raygun (Aug 8, 2008)

I still run a PC from the Evil Empire (Media Center 2005) and use 2 cable boxes connected to 2 tuner cards with S-video. The only shows I can not view on other devices, convert, copy and edit are those from Premium channels, (HBO STARZ etc.) However the only HD content I can get are the locals from my SiliconDust tuner.

I noticed some of the kid shows I would save off, edit and convert to DIVX I am not allowed on the Tivo, but MCE has no problem.

I got the Tivo for HD content and then got screwed by SDV and now that I have a TA, life is good. The TA should be called the T&A adapter, because it is almost as good. ( I don't mean Test & Adjust)

I started with Tivo, then MCE and now back to Tivo, but it looks like I will have to keep both for the time being.

Now if I there was only and auto commercial skip function like MCE, I've gotten kind of lazy in my old age to push the 30 sec skip.
My 4 year old is so spoiled he glares at you if he has to watch a commercial.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

VideoGrabber said:


> But you missed the bulletin... the industry redefined a "pirate" several years ago. Since then it's meant anyone making a copy of a missed episode for their brother, a backup copy in case of damage, or a transfer into another format for place-shifted viewing. Those are the "pirates" that the industry currently seeks to squash. They used to be called "customers".


The industry being the RIAA and the MPAA. Not the copyright law. Most lawyers still beleive that backup copies of content still falls within the "FAIR USE" clause of the copy right law. Problem is CP/CIC prevents us from even making backup copies.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

The United States of America is a reactonary country. We don't do things till AFTER the fact.

Even 9/11 and everything we have done since was "After the Fact". Clinton knew 9/11 was going to happen but was to busy with Monica to do anything about it.

Suffice it to say... Now that the banking industry is failing, the American Auto industry is failing. I am sure the Movie/Music busy will be following soon enough once CP and DRM have come to the point we all pirate just to get our rights.

I mentioned in another thread & on another forum. Warner Brothers *PULLED *two shows _"The Mentalist"_ and _"The Eleventh Hour"_ from CBS.com because they no longer wanted viewers to watch full length episodes online. Even though they made you watch the commercials when you did so. As a result many people on that forum have openly suggested where you could obtain *PIRATED* copies of those shows to watch.

They gave CBS & Warner Brothers an Ultimatum. Simply provide us with legal copies to watch online, or we would openly support Pirating the show.

*There are only two ways to truly fight this. (IMHO). Write your congressmen/Senators & open Cival disobediance & Pirate!. No difference than the "Boston Tea Party". It's the AMERICAN WAY!*

TGC


----------



## jcaudle (Aug 16, 2004)

What doesn't make sense in this CCI flag issue with our local provider is that if you record a show on HGTV digital channel you can use MRV with most of them. Take that same show on HGTV HD, and it will have the CCI bit set. That is true with Cox Northern Virginia on all most all the HD channels that you can only get with the tuning adapter. Cable channels such as TNT Hd that have been availabile before SDV still allow transfers. Showtime allows it, HBO doesn't. Most of these flags are set by Cox, not the channels themselves....otherwise non HD versions would be flagged also. Cox wants you to use their POS Scientific Atlanta Dvr.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> Year ago I once major problems with North DeKalb cable in Atlanta that the cable company would not address through normal channels. They had severe signal ingress and re-radiation in the aircraft frequency band and this was right next to DeKalb Peachtree airport. A letter to the FCC on this matter, and the cable company was all over the place fixing things. That got their attention.


That's a different matter. FCC regulations are extremely strict concerning signal egress, particularly in aviation bands. The FCC has on several occasions shut down CATV operations cold when violations of fly-over and streetside RF egress specifications were not rectified in very short order. The setting of the CC byte is a horse of a completely different color. No aircraft are in jeopardy of falling out oft he sky, and FCC regs specifically allow the CATV provider to set the CC byte if they choose. One situation involves an extremely illegal circumstance, the other is perfectly legal. One only requires the FCC to do its job as required by law. The other would require the FCC to re-write their regulations. Now if the CC byte were being set on local broadcast stations, the FCC would be down on them like a duck on a June bug.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> The United States of America is a reactonary country. We don't do things till AFTER the fact.


I think you need to look up the term "reactionary".



TexasGrillChef said:


> Even 9/11 and everything we have done since was "After the Fact". Clinton knew 9/11 was going to happen but was to busy with Monica to do anything about it.


Don't just blame Clinton. Only a moron would believe that having attacked the WTC once and failed, they would not attempt it again. Yet everyone seemed to be surprised when the towers were attacked the second time, as if it were a novel idea. The only thing which surprised me is how long it took them to try again. Using an aircraft to attack the towers is also an obvious method. The only other thing which I didn't anticipate is they chose to use regularly scheduled passenger aircraft. I would have used a private charter or a personal aircraft. Admittedly, a small aircraft loaded with dynamite or ANFO might not have been as effective as a 747, as it turns out.

More importantly, virtually nothing we have done since the 9/11 attack has any real effect on terrorism. Anyone who can use a torch can easily blow up a public building or derail a subway, and anyone with a stinger missile can easily bring down an airliner.



TexasGrillChef said:


> *There are only two ways to truly fight this. (IMHO). Write your congressmen/Senators*


*
You're kidding, right? In the 1950s I think it was, while the house was in session, the Speaker of the House of Representatives formally recognized one of the representatives from Pennsylvania as "The Representative from Standard Oil." The recognized congressman didn't even bother to object. Today a more accurate title would be "Representatives from the MPAA." I doubt if there are ten senators or congressmen who haven't been bought lock, stock, and barrel by the MPAA and the RIAA.*


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Don't just blame Clinton. Only a moron would believe that having attacked the WTC once and failed, they would not attempt it again. Yet everyone seemed to be surprised when the towers were attacked the second time, as if it were a novel idea. The only thing which surprised me is how long it took them to try again. Using an aircraft to attack the towers is also an obvious method. The only other thing which I didn't anticipate is they chose to use regularly scheduled passenger aircraft. I would have used a private charter or a personal aircraft. Admittedly, a small aircraft loaded with dynamite or ANFO might not have been as effective as a 747, as it turns out..


Not going to get into a debate itself about clinton, 9/11 and the war. However, neither of the 2 jets that hit the WTC or the single jet that hit the Pentagon (Please don't forget that 9/11 included the Pentagon) were 747's. Although you are correct. A gulfstream with C4 would not have had the same impact (pardon the pun) as a commercial jetliner.



lrhorer said:


> More importantly, virtually nothing we have done since the 9/11 attack has any real effect on terrorism. Anyone who can use a torch can easily blow up a public building or derail a subway, and anyone with a stinger missile can easily bring down an airliner..


Again not going to get into a debate about this, at least not in the TiVo forums. I do agree. That anyone, anytime can use just about anything found on the open market & create a terrorist style attack. We saw that on 9/11 with a simple box cutter & a jetliner. I do beleive that we have done things differently since 9/11 to hopefully PREVENT another attack by catching those &/or making it more difficult for them to succeed. I do beleive though, another 9/11 will happen before Obama leaves his presidency. JMO



lrhorer said:


> You're kidding, right? In the 1950s I think it was, while the house was in session, the Speaker of the House of Representatives formally recognized one of the representatives from Pennsylvania as "The Representative from Standard Oil." The recognized congressman didn't even bother to object. Today a more accurate title would be "Representatives from the MPAA." I doubt if there are ten senators or congressmen who haven't been bought lock, stock, and barrel by the MPAA and the RIAA.


Actually not so much Reps of the MPAA/RIAA as much as the WTO, of which the MPAA & RIAA have a huge influence in as well. Sometimes congress does act to help us the consumers. Guess when they feel their jobs are at stake! LOL

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

After talking with a friend of mine today that works for TWC in management. He informed me of one aspect that has a HUGE influence with cable companies.

One thing they look at on a daily basis is the ratio of those *DROPPING* cable service to the number of *NEW* cable subscribers.

Or in other words... on January 18th, 2009 how many disconnects did they have in relation to new hook ups. Disconnects for failure to pay your bill isn't included in that stat, only those customers who wanted to cancel service.

There are days when disconnects are greater than new service hook ups.

Now this (boycott) would be very hard to acomplish. Because the number of cable subscribers in an area needed to gain their attention would be very hard to manage.

One idea is this... if 25% of the subscriber base called in on one day and requested that their service be disconnected on a the SAME day (2 weeks from the day they called in). A subscriber could call in 24 hours before service is disconnected and cancel the disconnect order. But it would garnish the attention of the local office. Especially if the reason for disconnect was because of their policy on the use of the CCI bit.

Now initiating a city wide boycott with enough people to give the cable company a scare requires about 25% of their subscriber base.

For Dallas thats about 1 million people. Thus as I said... almost impossible. Although it's a nice thought.

TGC


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> However, neither of the 2 jets that hit the WTC or the single jet that hit the Pentagon (Please don't forget that 9/11 included the Pentagon) were 747's


I thought they were 747s. It doesn't matter, really. When it comes to it, don't forget the people on the fourth aircraft. However, what everyone seems to be ignoring is that only a bit over 3800 people died in those events, while in the time since more than 300,000 Americans have died at the hands of drunk drivers. An insignificant fraction of the amount we have wasted supposedly trying to redress the events of that day could have completely avoided almost all those 300,000 deaths.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Although you are correct. A gulfstream with C4 would not have had the same impact (pardon the pun) as a commercial jetliner.


It still would have been sufficient to the intent of the terrorists. That, plus the fact is the impact of the jets is not mainly what ultimately caused the collapse of the towers. It was principally the fire caused by the jet fuel, and a C4 loaded with jet fuel might have had the same eventual outcome.



TexasGrillChef said:


> I do beleive that we have done things differently since 9/11 to hopefully PREVENT another attack by catching those &/or making it more difficult for them to succeed.


Not on your life. In many ways, we've made it much easier for them. Most of our efforts haven't even gone into catching anyone. By reports, Bin Laden and most of his cohorts are in Pakistan. How many operatives and troops do we have in Pakistan? They certainly were never in Iraq. Hussein had a bounty on Bin Laden's head, and Bin Laden offered to kill Hussein for the Arabs for a price. The Arabs demurred.



TexasGrillChef said:


> I do beleive though, another 9/11 will happen before Obama leaves his presidency. JMO


That's not much of a prediction, assuming he's in the white house four years. It's also not relevant. The 9/11 assault was in some measure the fault of the American public. The 300,000 highway deaths since then are entirely the fault of the American public, and during the next four years there will be another 200,000 deaths for which we are directly responsible. Unless some terrorist manages to build a nuclear weapon - which is not very difficult, actually - it's unlikely all the terrorist attacks around the world will even come close to killing that many people. We could invite the world's terrorists to come and attack us, and they wouldn't be able to do as much damage. That doesn't even talk about the roughly 200,000 Americans who will be murdered by other Americans during those four years, either. 'Not that I wish to trade one person's life for another, but given a choice between another 3000 people dying and 400,000 dying...



TexasGrillChef said:


> Actually not so much Reps of the MPAA/RIAA as much as the WTO, of which the MPAA & RIAA have a huge influence in as well. Sometimes congress does act to help us the consumers. Guess when they feel their jobs are at stake! LOL


Their jobs are virtually never at stake. Any incumbent running for an additional term is almost guaranteed to be elected.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> Today a more accurate title would be "Representatives from the MPAA." I doubt if there are ten senators or congressmen who haven't been bought lock, stock, and barrel by the MPAA and the RIAA.


The _advantage _of that is to get them to move the default right to set the flag to the content owners from the cable co. It is something that makes much more sense all around and easy to grasp on to. It won't create a situation where we can have everything we want, but such a goal isn't practical either.

The first problem with boycott is that .1% of cable customers are affected by this.  However, let me not make light of the fact that cancelations siting the CCI flag as a reason would get notice from the cable co and help the cause.*

* I have not _resumed _cable service in NYC in part because of SDV and CCI. However, my cable co doesn't know about the CCI reason, and the SDV reason no longer exists. How might I let them know?

IOW, *how could numerous OTA only and CableCARD-less TiVoers let their Cable Co know that CCI is a reason they are holding back?*


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> It still would have been sufficient to the intent of the terrorists. That, plus the fact is the impact of the jets is not mainly what ultimately caused the collapse of the towers. It was principally the fire caused by the jet fuel, and a C4 loaded with jet fuel might have had the same eventual outcome.


This is completely OT but is something I know a little about. You are correct that the impact alone of a commercial airliner is NOT enough to bring down a skyscraper it was the intense jet fuel fueled fire that weakened the structure to the point of collapse. HOWEVER, it also turns out that the only planes capable of carrying a large enough amounts fuel load are either military cargo transports and large commercial airliners. Loading a smaller plane (even something like a G-IV wouldn't do it) with explosives also wouldn't work because the amount needed is both too large and too heavy. Aircraft also need to be loaded to keep the center of gravity within narrow margins. If you go too far outside of those margins the plane becomes unflyable.


----------



## MrPaulAR (Jan 2, 2002)

What if there was another way to do it. I don't think anyone is ever going to get the cable operators to change the way they do things to a more open approach...it'll only get more restrictive. I think TiVo will go the same route but nearly as quickly.

Is there any way to modify the CCI as it comes in on the wire. Like maybe where the coax connects to the TiVo (or even better where it enters the house)? Surely this device wouldn't be that hard to come up with.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

MrPaulAR said:


> What if there was another way to do it. I don't think anyone is ever going to get the cable operators to change the way they do things to a more open approach...it'll only get more restrictive. I think TiVo will go the same route but nearly as quickly.
> 
> Is there any way to modify the CCI as it comes in on the wire. Like maybe where the coax connects to the TiVo (or even better where it enters the house)? Surely this device wouldn't be that hard to come up with.


if you dont mind violating the law- sure have at it. Good luck selling that in the open.

That said- I'm not even sure it's possible. THe CCI bits I would guess are encryted inside the streams and only a cablecard would be able to unencrypt those streams. So someone would need to hack the entire system and break into Moto's or Cisco's whole conditional access system.

But back to your first statement- sure there IS another way to do it. RIGHT NOW TODAY. all tivo needs to do is STREAM the content or MOVE the content instead of COPY the content.

I'd imagine they are working on it- and before it becomes a complete nightmare they will get it going. (like they did coming up with cablecard devices before analog tv became second rate, like they did with getting the tuning adapter worked out before SDV killed off the market)


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

berkshires said:


> The first problem with boycott is that .1% of cable customers are affected by this.  However, let me not make light of the fact that cancelations siting the CCI flag as a reason would get notice from the cable co and help the cause.*
> 
> * I have not _resumed _cable service in NYC in part because of SDV and CCI. However, my cable co doesn't know about the CCI reason, and the SDV reason no longer exists. How might I let them know?
> 
> IOW, *how could numerous OTA only and CableCARD-less TiVoers let their Cable Co know that CCI is a reason they are holding back?*


As my friend who works for Time Warner told me. That for the cable company to notice the reason as being significant enough to cause concern would need at least 5% to as much as 10% of their subscriber base to cancel service for the same reason.

As far as letting your cable company know the reason why you cancelled and why you won't be returning just yet because of the CCI bit. Simply write your local office as well as the main office & let them know why. Same thing applies to anyone who doesn't have cable service but interested in service. Simply letting them know why they haven't ordered service.

That might help. Then like my friend said. For it to become an "ISSUE" that the cable company would have to consider would require at least 5% to 10% of their customer base.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MrPaulAR said:


> What if there was another way to do it. I don't think anyone is ever going to get the cable operators to change the way they do things to a more open approach...it'll only get more restrictive. I think TiVo will go the same route but nearly as quickly.
> 
> Is there any way to modify the CCI as it comes in on the wire. Like maybe where the coax connects to the TiVo (or even better where it enters the house)? Surely this device wouldn't be that hard to come up with.


The answer to your question is of course YES. However, imagine what the cost would be. Each one of yoru 200+ channels would have to be scanned on a continuous basis. I am sure this device would more than likely *NOT* be a device affordable by the average consumer.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> if you dont mind violating the law- sure have at it. Good luck selling that in the open.
> 
> That said- I'm not even sure it's possible. THe CCI bits I would guess are encryted inside the streams and only a cablecard would be able to unencrypt those streams. So someone would need to hack the entire system and break into Moto's or Cisco's whole conditional access system.
> 
> ...


Sure Streaming or Moving would be a semi-satisfactory way of solving part of the problems issued by the CCI bit.

*HOWEVER....* it *DOESN'T* solve the problem of TTG.

Yes, there are many TiVo users out there that don't use TTG, Just as there are those that use TTG and don't use MRV. I personally want *BOTH*. As the TiVo is still limited on space. (2tb total) & I like to archive my favorite shows. I have a *18tb* NAS server and its about 50% filled with video. So as you can see, 2TB capability on a TiVo isn't even close enough.

We still need a way to do TTG. Any ideas?

So while I would like to see Streaming & Moving added to the features of a TiVo. I still want to do TTG at least for backup/archiving purposes.

I am a big Dr. Who/Torchwood fan. Because those shows have been "Copy protected" on our BBCAmerica/SciFi channel what I had to do is wait for them to release on DVD. *RENT* them then make Illegal copies. Do I care that they are illegal? *NO*, sure the hell don't. Not when they were on cable in the first place, a service I allready paid for.

I fully support "Cival Disobediance". Just a modern day "Boston Tea Party" is all.

TGC


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

TexasGrillChef said:


> I am a big Dr. Who/Torchwood fan. Because those shows have been "Copy protected" on our BBCAmerica/SciFi channel what I had to do is wait for them to release on DVD. *RENT* them then make Illegal copies. Do I care that they are illegal? *NO*, sure the hell don't. Not when they were on cable in the first place, a service I allready paid for.


Its funny that my TWC system - a branch from Albany - set SCIFI on CableCARD to digital/flagged last year and then a few months later set it back to analog.* I think skaggs, the OP, is Albany area. Finding out the story behind that - and its result which is no more flags - could be helpful in getting something done.

* Several other channels incl. news like CNBC went digital/flagged and back to analog too.

P.S. I also started a thread a couple weeks ago about the technical possibility of putting a split of the cable coax into the ANT input to also receive the remaining unscrammbled analog versions of cable channels while using a CableCARD equipped TiVo. In there I also speculated a bit on what TiVo might have to do to support that configuration.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> ...
> 
> We still need a way to do TTG. Any ideas?
> ...
> TGC


I want a million dollars. 

I just personally think TTG is a lost cause in the current climate.

I think forcing the content owners to stop putting the no copy flag is likely to wind up in a huge legal battle that wouldn't be finished till the supreme court gets to it in 5 years. So best case even if we could persuade the folks in charge to change the current status quo then it's still years and years away.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> I want a million dollars.
> 
> I just personally think TTG is a lost cause in the current climate.
> 
> I think forcing the content owners to stop putting the no copy flag is likely to wind up in a huge legal battle that wouldn't be finished till the supreme court gets to it in 5 years. So best case even if we could persuade the folks in charge to change the current status quo then it's still years and years away.


Unless you are a FiOS customer.

Unless you are a Comcast customer in my area, where I convinced them to make a change.

This has been made more than clear: It has nothing to do with the content owners and everything to do with the cable companies. If TTG is a lost cause for you, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MrPaulAR said:


> What if there was another way to do it.


There is. 'Has been for years, long before the introduction of the S3, although it's undergone some minor revisions with later software releases.



MrPaulAR said:


> I don't think anyone is ever going to get the cable operators to change the way they do things to a more open approach...it'll only get more restrictive.


I think you are right about that. There's really no incentive not to do so. Come up with a good, solid, revenue increasing reason to do so, and they'll latch on to it like an alligator on a chicken. Offhand I can't think of one, however.



MrPaulAR said:


> I think TiVo will go the same route but nearly as quickly.


You lost me with that one.



MrPaulAR said:


> Is there any way to modify the CCI as it comes in on the wire. Like maybe where the coax connects to the TiVo (or even better where it enters the house)?


No, CableCard encryption is rock solid. Trying to modify the CCI byte is the wrong way to approach the problem.



MrPaulAR said:


> Surely this device wouldn't be that hard to come up with.


Surely it would be, but the point is quite moot. CableCard encryption is extremely strong. As I said, it's the wrong approach. There's a vastly easier way. Anyone who knows a good DEAL when they see it can add the methodology to their DATABASE as long as they DOT their "i"s and cross their "t"s just by COMmunicating while trying to SLASH prices in one FORUM or the other.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> The answer to your question is of course YES.


No, it's actually, "No". Trying to crack CableCard encryption is a massive undertaking. 'Far from worth it when vastly simpler methods have been around for nearly a decade.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> *HOWEVER....* it *DOESN'T* solve the problem of TTG.


Think outside the box, or rather inside it.



TexasGrillChef said:


> I have a *18tb* NAS server and its about 50% filled with video. So as you can see, 2TB capability on a TiVo isn't even close enough.


One of these days I'm going to beat your time on this. For now, mine is only 8TB of storage (ten 1T drives in a RAID 6 array). It's also considerably more than half full. Wait until the 2T drives come out...

OTOH, mine isn't NAS. It's a full blown Linux server running TyTool (under Wine), pyTivo, Galleon, SAMBA. NFS, and rsync for backups. I've gotten it to chunk in / out over 480 Mbps in both directions simultaneously. Your turn. (Somebody get a tape measure!)

Now if I can just convince Video Redo to come out with a Linux port...



TexasGrillChef said:


> We still need a way to do TTG. Any ideas?


Yes, although not using TTG.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

berkshires said:


> P.S. I also started a thread a couple weeks ago about the technical possibility of putting a split of the cable coax into the ANT input to also receive the remaining unscrammbled analog versions of cable channels while using a CableCARD equipped TiVo. In there I also speculated a bit on what TiVo might have to do to support that configuration.


No offense, but that's a Rube Goldberg approach. As much as I truly love RG gizwidgets, they are quite impractical for actually getting things done.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I want a million dollars.


To whom do I make out the check? 



MichaelK said:


> I just personally think TTG is a lost cause in the current climate.


Lost causes are the ones most worth fighting. OTOH, it's not much of a lost cause when your opponents are moron... er... lawyers.



MichaelK said:


> I think forcing the content owners to stop putting the no copy flag is likely to wind up in a huge legal battle


It isn't really up to the content owners. The choice is up to the CATV provider.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I want a million dollars.
> 
> I just personally think TTG is a lost cause in the current climate.
> 
> I think forcing the content owners to stop putting the no copy flag is likely to wind up in a huge legal battle that wouldn't be finished till the supreme court gets to it in 5 years. So best case even if we could persuade the folks in charge to change the current status quo then it's still years and years away.


Oh well... back to bootlegs, piracy.... Their loss.. not mine.

Support piracy! 

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> No, it's actually, "No". Trying to crack CableCard encryption is a massive undertaking. 'Far from worth it when vastly simpler methods have been around for nearly a decade.


Well I never said that for this "BOX" that a cablecard wouldn't be required. One could do it with a cablecard device. However, it would be in violation of the cablecard agreement. Once it is unencrypted by the cablecard, the device could remove the CCI bit. OR... even output HDMI WITHOUT HDCP... again probably a violation somewehre... but one could easily just say they sold "BROKEN" units LOL. Either way the device I beleive would be to costly for most home consumers to want to pay anways. Most would just revert to *PIRATED *copies which we are allready doing!

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Think outside the box, or rather inside it.
> 
> One of these days I'm going to beat your time on this. For now, mine is only 8TB of storage (ten 1T drives in a RAID 6 array). Wait until the 2T drives come out...
> 
> ...


Maybe so... then again I can just upgrade my drives to 2TB as well 

I have several older systems that are sitting around not doing to much, that I could install software on & run it as a server as well. I could get one of the promise 18 drive SATA/SAS Raid cards for it as well. They aren't to expensive either. Around $300 for the card. I just honestly haven't wanted to mess around with a full system.

True a full sytem does have some capabilities that a NAS doesn't have. My Nas does have Gigabit ethernet. Yet a NAS also has some capabilites that a full sytem doesn't have either. Ease of setup, and operation. Second, power consumption. NAS also has the advantage of COST being lower. (Not counting cost of drives for either type of system). There are exceptions to the COST rule of course, however in general NAS are lower cost.

I have thought about running a true server again. As I have an older server case sitting around that I haven't used in a couple of years. It holds 32x 3.5" drives + 6x 5.25" drives (CD/DVD), Has 3 HOT swappable 1000 watt power supples 12x 4" fans, and 3x 12" fans. It's loud & it's power hungry. Imagine with 38 drives and a Dual CPU Core I7 motherboard! Yikes!

The speed on my NAS does just for for me now. I can get 4 HD streams running from it at the same time and no "hiccups".

TGC


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Well I never said that for this "BOX" that a cablecard wouldn't be required. One could do it with a cablecard device. However, it would be in violation of the cablecard agreement.


I'm not sure whether or not there is any such agreement. Such a box would not, however, obtain CableLabs approval and licensing. Without that, any retail box is just a boat anchor as far as use in a CATV system is concerned. Regarless, all such agreements, if any, and licensing issues are with the manufacturer, not the consumer.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Once it is unencrypted by the cablecard


Actually, not. The stream is unencrypted by the CableCard, then re-encrypted by the CableCard, then unencrypted by the UDCP and then encrypted yet again by the UDCP before storing to the disk. To my knowledge, no one has ever cracked any of these layers of encryption. It's not necessary however.



TexasGrillChef said:


> the device could remove the CCI bit. OR... even output HDMI WITHOUT HDCP... again probably a violation somewehre... but one could easily just say they sold "BROKEN" units LOL.


If you mean implementing a work-around on boxes slated for retail distribution, you can forget it.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Either way the device I beleive would be to costly for most home consumers to want to pay anways.


Not at all. Circumventing the security measures is not expensive.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Most would just revert to *PIRATED *copies which we are allready doing!TGC


That is illegal.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Maybe so... then again I can just upgrade my drives to 2TB as well






TexasGrillChef said:


> I have several older systems that are sitting around not doing to much, that I could install software on & run it as a server as well.


Yeah, I asked you about one of them. You never answered me.



TexasGrillChef said:


> I just honestly haven't wanted to mess around with a full system.


It's the only way to fly!



TexasGrillChef said:


> Yet a NAS also has some capabilites that a full sytem doesn't have either. Ease of setup, and operation.


I've had a couple of NAS systems, and frankly all things considered I find the Linux server to be easier to manage. First of all, at least with the NAS units I tried, keeping the software working on the workstations was problematical, so setup and operation are easier with the server. Once done (and with Debian Lenny it's quite easy), all the access to the server is native to the workstations, whatever their OS.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Second, power consumption.


Well, yeah, except the major power hog is the drives.



TexasGrillChef said:


> NAS also has the advantage of COST being lower. (Not counting cost of drives for either type of system). There are exceptions to the COST rule of course, however in general NAS are lower cost.


Compared to the cost of 10 - 20 drives and an enclosure for them, the cost of the NAS or CPU assembly is just about zilch.



TexasGrillChef said:


> As I have an older server case sitting around that I haven't used in a couple of years. It holds 32x 3.5" drives + 6x 5.25" drives (CD/DVD), Has 3 HOT swappable 1000 watt power supples 12x 4" fans, and 3x 12" fans. It's loud & it's power hungry. Imagine with 38 drives and a Dual CPU Core I7 motherboard! Yikes!


I got a good deal on a pair of Antec 4 RU rackmount cases, and I got a couple of Austek motherboards with AMD Athlon 64 x 2 CPUs. The backup server has a plain vanilla board and a low end CPU with 1G of 400MHz memory. The RAID server has a Crosshair II Formula board with a 4 GHz CPU and 8G of 1024 MHz RAM. I got a 12 drive SATA enclosure from PC Pitstop to hold the RAID drives.



TexasGrillChef said:


> The speed on my NAS does just for for me now. I can get 4 HD streams running from it at the same time and no "hiccups".


Hypothetically, I can get more than 20 HD streams going. I've never tried. I can and have transferred the entire contents of the RAID array to the backup server in about a day and a half, though. The 04:00 rsync job only takes a few minutes, usually. There's no noticeable slow-up of pyTiVo transfers during the rsync or while Video Redo sessions are writing 2 or 3 HD streams to the array at about 60 Mbps each.










I'm happy.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> No offense, but that's a Rube Goldberg approach. As much as I truly love RG gizwidgets, they are quite impractical for actually getting things done.


It would be just a matter of a splitter and running Guided Setup. Nothing the average Joe isn't doing already. We already have ant vs. cable to deal with, so replace that with analog cable vs cableCARD cable and the user's thinking process is no more complex.


----------



## skaggs (Feb 13, 2003)

berkshires said:


> I also started a thread a couple weeks ago about the technical possibility of putting a split of the cable coax into the ANT input to also receive the remaining unscrammbled analog versions of cable channels while using a CableCARD equipped TiVo. In there I also speculated a bit on what TiVo might have to do to support that configuration.


I essentially did this, but by re-activating the Series2 unit that I replaced when I purchased a TiVoHD. I did this simply to be able to TTG all programs. This Series 2 unit is not even hooked up to a TV...just coax (in), ethernet, and power. I can also MRV any of the programs from this Series 2 to either of my two TiVoHD units.

Also, the Series2 will accept the output from a cable box (TiVoHD & Series will not), so I could get all the premium channels I subscribe to and be able to TTG and MRV these premium programs..


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

skaggs said:


> I essentially did this, but by re-activating the Series2 unit that I replaced when I purchased a TiVoHD. I did this simply to be able to TTG all programs. This Series 2 unit is not even hooked up to a TV...just coax (in), ethernet, and power. I can also MRV any of the programs from this Series 2 to either of my two TiVoHD units.
> 
> Also, the Series2 will accept the output from a cable box (TiVoHD & Series will not), so I could get all the premium channels I subscribe to and be able to TTG and MRV these premium programs..


I'm still running 3 140/240s exactly to get "straight coax" and output form cable box - free of such restrictions - just like you are.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

sinanju said:


> Unless you are a FiOS customer.
> 
> Unless you are a Comcast customer in my area, where I convinced them to make a change.
> 
> This has been made more than clear: It has nothing to do with the content owners and everything to do with the cable companies. If TTG is a lost cause for you, you're doing it wrong.


unfortunately that is NOT clear-

there are numerous reports that HBO and the other pay tv channels are putting the requirment in their contracts.

At some point they will also figure out that they can just add the flags at their uplinks and everything downstream will respect it.

So while i completely agree much of it is caused by idiotic system operators currently I dont think that they are the only problem.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> That is illegal.


Ummmm So was the Boston Tea Party & the signing of the Declaration of Independance...

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

berkshires said:


> I'm still running 3 140/240s exactly to get "straight coax" and output form cable box - free of such restrictions - just like you are.


The only problem with this approach is that NO HD. While SD might be fine for you. It isn't for me.

I want my HD!  I didn't spend a huge chunk of money on a HDTV to watch SD content!

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Yeah, I asked you about one of them. You never answered me.


My Apologies. I must have missed that question. Would you be so kind to refresh my memory?



lrhorer said:


> It's the only way to fly!


My arms still get tired. 



lrhorer said:


> I'm happy.


Hey, thats what life is all about... being Happy. We both have different needs and desires. Whats easy for you maybe hard for me, and whats easy for me maybe hard for you.

All things considered, I must admit you do have a nice system there.

TGC


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> unfortunately that is NOT clear-
> 
> there are numerous reports that HBO and the other pay tv channels are putting the requirment in their contracts.
> 
> ...


In the Comcast Digital Classic lineup -- more than 200 channels -- there is exactly 1 content provider that insists on CCI=0x02.

The _*overwhelming*_ issue is cable companies, not the providers.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

sinanju said:


> In the Comcast Digital Classic lineup -- more than 200 channels -- there is exactly 1 content provider that insists on CCI=0x02.
> 
> The _*overwhelming*_ issue is cable companies, not the providers.


totally agreed- for NOW

give it time and see how many more get tagged...

I'm curious exactly what a provider (or more likley head end engineer )with a braing is doing- so can you provide more specifics please.

Not sure what is in digital classic- but i assume there's no "pay channels" in there? What about your RSN(s)?

and how many channels does that "one" provider have?

And are they HD channels or SD or both that were tagged?

Also- FYI- I'm on comcast too- I think all of 50 miles north of you if I recall correctly and you are down by philly? (I'm in flemington).

I have a similar 100-200 digital non-pay channels and last I checked TWO of the 200ish channels were NOT tagged (I'm assuming by accident they weren't set that way)
(_just checked to see if anything changed with a random sampling of SD like nogging, hd like discovery HD, pay HD like HBO, and pay SD - HBO again and it's all still the same._


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

TexasGrillChef said:


> The only problem with this approach is that NO HD. While SD might be fine for you. It isn't for me.
> 
> I want my HD!  I didn't spend a huge chunk of money on a HDTV to watch SD content!
> 
> TGC


Its not the only problem. It costs money and takes lots of time to maintain.

Analog encoding through S-video/RF is not fine for me. It is simply the only thing available to me for now.


----------



## tjcrowe (Feb 5, 2009)

You guys are barking up the wrong tree.

None of this is the cable co.'s fault. I understand that may be hard to get your head around, but here's the facts:

1) there is a complex chain of title to all produced works, and the rights granted in those contracts do not including the right to copy. Mark Cuban may tell you over coffee or whatever how much he'd love to grant a cable company the right to set the flags as Copy Freely, but he'd be in breach of agreements he's signed with the folks who actually made the content (for him, on spec, or for others). For original programming that he actually went out and made, he may be able to assert Copy Freely downstream, provided he's got that in the production agreements, but there is no way for "most" head ends to support variable CCI states in that manner (i.e go in RT from Copy once to copy freely and back). The agreements he and every other cable network are under, and therefore the agreements the cable company inherits, require CCI setting to the maximum state required by law. Sorry.

2) If TiVo's implementation of TTG wasn't so lazy (i.e supported "MOVE", which is in the Plug and Play Regs. as "Copy Once") and didn't just create a new digital copy of the bits (hence "Copy Twice"), this argument wouldn't come up.

Talk to Tivo. Stop being idiots. You're not going to change the law. 

And btw, while you're talking about illegal copying and how you don't care, perhaps you could consider that HOLLYWOOD, CABLE NETS AND THE ENTIRE US ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY is the second largest net export positive business we have (after aerospace). 

All that CE stuff you've got in your home entertainment system - made in China, Korea and Japan. 

How about contributing to an American industry that keeps jobs at home (even the poor Cable Co. guys) for a frigging second??

Peace.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

If those assertions were remotely accurate, I would have some agreement with you.


----------



## tjcrowe (Feb 5, 2009)

berkshires said:


> If those assertions were remotely accurate, I would have some agreement with you.


Interesting. Care to back that uup with any specifics??


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

tjcrowe said:


> Interesting. Care to back that uup with any specifics??


Your assertion fails to account for FiOS sending everything as copy freely. It also fails to account for me being able to get Comcast, in my area, to send 0x00 on all channels but Encore Movieplex, the one channel in the Digital Classic lineup that requests it. Your statement (emphasis mine)...



> The agreements he and every other cable network are under, and therefore the agreements the cable company inherits, require CCI setting to the maximum state required by law. Sorry.


... is simply absurd. I'll point out that the FiOS realignment was relatively recently negotiated... if 0x02 was really part of the deal these days, the FiOS landscape would be very different.


----------



## tjcrowe (Feb 5, 2009)

sinanju said:


> Your assertion fails to account for FiOS sending everything as copy freely. It also fails to account for me being able to get Comcast, in my area, to send 0x00 on all channels but Encore Movieplex, the one channel in the Digital Classic lineup that requests it. Your statement (emphasis mine)...
> 
> ... is simply absurd. I'll point out that the FiOS realignment was relatively recently negotiated... if 0x02 was really part of the deal these days, the FiOS landscape would be very different.


SO:

1) I doubt very much that VZ is sending out "everything" as Copy Freely. I'm not sure what "realignment" you're talking about. Subpart W is pretty clear.

2) Comcast's decision will likely be re-visited.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

tjcrowe said:


> SO:
> 
> 1) I doubt very much that VZ is sending out "everything" as Copy Freely. I'm not sure what "realignment" you're talking about. Subpart W is pretty clear.
> 
> 2) Comcast's decision will likely be re-visited.



The fact that Verizon is sending everything as copy freely is well documented. The "realignment" was the recent rollout of new HD channels and the shutdown of analog completed near the end of last year.
I anticipated the problem with Comcast and TTG and sought the change before the S3 even had TTG functionality. Comcast's decision has stood for years.

You, sir, are an uninformed ass.


----------



## tjcrowe (Feb 5, 2009)

sinanju said:


> The fact that Verizon is sending everything as copy freely is well documented. The "realignment" was the recent rollout of new HD channels and the shutdown of analog.
> I anticipated the problem with Comcast and TTG and sought the change before the S3 even had TTG functionality. Comcast's decision has stood for years.
> 
> You, sir, are an uninformed ass.


And you're an ass clown.

Comcast's decision has stood for maybe 18 months. Nice work but your concerns aren't worth much money when it comes to re-negotiating retrans and carraige agreements.

As for VZ, I'd love to see this documentation.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

tjcrowe said:


> SO:
> 
> 1) I doubt very much that VZ is sending out "everything" as Copy Freely. I'm not sure what "realignment" you're talking about. Subpart W is pretty clear.
> 
> 2) Comcast's decision will likely be re-visited.


I'm not sure EVERYTHING is set to Copy Freely, but it is fairly common knowledge judging by the posts in this forum that a large part of their content is set to that. My understanding is what they have done is everything is set to copy freely unless the content provider explicitly says otherwise. So since HBO says that they want the flag set to no copy that is what it is but if another channel didn't say either way it is set to copy freely.

I don't have FIOS so I can't confirm all of this but this is what I understand from reading this forum.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

tjcrowe said:


> And you're an ass clown.
> 
> Comcast's decision has stood for maybe 18 months. Nice work but your concerns aren't worth much money when it comes to re-negotiating retrans and carraige agreements.
> 
> As for VZ, I'd love to see this documentation.


The Comcast decision here was a full two years ago.

Here's a Verizon 0x00 roll-call from a few months ago. You'll note HBO in HD is included.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6761420

Seriously. This is how you introduce yourself here? Spouting misinformation as gospel?


----------



## tjcrowe (Feb 5, 2009)

I'd like to challenge the dogma that CCI states are always the cable companies' fault and decision. 

As for Comcast's decision, try me on that - I think you're wrong. But I won't go into why or how. 

As for VZ, yep uhuh,,,,, HBO HD in the clear... don't think so... 

before you challenge folks for being uninformed, I think you should check your facts and maybe your own bias.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

tjcrowe said:


> As for VZ, yep uhuh,,,,, HBO HD in the clear... don't think so...


Ok... so what motivation did I and *aaronwt* have for lying to the OP in the thread to which I provided a link? Why didn't the OP complain about the lie afterward? Check my facts? I'm looking at Verizon right now, though I don't have any pay channels now. What non-pay Extreme HD channel would you like me to check? I'd be happy to post a pic of the DVR diagnostics screen showing CCI=0x00 for that channel, though you'd probably accuse me of photoshopping it.


----------



## tjcrowe (Feb 5, 2009)

HBO - you do have premium channels right?


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

tjcrowe said:


> HBO - you do have premium channels right?


Just said I didn't, sunshine. Pay attention. You might PM *aaronwt*, though.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

tjcrowe said:


> I'd like to challenge the dogma that CCI states are always the cable companies' fault and decision.
> 
> As for Comcast's decision, try me on that - I think you're wrong. But I won't go into why or how.
> 
> ...


So what you are saying is all the people who post here that have reported different CCI states for the same channel on the same cable company but in different regions are lying (For example CNN in Kansas City on Comcast has one setting but in say Salt Lake City having something else) or different companies in the same region having different settings. and that those who explicitly stated that HBO HD on VZ in a couple of different areas has it set to 0x00, they are lying too.

Those are some pretty disturbing implications.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

Here's a picture of the suggestions in my Now Playing List as seen from the TiVo Desktop. You'll note that not a one is copy-protected.


----------



## tjcrowe (Feb 5, 2009)

sinanju said:


> Just said I didn't, sunshine. Pay attention. You might PM *aaronwt*, though.


Actually, if you read FCC Regs Subpart W or have ever been in the content industry you'd know that PAY is different from PREMIUM, but what the heck... love your personal manner - do you get out much??

Thanks for the screenshot. Impossible to read but I'll trust that it supports your argument. Implementations may vary from system to system, and VZ may be getting a temporary exemption from some of these contracts due to its still small sub base relative (also, while an MVPD it isn't a cable company), but this stuff is going away. Buy some DVDs. it won't kill you.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

tjcrowe said:


> Actually, if you read FCC Regs Subpart W or have ever been in the content industry you'd know that PAY is different from PREMIUM, but what the heck... love your personal manner - do you get out much??


Indeed. And, after my discussions with Comcast, HBO remained protected. HBO has stated that they like copy protection. And, yet, FiOS abides...



tjcrowe said:


> Thanks for the screenshot. Impossible to read but I'll trust that it supports your argument.


Pick a channel in the Extreme HD lineup, time, and date. I'll be happy to provide a readable snapshot, just for you, sunshine.

But, now for the weasel-words of the proven-wrong:



tjcrowe said:


> Implementations may vary from system to system, and VZ may be getting a temporary exemption from some of these contracts due to its still small sub base relative (also, while an MVPD it isn't a cable company), but this stuff is going away.


Verizon tried to make the "isn't a cable company" argument and the FCC made them comply with CableCARD, anyway.

But, wait, *tjcrowe*... what happened to...



> As for VZ, yep uhuh,,,,, HBO HD in the clear... don't think so...


and



> I doubt very much that VZ is sending out "everything" as Copy Freely. I'm not sure what "realignment" you're talking about.


Hm...

Don't go away angry. Just go away.

EDIT:

The forum shrank the image. Here's an imageshack-hosted image just for you: http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6301/nplcj2.jpg


----------



## tjcrowe (Feb 5, 2009)

I'm still waiting for HBO HD in the clear. Frankly, getting this much of a rise out of you makes it too much fun to go away.

But, if we wanted to actually discuss the rules, and their application to TTG (not how certain programmers are currently working out kinks in their implementations) that's a discussion I'd like to have...


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> My Apologies. I must have missed that question. Would you be so kind to refresh my memory?


It's moot, now. You were considering getting rid of one of your enclosures, and I had one which bit the dust. I found a deal on a second Antec.



TexasGrillChef said:


> My arms still get tired.


Munching on too many of our own steaks, are we? 



TexasGrillChef said:


> Hey, thats what life is all about... being Happy.


Not at all. What's life without something to b*tch about? 



TexasGrillChef said:


> All things considered, I must admit you do have a nice system there.


Thanks. It'll do until the prices come down on the 2T drives. I will have to buy at least on 1.5T and maybe an additional 1T in the mean time, but I'm hoping to squeak by without buying any number of drives which will need to be replaced in just a few months.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

tjcrowe said:


> I'm still waiting for HBO HD in the clear.


Dear me, don't wait. PM *aaronwt* as I suggested. But, if you don't want the last bit of your imaginary world to go away, I'll understand.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

tjcrowe said:


> I'm still waiting for HBO HD in the clear.


Those of us who truly care haven't waited.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

berkshires said:


> It would be just a matter of a splitter and running Guided Setup. Nothing the average Joe isn't doing already. We already have ant vs. cable to deal with, so replace that with analog cable vs cableCARD cable and the user's thinking process is no more complex.


That approach doesn't result in obtaining anything really worth watching.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Ummmm So was the Boston Tea Party & the signing of the Declaration of Independance...


Yes, but the issues were a bit more important. The point, however, is why do something illegal when one can circumvent the problem legally?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

sinanju said:


> You, sir, are an uninformed ass.





tjcrowe said:


> And you're an ass clown.


Are you two children having fun?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

tjcrowe said:


> I'd like to challenge the dogma that CCI states are always the cable companies' fault and decision.


It is at their discretion unless mandated by contract or (in the case of local OTA channels) FCC regulations. Any content provider (other than must-carry) can if they so choose refuse to sell to a CATV company unless the CATV franchise implements a specific CCI setting. They can also formally request a specific CCI setting, but the CATV company is under no legal compulsion to acquiesce.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Yes, but the issues were a bit more important. The point, however, is why do something illegal when one can circumvent the problem legally?


 To be fair, violating Tivo's TOS is not exactly on the up and up either...


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

moyekj said:


> To be fair, violating Tivo's TOS is not exactly on the up and up either...


Yeah it is. This forum doesn't care much for discussing it, but it's perfectly legal. The TiVo owner does own the box - lock, stock, and barrel. Even the code on the TiVo is mostly GPL, although distributing a hacked tivoapp is probably illegal.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Are you two children having fun?


Yes. Thanks for asking.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> That approach doesn't result in obtaining anything really worth watching.


If TiVo supported it in the way I describe, it would allow recording of anything analog on your cable system with full TiVo functionality. Without such support, you basically only get ch. 2-13 without matching guide data unless they parallel the OTA channel numbers.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

berkshires said:


> If TiVo supported it in the way I describe, it would allow recording of anything analog on your cable system with full TiVo functionality. Without such support, you basically only get ch. 2-13 without matching guide data unless they parallel the OTA channel numbers.


 After the analog broadcast cutoff (now extended to June) probably the analog OTA guide data will go away so even if you did have proper guide data for some channels in 2-13 range that won't last very long.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

moyekj said:


> After the analog broadcast cutoff (now extended to June) probably the analog OTA guide data will go away so even if you did have proper guide data for some channels in 2-13 range that won't last very long.


Totally, so its even more than not worth it without TiVo support.


----------



## DaveDFW (Jan 25, 2005)

I think streaming would be the way Tivo should address this MRV/CCI disaster. I don't really care about TTG.

The S3 was always fast enough for real-time HD streaming (via ethernet), and I think the HD is now fast enough after the last major update.

I suppose this streaming feature would have to go through a Cablelabs certification process?

TTYL
David


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

That would leave series 2 units out of MRV and no longer able to inter-operate with S3 based units. I think the howls about planned obsolescence we see now are nothing compared to what a move like that would cause.

Whatever TiVo does, it will have to be thought all the way through very carefully.


----------



## DaveDFW (Jan 25, 2005)

I haven't used my Series 2 in quite a while, but I don't see how this affects MRV/TTG for them. The S2 only records analog, so you're not blocked from downloading programs off of them.

Isn't MRV limited between an S3/HD and an S2 already? Moving HD shows to an S2 isn't possible, so all that remains are the analog recordings (which aren't flagged anyway), and SD digital, whose movement depends on the CCI byte setting.

Allowing S3/HD streaming for copy-protected material only excludes an S2 in that one category of SD + digital + copy-protected shows, since HD isn't compatible anyway, and analog was never an issue.

TTYL
David


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

It is one more limitation, but based on your explanation not as bad as I feared it would be. Thanks for laying it out clearly.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> It is at their discretion unless mandated by contract or (in the case of local OTA channels) FCC regulations. Any content provider (other than must-carry) can if they so choose refuse to sell to a CATV company unless the CATV franchise implements a specific CCI setting. They can also formally request a specific CCI setting, but the CATV company is under no legal compulsion to acquiesce.


Im under the impression based on the posts from a cable head end tech that used to post here that all modern vintages of the moto (and presumably also then cisco) head end software can be set to pass along whatevers already on the line- so that the providers could add the CCI flag at their uplink and basically every headend would just automatically keep it. (If I recall he discussed how there were very early versions that actually didnt even provide native cablecard support which used some trick to pretend a cablecard was a box- but when that was fixed they added the CCI pass through feature)

Youre obviously way more informed here than I on cable technology- so do you know if that is the case?

I could be totally mist-understanding since Im not in the industry- but it seemed that was exactly what was posted way back when.

if that's the case why would cable bother setting anything?


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

Having the cable co even permited to touch the flag violates the concept of open cable - part of which is to have third party devices with differentiated features available to consumers.

Giving a cable co any power over the flag permits the cable co to dictate which of those differentiated features will function on a consumer's self-purchased equipment.

I think that is a powerful argument for altering the system.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

berkshires said:


> Having the cable co even permited to touch the flag violates the concept of open cable - part of which is to have third party devices with differentiated features available to consumers.
> 
> Giving a cable co any power over the flag permits the cable co to dictate which of those differentiated features will function on a consumer's self-purchased equipment.
> 
> I think that is a powerful argument for altering the system.


What the cable cos could argue is that they are assuming the highest level of protection unless something else is requested. They are just being as careful as possible.

Just playing devils advocate.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

tjcrowe said:


> You guys are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> None of this is the cable co.'s fault. I understand that may be hard to get your head around, but here's the facts:
> 
> 1) there is a complex chain of title to all produced works, and the rights granted in those contracts do not including the right to copy. Mark Cuban may tell you over coffee or whatever how much he'd love to grant a cable company the right to set the flags as Copy Freely, but he'd be in breach of agreements he's signed with the folks who actually made the content (for him, on spec, or for others). For original programming that he actually went out and made, he may be able to assert Copy Freely downstream, provided he's got that in the production agreements, but there is no way for "most" head ends to support variable CCI states in that manner (i.e go in RT from Copy once to copy freely and back). The agreements he and every other cable network are under, and therefore the agreements the cable company inherits, require CCI setting to the maximum state required by law. Sorry.


Most of what is shown on HDNET was in fact produced by HDNET. Including HDNET Movies, as HDNET/HDNET movies obtains the rights to those movies to UPCONVERT to HD and rebroadcast. Most of the other shows are directly produced by HDNET. Such as "Ultimate Movie Trailers" made right here in Dallas at the Inwood Movie theater. Mark Cuban, would prefer that cable companies *DON'T* use the CCI bit for Copy protection. He would prefer that it be "Copy Freely". However, like I said. All of the contracts HDNET/HDNET movies have with any cable company's specifically allow the cable company to set the Copy Protection flag how they choose within Federal/FCC rules & regulations. You are also correct that their is a chain of title in regards to most productions. Contracts that specify certain broadcasting limits. Except for HBO/Showtime/PPV/VOD. Those contracts don't specifcally require the use of the Copy Protection flag. At least none with local OTA (CBS/NBC/ABC/Fox etc..) because those can't be set by federal law. At least not on a OTA basis. According to Mark Cuban, None of the contracts for the productions he has purchased require the use of the Copy Protection bit either. They do limit how many times he can broadcast a show and when, among other details.



tjcrowe said:


> 2) If TiVo's implementation of TTG wasn't so lazy (i.e supported "MOVE", which is in the Plug and Play Regs. as "Copy Once") and didn't just create a new digital copy of the bits (hence "Copy Twice"), this argument wouldn't come up.


I won't argue with you there. TiVo *COULD* implement the "Move" command &/or the capability of streaming. Still isn't a work around for TTG though. Moving or streaming doesn't do much good for me. So doesn't satisfy my needs.



tjcrowe said:


> Talk to Tivo. Stop being idiots. You're not going to change the law.


Thats what the english said *TWICE* back in 1776 AND 1812, when we wanted to start & have our own country the United States of America. Or the right to representation. However, the signing of the Declaration of Independance & the Boston Tea Party changed that. So we in fact, did change the law at some point. A Group of people can change the law. It is possible. Sometimes all it takes is ONE person.



tjcrowe said:


> And btw, while you're talking about illegal copying and how you don't care, perhaps you could consider that HOLLYWOOD, CABLE NETS AND THE ENTIRE US ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY is the second largest net export positive business we have (after aerospace).
> 
> All that CE stuff you've got in your home entertainment system - made in China, Korea and Japan.
> 
> ...


Sometimes we have to break the law to change the law. Think of the Chicago 10, The Boston Tea Party, The Riot at Kent State. The list goes on. Public Cival Disobediance can in fact change the law, when the law is WRONG!

I am all for supporting Jobs in America. However, I am not for *GREED*. The MPAA, RIAA & it's members are failing at updating with the times. There are plenty of ways to keep us consumers happy, & still make more than enough money at it as well.

Some in the industry have caught on, We are now getting "Digital Copy" capability with *MANY* blu-ray movies/TV shows we can now buy. This gives us the capability to watch our favorite movie on our IPOD or computer, etc...

Copyright law does legally allow anyone to make backup copies of whatever material they have legally aquired. Currently the CCI/Copy protection *DOES NOT *provide us with a way to legally backup our legal copy.

Copyright law does provide for "FAIR USE" as well. Now their is alot of debate as to what constitutes "FAIR USE" or not. However, one thing that has been widely accepted as "Fair use" is for purposes of Education, by the educators. The CCI bit/Copy Protection makes it impossible to make use of many shows broadcast on cable that are on cable for the exact purposes of "CABLE IN THE CLASSROOM". So a show found on the Science Channel HD, that even says in the show itself... Copy me, take me to the classroom & show your students, can't be done because your cable company has put the copy protection flag on the Science Channel HD! Thus preventing you from doing what the show WANTS you to do! COPY ME!

When LEGAL copies are available I am more than happy to obtain media legally. However, when you don't, To dam bad! Your loss NOT MINE! You can make your money from selling it, or using adverts.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> I'm not sure EVERYTHING is set to Copy Freely, but it is fairly common knowledge judging by the posts in this forum that a large part of their content is set to that. My understanding is what they have done is everything is set to copy freely unless the content provider explicitly says otherwise. So since HBO says that they want the flag set to no copy that is what it is but if another channel didn't say either way it is set to copy freely.
> 
> I don't have FIOS so I can't confirm all of this but this is what I understand from reading this forum.


Here's the thing about HBO & their desire for the Cable/Sat company to set the copy protection flag as Copy once.

There are still many cable companies that are still on OLDER contracts with HBO. Those older contracts don't yet REQUIRE the cable company to set the copy protection flag as copy once.

Newer contracts. Those contracts with HBO & the Cable Company that went into affect *AFTER *January 1st, 2008. Now REQUIRE the cable company to use the Copy Protection Bit.

There are many OLDER HBO contracts that won't expire for re-negotiation for another 2 or 3 years.

Keep in mind... that alot of different requirements for BOTH the cable company and the network go into the contracts they have with each other. Each network &/or Cable company can have a different set of guidlines than anyone else as well.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> So what you are saying is all the people who post here that have reported different CCI states for the same channel on the same cable company but in different regions are lying (For example CNN in Kansas City on Comcast has one setting but in say Salt Lake City having something else) or different companies in the same region having different settings. and that those who explicitly stated that HBO HD on VZ in a couple of different areas has it set to 0x00, they are lying too.
> 
> Those are some pretty disturbing implications.


I am pretty sure that HBO isn't much different in their contracts than HDNET/HDNET movies.

Mark Cuban has told me, that their can be sometimes BIG differenences in the contracts he signs with various different areas for comcast. Example. The contract for TWC in Dallas is vastly different than the contract he signed for TWC in San Diego.

Thus it is possible that CNN has a different contract with Comcast Kansas city than the contract they have with Comcast Salt Lake city. Each contract can have different requirments.

The reasonf or different contracts with the SAME company in different areas of the country. Can sometimes be required by State &/or local laws.

One example is the Playboy channel. There are some parts of the country where a cable provider who has the Playboy channel are required to follow different procedures for granting access to that channel than OTHER parts of the country. Thus those requirements may mean certain provisions be put into the contract they have with a network.

Basically... A contract a network has with a cable company, is based on each area, not with the company as a whole. Thus their isn't ONE contract with TWC, or Comcast, but several based on the area of service.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Thanks. It'll do until the prices come down on the 2T drives. I will have to buy at least on 1.5T and maybe an additional 1T in the mean time, but I'm hoping to squeak by without buying any number of drives which will need to be replaced in just a few months.


I was looking at the price differences (Local Retail) not online prices. Seems to me that the price difference of a 1TB (7200rpm) drive at $99 and the 1.5tb (7200rpm) at $119 was such a close price difference that for an extra $20 it was better to just get the 1.5tb drives!

Although online prices you might get a bigger price gap making the 1tb drive more appealing. Personally I wouldn't bother with the 1tb drive unless the price was like $79 or less.

From what I have heard though. Seagate is going to jump the 2tb drive, and go from the 1.5tb drives they have now, straight to a 3tb drive. Western Digital is doing the 2tb drives. Seagate should follow about 6 months later with a 3tb drive. I might wait for them 

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Yes, but the issues were a bit more important. The point, however, is why do something illegal when one can circumvent the problem legally?


Depends... Study your history... the Boston Tea party was a result of to much tax on Tea.

We broke away from England, Not just because we wanted to govern ourselvs, but because England was passing laws/regulations that we did not like. Mostly little laws, Taxation laws, as well as no representation.

While there are obvious differences. Many are in fact very similar.

There are many in the world that feel that Coroprations and business's are the true governenment now. That they have outpaced & have more control over the government.

Think about the WTO (World Trade Orginization). We as consumers & labor'ors have absolutely NO representation with that unit. YET... their decesision have overpowered & have more effect on our governments aroundt he world then our own governments do. Think of the RIOTS in SEATLE at the WTO just a few years ago. (Watch the movie Battle in Seatle).
Many decesions the WTO makes, goes again'st many laws of many goverments. Yet the majority of goverments takes little to NO action agains't those companies or the WTO.

In fact. Many ecomomists will admit. That the WTO & it's power has a bigger control & affect on the worlds economy than our president (past or present) & the US goverment can ever have on the economy.

There are some that even beleive that Copyright laws aren't so much protection laws, as COMMERCIAL ENFORCED CENSORSHIP!

The Music industry has finally worked out a solution that as of now. Seems to keep most in the industry as well as the consumers happy. Most music is easily available online to download for a reasonable price. Most are getting away from DRM management to a certain point. At least itunes is. Or one can easily burn the CD then re-rip it to get their music in DRM free digtal copy format.

The problem with Movies/TV shows now. They aren't being made easily available in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable fee. Some you have to wait till the season completes & they release it to DVD &/or Blu-ray. Some they don't even release in HD on Blu-ray. Some TV shows are available online to watch in case you miss an episode. Some that were online, were just recently pulled. Such as "The Mentalist" and "The 11th Hour" and "Criminal Minds". So if you want to catch up with a missed episode. You won't be able to unless you find a pirated Bootleg copy.

Many have said that the Copy Protection flag does nothing for the Commercial/Proffesional Pirateer of content. The Copy Protection flag is only hurting those of us who only want to use it for our own pesonal means. Thus the content providers are not gaining anything by the use of the copy protection flag. We as consumers are only loosing.

TGC


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

berkshires said:


> If TiVo supported it in the way I describe, it would allow recording of anything analog on your cable system with full TiVo functionality. Without such support, you basically only get ch. 2-13 without matching guide data unless they parallel the OTA channel numbers.


Yeah, analog. Bleeach! And Network TV.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Im under the impression based on the posts from a cable head end tech that used to post here that all modern vintages of the moto (and presumably also then cisco) head end software can be set to pass along whatevers already on the line


Yes, if they so choose. Many do not.



MichaelK said:


> if that's the case why would cable bother setting anything?


Many Cable Companies have strong ties to the content providers. 'Ever notice there is a "Warner" in both Warner Brothers and Time Warner? What's more, material which can be freely copied may be perceived - justifiably or not - to compete with their IPPV offerings, which are a major source of revenue.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Although online prices you might get a bigger price gap making the 1tb drive more appealing. Personally I wouldn't bother with the 1tb drive unless the price was like $79 or less.


Normally that mioght be true, but remember my limitation: I'm running RAID. That being the case, the device size is set by the smallest drive in the RAID group. Since all the drives are 1T, adding a 1.5T drive only gives me 1T,a nd the extra 500G (and the extra money) are wasted.



TexasGrillChef said:


> From what I have heard though. Seagate is going to jump the 2tb drive, and go from the 1.5tb drives they have now, straight to a 3tb drive. Western Digital is doing the 2tb drives. *Seagate* should follow about 6 months later with a 3tb drive. I might wait for them


Check out the highlighting in the quote. I thnk you meant Western Digital there, didn't you?

In any case, that's interesting. If I can hold out for the 3T, and they are attractively priced, maybe I'll go that route.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

I get the flag on everything on HBO and Showtime on Comcast.

Simple solution: I'm going to cancel HBO and Showtime and tell them why.

Once again, if the content provider is telling me they don't me want to use their product I will go along with that.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Depends... Study your history... the Boston Tea party was a result of to much tax on Tea.


No, it wasn't. The colonist's complaint was not that the tax was too high, but that they had no say-so in the matter. Their mantra was, "No taxation without representation", not, "Taxes are too high", or, "taxation without representation would be OK if the taxes were lower".



TexasGrillChef said:


> We broke away from England, Not just because we wanted to govern ourselvs, but because England was passing laws/regulations that we did not like. Mostly little laws, Taxation laws, as well as no representation.


There were a lot of reasons given in the Declaration of Independence, but a common theme was a lack of representation, somewhat less than hating the specific laws in and of themselves.



TexasGrillChef said:


> There are many in the world that feel that Coroprations and business's are the true governenment now. That they have outpaced & have more control over the government.


There is something to be said for that. Historically, governsments have always been controlled by the rich, and indeed usually composed of rich people. Now the richest entities around by far are corporations.

You're preaching to the choir, here.



TexasGrillChef said:


> In fact. Many ecomomists will admit. That the WTO & it's power has a bigger control & affect on the worlds economy than our president (past or present) & the US goverment can ever have on the economy.


The President isn't supposed to have any particular effect on the economy. That we allow him so to do is our own fault.



TexasGrillChef said:


> There are some that even beleive that Copyright laws aren't so much protection laws, as COMMERCIAL ENFORCED CENSORSHIP!


That's beyond the pale. Nonetheless, "Commercial protection" is an oxymoron. The last thing in general which ever needs any protection (other than from itself) is a corporation. It's like passing a law specifically preventing all 110 pound quadriplegics from battering "Iron Mike" Tyson.

If I had my way, corporations would be completely forbidden to hold either patents or copyrights. A patent should only be issued to the inventor or inventors of an object, in the plural case completely irrespective of any employment or contractural relationship between the several inventors. If the inventor(s) leave(s) the company, then the patent goes with them. Similarly, a copyright should be assigned only to the artist or several artists who create a work, not any production company who funds the operation or publisher who funds the printing. Furthermore, no patent or copyright holder (or anyone else) should be allowed to prevent anyone from producing and distributing the product, provided standardized royalties are paid to the patent or copyright holders. In short, publishing or manufacturing copyrighted / patented items should be in no way different from publishing or manufacturing items in the public domain, with the single exception that a royalty must be paid to the copyright / patent holder(s). Anyone should be able to freely copy and distribute intellectual property, provided the royalty is paid, and no corporation should ever be the recipient of any profits other than those associated with distributing the product.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Many have said that the Copy Protection flag does nothing for the Commercial/Proffesional Pirateer of content. The Copy Protection flag is only hurting those of us who only want to use it for our own pesonal means. Thus the content providers are not gaining anything by the use of the copy protection flag. We as consumers are only loosing.


The fact a law is completely useless to its intent and will obviously fail utterly to achieve it's intended purpose has never stopped legislators from passing it, often by a wide margin. What else can one expect from a bunch of greedy, corrupt morons?

You might take some note of the fact I never insisted you or anyone else should or should not refrain from engaging in or supporting piracy. I merely pointed out it is illegal, and that there are legal means of obtaining the same result.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

TexasGrillChef said:


> I am pretty sure that HBO isn't much different in their contracts than HDNET/HDNET movies.
> 
> Mark Cuban has told me, that their can be sometimes BIG differenences in the contracts he signs with various different areas for comcast. Example. The contract for TWC in Dallas is vastly different than the contract he signed for TWC in San Diego.
> 
> ...


I find that very interesting. You would think that as the copyright holder that they would be the ones that would have the power to decide that kind of thing.

And BTW, YOU TALKED MARK CUBAN ???? OMG, How cool is that? The man has lived the life that I think anyone would jealous of. Make a ton of money, Buy a pro basketball team, play wiffleball in the house.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Normally that mioght be true, but remember my limitation: I'm running RAID. That being the case, the device size is set by the smallest drive in the RAID group. Since all the drives are 1T, adding a 1.5T drive only gives me 1T,a nd the extra 500G (and the extra money) are wasted.
> 
> Check out the highlighting in the quote. I thnk you meant Western Digital there, didn't you?
> 
> In any case, that's interesting. If I can hold out for the 3T, and they are attractively priced, maybe I'll go that route.


Nope I meant Seagate. Seagate isn't going to do a 2TB drive. Western Digital is doing the 2TB.

Seagate will do a 3TB.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> I find that very interesting. You would think that as the copyright holder that they would be the ones that would have the power to decide that kind of thing.
> 
> And BTW, YOU TALKED MARK CUBAN ???? OMG, How cool is that? The man has lived the life that I think anyone would jealous of. Make a ton of money, Buy a pro basketball team, play wiffleball in the house.


Yep, Mark Cuban as I am sure you know owns the Pro Basketball team for Dallas.  HDNET does have some facilities here (Dallas) as well. Even a few of the HDNET shows are produced right here in Dallas. Such as "The Ultimate Trailer Show". BTW if you ever make it to Dallas & want to see a movie. Go to the Inwood movie theater. Very classic style movie theater with all the modern extra's.

I don't claim Mark Cuban as a personal friend. (Not that I wouldn't like too). He is just a mere business aquiantance that I sometimes get to have a conversation with sometimes, during which I have asked him about HDNET/HDNET Movies in regards to the CCI bit & contracts that they have with various cable companies. Suffice it to say, there is alot going on behind closed doors that many people wouldn't ever expect.

TGC


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I find that very interesting. You would think that as the copyright holder that they would be the ones that would have the power to decide that kind of thing.


For the most part, HDNET and HBO are not the copyright holders of the shows they broadcast, other than of course the productions they do themselves. The movie studios and / or production companies own the copyrights. Think MGM, Tri-Star, Universal, etc.



JWThiers said:


> And BTW, YOU TALKED MARK CUBAN ???? OMG, How cool is that?


'Not in the least. He does the same thing sitting on the toilet you and I do, and talking with him is no more special than speaking with a skid row bum or a prostitute. Like everyone else, he started as a blob of protoplasm, and he'll wind up worm food. I have nothing against him, but he's no more special than anyone else.



JWThiers said:


> The man has lived the life that I think anyone would jealous of.


I certainly am not. There is only one group of people of whom I am envious, and it most decidedly is not the ultra-rich. They have nothing I want.



JWThiers said:


> Make a ton of money


Making money is trivially easy, and mostly unimportant. It's making a difference in people's lives that is both difficult and important. Sadly, no matter how hard I try, I cannot seem to manage to do so.



JWThiers said:


> Buy a pro basketball team


If I had bothered to amass a huge fortune, I certainly could easily have found something far better on which to spend it.



JWThiers said:


> play wiffleball in the house.


Oh, brother.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Nope I meant Seagate. Seagate isn't going to do a 2TB drive. Western Digital is doing the 2TB.


These are not intended for a TiVo but http://www.informationweek.com/news...cle.jhtml?articleID=213000956&subSection=News


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

tjcrowe said:


> I'd like to challenge the dogma that CCI states are always the cable companies' fault and decision.
> 
> As for Comcast's decision, try me on that - I think you're wrong. But I won't go into why or how.
> 
> ...





tjcrowe said:


> HBO - you do have premium channels right?


I'd like to add something here. I've just recently upgraded from Comcast to FIOS. Comcast had copy protection on ALL the PREMIUM channels and none of the regular ones. FIOS is a big improvement because I now have ALL the premium channels (HBO HD, Showtime HD, Starz HD etc) without copy protection and can MRV, TTG etc them without issue. I also now have almost all ther premium channels in HD whereas Comcast only had one of each and all the rest in SD (with copy protection).


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

JWThiers said:


> What the cable cos could argue is that they are assuming the highest level of protection unless something else is requested. They are just being as careful as possible.
> 
> Just playing devils advocate.


They aren't doing that and I doubt they would argue it. Maybe TWC could say that, but not the others.



netringer said:


> I get the flag on everything on HBO and Showtime on Comcast.
> 
> Simple solution: I'm going to cancel HBO and Showtime and tell them why.
> 
> Once again, if the content provider is telling me they don't me want to use their product I will go along with that.


Good personal contribution to the cause!



JWThiers said:


> I find that very interesting. You would think that as the copyright holder that they would be the ones that would have the power to decide that kind of thing.


exactly...not the cable co which is just a transmitter of the content and a direct competitor to the 3rd party consumer hardware market.


----------



## VideoGrabber (Sep 11, 2003)

TGC commented:
> _HDNET movies obtains the rights to those movies to UPCONVERT to HD and rebroadcast._ <

Just a minor point perhaps, but HDNet doesn't _upconvert_ anything. It's possible they might do the high-def transfers of some movies from film to digital (probably not so much anymore, because the HD transfers are frequently available), but it starts and ends as HD. Upconvert means that it's converted from a standard-def source (and isn't truly HD at all), and nothing airing on either HDNet channel falls into that category. Though vast quantities of so-called "HD" on other channels certainly (and sadly) does.

- Tim


----------



## VideoGrabber (Sep 11, 2003)

TGC mentioned:
> _Seagate is going to jump the 2tb drive, and go from the 1.5tb drives they have now, straight to a 3tb drive._ <

Did they ever get the problems on their existing 1.5TB drives ironed out? I saw a mention of a firmware fix for their 1TB Barracudas, but AFAIK, their 1.5TB drives were still plaguing many of their purchasers with massive grief.

Massive capacity = attractive. Reliability problems with drives = not worth the risk at any price.

- Tim


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Copyright law does legally allow anyone to make backup copies of whatever material they have legally aquired. Currently the CCI/Copy protection *DOES NOT *provide us with a way to legally backup our legal copy.
> 
> Copyright law does provide for "FAIR USE" as well. Now their is alot of debate as to what constitutes "FAIR USE" or not. However, one thing that has been widely accepted as "Fair use" is for purposes of Education, by the educators. The CCI bit/Copy Protection makes it impossible to make use of many shows broadcast on cable that are on cable for the exact purposes of "CABLE IN THE CLASSROOM". So a show found on the Science Channel HD, that even says in the show itself... Copy me, take me to the classroom & show your students, can't be done because your cable company has put the copy protection flag on the Science Channel HD! Thus preventing you from doing what the show WANTS you to do! COPY ME!
> 
> ...


Well, sort of. I agree with you, but the courts do not. Some lady judge (can't remember her name) ruled against this with the whole DVD copying thing. She said you CAN make a backup via VCR and that fair use did not require you to make an "exact" copy. So she ruled that since you can make an inferior copy, Fair Use was covered.

Hollywood has of course, gone along with this. It's OKAY to record and transfer analog stations, but not HD channels (ie, if you had an analog cable lineup you could make copies, but if they're digital or HD, no soup for you).

Even better with the blu-ray and hdvd (okay, you want to use a non-copy protected channel, you can watch it in "crap" quality. You want 1080p, you have to use HDCP or whatever). Yes, I know that for the time being, you can use component cables for 1080i/p outputs.

For now.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> 'Not in the least. He does the same thing sitting on the toilet you and I do, and talking with him is no more special than speaking with a skid row bum or a prostitute. Like everyone else, he started as a blob of protoplasm, and he'll wind up worm food. I have nothing against him, but he's no more special than anyone else.
> 
> I certainly am not. There is only one group of people of whom I am envious, and it most decidedly is not the ultra-rich. They have nothing I want.
> 
> ...


I'm glad that you think that class and business stature don't really matter, because they don't really. But I think you have to admire the fact that he did work from basically nothing to make enough money to not have to work another day in his young life and to do the things that interests him because he likes them. He likes basketball alot so he bought a basketball team. Could he have done something else sure, and he did. He also invested some of that money in things like HDNet. The part about playing wiffleball just shows that he can be fun and spontaneous and not have worry about it. Sometimes you gotta just do something because its fun.

But I disagree that making a boatload of money is "trivially easy, and mostly unimportant". If it were easy everyone would have a boatload of money. Is money the most important thing in life? Nope but it certainly makes life easier. I'm also sure that IF you had a boatload of money someone else would would say you were spending it on trivial and unimportant things. Its much easier to criticize what others are doing saying I would do it better. Better is relative to what is important to the person who is looking at it. Some people like Classical music others Rock and others still like Hip-Hop. is one better than another? it depends on who is listening to it.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

m_jonis said:


> She said you CAN make a backup via VCR and that fair use did not require you to make an "exact" copy. So she ruled that since you can make an inferior copy, Fair Use was covered.


I'm not sure what court case you're referring to, but it was ruled illegal to copy DVDs because breaking the copy protection is illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, not because the copy you'd make is exact. By "you CAN make a backup via VCR," do you mean of a DVD? Because DVDs usually have Macrovision copy protection, making it illegal to make even an analog copy of them.



> Hollywood has of course, gone along with this. It's OKAY to record and transfer analog stations, but not HD channels (ie, if you had an analog cable lineup you could make copies, but if they're digital or HD, no soup for you).


Do you mean okay/not okay legally, or just okay/not okay to Hollywood? There's no legal differentiation of analog vs. HD channels. Whether or not you can copy them depends on whether they are copy protected, since it's illegal to break the copy protection. For instance, broadcast HD channels are not copy protected, and you can quite legally make exact bit-for-bit digital recordings of them onto tape using a D-VHS player. Likewise, a cable company could send out an analog channel with Macrovision copy protection, and it would be illegal to record that channel.



> Even better with the blu-ray and hdvd (okay, you want to use a non-copy protected channel, you can watch it in "crap" quality. You want 1080p, you have to use HDCP or whatever). Yes, I know that for the time being, you can use component cables for 1080i/p outputs.


Yes, they'd like to use only a copy-protected channel like HDMI with HDCP, because doing so would make it illegal to copy the output. The reason isn't because the copy would be exact, it's because breaking the copy protection is illegal.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I'm glad that you think that class and business stature don't really matter, because they don't really. But I think you have to admire the fact that he did work from basically nothing to make enough money to not have to work another day in his young life and to do the things that interests him because he likes them.


Yes, but every individual has some number of things in their life worth admiring. Sharing a conversation about them is one of life's little bonuses. The point is it is no more remarkable sharing such a conversation with John F. Kennedy than John Q. Public. I'm sure I would love having a quiet sit-down dinner with Mark Cuban and chatting about his adventures. I consider doing so with my neighbor just as worthwhile, however.



JWThiers said:


> Sometimes you *gotta* just do something because its fun.


(Emphasis added by me.) Exactly. It is virtually a requirement for living, or at least for a full and worthwhile life. It is hardly remarkable that a person does what he has to. Admittedly, it is a somewhat unusual avenue for that sort of expression, but paradoxically, there is nothing unusual about that. My comment wasn't intended to mean I was disparaging him for doing his own thing, it was merely commenting that such activities are really not worth comment, let alone adulation. He enjoys himself. Bully for him. So do I, and the vast majority of people I know. It's really not worth mentioning, unless we know someone who is failing to enjoy themselves, and we wish to give them some friendly advice.



JWThiers said:


> But I disagree that making a boatload of money is "trivially easy, and mostly unimportant". If it were easy everyone would have a boatload of money.


Not at all. Many things are easy, but not undertaken by a large number of people. Unless one runs into an unusual series of unavoidable coincidences, all that is required to amass a vast fortune is to dedicate one's life to doing so, and give up all the things which prevent the attainment of that objective. It's also not the only way, but it is the surest. Most people are unwilling to make those sacrifices or commit to such dedication, but because people are unwilling to do so does not mean it is inordinately difficult. Many people claim they want xxxx, but are unwilling to undertake the steps necessary to obtain xxxx. What they really mean is, they want someone to give them xxxx, and frequently enough xxxx turns out not to be something they really wanted in the first place. Do you remember the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for..."?

What can I say? People are often perverse, and their fond daydreams are often very different from the attainment of that reality. If I were exceedingly rich, I would have to worry incessantly that someone might harm me or someone dear to me in an attempt to extract a large sum of money from me. I would have to deal incessantly with deadbeat relatives and other opportunistic freeloaders looking for a handout. I could never be sure if anyone who seems to like me really does or is only after me for my money. Even just being modestly well off I have had to deal with such issues, but if I were ultra-rich the magnitude and frequency of such problems would expand exponentially.

No, thanks.



JWThiers said:


> Is money the most important thing in life? Nope but it certainly makes life easier.


Not really, or rather not beyond a certain point. Beyond the need to feed, clothe, and shelter one's self and family and offer a modicum of comfort and leisure, it is inessential. Aside from such considerations, many of the best things in life cannot be purchased at any price. That's why on three separate occasions, I voluntarily cut my pay by more than half. Even so, I am still sometimes uncomfortable with the amount of money I have when so many people - often far more hard working and talented than I - have so much less. Of course I try to give back, but my efforts sometimes seem so ineffectual.



JWThiers said:


> I'm also sure that IF you had a boatload of money someone else would would say you were spending it on trivial and unimportant things.


That wasn't my point, but I think I'll let it go for now.



JWThiers said:


> Some people like Classical music others Rock and others still like Hip-Hop. is one better than another? it depends on who is listening to it.


Actually, not so much. While it is true one person may like one thing and another something different - and more power to both - there are purely objective metrics of quality, even in things as inherently creative and personal as music. One such metric is durability. The best classical music is still widely enjoyed after as much as 500 years, and this despite the lack of reproduction media until a little over a century ago. Do you really believe hip-hop or Rock will endure for more than half a millenia? How many songs recorded in the 1920s, 1930s, or 1940s have your heard or seen on sale lately? (And don't get me wrong, I love a lot of Rock music, but I don't pretend any particular piece is not inferior to the best classical pieces.) Note also your definitions are arbitrary as all definitions are. There were plenty of classical pieces written that were garbage.

My point had nothing to do with what people enjoy, however.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Whatever , I just thought it would be cool to talk to the guy. I can talk to my neighbor anytime. 

And BTW to acquire a vast amount of money requires more than dedication, it also requires require an idea or commodity that will sell, having the right contacts to sell it (or being able to find them), and a bit of good luck, that on top of the dedication you talk about, but that kind of single minded dedication is NOT EASY. If you are missing any one of them, forget it. It requires sacrifice, if all it took was dedication every one would be the boss. and with the possible exception of McDonalds where everyone seems to be an assistant manager that does not happen. On the contrary I have seen plenty of people that work tireless to do something (start a business or move up in the one they are already at) and if you don't suck up to this person or that person hard work can have little or no effect.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> And BTW to acquire a vast amount of money requires more than dedication, it also requires require an idea or commodity that will sell


You mean like soap, salt, butter, candy, silverware, toilet paper, mops, candles, glasses, liquor, batteries, automobiles,... and TiVos? Finding something to sell is easier than finding a turd in a cesspool. Indeed, if you have the fortitude to retrieve a turd from a cesspool, someone somewhere will buy it.



JWThiers said:


> having the right contacts to sell it (or being able to find them)


You are right that can take time, but there's where the dedication comes in.



JWThiers said:


> and a bit of good luck


A bit of good luck is required to make it past the age of three. There are no guarantees in this life, and I certainly am not suggesting that everyone who tries will succeed. After all, even the most dedicated and talented individual can have a heart attack the next day. But as sure as anything is in this life, collecting a large amount of money is no more difficult than succeeding in any other ambitious venture, and considerably less so than many. It is certainly vastly easier than finding loyalty or love, and much more nearly certain of its outcome.



JWThiers said:


> that on top of the dedication you talk about, but that kind of single minded dedication is NOT EASY.


I suppose it depends on how one defines "easy". If by "easy", you mean painless and requiring little effort, then no, it isn't easy. In the more common usage, however (especially in business), "easy" is taken to mean something which is not particularly difficult to figure out. Most people say math is "hard", and adding 2 + 2 in this context is easy.



JWThiers said:


> It requires sacrifice


I believe I said that, or if not , I meant to. Sacrifice is not difficult, it's just painful and requires dedication. I seem to be repeating myself.



JWThiers said:


> if all it took was dedication every one would be the boss


If everyone were thusly dedicated, then becoming the boss (or rather , rich, which is not necessarily the same thing. I'm wealthier than my boss, because I am not a single parent with custody of a teenager, and I haven't had to go through a messy and expensive divorce) would require much more than it does now. As it stands, most people have no dedication toward such an end. Nor am I suggesting they should, but the general lack of such dedication makes the task considerably easier.



JWThiers said:


> On the contrary I have seen plenty of people that work tireless to do something (start a business or move up in the one they are already at) and if you don't suck up to this person or that person hard work can have little or no effect.


All of which comes under the heading of being dedicated and giving up anything - including pride and dignity, if and when necessary - as a means of achieving the end. As I said, it's not difficult, but most people are unwilling to make the sacrifices. It's not about working hard - although that is usually required, as well. It's about working ruthlessly. It's like a favorite saying of a friend of mine: "Sometimes you just have to eat a little d***k." He was a former V.P. at TWC.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

berkshires said:


> Having the cable co even permited to touch the flag violates the concept of open cable - part of which is to have third party devices with differentiated features available to consumers.
> 
> Giving a cable co any power over the flag permits the cable co to dictate which of those differentiated features will function on a consumer's self-purchased equipment.
> 
> I think that is a powerful argument for altering the system.


I agree with you 100%. But there has to be a reason Networks like HBO and others are specifically putting into their contracts with Cable Companies for THEM (the cable company) to put the CCI Copy protection into place.

I agree. If HBO wants *EVERY* single Cable company to use the copy protection flag on their system. Why don't they just do it themselvs? However, they *AREN'T*... they are requesting that from the cable companies in the form of contract negotiations.

Go figure... 

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

ciper said:


> These are not intended for a TiVo but http://www.informationweek.com/news...cle.jhtml?articleID=213000956&subSection=News


We were refering to useing those drives in a DLNA NAS (Networked Attached Storage) &/or a dedicated network Media Server.

We weren't refering to installing them into a TiVo. Currently HD's larger than 1TB aren't yet fully supported.

Yes you can put 2TB worth of space on a S3 using both the internal and external SATA ports. What you can't currently do. WITHOUT hacking, is use a 1.5tb drive or a 2tb drive.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

VideoGrabber said:


> TGC commented:
> > _HDNET movies obtains the rights to those movies to UPCONVERT to HD and rebroadcast._ <
> 
> Just a minor point perhaps, but HDNet doesn't _upconvert_ anything. It's possible they might do the high-def transfers of some movies from film to digital (probably not so much anymore, because the HD transfers are frequently available), but it starts and ends as HD. Upconvert means that it's converted from a standard-def source (and isn't truly HD at all), and nothing airing on either HDNet channel falls into that category. Though vast quantities of so-called "HD" on other channels certainly (and sadly) does.
> ...


LOL My bad... wrong terminology I am sure. What I was trying to mean by the word "Upconvert" is that when they get their "Copy" of a certain movie. HDNET's production staff/studio does the work to convert that to Hi-Def.

If you notice. There is a big difference for instance when HDNET shows a movie, & TNT-HD shows the SAME movie. The quality is SO much better on HDNET. Now I realize that their are many other reasons that can play a part in the quality. Such as bitrate, resolution, etc...

An example I will use the same movie Mark Cuban used in his example to me. "Sugarland Express" (Steven Spielberg, Goldie hawn made in 1974). They received a 35mm film print, Then converted that to a digital HD form. Then did additional work to cleanup and enhance the final production before airing.

You are correct. Newer movies they obtain the rights to are delivered in Digital HD form allready then broadcast. There are a few older movies that come to them in digital SD form. They then do some conversion to HD on those. HD transfers are still *NOT* widely available for older movies. (Pre 1980).

So what you say is partly correct. Alot just depends on the movie itself & it's age. Since movies have started being made. There are over 150,000 movies made by US companies alone. I can promise you that there are still quite a few movies that are still only available in 35mm film prints, or even just SD video tape.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

VideoGrabber said:


> TGC mentioned:
> > _Seagate is going to jump the 2tb drive, and go from the 1.5tb drives they have now, straight to a 3tb drive._ <
> 
> Did they ever get the problems on their existing 1.5TB drives ironed out? I saw a mention of a firmware fix for their 1TB Barracudas, but AFAIK, their 1.5TB drives were still plaguing many of their purchasers with massive grief.
> ...


Yep, as far as I know they did. I went to seagate.com. Somewhere on their site (sorry I don't have the correct URL handly). They have a little form. You put in your serial # and it will tell you if your drive needs a firmware upgarde on it. If you do. It will let you download it and give you instructions on how to install the firmware. I had to do it on only ONE (1) of my 12 - 1.5tb drives. It was destructive though, meaning when the firmware update was done. I had to re-partition and format the drive. Luckily I backed it up before hand.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

m_jonis said:


> Well, sort of. I agree with you, but the courts do not. Some lady judge (can't remember her name) ruled against this with the whole DVD copying thing. She said you CAN make a backup via VCR and that fair use did not require you to make an "exact" copy. So she ruled that since you can make an inferior copy, Fair Use was covered.
> 
> Hollywood has of course, gone along with this. It's OKAY to record and transfer analog stations, but not HD channels (ie, if you had an analog cable lineup you could make copies, but if they're digital or HD, no soup for you).
> 
> ...


I think I remember who you were talking about (The Judge) and if my memory serves me correctly and it's the same case I am thinking about. That case is still pending on appeal in higher courts.

Think of this... we are allowed to make backup copies of our software on our computers. Now IT's and EXACT copy. No "Inferior" to it. Then again. You can't have inferior copies of software. Otherwise it woudln't work anyways.

However, when it comes to DVD/Blu-ray/HD-DVD... we all know that we can easily back those up. About 4 dozen or more programs that will do it for DVD & 2 or 3 that currently do it for Blu-ray/HD-DVD.

One other thing to point out. There are several MOVIE mediaservers available now that allow you to copy a DVD AND Blu-ray to it's internal drive. Then using their players allow you to play back that DVD &/or Blu-ray with ALL features on a TV of your choice. One player per TV. Of course, I will admit these are high dollar devices, & a good chunk of the money your paying for goes to LICENSING fees to give you the ok to do that.

Here's one company that has done so... http://axonix.com/

So here is *ONE* solution I might suggest...

I personally wouldn't mind paying a reasonable licensing fee to the cable company, &/or TiVo that would allow me to make use of MRV/TTG for shows/channels that are "Copy protected"

This idea falls along the same lines that the MOVIE SERVERS do with their licensing fees, OR EVEN Blu-ray where you have some blu-rays that provide a DIGITAL COPY that will alow you to put that movie on your Ipod, DVD and play it in other places. Legally. When you buy those DVD's your money is paying for that priveledge.

Maybe somehow you can pay for the priveledge of having MRV/TTG for certain copy protected shows/movies. *WITHOUT *having to wait for them to come out on DVD/Blu-ray.

TGC


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> You mean like soap, salt, butter, candy, silverware, toilet paper, mops, candles, glasses, liquor, batteries, automobiles,... and TiVos? Finding something to sell is easier than finding a turd in a cesspool. Indeed, if you have the fortitude to retrieve a turd from a cesspool, someone somewhere will buy it.


But then again no one is going to get rich selling a turd. Except maybe if you sell it as fertilizer. Even then it had better be some pretty good S**T to make good fertilizer. Pardon the pun. To get rich you either have to sell a whole lot of them for low profit per unit, or a few of them at high margins in which case it has to become the thing, like the whole Pet Rock thing in the 70's



lrhorer said:


> A bit of good luck is required to make it past the age of three. There are no guarantees in this life, and I certainly am not suggesting that everyone who tries will succeed. After all, even the most dedicated and talented individual can have a heart attack the next day. But as sure as anything is in this life, collecting a large amount of money is no more difficult than succeeding in any other ambitious venture, and considerably less so than many. It is certainly vastly easier than finding loyalty or love, and much more nearly certain of its outcome.


But that is what you said making a lot of money is "trivially easy" if that were the case everyone that really tried as hard as they can would succeed. Succeeding is what is hard. Some people just plain don't have the capacity to succeed. Others may not be given the opportunity to succeed.



lrhorer said:


> I suppose it depends on how one defines "easy". If by "easy", you mean painless and requiring little effort, then no, it isn't easy. In the more common usage, however (especially in business), "easy" is taken to mean something which is not particularly difficult to figure out. Most people say math is "hard", and adding 2 + 2 in this context is easy.


So the next big thing that someone will make a fortune from nothing is what again. You imply that things like that are easy to figure out.



lrhorer said:


> All of which comes under the heading of being dedicated and giving up anything - including pride and dignity, if and when necessary - as a means of achieving the end. As I said, it's not difficult, but most people are unwilling to make the sacrifices. It's not about working hard - although that is usually required, as well. It's about working ruthlessly. It's like a favorite saying of a friend of mine: "Sometimes you just have to eat a little d***k." He was a former V.P. at TWC.


I guess being the best qualified doesn't count as much as not using your teeth when eating said meal.

I think luck plays a bigger part in this than anything, coming up with a good idea at the right time and finding the right people to talk to about it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> I agree with you 100%. But there has to be a reason Networks like HBO and others are specifically putting into their contracts with Cable Companies for THEM (the cable company) to put the CCI Copy protection into place.
> 
> I agree. If HBO wants *EVERY* single Cable company to use the copy protection flag on their system. Why don't they just do it themselvs? However, they *AREN'T*... they are requesting that from the cable companies in the form of contract negotiations.
> 
> ...


exactly - i just dont get this- why doesnt HBo just insert the stupid flag at their broadcast center- stick it on 20ish feeds instead of 20,000 different feeds on 1,000 different head ends...

makes no sense.

no one comes up with a logical reason.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

just thinking- why couldn't tivo create a MOVE function for TTG?

they would need to have some kind of controlled player on the PC's but why couldn't they do it so you MOVE the copy from the tivo to a pc- play it all you want- and are allowed to MOVE it to another PC or back to a tivo?

(I forget if there's a limit to the number of moves permitted?)


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

MichaelK said:


> (I forget if there's a limit to the number of moves permitted?)


Depends on the woman


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> exactly - i just dont get this- why doesnt HBo just insert the stupid flag at their broadcast center- stick it on 20ish feeds instead of 20,000 different feeds on 1,000 different head ends...
> 
> makes no sense.
> 
> no one comes up with a logical reason.


Whoever said the entertainment industry was logical *OR* sane??? 

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> just thinking- why couldn't tivo create a MOVE function for TTG?
> 
> they would need to have some kind of controlled player on the PC's but why couldn't they do it so you MOVE the copy from the tivo to a pc- play it all you want- and are allowed to MOVE it to another PC or back to a tivo?
> 
> (I forget if there's a limit to the number of moves permitted?)


In Theory you could have a MOVE command that would work with TTG and allow you to MOVE it to your computer. Using a special player.

Here in lies the problem... once it is a file on your computer. IT CAN be easily copied... Backedup etc... Even if it will only play on that computer until it's MOVED to another computer.

The other problem is... once it's a file on your computer... its *OPEN* for file hacking & thus like Blu-ray/HD-DVD/DVD's could be hacked and become free to copy. As long as it REMAINS on the TiVo, the "Hackability" of it makes it much more difficult to hack. Not impossible. Just more difficult.

I still think the entrainment industry including the cable co's are missing a huge oportunity for additional income. Charge a reasonable fee to allow us to have MRV &/or TTG capabilities. Not much difference than buying the download from iTunes or something.

TGC


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> But then again no one is going to get rich selling a turd. Except maybe if you sell it as fertilizer.


See? Some fertilizer companies make a lot of money. The point is, one doesn't have to be a genius to come up with something to sell. Nor, for that matter, is it absolutely necessary to be the person who sells it in order to get rich.



JWThiers said:


> To get rich you either have to sell a whole lot of them for low profit per unit, or a few of them at high margins in which case it has to become the thing, like the whole Pet Rock thing in the 70's


Yes, but once again, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Indeed, most geniuses are far less than extremely rich. Pythagoras, Archimedes, Galileo Galilei, Albert Einstein, Blaise Pascal, Pierre de Fermat, Arthur Eddington, Nels Bohr, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking and thousands of others with a true genius intellect have been modestly well off, but not tremendously wealthy, while some multi-billionaires have had far less than towering intellects.



JWThiers said:


> But that is what you said making a lot of money is "trivially easy" if that were the case everyone that really tried as hard as they can would succeed. Succeeding is what is hard. Some people just plain don't have the capacity to succeed. Others may not be given the opportunity to succeed.


I went over both these points already. It is far less a matter of trying hard as it is being unwilling to allow anything to get in the way. Hard work is usually a given, but paradoxically working hard is not particularly difficult. Lots of people, perhaps even approaching a majority of them, are willing to work hard.



JWThiers said:


> So the next big thing that someone will make a fortune from nothing is what again. You imply that things like that are easy to figure out.


Most fortunes are not made in this way. Most are made selling toilet paper, soap, canned vegetables, kitchen utensils, etc. It's true selling an innovative product is sometimes a faster way to make a fortune, and selling a product which costs nothing to make may be even faster still, but both are far more speculative. One needn't speculate on questionable items to make money. Sam Walton made his money selling ordinary, everyday items. Milton Hershey made his money selling candy. Howard Hughes Sr. made his money selling drill bits to oil drillers. Some things are difficult to figure out. Some things are not. This is one that really isn't. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw: Getting rich is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Figuring it out is the easiest part.



JWThiers said:


> I guess being the best qualified doesn't count as much as not using your teeth when eating said meal.


No it may not, but being unwilling to chow down means you lose, no matter how hard one may work or how talented one may be otherwise. It's a staple of which I am unwilling to make a repast, so I will never be overly wealthy, but then I don't want to be that in the first place.



JWThiers said:


> I think luck plays a bigger part in this than anything, coming up with a good idea at the right time and finding the right people to talk to about it.


It certainly can; I'm not arguing that. Look at Gates and Allen versus Gary Kildall. If someone is born rich (like Howard Hughes Jr.), it represents the ultimate in good luck (or bad luck, depending upon one's point of view). Being in the right place at the right time can never hurt, and being in the wrong place may hurt badly, but first of all, the assertion not being in the right place at the right time will ultimately ruin everyone unfortunate enough to have missed the boat is an unsupported assumption. There is nothing to say having not been at the right place and the right time a dedicated and ruthless businessman won't make another opportunity for himself, build another boat as it were. More importantly, it doesn't necessarily require a lightning strike. Certainly they do happen, but many vast fortunes have been built penny by penny by penny over a span of decades. The Leslie Salt Company made billions selling boxes of salt for a few cents each. I can't think of a less innovative or less expensive product.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> I went over both these points already. It is far less a matter of trying hard as it is being unwilling to allow anything to get in the way. *Hard work is usually a given*, but paradoxically working hard is not particularly difficult. Lots of people, perhaps even approaching a majority of them, are willing to work hard.


And that was my point that there is HARD work involved if the work is hard, even if the steps are easy to define and are known ahead of time, the task itself is difficult. Listing the steps to accomplish it is easy, but the actual work is (or can be) hard. For example, I work at NASA. I could sketch out a very simple flow diagram that explains the basic steps to assemble the solid rocket motors for a Space Shuttle Flight. The problem is the actual work is VERY difficult and relies on highly trained people to pick up a 180,000 lbs rocket segment and position it to within 0.025" lower it onto another 180,000 lbs segment and maintain rates of engagement less than 0.060" per second. and that's the easy part we have nice big cranes to do the lifting.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

MichaelK said:


> exactly - i just dont get this- why doesnt HBo just insert the stupid flag at their broadcast center- stick it on 20ish feeds instead of 20,000 different feeds on 1,000 different head ends...
> 
> makes no sense.
> 
> no one comes up with a logical reason.


How about: the cable co. has the control over the flag by DEFAULT. Thus only in a contract negotiation can HBO try to get a particular arrangement with a cable co (or each of its individual areas.)

Charging a slightly higher price of transfers would be a reasonable compromise. It would have to apply to future cable DVRs that might have the same ability.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

berkshires said:


> How about: the cable co. has the control over the flag by DEFAULT. Thus only in a contract negotiation can HBO try to get a particular arrangement with a cable co (or each of its individual areas.)
> ...
> .


Im fairly certain that anyone along the line is permitted to add the flag- so I dont think HBO is prohibited from adding the flag


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Im at work so dont have too much time to read up but quick look in the CFRs finds this:



> § 76.1908 Certain practices not prohibited.
> Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as prohibiting a covered entity from:
> (a) Encoding, storing or managing commercial audiovisual content within its distribution system or within a covered product under the control of a covered entity's commercially adopted access control method, provided that the outcome for the consumer from the application of the encoding rules set out in §76.1904(a) and (b) is unchanged thereby when such commercial audiovisual content is released to consumer control.


So seems that Hbo is perfectly within their rights to add whatever CCI flags they want within the distribution system. (I guess the end link in the chain could maybe change the flag- but why would they? Wouldnt it be far simpler for Hbo just to add a single sentence to each contract that says dont mess with any flags we happen to set rather then needed to spell out what each channel might or might not get in a contract?

also interesting:


> § 76.1901 Applicability.
> ((b) This subpart shall not apply to distribution of any content over the Internet, nor to a multichannel video programming distributor's operations via cable modem or DSL.


Seems IPTV is free to do whatever you want- I wonder if verizon gets away with all clear because they argue their fiber is the TVsame as cable modem or DSL?


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

I have no clue as to what you are quoting has to do with this.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

those are the regs about the CCI flags (or what flags a cable compnay is allowed to send to an end user)

I thought you were trying to say that the default is the cable company(ie comcast) has control and the content producer (i.e. HBO) would have to get permission from them via contract to set the flag on their end. The way I read the regs is there is nothing stopping HBO from just putting the flags they want on their content and so there is no reason at all for comcast et al to be involved in setting flags- EVER.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> The way I read the regs is there is nothing stopping HBO from just putting the flags they want on their content and so there is no reason at all for comcast et al to be involved in setting flags- EVER.


Yet Time Warner sets them on every channel except locals.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

CuriousMark said:


> Yet Time Warner sets them on every channel except locals.


I believe the cable company has replaced the telco as the oppressive monopoly. Remember Ernestine, the telephone operator of the old AT&T days? "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company."

I know there aren't enough of us to matter, but it would be wonderful of CCI=0x00 became a competitive feature for FiOS.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

sinanju said:


> I believe the cable company has replaced the telco as the oppressive monopoly. Remember Ernestine, the telephone operator of the old AT&T days? "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company."
> 
> I know there aren't enough of us to matter, but it would be wonderful of CCI=0x00 became a competitive feature for FiOS.


A competitive feature for Fios would be to just be available in more places. I'd jump for the internet service alone, throw in Cable at a discount I'm there. I'd still be leery of throwing in telephone but that's more because of I don't like having all my eggs in one basket than anything else. <sigh> Fios.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

CuriousMark said:


> Yet Time Warner sets them on every channel except locals.


exactly my questions- why is cable getting involved at all...


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

MichaelK said:


> those are the regs about the CCI flags (or what flags a cable compnay is allowed to send to an end user)
> 
> I thought you were trying to say that the default is the cable company(ie comcast) has control and the content producer (i.e. HBO) would have to get permission from them via contract to set the flag on their end. The way I read the regs is there is nothing stopping HBO from just putting the flags they want on their content and so there is no reason at all for comcast et al to be involved in setting flags- EVER.


Maybe those are some of the regs? The reason is the cable co has the right to change it to whatever it wants regardless of what the channel sends (assuming a flag is even sent as part of the content delivered to the cable co.)


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

sinanju said:


> I believe the cable company has replaced the telco as the oppressive monopoly. Remember Ernestine, the telephone operator of the old AT&T days? "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company."
> 
> I know there aren't enough of us to matter, but it would be wonderful of CCI=0x00 became a competitive feature for FiOS.


What happens when cable cos or FIOS or any other decides to offer MRV or streaming in larger numbers on their DVRs...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

berkshires said:


> Maybe those are some of the regs? The reason is the cable co has the right to change it to whatever it wants regardless of what the channel sends (assuming a flag is even sent as part of the content delivered to the cable co.)


oh- certainly there's about 5000 pages of regs- feel free to sift- laughing.

But seriously- you are correct - the cable system is permitted to put on any falg it wants so long as it complies with the fcc regs (copy never only permitted for PPV or VOD, and broadcast channels must have no restrictions).

But again back to my point- why wouldn't HBO set the flag on their side and then merely add a single simple generica clause in all their contracts that cable may not change the flag once HBO sets it. Seems a much cleaner system to me for all the parties involved. I dont understand HBO's reluctance to do that. Is it really that big a deal to buy 20 machines that add the CCI flag to the HBO upling center?

and then WHY cable wants to be involved at all is another question. All they do is get liability for nothing in return. Sure it makes sense that time warner would bother to flag their corporate content (if their coporate folks were too stupid to add the flag at their end)- but why would time warner bother flagging rainbow media's content (which is owned by cablevision)? It makes no sense.


----------



## DaveDFW (Jan 25, 2005)

berkshires said:


> What happens when cable cos or FIOS or any other decides to offer MRV or streaming in larger numbers on their DVRs...


I think fios already uses some form of MRV with their DVRs, which is why they flag everything as 0x00. The restrictive CCI byte would break their MRV's functionality.

Aren't they using a DRM flag instead, which is something that Tivo ignores?

Time-Warner's stone-age DVR doesn't do anything, so they punish the Tivo users with 0x02.

TTYL
David


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

Contracts aren't usually changed until they expire.

You are assuming the content is delivered with a flag setting. I don't know if that is even true or if the flag setting is only something that exists within the cable system equipment.

Obviously the cable co's wanted the right; I doubt the regs happened by accident. Whatever the reasons, its a chip to bargain with and probably wasn't paid attention to enough by other interested parties when the whole thing was created.

Since that is the way it is, right now it would be pointless for the channel to buy equipment to set the flag, if that were necessary technically.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> oh- certainly there's about 5000 pages of regs- feel free to sift- laughing.
> 
> But seriously- you are correct - the cable system is permitted to put on any falg it wants so long as it complies with the fcc regs (copy never only permitted for PPV or VOD, and broadcast channels must have no restrictions).
> 
> ...


Heres one for you....

Time Warner owns Time Warner Cable, Warner Bros Studios AND HBO!

You think that Time Warner Cable & HBO would have something going on. But they don't. Many TWC areas STILL DON'T have all the HBO channesl available.

As far as the CCI bit goes. As one CSR put it once. They said they didn't want you recording off a show, then giving it to your freinds/relatives so they could watch it WITHOUT having to pay for cable!

Ummm.... We can do that now anyways... albeit... Not in HD. Just use a DVD recorder or old VCR.

TGC


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

TexasGrillChef said:


> As far as the CCI bit goes. As one CSR put it once. They said they didn't want you recording off a show, then giving it to your freinds/relatives so they could watch it WITHOUT having to pay for cable!


Yes... the old, "assume your customer is a criminal" approach.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

berkshires said:


> Contracts aren't usually changed until they expire.
> 
> You are assuming the content is delivered with a flag setting. I don't know if that is even true or if the flag setting is only something that exists within the cable system equipment.
> 
> ...


I can't speak for HBO, but as Mark Cuban (HDNET/HDNET Movies) once told me. He usually doesn't agree with or sign contracts with cable companies lasting more than 3 to 5 years. He said he did sign one with one cable company (He didn't say which one though) that was 6 years.

Mark does have a TiVo. TWC here in Dallas has marked HDNET/HDNET movies with the Copy once CCI flag. He doesn't like it either, but like he said. There *ISN'T* anything in his contract that prevents TWC from using the Copy Once flag on his channels. He went on to say, but didn't offer a reason as to why, but that *MOST* cable co's don't want contractual obligations in the contracts *PREVENTING* them from setting the "Copy Protection" flag is they chose too.

They don't mind contractual obligations that *REQUIRE* the copy protection flag. They just *DON'T* want contractual obligations *PREVENTING *the copy protection flag from being used.

As to *"WHY"* cable co's want it this way? Mark Cuban didn't tell me. I don't know if he knows the real reason or not.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

sinanju said:


> Yes... the old, "assume your customer is a criminal" approach.


What the Cable Co's forget about now.. is the Slingbox. I have a couple of slingbox's I use. Along with a slingcatcher.

Many times I have taken my slingcatcher over to a friends house who DOESN'T have cable so we could watch something. As well as to serveral relatives who don't have cable either.

Many ways around the ole game we play

TGC


----------



## comprev (Oct 31, 2003)

It would take someone like TiVo to go to Cable Labs to get this done, but I'm wondering if it's even possible. Some of the services, such as Amazon, will let you download a video with DRM that will allow it to be view within 1 month and once you start viewing it, it can only be viewed for 24 hrs. It also can't be burned to a DVD.

Would it be possible for TiVo to do this with transfers to other TiVos and computers? If so, could they talk Cable Labs into going for this type of protection?


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

comprev said:


> It would take someone like TiVo to go to Cable Labs to get this done, but I'm wondering if it's even possible. Some of the services, such as Amazon, will let you download a video with DRM that will allow it to be view within 1 month and once you start viewing it, it can only be viewed for 24 hrs. It also can't be burned to a DVD.
> 
> Would it be possible for TiVo to do this with transfers to other TiVos and computers? If so, could they talk Cable Labs into going for this type of protection?


Almost anything is possible. However, don't forget that the cable labs are their to protect the cable co's first. So they might be resistant to that idea since the Cable Co's would/might be resistant to it as well.

TGC


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

comprev said:


> It would take someone like TiVo to go to Cable Labs to get this done, but I'm wondering if it's even possible. Some of the services, such as Amazon, will let you download a video with DRM that will allow it to be view within 1 month and once you start viewing it, it can only be viewed for 24 hrs. It also can't be burned to a DVD.
> 
> Would it be possible for TiVo to do this with transfers to other TiVos and computers? If so, could they talk Cable Labs into going for this type of protection?


Just as TiVo's customer base is probably the most affected group around, TiVo itself is probably the most affected organization. TiVo is a logical place to try to work with on this; how its customers could be partners in helping change this is a central question.

I am not sure if limited storage of transfers of recorded shows is pertinent to the issue since the original is not limited in time either. There may not be much meat to this particular idea.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> And that was my point that there is HARD work involved if the work is hard, even if the steps are easy to define and are known ahead of time, the task itself is difficult.


We're using different definitions of "difficult".



JWThiers said:


> Listing the steps to accomplish it is easy, but the actual work is (or can be) hard. For example, I work at NASA. I could sketch out a very simple flow diagram that explains the basic steps to assemble the solid rocket motors for a Space Shuttle Flight. The problem is the actual work is VERY difficult and relies on highly trained people to pick up a 180,000 lbs rocket segment and position it to within 0.025" lower it onto another 180,000 lbs segment and maintain rates of engagement less than 0.060" per second. and that's the easy part we have nice big cranes to do the lifting.


All of which is quite straightforward if one only knows the proper steps for accomplishing the tasks - which is pretty much the short definition of "professional". Such things are trivial when compared with attempting to successfully raise an autistic child, dealing severe with PTSD, or watching a vibrant and dynamic loved one waste away from ALS or Alzheimer's. If something is truly difficult, there may be nothing anyone on Earth can do to reliably produce a desirable, or even acceptable outcome. Or, as is the case with developing a field such as General Relativity, Developmental Genetics, or String Theory, there may be fewer than a dozen people on Earth sufficient to the task. Getting rich, however, is something most people won't do, but it is not something of which the largest section of the populace is not intrinsically capable. Attempting something whose accomplishment requires extremely hard work and dedication, but whose tasks are well defined and fairly straightforward is vastly easier than attempting something when it is impossible to know whether a particular action will be likely to produce a desirable result or not.

To put it another way, how much harder would the rocket assembly task be if no one at NASA knew whether the crane could lift more than 25,000 pounds in the first place, there were no measuring devices which could measure to within 25 thousandths of an inch, and the required specifications of the sub-assemblies changed unpredictably from hour to hour?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Almost anything is possible. However, don't forget that the cable labs are their to protect the cable co's first. So they might be resistant to that idea since the Cable Co's would/might be resistant to it as well.


There's also no particular motivation for them to entertain such notions in the first place. The fact something is not problematical or disagreable for an entity does not make it desirable for that entity. One would have to demonstrate there is a clear advantage, or at least a probable clear advantage before CableLabs would consider taking on such a project. Personally, I don't see any such advantage for them.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> There's also no particular motivation for them to entertain such notions in the first place. The fact something is not problematical or disagreable for an entity does not make it desirable for that entity. One would have to demonstrate there is a clear advantage, or at least a probable clear advantage before CableLabs would consider taking on such a project. Personally, I don't see any such advantage for them.


Sad to say I don't see any advantage for Cable Labs or the Cable Co's either. Allowing us the capability of MRV/TTG on our TiVo's gives TiVo one more advantage over having a Cable Co's own DVR. Thus lowering their revenue because some people will be smarter and choose a TiVo over a Cable Co DVR.

It is true that SOME Cable co's are offering LIMITED MRV, However none still match the basic capabilities of a TiVo MRV/TTG.

In the mean time, I currently do the following as my work around. Not the best way of course. But it does work.

1. I limit the amount of shows that I watch with copy protection enabled to Three. "Big Love", "Kyle XY", & "Eureka".

2. I record those three on BOTH of my TiVo's.

3. I have upgraded both TiVo's with eSATA drives with 1tb drives. Giving me more than enough space to hold those copy protected shows for quite a while.

4. If their is a copy protected show that I really want to keep. I will *RENT* it from Netflix &/or Blockbuster and *RIP* it to my NAS for future viewing. One nice advantage of the *RIP*. No station logo in the lower right hand corner. Maybe thats illegal but so be it. I could care less. Although in all honesty. I only do that in very rare circumstances. 99% of the TV shows I watch & enjoy I will never watch again. I am not someone who watchs Re-runs of anything I have allready seen. I'm a been there done that allready.... NEXT.... kind of guy.

5. On the rare occasion something else that I want to see is Copy protected. I will still record on both TiVo's.

6. If because one of the TiVo's both tuners are allready busy & I am forced to record on only one TiVo. Then I make use of of my Slingbox Pro-HD & Slingcatcher combination. True the Slingcatcher/box combination doesn't give the same quality as a straight TiVo. Yet it does work.

True, I will admit these are NOT the best alternatives. Not the easiest of least inexpensive way of a work around. Yet it works.

It's also one of the reasons why I beleive the ONLY TRUE solution to this copy protection issues are through LEGISLATION from our congress.

TiVo doesn't have the financial resources to LOBBY congress, or cable labs into changing the Copy protection rules & regulations.

We as TiVo viewers for the most part aren't willing to partake as a whole in the actions required to give Cable labs, Cable co's or our congress the reason to change the laws, rules & regulations regarding the copy protection bit.

----- By that I mean, very few of us are willing to go to washington DC and have a rally/protest, or write our congress, or partake in a boycott of the cable companies.

Even if a vast majority of us are willing to BOYCOT the cable companies. We as TiVo owners don't make up a big enough percentage of the cable co's clients to even make a major dent in their pocket books.

Think of it this way. DTV switchover was delayed until June 12th, because 6.5 Million people would lose Television coverage. Thats 6.5 million people who don't have have DTV sets or converters. About 90% of them don't even have a DVR either!

TGC


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

TexasGrillChef said:


> TiVo doesn't have the financial resources to LOBBY congress, or cable labs into changing the Copy protection rules & regulations.


TiVo had the resources to get a TA agreed to and developed, and there the cable DVR had the advantage of getting ultimately large numbers of channels the TiVo would not be able to get at all, not just a question of transfers.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

berkshires said:


> TiVo had the resources to get a TA agreed to and developed, and there the cable DVR had the advantage of getting ultimately large numbers of channels the TiVo would not be able to get at all, not just a question of transfers.


That's probably because they had already been told by congress to get cable cards (Actually I think the term was "Separable Security Device" out to foster competition and open things up to third parties like tivo. If they turned around and broke that ability they could get in quite a bit of trouble. That may or may not be the reason and any legal backlash may or may not have occurred, but it was a risk and they knew it.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

JWThiers said:


> That's probably because they had already been told by congress to get cable cards (Actually I think the term was "Separable Security Device" out to *foster competition and open things up to third parties like tivo.*


Which is precisely what determination of the copy flag by the cable co. crushes.


----------



## muerte33 (Jul 4, 2008)

Any news on when Tivo will implement a streaming function or a move.
This has got to be the best short term answer to this problem.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Sad to say I don't see any advantage for Cable Labs or the Cable Co's either. Allowing us the capability of MRV/TTG on our TiVo's gives TiVo one more advantage over having a Cable Co's own DVR. Thus lowering their revenue because some people will be smarter and choose a TiVo over a Cable Co DVR.


Well, a lot of people forget there is a difference between revenue and profit. CATV company rentals of DVRs and STBs are not generally very profitable, if at all. Companies frequently embark upon paths for reasons other than the bottom line. Our company, for example, recently made some decisions which will wind up costing us several hundred million dollars simply because the managers in the Network Operations Center do not wish to have to deal with more than 2 vendors' equipment.



TexasGrillChef said:


> In the mean time, I currently do the following as my work around. Not the best way of course. But it does work.


I employ a much different method.



TexasGrillChef said:


> TiVo doesn't have the financial resources to LOBBY congress, or cable labs into changing the Copy protection rules & regulations.


Neither do we TiVo owners. The giant corporations involved with the issue can and do bring literally billions of dollars to the table, and even more under the table, to insure they get their way.



TexasGrillChef said:


> We as TiVo viewers for the most part aren't willing to partake as a whole in the actions required to give Cable labs, Cable co's or our congress the reason to change the laws, rules & regulations regarding the copy protection bit.


The few members of congress not bought and paid for by the giant special interests in this arena are mostly sympathetic to the corporate position. Of course, sometimes a highly visible and charismatic campaign in opposition to embedded interests can have an effect, but I wouldn't hold my breath.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Even if a vast majority of us are willing to BOYCOT the cable companies. We as TiVo owners don't make up a big enough percentage of the cable co's clients to even make a major dent in their pocket books.


And even less in the pocketbooks of the MPAA.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Think of it this way. DTV switchover was delayed until June 12th, because 6.5 Million people would lose Television coverage. Thats 6.5 million people who don't have have DTV sets or converters. About 90% of them don't even have a DVR either!


Yes, but the main reason the switch was delayed is the $600 billion a year national networks don't want to lose 2% of their revenue. They yank the cords, and the members of congress dance like the marionettes they are.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

berkshires said:


> TiVo had the resources to get a TA agreed to and developed, and there the cable DVR had the advantage of getting ultimately large numbers of channels the TiVo would not be able to get at all, not just a question of transfers.


In a situation where the major forces cancel each other out, a relatively small influence can rule the day. In physics, we call these "residual forces" or "second order effects" depending upon the situation. In this case, we had the CATV industry wanting to make sure their chosen technology (OCAP and Open Cable) ruled the day, and the CE manufacturers pushing for DCR+. It was a standstill. Then along came TiVo and the low volume but high visibility issue of SDV. Small, but significant, numbers of people were making noise to the FCC concerning a resolution to the SDV issue, and the CATV companies were (rightly) concerned the additional weight might tip the balance in favor of DCR+, while delivering a TA solution would unquestionably tend to tip the balance in favor of OCAP and Open Cable. Since the cost of delivering the TA was quite low - probably not much more than bribing a handful of senators - the answer no doubt seemed obvious to the CATV companies.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> In a situation where the major forces cancel each other out, a relatively small influence can rule the day. In physics, we call these "residual forces" or "second order effects" depending upon the situation. In this case, we had the CATV industry wanting to make sure their chosen technology (OCAP and Open Cable) ruled the day, and the CE manufacturers pushing for DCR+. It was a standstill. Then along came TiVo and the low volume but high visibility issue of SDV. Small, but significant, numbers of people were making noise to the FCC concerning a resolution to the SDV issue, and the CATV companies were (rightly) concerned the additional weight might tip the balance in favor of DCR+, while delivering a TA solution would unquestionably tend to tip the balance in favor of OCAP and Open Cable. Since the cost of delivering the TA was quite low - probably not much more than bribing a handful of senators - the answer no doubt seemed obvious to the CATV companies.


Its an interesting analysis that might be correct. CE still has an interest in selling cable equipment direct to consumers. Cable controlling the ability to use a differentiating feature is a threat to the entire CE industry too. Pit CE and MPAA and Channels against Cable.


----------



## Valkyrieboy81 (Oct 2, 2009)

berkshires said:


> Having the cable co even permited to touch the flag violates the concept of open cable - part of which is to have third party devices with differentiated features available to consumers.
> 
> Giving a cable co any power over the flag permits the cable co to dictate which of those differentiated features will function on a consumer's self-purchased equipment.
> 
> I think that is a powerful argument for altering the system.


OCAP has nothing to do with how signals are broadcast, and everythign to do with allowing equipment such as TiVO devices, and media pc's access to ALL of a cable company's available features.

For example, if you dont want to pay x amount a month to rent a set top box or dvr from your cable company, you can go out and BUY a dhct or dvr from Best Buy or Wal Mart that supports OCAP, and get a cablecard from your provider, and presto, youve got access to SDV, PPV, OnDemand, etc.

Its a way for cusotmers to no longer be required to LEASE the equipment from the cable providers... just the security device (ie CableCard)


----------



## qz3fwd (Jul 6, 2007)

TexasGrillChef said:


> ...
> It is true that SOME Cable co's are offering LIMITED MRV, However none still match the basic capabilities of a TiVo MRV/TTG.
> ....
> TGC


Which cable co allows any mrv capability on their dvr's?
Please provide additional details/info/examples.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

qz3fwd said:


> Which cable co allows any mrv capability on their dvr's?
> Please provide additional details/info/examples.


MoCA enabled Motorola DVR boxes have had the option for it for a while and FIOS I believe was the first to roll it out and has been deployed for a while now. Also Cox announced plans for a MoCA enabled multi-room DVR (along with a bigger internal drive) which can *stream* SD & HD video to other non-DVR client MoCA enabled boxes around the house. That is to be released in the next couple of months in Orange County, CA if you believe the Cox CSRs here. In both cases note that they are *streaming* instead of copying, so the CCI "copy once" related issues are avoided.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Valkyrieboy81 said:


> For example, if you dont want to pay x amount a month to rent a set top box or dvr from your cable company, you can go out and BUY a dhct or dvr from Best Buy or Wal Mart that supports OCAP, and get a cablecard from your provider, and presto, youve got access to SDV, PPV, OnDemand, etc.
> 
> Its a way for cusotmers to no longer be required to LEASE the equipment from the cable providers... just the security device (ie CableCard)


Except that no such boxes are available for sale, and I haven't seen any CE manufacturer announcing that they will be anytime soon. Tru2way, at retail, is essentially stillborn - the cableCos missed the July deadline and mumbled vague plans for making it happen in 2010. Panasonic is still the only tru2way TV available in just a handful of markets. So it could be a chicken-and-egg problem, or it could be that the CE industry doesn't want to bother with the inevitable consumer Cablecard issues that will come with tru2way.


----------



## sgip2000 (Jun 19, 2009)

Saw this on the Tivo website:

"WARNING: Your cable provider must pair (bind) the CableCARD to its slot in the TiVo DVR before you can view content with any CCI value other than 0x00."

Guess this is why all of us FIOS subscribers have no problems copying?


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

sgip2000 said:


> Saw this on the Tivo website:
> 
> "WARNING: Your cable provider must pair (bind) the CableCARD to its slot in the TiVo DVR before you can view content with any CCI value other than 0x00."
> 
> Guess this is why all of us FIOS subscribers have no problems copying?


No. It has nothing to do with it.


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

sgip2000 said:


> Saw this on the Tivo website:
> 
> "WARNING: Your cable provider must pair (bind) the CableCARD to its slot in the TiVo DVR before you can view content with any CCI value other than 0x00."
> 
> Guess this is why all of us FIOS subscribers have no problems copying?


So on FIOS, can you even copy shows from premium channels like HBO-HD?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

djwilso said:


> So on FIOS, can you even copy shows from premium channels like HBO-HD?


Yep. Or on any CATV system which does not set the CCI byte. Also with any DVR which - through whatever means - ignores the CCI byte.


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Yep. Or on any CATV system which does not set the CCI byte. Also with any DVR which - through whatever means - ignores the CCI byte.


That makes me want FIOS even more. But, in Phoenix, it'll probably be years before it ever comes here.

I'm certainly not into piracy as I pay monthly subscriptions for both HBO and Showtime, but I would like to watch transferred shows on the device of my choice.

With Cox cable, none of that is possible.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

berkshires said:


> Its an interesting analysis that might be correct. CE still has an interest in selling cable equipment direct to consumers. Cable controlling the ability to use a differentiating feature is a threat to the entire CE industry too. Pit CE and MPAA and Channels against Cable.


'Sorry for the very delayed reply, but I just spotted this. In this case, the MPAA cannot be pitted against the CATV companies, because the CATV companies themselves have only a peripheral interest in the issue. It is the MPAA which wants the CCI byte set, not really the CATV companies per se. Note the MPAA has a huge influence in the CATV industry. Who is the most agressive CATV company in this respect? Time Warner. It is not a coincidence that Time Warner Cable used to be a minor holding of the company whose major holding is Warner Brothers. The various members of the MPAA still hold large amounts of stock in various CATV companies, or else their parent companies do. The impact to the CATV companies themselves independently for leaving all the CCI bytes unset is not large at all, but the impact to the MPAA is, or at least is perceived to be by them.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

djwilso said:


> That makes me want FIOS even more.


That is until Verizon decides to start setting the CCI byte. There's nothing preventing them from doing so, and I imagine the MPAA is pressuring Verizon to do so, but for the time being at least, Verizon wants to distinguish themselves from the CATV systems, and this is one more way to accomplish it.



djwilso said:


> I'm certainly not into piracy as I pay monthly subscriptions for both HBO and Showtime, but I would like to watch transferred shows on the device of my choice.
> 
> With Cox cable, none of that is possible.


Sure it is. Note means of defeating the CCI byte itself are not illegal, and do not constitute piracy unless it is part of a scheme to distribute the content. The FCC does not specifically require anyone to set the CCI byte, nor do they require any device to honor it. CableLabs will not issue a certification to any DVR which does not honor the CCI byte, but a CableLabs certification is not required by law to build a DVR - even a CableCard compatible one. Copying video content - even premium channel content - to a consumer device such as a DVR is not illegal, regardless of the status of the CCI byte. It's not physically possible with an unaltered CableLabs approved device if the CCI byte is set, but that's another matter.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Except that no such boxes are available for sale, and I haven't seen any CE manufacturer announcing that they will be anytime soon. Tru2way, at retail, is essentially stillborn - the cableCos missed the July deadline and mumbled vague plans for making it happen in 2010. Panasonic is still the only tru2way TV available in just a handful of markets. So it could be a chicken-and-egg problem, or it could be that the CE industry doesn't want to bother with the inevitable consumer Cablecard issues that will come with tru2way.


Their stated position, which I find credible, is they do not mostly wish to incur the additional costs of bidirectional equipment, especially on low end devices. They would like to be able to deliver a UDCP without the need for a modulator. While not hideously expensive, modulators and the associated hardware and software do cost money. Implementation costs might be as high as $10 per unit, and most customers would not be interested in paying the additional $15 - $20 per unit for the feature.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> 'Sorry for the very delayed reply, but I just spotted this. In this case, the MPAA cannot be pitted against the CATV companies, because the CATV companies themselves have only a peripheral interest in the issue. It is the MPAA which wants the CCI byte set, not really the CATV companies per se. Note the MPAA has a huge influence in the CATV industry. Who is the most agressive CATV company in this respect? Time Warner. It is not a coincidence that Time Warner Cable used to be a minor holding of the company whose major holding is Warner Brothers. The various members of the MPAA still hold large amounts of stock in various CATV companies, or else their parent companies do. The impact to the CATV companies themselves independently for leaving all the CCI bytes unset is not large at all, but the impact to the MPAA is, or at least is perceived to be by them.


lrhorer-

you seem to know much more than the average bear. It would make sene that the MPAA and other content owners would want the CCI bit's set. But can you explain why they dont just force HBO, SHO, etc to insert the bits at the uplink thereby effectively setting the bits for every cable provider?

It's been some time but there was once somone who worked in/with a head end in texas someplace and he said that the head end hardware of any recent vintage all would at least pass forward any bits it found in the incoming stream.

So why not just have HBO set the bits on their end of things? It just doesn't make any sense to me that they wouldn't...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

djwilso said:


> That makes me want FIOS even more. But, in Phoenix, it'll probably be years before it ever comes here.
> ....


I'm afraid it's most likely never.

For whatever reason Fios only typically to lay fiber where they already have local phone service.

Makes no sense to me that they wouldn't also want to poach other areas- the cost wouldn't be more in any significant way that I can figure- but they dont seem to bother.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> you seem to know much more than the average bear. It would make sene that the MPAA and other content owners would want the CCI bit's set. But can you explain why they dont just force HBO, SHO, etc to insert the bits at the uplink thereby effectively setting the bits for every cable provider?


The CATV provider has control of the byte, which is why TWC and others have it set for every non-broadcast channel regardless of how the content provide has the byte set. If the CATV provider wants not to set the byte, then they both legally and physically can unset it, regardless of the content provider's settings.



MichaelK said:


> It's been some time but there was once somone who worked in/with a head end in texas someplace and he said that the head end hardware of any recent vintage all would at least pass forward any bits it found in the incoming stream.


No, it can be set to do so, but the equipment can also be set to provide a specific value.



MichaelK said:


> So why not just have HBO set the bits on their end of things? It just doesn't make any sense to me that they wouldn't...


For all I know, they might. It doesn't prevent FIOS from resetting it.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I'm afraid it's most likely never.
> 
> For whatever reason Fios only typically to lay fiber where they already have local phone service.


I could have a faulty memory, here, but as I recall they are only allowed by law to build where they have local service. AT&T (or whoever the LEC may be) builds wherever Verizon is not the LEC.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> I could have a faulty memory, here, but as I recall they are only allowed by law to build where they have local service. AT&T (or whoever the LEC may be) builds wherever Verizon is not the LEC.


but wouldn't it all be subject to where they could get a franchise agreement? (I dont know that's why I'm asking)

and if it's about getting a franchise agreement then wouldn't it cost the same (roughly) to get a franchise agreement in Phoenix as it would in NYC or Boston or anyplace else?

_edit to add:_
from what I gather from http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/PL06/83_.PDF the NJ statewide franchise law doesn't REQUIRE verizon to offer service outside their current footprint in the state but it also doesn't preclude it.



> "System-wide franchise" means a competitive franchise issued pursuant to P.L.1972,
> c.186 (C.48:5A-1 et seq.) which authorizes a CATV company to construct or operate a cable
> television system in any location within this State in which the CATV company, at the time
> of the issuance of the system-wide franchise, either has plant or equipment in use for the
> ...


_then goes on to state they are only required to serve where they currently provide phone_

It could be that in NJ Verizon concentrated on wiring where they were required (they basically are required to provide service to all towns they provide phone to (with certain limits) within 3 years of getting the franchise. The franchise was issued in December 2006 so presumably they will have completed the required build out before December of this year.

So far they have made no noise about covering anything in the rest of the state. Will be interesting to see if next year they start picking off some more dense/wealthy towns that they dont currently provide phone service in. They have the statewide franchise so there's nothing in the way.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> but wouldn't it all be subject to where they could get a franchise agreement? (I dont know that's why I'm asking)


Not if federal law prevents it. Again, I could easily be mis-remembering, but I am vaguely recalling something - perhaps the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Perhaps it was something concerning the notion that if Verizon (or whoever) runs fiber all the way to the house then they must make those facilities available to the LEC, should the LEC choose to make use of them. In places where Verizon *IS*the LEC, they have little or no exposure to this sort of issue.



MichaelK said:


> and if it's about getting a franchise agreement then wouldn't it cost the same (roughly) to get a franchise agreement in Phoenix as it would in NYC or Boston or anyplace else?


No, definitely not, but nonetheless, I don't think this is the issue. If I am indeed not mistaken, then I am pretty sure it had to do with a federal regulation, not local franchise agreements.



MichaelK said:


> _edit to add:_
> from what I gather from http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/PL06/83_.PDF the NJ statewide franchise law doesn't REQUIRE verizon to offer service outside their current footprint in the state but it also doesn't preclude it.
> 
> _then goes on to state they are only required to serve where they currently provide phone_


That's a very different matter. The LEC cannot refuse to deliver service to anyone in their delivery area. Requiring the same level of service from a company who is not a LEC in a particular area would be exceedingly onerous.



MichaelK said:


> So far they have made no noise about covering anything in the rest of the state. Will be interesting to see if next year they start picking off some more dense/wealthy towns that they dont currently provide phone service in. They have the statewide franchise so there's nothing in the way.


Having a franchise and being a public utility are very different matters.


----------



## skaggs (Feb 13, 2003)

A member of the AlbanyHDTV.com webiste has posted that he has successfully negotiated with Albany TWC to reduce the CCI Byte on all channels except premiums and PPV. Check it out here:
http://albanyhdtv.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=boxes&action=display&thread=3221&page=1


----------



## anotherlab (Jun 23, 2005)

Fast forward to January, 2010: Albany TWC has been told by their corporate headquarters to make no changes to the CCI byte. Basically the OTA channels are set to copy freely, everything else is Copy Once or Copy Never. I was given this information this morning from the same Albany TWC engineer that was mentioned in the link below.

Can anyone confirm what FiOS sets the CCI byte to? I would like to pursue this with TWC and if FiOS is setting the channels to copy freely, that would help.



skaggs said:


> A member of the AlbanyHDTV.com webiste has posted that he has successfully negotiated with Albany TWC to reduce the CCI Byte on all channels except premiums and PPV. Check it out here:
> http://albanyhdtv.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=boxes&action=display&thread=3221&page=1


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

There have been many posts here stating that Verizon FIOS doe not copy protect any channels other than PPV, VOD, I believe.

Not sure what you're planning but be sure to take a look at **this recent thread**.

Some facts:
1. TWC is legally entitled to set copy protection, unless a content provider specifies otherwise in their agreement with TWC.

2. All indications are this is national TWC policy, although they won't explicitly say that for the record.

I think trying to get TWC to change things is a lost cause, although I wish you luck since I am a fellow sufferer.


----------



## anotherlab (Jun 23, 2005)

I saw that thread and did reference the CIC points when I contacted TWC. I agree that TWC is probably a lost cause, but I'm still willing to make noise about it.

Jeff Simmermon, the TWC Corporate Director of Digital Communications, has been saying that they obligated to set the CCI flag as part of their contracts with the providers. That is on record, via his public Twitter postings.

I just think that it's odd that TWC has to set the flag to copy once and FiOS doesn't.


----------



## tralfaz (Jan 9, 2004)

I live in Austin. I bought my first Tivo just over 6 years ago. Since then I've had 4 cable providers (in the following order):

(1) Cox Communications
(2) Suddenlink Communications (which I understand bought the local business from Cox)
(3) Grande Communications
(4) Time Warner

When I got Time Warner cable, I saw for the first time those little red circles with the line through them indicating I cannot transfer a show from one Tivo to another. I was so confused by them I called Tivo to find out what they were. Obviously none of my previous cable providers had ever turned on the CCI bits.

So, if the cable provider is legally obligated to turn those bits on when requested by the networks, and that's what Time Warner is doing, then we have plenty of cable providers operating illegally.

(Or perhaps Time Warner is full of it.)

And yes, it pisses me off. I am heavily invested in Tivo, and just had the rug pulled out from under me regarding MRV. It is one of our favorite features, and now all of the money I've spent to have it is wasted.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

tralfaz said:


> So, if the cable provider is legally obligated to turn those bits on when requested by the networks, and that's what Time Warner is doing, then we have plenty of cable providers operating illegally.
> 
> (Or perhaps Time Warner is full of it.)


Time-Warner _could_ have a different agreement with the providers, that requires the flags even though the other companies' agreements with the providers do not.

However, I suspect the real answer is that they are full of it.


----------



## convergent (Jan 4, 2007)

I have been pretty frustrated by this with TWC also, since I got my Tivo HD a year ago. It is the main reason I've not bought more HD units. My two Series 2 units are ending contract in this week, and I'm still up in the air on a next move. I lived in Albany and then moved to North Carolina with Time Warner, and adding to the frustration of this, I'm paying about 40% more in NC too. I even bought the MLB Extra Innings last year from TWC and they had the CCI flags set so that I couldn't even record the games once. What in the world is the reason for that? A baseball game really has no real value after you watch it once. I wish the OP well with trying to lobby TWC to change their policy, but I doubt it will do any good. 

I'm probably going to vote with my pocket book and move to another provider... primarily because of the copy protect bits and their much higher rates they are charging me here in NC. Together with the Tuning Adapters and cable cards fiasco.... its just so frustrating that a company goes out of its way to do things like this that are so unneccessary. When you continue to treat your customers like this, they are actively going to look for alternatives. I can say without hesitation that if they were not doing these two things, I'd not even be considering switching at this point. 

So I've just got an HD antenna to start experimenting more with OTA together with Boxee, MLB.tv, and some other things. I'm also waiting to see what the DirectTV Tivo looks like. Unfortunately my only other option for high speed internet is DSL, which speedwise isn't going to be the same as TWC, but I think I can live with the slower speeds if it will get me a better solution for these other things. I want MRV and I want to be able to record baseball games to watch them later.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Some facts:
> 1. TWC is legally entitled to set copy protection, unless a content provider specifies otherwise in their agreement with TWC.


And there is some evidence that if the content provider wants a less restrictive setting, they get dropped (HDNet).


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

tralfaz said:


> I live in Austin. I bought my first Tivo just over 6 years ago. Since then I've had 4 cable providers (in the following order):
> 
> (1) Cox Communications
> (2) Suddenlink Communications (which I understand bought the local business from Cox)
> ...


The law really doesn't say who gets to decide what the setting is just that it has to be 00 for OTA channels and what it *could be* for everything else. If the contracts don't specify a setting then TWC is within their rights to set it to anything they want with in those limits. Also they are not lying when they say that the settings are "in compliance with agreements and law". If that means they are "Full of it" sure but they are also within their agreements and the law.


----------



## jeshaffer (Feb 15, 2004)

personally I am finding more and more channels set this way with Comcast Nashville. I am also invested in TIVO hardware and considering getting out when my contract ends. MRV was a huge selling feature for me. I have two tivo HD boxes and 2 expanders. 

I wonder if there is any effort in this trying to push you away from cable card and third party hardware and into using their's.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I heard a rumor that TWC was going to introduce a feature similar to MRV with their own DVRs.
Is it any wonder that they don't want Tivos to be able to MRV? That's one way to limit the competition.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

steve614 said:


> I heard a rumor that TWC was going to introduce a feature similar to MRV with their own DVRs.
> Is it any wonder that they don't want Tivos to be able to MRV? That's one way to limit the competition.


 That's not necessarily the motivation. As a counter to this argument for example FIOS has had MRV (streaming) deployed for quite a while and yet don't copy protect anything. Additionally Cox Orange County is also soon (in Q1 of this year) going to release MRV solution (similar to FIOS) and only copy protect premium channels.


----------



## rosscan (Jan 10, 2010)

I have Fios in NYC and lately I'm seeing the flag appear on everything. My local Fox and CBS HD channels have a RC Flag of 0x01 and CCI 0X02. Is this a result of the Motorola box enforcing CCI 0x02 because of the RC Flag?

BTW I haven't switched to Tivo just yet, I'm trying to see if this issue can be resolved by removing the Motorola DVR.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Local stations, by law are supposed to be CCI=0x00. Everything (or very nearly everything) else is set to whatever the cable companies agreements with networks or corporate policy dictates. Historically Fios has been very good to consumers by having most if not all channels set to CCI=0x00.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> Local stations, by law are supposed to be CCI=0x00. Everything (or very nearly everything) else is set to whatever the cable companies agreements with networks or corporate policy dictates. ...........


True. I wonder how many times this fact has had to be restated on these forums!?!?

Maybe we need a sticky thread that, if nothing else, states this fact, once and for all.


----------



## rosscan (Jan 10, 2010)

dlfl said:


> True. I wonder how many times this fact has had to be restated on these forums!?!?
> 
> Maybe we need a sticky thread that, if nothing else, states this fact, once and for all.


THIS I know, but I was asking if the Broadcast flag "RC 0X01" had anything to do with my box setting to CCI 0X02??


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

rosscan said:


> THIS I know, but I was asking if the Broadcast flag "RC 0X01" had anything to do with my box setting to CCI 0X02??


See my previous post. ALL local broadcast stations are REQUIRED by law to be CCI 0x00. If it isn't tell your cable company they need to comply with the law.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> See my previous post. ALL local broadcast stations are REQUIRED by law to be CCI 0x00. If it isn't tell your cable company they need to comply with the law.


That's true, but this is an interesting case - it sounds like the station may be setting the broadcast flag, and either the cable company or possibly TiVo itself is setting CCI to 0x02 as a result. So this may be the fault of the station.

Rosscan, can you receive those stations over the air? You could record something that way and see if the broadcast flag is still set. If it is, I'd say the station is doing it. (Of course, neither the cable company nor TiVo needs to respect that flag anymore, but it's probably easier to get the station to shut it off as I've never heard of it being applied except by accident.)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I've seen the broadcast flag on locals out of NY in the past- specifically i remember CBS- can't recall yes or no from fox. I've actually seen some sort of internal screen from CBS pop up during two and a half man that says- with information like the program name and episode and stating that the broadcast flag was on.

So I'm pretty sure the WCBS in NY is doing it on purpose (who knows why?)

Lately I just am using tivo to record only the feed comcast provides and am getting no ill effects.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> See my previous post. ALL local broadcast stations are REQUIRED by law to be CCI 0x00. If it isn't tell your cable company they need to comply with the law.


Not necessarily.

There's some ambiguity in the FCC regs that don't say one way or the other as to which broadcast.

For example, our local TW only has our local HD broadcasts at 0x00
The other locals (analog and simulcast digital) are set to 0x02

And they've been set that way for well over a year (way before the digital deadline).

So it's possible it's a "local" station, but the cable company is digitally simulcasting it and therefore can probably set the CCI byte however they wish.

Ours even set the analog broadcasts that way when we still had "broadcast analog" stations. Because they were digitally simulcasting it ONLY for cable card customers (in other words if you didn't have a cable card, you weren't getting the digital signal, of course if didn't have a cable card you don't have to worry about the cci byte anyway).


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

jeshaffer said:


> personally I am finding more and more channels set this way with Comcast Nashville. I am also invested in TIVO hardware and considering getting out when my contract ends. MRV was a huge selling feature for me. I have two tivo HD boxes and 2 expanders.
> 
> I wonder if there is any effort in this trying to push you away from cable card and third party hardware and into using their's.


In the last couple of weeks I found the two extended basic channels that had been copy protected in Nashville have now had that copy protection removed.


----------



## tnhybrid (Apr 9, 2010)

Just another Nashville data point - we had to replace the cable box paired with our Series 2 three or so months ago and have been suffering from CCI ever since. You know, I almost don't even mind losing MRV as much as I mind being told I have 24 hours to watch, say, the Daily Show and having it self-destruct.

We had a Series 3 in our front room which worked fine until it got hit by lightning last month - no CCI at all. Go figure. Why would we be subject to CCI using the cable box but not cable cards?!

We just bought a Premiere to replace the S3 and are now told we have to replace our cable cards with something called an M Card to make it work. I'll let y'all know if it's CCI free. Fingers crossed, but I am not optimistic. We may well be after an old Series 3 refurb at this rate.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Sorry if maybe this point has already been discussed here. There's just too much info in the thread to read thru to know. 
I record both digital and analog channels thru TWC HD cable boxes on my S2's. When I go to transfer to my THD or to another S2, there are no copy protection flags set anywhere. However, when I record those same channels on my THD and try to transfer to my S2's, I am told that copying is prohibited by the copyright holder. Even on analog SD 64 (Syfy) and 66 (golf channel). Most of the channels below 99 are ok, though. This just makes no sense at all. If there is a requirement from the copyright holder why is transferring from my S2's allowed but not from my THD to my S2's?


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

wtherrell said:


> This just makes no sense at all. If there is a requirement from the copyright holder why is transferring from my S2's allowed but not from my THD to my S2's?


Your S2 is recording an analog signal. There are no flags set for those. This is known as the analog hole in copy protection systems.

The Analog channel on your HD is really digital, you can verify that by pressing record on a show and seeing that it does not ask if you want to record in best quality or not. If it was analog, it would ask about quality.

There is no reason why TWC should restrict this channel. It is available as analog and is freely copyable, the content owner does NOT require copy protection on the VAST majority of channels that TWC delivers. But TWC is within their rights to set copy protection on digital channels at their own whim. You and I might not like it, but it is legal for them to do so.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

It's of no practical significance, but I've always thought that message from your TiVo ("....by the Copyright holder") is actually inaccurate. TWC is not the copyright holder but they can (and I believe do) apply CCI=0x02 for their own purposes -- not because of any agreements with copyright holders. It's not significant because as stated earlier, TWC has the legal right to do this.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

CuriousMark said:


> Your S2 is recording an analog signal. There are no flags set for those. This is known as the analog hole in copy protection systems.
> 
> The Analog channel on your HD is really digital, you can verify that by pressing record on a show and seeing that it does not ask if you want to record in best quality or not. If it was analog, it would ask about quality.
> 
> There is no reason why TWC should restrict this channel. It is available as analog and is freely copyable, the content owner does NOT require copy protection on the VAST majority of channels that TWC delivers. But TWC is within their rights to set copy protection on digital channels at their own whim. You and I might not like it, but it is legal for them to do so.


just wanted to pipe in for those that weren't aware. there ARE in fact CCI flags that would enable analog copy protection (I'd guess they add macrovision to the analog outputs- but dont really know.) Sounds like no one has ever seen them enabled in the wild- but presumably there is NOTHING from stoping TWC or anyone else from turning that on at some point also.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

m_jonis said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> There's some ambiguity in the FCC regs that don't say one way or the other as to which broadcast.
> 
> ...


I'd have to go back and dig up the reg but I am pretty certain that even digital HD of the local channels Have to be carried set to 0x00. That is my understanding anyway.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> I'd have to go back and dig up the reg but I am pretty certain that even digital HD of the local channels Have to be carried set to 0x00. That is my understanding anyway.


Nope, sorry. The law is purposely ambiguous when it comes to digital simulcasting.

It was hashed in one of the other forums on this site and someone posted the regs. The regs do not state that every format of the broadcast channel has to be set to 0x00. But since analog broadcast is non-existent it's pretty much a moot point now anyway.


----------

