# Yes Tivo, No Qam Mapping = Lost Sells (repeat And New)!!!!



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

I just don't understand how so many on this forum think that QAM mapping is not important. The cable companies are moving even basic channels to digital. (We lost about 15 today) They offer free turners to all who need them but Series3 don't have inputs. All digital QAM channels can be recorded manually with no guide but then why have a TiVo? Even the locals HD channels that are mapped right have no guide info. (6-1,8-1,12-1,23-1,57-1,65-1)

I have 6 TiVo's:
2 Series 3
1 TivoHD
3 Series 2
I have lifetime service on 5 of my TiVo's, one has limited life with DVD. The Series 2 are almost worthless in my area. I only have one hooked up. I can see now that the cable company is going to go all digital faster than most Series 2 users were thinking. I would say now one year if we are lucky. 

I have cable cards in only one of my HD TiVo's, $72.00 a year and a $29.00 truck roll is too much to pay a year for just channel mapping. Without the cable cards or OTA the value of HD TiVo's are falling. That's why Sony and Moxi included QAM mapping on their DVRs. Even my Panasonic TV lets you label all your digital channels. I would even pay a onetime fee of $50.00 per DVR to have this mapping.

TiVo has dropped the ball on QAM mapping. They have left too much power in the cable companies hands. Cable cards are great for persons with one TiVo but if you have more than one or paying a monthly TiVo sub with a cable card fee and the cost of buying the TiVo most will rent the cable DVR.
P.S. forgot TA

I love TiVo but I guess I am going to get a Moxi because they have QAM mapping.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

You're just ranting here. Unless you TELL TIVO that this is important to you, they will not know. (They still might not CARE, but if you can provide lots of potential customers because of this lack of feature, then they might...)


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

Don't complain to Tivo, complain to your cable company. They are the ones who arbitrarily chose where to map the channels to and don't publish this map anywhere. They are the ones not doing their job. In reality, it makes no sense to map it to the OTA number. It only make sense to map it to the channel number that they already give it...


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

OCSMITH said:


> TiVo has dropped the ball on QAM mapping. They have left too much power in the cable companies hands. Cable cards are great for persons with one TiVo but if you have more than one or paying a monthly TiVo sub with a cable card fee and the cost of buying the TiVo most will rent the cable DVR.
> P.S. forgot TA
> 
> I love TiVo but I guess I am going to get a Moxi because they have QAM mapping.


Keep in mind though that the Cable companies will soon be going 100% digital and soon* requiring *cable cards for 100% viewing of their channels. Soon there *WON'T* be any "Clear QAM" cable channels. TiVo knows this. Thats why they haven't wasted resources on mapping "Clear QAM" channels.

Either go OTA, or pay for the digital cable cards. Analog cable as well as clear qam are dinassouars that will soon be extinct. DRM Encryption is coming to all channels. As well as copy protecting flags.

TGC


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

AFAIK, the only Clear QAM channels here are the broadcast stations, and those you may as well just put antenna up for. I would imagine my area isn't too terribly different from most.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

It doesn't matter whether we think QAM mapping is unimportant, Tivo does. So stop ranting here and go hit them up, or go buy a Moxi if it's that important to you. Better yet, roll your own HTPC, it's a better solution for clear QAM anyway.

Not that it's going to get you anywhere, because clear QAM is quickly turning into the locals only.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

OCSMITH said:


> I just don't understand how so many on this forum think that QAM mapping is not important. The cable companies are moving even basic channels to digital.


You pretty much answered "why" in the second statement. Cablecos are moving the cable-channels (ie, non-broadcast) to encrypted digital channels anyway, so ClearQAM is useless for those channels and you will need a cable card to get them anyway.

Most areas are moving anything about analog 23. They will likely keep OTA digital channels available as clearQAM (because they may legally have to do so)... but that's all you'll get via digital. They have no desire to help you in this matter, since you can simply put up an antenna to get these as well, so they have no desire to map and properly maintain these channels for the minority of clearQAM users.

Cablecards are relatively cheap (if not free) so S3+ users can get those and get the digitals mapped and running for minimal cost.

I'll admit, I was with you on this matter myself... I found it very annoying to see that my MythTV system can map and get data for these channels, but the Tivo will not. But, there is really little incentive for Tivo to do this. Only advanced-users (like most of us here on this forum) would know how to do this, or even bother to understand the problem and ask for the solution... that's a minority within the Tivo using public. The rest of the people will get cable cards or the cableco DVR...

I wish Tivo would at least provide an "unsupported" method of manually mapping channels for users like us. But that is not the case. Hell, if the S3 platform wasn't prom-locked, the hackers among us would have come up with a way very quickly, I'm sure... but that's not to be either.

Still, you should certainly complain to Tivo (as many others have) in order to help raise its priority... that's all we can do for now.


----------



## turbobozz (Sep 21, 2006)

Losing 0.01&#37; of it's customers to lack of QAM mapping does not justify the business expense to make it work when it just plain won't matter in a few years.


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Keep in mind though that the Cable companies will soon be going 100% digital and soon* requiring *cable cards for 100% viewing of their channels. Soon there *WON'T* be any "Clear QAM" cable channels. TiVo knows this. Thats why they haven't wasted resources on mapping "Clear QAM" channels.
> 
> Either go OTA, or pay for the digital cable cards. Analog cable as well as clear qam are dinassouars that will soon be extinct. DRM Encryption is coming to all channels. As well as copy protecting flags.
> 
> TGC


Wow, they (Cable companies) will really shoot themselves in the foot if they did that, 3 cableboxes or more in a home to view basic cable!!! Most TVs don't have cablecards. My Sony XBR960 does but you can also label QAM channels without them.

I have an OTA but wanted to use my HD Tivo for my basic cable channels, all my basic channels are "Clear QAM".


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

OCSMITH said:


> Wow, they (Cable companies) will really shoot themselves in the foot if they did that, 3 cableboxes or more in a home to view basic cable!!!


Yes, it's a dumb strategy that will bring them *increased revenue since every TV in the house will require a box! *I'm sorry, but from a profit standpoint it's freeking brilliant on their side and totally and completely legal.

I make no bones cable companies are up there with sleazy sales weasels, but from THEIR side more folks will give them more money for additional boxes than would drop their service.

Diane


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> AFAIK, the only Clear QAM channels here are the broadcast stations, and those you may as well just put antenna up for. I would imagine my area isn't too terribly different from most.


Comcast has moved many channels here from analog to digital, leaving only 15-30 as analog, However, right now all of the moved channels are available as clear-QAM un-encrypted digital channels, about 40 of them (including local HD).

This is the case in many Comcast areas. However, I do understand that this may only be temporary.


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

turbobozz said:


> Losing 0.01% of it's customers to lack of QAM mapping does not justify the business expense to make it work when it just plain won't matter in a few years.


I think the percentage is larger then 0.01 Why would other DVRs (Sony, Moxi and PC ) offer QAM mapping if the numbers were so small?


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

dianebrat said:


> Yes, it's a dumb strategy that will bring them *increased revenue since every TV in the house will require a box! *I'm sorry, but from a profit standpoint it's freeking brilliant on their side and totally and completely legal.
> 
> I make no bones cable companies are up there with sleazy sales weasels, but from THEIR side more folks will give them more money for additional boxes than would drop their service.
> 
> Diane


TV makers are going away from cablecards this is a "perfect storm" for cable.


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

jrm01 said:


> Comcast has moved many channels here from analog to digital, leaving only 15-30 as analog, However, right now all of the moved channels are available as clear-QAM un-encrypted digital channels, about 40 of them (including local HD).
> 
> This is the case in many Comcast areas. However, I do understand that this may only be temporary.


I have been watching all digital channels on my Panasonic TV for the last month. You can label all the QAM channels, 99% of the label are already setup in the TV. The others you just name.


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

socrplyr said:


> Don't complain to Tivo, complain to your cable company. They are the ones who arbitrarily chose where to map the channels to and don't publish this map anywhere. They are the ones not doing their job. In reality, it makes no sense to map it to the OTA number. It only make sense to map it to the channel number that they already give it...


That's the reason that some DVRs have QAM mapping, cable companies don't care if you don't get your TiVo guide. TiVos get QAM channels but don't work with QAM channels. I don't really care if the guide says 54-1 or 12-1 I just to be able to use the guide to record. Here is place to map your QAM channels: http://www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/channels_us


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

OCSMITH said:


> I have been watching all digital channels on my Panasonic TV for the last month. You can label all the QAM channels, 99% of the label are already setup in the TV. The others you just name.


Didn't know if you knew about the QAM mapping letter campaign (HD w/o cablecard) thread or not, but it was started back on 08-16-2007 and has over 2100 posts. 
TiVo has also had numerous people e-mailing them about QAM mapping and asking for it on their occasional surveys, for nearly 3.5 years now. They didn't do it and so it would be impossible to fathom why they would all of a sudden do it, unless they took my approach of letting us have some minimal control over the TMS guide data which has our channel lineups embedded in it.

I've been fighting for *5 weeks* now to get Tribune to fix my cable channel lineup, once I finally got CableCARDs in my S3 after over 3 years without them, and yet every time they fix one or two channel errors, somehow they **introduce** yet another channel error. It is beyond belief, really, that it has gone on this long. This happens to people all the time, though, just search this site.

If TiVo would just add an "expert" feature to our TiVo web site accounts to allow us to edit the station/channel pairing in TMS data being sent to our units, we could both fix this kind of stupidty and also would allow folks without CableCARDs to add guide data to whatever unencrypted QAM channels any of us might still have left at this point.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

dianebrat said:


> Yes, it's a dumb strategy that will bring them *increased revenue since every TV in the house will require a box! *I'm sorry, but from a profit standpoint it's freeking brilliant on their side and totally and completely legal.
> 
> I make no bones cable companies are up there with sleazy sales weasels, but from THEIR side more folks will give them more money for additional boxes than would drop their service.
> 
> Diane


Agreed... it's the same thing the cable companies have been doing for years. Trying to lock people down to their hardware. Cablecards were a half-assed attempt at appeasing the FCC with their separable security mandate... and that's why it's dying. The other newer "alternatives" are simply more games from the cable industry to keep the FCC happy while continuing to screw the customers by requiring them to get new boxes.

If anyone, you should blame the FCC for letting this happen time and time again. They created a mandate, then they allow loopholes to be exploited for VOD and such, so that cablecards don't work with them.

And now they're buying the idea behind Tru2Way, even though it's pretty poorly supported and crazy-delayed already.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Keep in mind though that the Cable companies will soon be going 100% digital and soon* requiring *cable cards for 100% viewing of their channels. Soon there *WON'T* be any "Clear QAM" cable channels. TiVo knows this. Thats why they haven't wasted resources on mapping "Clear QAM" channels.


Where's your source for this? Got a link?

Cablevision's one waiver for the Bronx doesn't count. It's not a general trend. It was an exception given to them, but the rules still stand.


----------



## JimboG (May 27, 2007)

Lost Sells?


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

cogx said:


> Didn't know if you knew about the QAM mapping letter campaign (HD w/o cablecard) thread or not, but it was started back on 08-16-2007 and has over 2100 posts.
> TiVo has also had numerous people e-mailing them about QAM mapping and asking for it on their occasional surveys, for nearly 3.5 years now. They didn't do it and so it would be impossible to fathom why they would all of a sudden do it, unless they took my approach of letting us have some minimal control over the TMS guide data which has our channel lineups embedded in it.
> 
> Yes, I have been reading that thread for years, it seems that some TiVo users are against others that want QAM mapping. I have never understood this???
> ...


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> Yes, it's a dumb strategy that will bring them *increased revenue since every TV in the house will require a box! *I'm sorry, but from a profit standpoint it's freeking brilliant on their side and totally and completely legal.
> 
> I make no bones cable companies are up there with sleazy sales weasels, but from THEIR side more folks will give them more money for additional boxes than would drop their service.
> 
> Diane





OCSMITH said:


> TV makers are going away from cablecards this is a "perfect storm" for cable.


Exactly, they see $$$ after $$$ right now with very little competition.

I'm not saying approve of their tactics, but if I had stock in them I'd be happy.

From a business standpoint, not a personal one, they are poised to make a ton off this.


----------



## cjv2 (Dec 16, 2009)

Down here in Atlanta Comcast is midway through going all-digital (except for a small batch of analog channels, which I presume they can't ixnay due to regulation). To my knowledge, this isn't a "temporary" thing either.

In other words, if your device isn't inherently capable of decoding digital cable channels (and most aren't - not everybody snaps up the latest and greatest from Best Buy as soon as it comes out), you're either getting a CableCARD, you're getting some other piece of cable co. hardware, or you're not looking at anything but analog.


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef 
Keep in mind though that the Cable companies will soon be going 100% digital and soon requiring cable cards for 100% viewing of their channels. Soon there WON'T be any "Clear QAM" cable channels. TiVo knows this. Thats why they haven't wasted resources on mapping "Clear QAM" channels. 

Where's your source for this? Got a link?

Cablevision's one waiver for the Bronx doesn't count. It's not a general trend. It was an exception given to them, but the rules still stand.
__________________

I was wondering the same thing? Why would the GOV require TV makers to have QAM turners and not require cable companies to have some "Clear QAM" channels??? 


Clear QAM channels is a win-win for the cable companies:


Less bandwidth
No hardware needed for people with QAM turners


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

OCSMITH said:


> Yes, I have been reading that thread for years, it seems that some TiVo users are against others that want QAM mapping. I have never understood this???


I figure for some people, arguing with people amounts to what most people would call a hobby, they just can't help themselves. Some contend that there are other priorities that TiVo should be working on instead of QAM mapping, and if they truly feel that way, so be it, but my impression of that other thread is that most against it just want to argue for the thrill of it.


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

JimboG said:


> Lost Sells?


Opps

I don't think I can correct that. SALES !!!!


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

Opps?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

cjv2 said:


> In other words, if your device isn't inherently capable of decoding digital cable channels (and most aren't - not everybody snaps up the latest and greatest from Best Buy as soon as it comes out), you're either getting a CableCARD, you're getting some other piece of cable co. hardware, or you're not looking at anything but analog.


This is not really relevant to Tivos (at least not S3/TivoHD), but at least Comcast (and I thought other cable companies) give away 2 free DTAs (basically a stripped down cable box) per household.

I don't say that as an excuse, I'm someone who NEVER had a cable box for a long time (and even the short periods I had one for free trials, never set up a Tivo to use one), and am not a _huge_ fan of CableCards... but it's better than losing most of my channels (and I admit I do like the better picture _most_ of the time even on my old CRT.. though digital artifacts bug me WAY more than analog snow)... and I would likely use QAM mapping rather than getting cablecards for _one_ of my Tivos. (My s3 is currently analog only, I've now pretty much decided to move the 2 S cards from my TivoHD to the S3 and get a new M card for my TivoHD.. next weekend after the Olympics.)


----------



## cjv2 (Dec 16, 2009)

mattack said:


> This is not really relevant to Tivos (at least not S3/TivoHD), but at least Comcast (and I thought other cable companies) give away 2 free DTAs (basically a stripped down cable box) per household.
> 
> I don't say that as an excuse, I'm someone who NEVER had a cable box for a long time (and even the short periods I had one for free trials, never set up a Tivo to use one), and am not a _huge_ fan of CableCards... but it's better than losing most of my channels (and I admit I do like the better picture _most_ of the time even on my old CRT.. though digital artifacts bug me WAY more than analog snow)... and I would likely use QAM mapping rather than getting cablecards for _one_ of my Tivos. (My s3 is currently analog only, I've now pretty much decided to move the 2 S cards from my TivoHD to the S3 and get a new M card for my TivoHD.. next weekend after the Olympics.)


Comcast will indeed throw you a DTA or two. I forget the specifics in my area. I think slowbiscuit or one of the other ATL-ers knows.

At any rate, I have no specific stake in this bit 'o brouhaha, was just offering data for the cable-cos-are-a-goin'-digital-like-it-or-no thing.

As an aside, I agree that digital artifacts are bloody irritating... gimme some rabbit ears...


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

OCSMITH said:


> Wow, they (Cable companies) will really shoot themselves in the foot if they did that, 3 cableboxes or more in a home to view basic cable!!! Most TVs don't have cablecards. My Sony XBR960 does but you can also label QAM channels without them.
> 
> I have an OTA but wanted to use my HD Tivo for my basic cable channels, all my basic channels are "Clear QAM".


Exactly right... It's all about the bottom line. Although there will be some regulation on how much they can charge for basic cable and they will have to provide the FIRST box as part of the basic cable price.

Their will be what is called Basic Local Cable only. Those will provide you a CABLE feed of ONLY your local channels. Those channels will remain in "CLEAR QAM"

They won't be shooting themselvs in the foot. Why? Because all their competitors require a box as well. Verizon Fios requires a box, so does Dish TV and DirecTV.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Raj said:


> Where's your source for this? Got a link?
> 
> Cablevision's one waiver for the Bronx doesn't count. It's not a general trend. It was an exception given to them, but the rules still stand.


I have a *VERY RELIABLE* inside source high up in the chain of command for TWC.

TGC

P.S. One of the nicer reasons why I have had very few problems (knock on wood) with my cable cards and my TiVo's.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

OCSMITH said:


> Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef
> Keep in mind though that the Cable companies will soon be going 100% digital and soon requiring cable cards for 100% viewing of their channels. Soon there WON'T be any "Clear QAM" cable channels. TiVo knows this. Thats why they haven't wasted resources on mapping "Clear QAM" channels.
> 
> Where's your source for this? Got a link?
> ...


My "source" is posted in a previous post in this thread.

Clear QAM is required for re-transmission of local broadcast channels.

"Clear QAM" Channels is *NOT *a win-win situation for cable companies. Encrypting ALL channels legally possible PREVENTS cable theft. It prevents my next door neighbor from getting *free* cable by tying into* MY* cable run.

Up until recently. "Cable Theft" was a MAJOR problem in the Dallas-Fort Worth area as well as many other areas in the country. Including Oklahoma City and Tulsa Oklahoma as well. To name a few more.

Give you another example. Many years ago (Before HDTV) I had cable modem with the cable company, and used DirecTV for my TV's. Back then you could NOT get locals on your DirecTV dish. So if you wanted locals you had to go OTA. Well because of the cable system. I got FREE basic cable. Didn't pay for it. (I know shame on me). I got it free because I had a cable modem to get the cable modem to work, they had to open up basic cable. I didn't pay for it, but I was able to get my locals with basic analog cable.

Lots of reasons why they (Cable companies don't want Clear QAM).

Also... as much as you may or may not want to argue the point. *CABLE COMPANIES DON"T CARE!*

TWC as noted in many other Threads has used "Copy protection" flags on ALL channels except the locals. Same thing applies to "Clear QAM". They want to lock it down and get MORE money from you. Period.

At least with TWC, their goal is to get every customer to have at least* $64* worth of services. If they don't, they *aren't* making any money from you.

Personally I hate DRM, I hate encryption. I think the only place that needs to be using it is the Government. But thats just my opinion.

The Government is NOT on our side on this. Hell, they passed the DCMA.

The *BEST VOTE* you can do...* VOTE with your wallet*. You don't like what the cable companies are doing or they way they do it. Then don't get cable. Go OTA.

Almost ANY show that is being broadcast today has been or will soon be released on DVD/Blu-ray. Netflix has subscription plans. I no longer pay for HBO. I just wait for all their great shows to come out on Blu-ray/DVD. "Sopranos" "Deadwood" "6 feet under" etc... I watched all on Blu-ray/DVD. I am watching HBO now, because I managed to get a years free HBO. So now I get to watch "Big love" on TV and not have to wait for Blu-ray.

TGC


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Their will be what is called Basic Local Cable only. *Those will provide you a CABLE feed of ONLY your local channels. Those channels will remain in "CLEAR QAM"*
> They won't be shooting themselvs in the foot. Why? Because all their competitors require a box as well. Verizon Fios requires a box, so does Dish TV and DirecTV.
> 
> TGC





TexasGrillChef said:


> I have a *VERY RELIABLE* inside source high up in the chain of command for TWC.
> 
> TGC
> 
> P.S. One of the nicer reasons why I have had very few problems (knock on wood) with my cable cards and my TiVo's.


Cablevision got a waiver (Bronx) to encrypt 100% of their channels (even local broadcast). You first said cable systems would encrypt 100%. You're changing your opinion in every post.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

OCSMITH said:


> I was wondering the same thing? Why would the GOV require TV makers to have QAM turners and not require cable companies to have some "Clear QAM" channels???


Where did you get the idea that the government requires QAM tuners in TVs? They require ATSC tuners, but not QAM.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

cogx said:


> I figure for some people, arguing with people amounts to what most people would call a hobby, they just can't help themselves. Some contend that there are other priorities that TiVo should be working on instead of QAM mapping, and if they truly feel that way, so be it, but my impression of that other thread is that most against it just want to argue for the thrill of it.


For the 40,000th time, no one (to my knowledge) is against Tivo putting clear QAM mapping in the UI in that thread. Almost everyone in that thread agrees that it would be useful if done right. What we've said is that Tivo has other priorities, for whatever reason (most of them speculation). And with the analog-to-digital cutover ongoing, you can understand why - there won't be much left in clear QAM anyway.

OP is just adding more junk by creating a useless, redundant topic. It's dead, Jim.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> Yes, it's a dumb strategy that will bring them *increased revenue since every TV in the house will require a box! *I'm sorry, but from a profit standpoint it's freeking brilliant on their side and totally and completely legal.
> 
> I make no bones cable companies are up there with sleazy sales weasels, but from THEIR side more folks will give them more money for additional boxes than would drop their service.
> 
> Diane


You can blame the FCC and lobbyists for creating this mess.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

OCSMITH said:


> I have been watching all digital channels on my Panasonic TV for the last month. You can label all the QAM channels, 99% of the label are already setup in the TV. The others you just name.


Until they move the channels. In some cable sytems they appear to be relatively stable. In others, apparently not so much.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

cjv2 said:


> Down here in Atlanta Comcast is midway through going all-digital (except for a small batch of analog channels, which I presume they can't ixnay due to regulation). To my knowledge, this isn't a "temporary" thing either.
> 
> In other words, if your device isn't inherently capable of decoding digital cable channels (and most aren't - not everybody snaps up the latest and greatest from Best Buy as soon as it comes out), you're either getting a CableCARD, you're getting some other piece of cable co. hardware, or you're not looking at anything but analog.


They must support analog TV sets thru 2012, but they can do that with a digital cable box and charge you for it if they desire.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

jrm01 said:


> Where did you get the idea that the government requires QAM tuners in TVs? They require ATSC tuners, but not QAM.


He's probably confused because all the ATSC chip sets now also include QAM tuners. This trend may have started with the cablecard sets, but somebody else knowing some chip set history would have to answer that.


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> OP is just adding more junk by creating a useless, redundant topic. It's dead, Jim.


I agree in that this thread is redundant. Actually, QAM-mapping has always just been _*one symptom*_ of the larger issue and that is the inherent TiVo design flaw of solely relying on TMS to get us all a completely accurate channel:stationfrequency) mapping embedded within the guide data of which TiVo licenses. Whether the end-user should have (had) the ability to make channel:station(:frequency) changes, I know there are negatives to it from TiVo's point of view, but the fact that TiVo staff themselves aren't able to take our error submissions and quickly make the change is really hard to fathom as a customer of their product.

Even though I finally broke down and got CableCARDs installed in my Series3, after over three years without them, today is exactly 5 weeks later and I _still_ have errors in my TMS channel:station mapping. There is no argument anyone can offer to make me consider this situation to be acceptable and it is yet another symptom of the larger problem (that has nil to do with QAM, but is still on topic, as far as I'm concerned).


----------



## TolloNodre (Nov 3, 2007)

cogx said:


> ...today is exactly 5 weeks later and I _still_ have errors in my TMS channel:station mapping. There is no argument anyone can offer to make me consider this situation to be acceptable and it is yet another symptom of the larger problem (that has nil to do with QAM, but is still on topic, as far as I'm concerned).


Or you could fill out the form like everyone else:
http://www.tivo.com/setupandsupport/contactsupport/lineup_tool.html

Wait a week and your problem is fixed.

Of course, you'd have to find something else to feed your feelings of righteous indignation - but most Americans are really good at that so I'm sure you'll be OK. :up:


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

TolloNodre said:


> Or you could fill out the form like everyone else:
> http://www.tivo.com/setupandsupport/contactsupport/lineup_tool.html
> 
> Wait a week and your problem is fixed.
> ...


Wow. Let's all give this guy a round of applause.

[Being properly chastised for my own snarky reply, I retract the intent of this post.]


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

cogx said:


> Wow. Let's all give this guy a round of applause.


He has a valid point.. he get's the gold star. There is a process to deal with lineup issues, and that's it.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

lew said:


> Cablevision got a waiver (Bronx) to encrypt 100% of their channels (even local broadcast). You first said cable systems would encrypt 100%. You're changing your opinion in every post.


How so? I'm not including those that have received waivers from the FCC. Even so. What your stating is that Cablevision doesn't have any Clear QAM channels at all. Which is what I was trying to point out. That more & more cable companies are loosing their clear qam channels.

My "Contact" believes that you have to get a waiver to encrypt locals. I believe thats well. But we both admit we may be wrong.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

vstone said:


> They must support analog TV sets thru 2012, but they can do that with a digital cable box and charge you for it if they desire.


I believe the first box has to be included in the basic cable subscription price. I could be wrong. TWC believes they do. But either way it's a moot point.

If it's "free" then they just increase the cost of basic cable subscription. If it's not then you have a lower subscription fee. But in the end you will still pay the same ammount. Does it matter if you pay $20 for basic cable with 1st box free, or $15 for basic cable and $5 for the box? Either way your paying $20.

TGC


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

OCSMITH said:


> ...
> 
> Clear QAM channels is a win-win for the cable companies:
> 
> ...


apparnetly they dont see it that way. It seems they want CONTROL and they want you to have a cablebox with THEIR UI where you can instantly order PPV/VOD and can upgrade service at any moment over the phone.

Despite the addtional cost of hardware- they seem to make more money that way.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

what ever happened with all the DTA people getting waivers to allow encrytpion?

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=180850&site=cdn

anyone know?

did comcast every 'flip the switch' and start encrypting everything the DTA's see?


----------



## joeblough2 (Feb 28, 2010)

i thought i read somewhere along the line that DTAs do not support encryption because 1) they need to be dirt cheap and 2) the FCC said that any encryption devices for an STB need to be removable (like cablecards.) the socket and tooling for a removable card then pretty much precludes DTAs from having encryption. ergo, clearQAM for basic cable is here to stay.

anyway that's what i read when i was looking into the scte65 stuff to help me map my clearQAM SD channels.

edit: oh, i suppose i should have read the above-linked story  at any rate as of right now off of my northern CA head-end all of the OTA channels, 2 non-OTA HD channels, and all of the SD channels are clearQAM.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

joeblough2 said:


> i thought i read somewhere along the line that DTAs do not support encryption because 1) they need to be dirt cheap and 2) the FCC said that any encryption devices for an STB need to be removable (like cablecards.) the socket and tooling for a removable card then pretty much precludes DTAs from having encryption. ergo, *clearQAM for basic cable is here to stay.*


Heres the thing... No rules on what channels have to be considered "Basic Cable" they could simply just make all local Cable channels and Public access channels be the basic cable. ergo... any true cable channels that you would want to have cable for in the first place instead of OTA would thusly be encrypted.

I do see your point as to why clear qam may be here to stay. But I know that a basic cable lineup can be just local broadcast only too.

If I owned a network like Syfy, or ABC Family, or History, or TNT or even HDNET, or any one of the other cable only networks. I might not WANT you to have me on your system unless I was encrypted. Meaning in my contract with your local cable company, I could require my network channel to require encryption. Not saying it would be a good thing, just that a network could impost that if they so desire.

TGC


----------



## dcstager (Feb 16, 2002)

Have you tried re-running guided setup recently? I set up a new Tivo in the spare bedroom last week and selected the basic cable lineup. Among the listings were the four digit clear qam locals and the analog two digit channels. No need to map the channels in the if they are included in the guide data. Just try picking a new channel lineup in guided setup and it will probably work for you right now.


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

dianebrat said:


> He has a valid point.. he get's the gold star. There is a process to deal with lineup issues, and that's it.


So, TolloNodre made one of the more smarmy and derogatory posts I've seen on this site in a long time, all without having any knowledge whatsoever of what I have done or what I know about all the different ways one can go about contacting TMS about errors in their database (even though had someone taken a few seconds to look up any recent posts of mine in other threads, one could probably glean some clues). However, you believe their reply to my post garners a "gold star". Interesting.


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

I just wanted to apologize to OCSMITH for hijacking your thread and I'll shut up after this (or actually post #53). My very first post on this site was back on 09/25/2006 and it was, you guessed it, about the inability to associate guide data with unencrypted QAM channels, which I posted soon after setting up my then brand new Series3 on 09/23/2006. 
For those who care, my very first "[TiVo Lineup] Submitted From Lineup Form" submission due to TMS guide data errors for my channel lineup was on... wait for it, 09/23/2006.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

cogx said:


> So, TolloNodre made one of the more smarmy and derogatory posts I've seen on this site in a long time, all without having any knowledge whatsoever of what I have done or what I know about all the different ways one can go about contacting TMS about errors in their database (even though had someone taken a few seconds to look up any recent posts of mine in other threads, one could probably glean some clues). However, you believe their reply to my post garners a "gold star". Interesting.


His answer was correct, and being that you had not given the history of your complaints on the lineup, how was anyone to know that? Just because he was a bit snarky doesn't mean you get to be double snarky for a free pass. It's the not community's responsibility to get your posting history, however it is useful for you to explain history when you barge into a thread.

take that as interesting or not.


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

dianebrat said:


> His answer was correct, and being that you had not given the history of your complaints on the lineup, how was anyone to know that? Just because he was a bit snarky doesn't mean you get to be double snarky for a free pass. It's the not community's responsibility to get your posting history, however it is useful for you to explain history when you barge into a thread.
> 
> take that as interesting or not.


You're right, I should not have replied with the "applause" post, even though I was so taken aback by being insulted on two counts - one for being ignorant of what I was posting about originally (TMS guide data issues) and also for being called a "righteously indignant American". I was just about to head out for the day and really should have just left it alone, so I apologize for my first reply.
I will also agree that no one should be _expected_ to research any other poster's credibility, but then it also follows that one shouldn't be replying to posts while making the blind assumption that the other person has none. While I personally tend to give other people the benefit of the doubt that they aren't idiots from the outset, still perhaps a legitimate reply to my post would have been just offering up the link with simply, "Have you tried filling this web form out?" to which I would have then replied saying, yes, in fact, and probably would have then offered up the full time-line of what all that I have done and who all I have contacted since 01/23 to try to get my multiple channel lineup errors resolved. Anyway, whatever. Peace.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

OCSMITH said:


> I was wondering the same thing? Why would the GOV require TV makers to have QAM turners and not require cable companies to have some "Clear QAM" channels???


I don't think that the Gov't requires Clear QAM tuners only ATSC for over the air.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> How so? I'm not including those that have received waivers from the FCC. Even so. What your stating is that Cablevision doesn't have any Clear QAM channels at all. Which is what I was trying to point out. That more & more cable companies are loosing their clear qam channels.


Cablevision's reasons were very specific and related to theft of service. Most of what justified the waiver doesn't apply to most other cable companies.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> I have a *VERY RELIABLE* inside source high up in the chain of command for TWC.


Cable companies often don't know the rules themselves. What you're saying says nothing.

I do believe that they WANT to encrypt everything but so far the process to get a waiver has been met with heavy opposition.

A few companies here and there may get them for inner cities but the vast majority won't bother.

And trust me, if it does attempt to become widespread, cities and towns will be looking long and hard at their franchise agreements. NYC and Yonkers were pretty upset with the FCC's decision to grant Cablevision the waiver as it is already.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Raj said:


> I don't think that the Gov't requires Clear QAM tuners only ATSC for over the air.


Hmmh. seems similar to what I said in post 33.

Also, the ATSC tuner is used for analog cable in addition to OTA.


----------



## joeblough2 (Feb 28, 2010)

socrplyr said:


> Don't complain to Tivo, complain to your cable company. They are the ones who arbitrarily chose where to map the channels to and don't publish this map anywhere. They are the ones not doing their job. In reality, it makes no sense to map it to the OTA number. It only make sense to map it to the channel number that they already give it...


actually, because of the digital converter boxes, they do publish the mappings for the "basic cable" channels. there's metadata in the stream called "scte65" which can be recovered. i have personally run this program, and can verify that it does work.

the only problem is that it only covers the basic channels, since it's intended for standard-definition DTA boxes.

etherguidesystems dot com /Help/SDOs/SCTE/Standards/SCTE65.aspx
mythtv dot org /wiki/Comcast_Users_And_scte65scan

(i can't post links because i forgot my old password and had to make a new account - old email is defunct, too)

i'm somewhat flabbergasted that apparently out of the box, the tivoHD only expects to find analog cable channels on it's cable input. i assume that if you have a CableCARD then all the clearQAM channels (and of course the encrypted channels) somehow get mapped properly?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

joeblough2 said:


> ... i assume that if you have a CableCARD then all the clearQAM channels (and of course the encrypted channels) somehow get mapped properly?


yep-

the only people with an issue are people with cablecards and have access to clear qam.

if you have a card- the card maps everything.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Raj said:


> Cable companies often don't know the rules themselves. What you're saying says nothing.


I don't believe I ever said that cable companies know or understand all the rules. My "contact" even admits that to me. They have their lawyers tell them what they can actually get away with. In regards to cable companies I just leaking/relaying what some cable companies do, or what they have plans to do. Right or wrongly. If I did even directly say that they did know the rules, then my apologies because that was NOT my intent.



Raj said:


> I do believe that they WANT to encrypt everything but so far the process to get a waiver has been met with heavy opposition.


TWC _believes_ that they can do two things. Encrypt all channels on their cable system _except_ for the local broadcasts, and those cable network channels that preclude those channels by contract. TWC knows that it can also "Copy Protect" all channels that are on their system. Again the exception being local broadcasts and any contract that they have with a network that precludes them from doing so. (As far as I know & my contact knows their aren't any network/cable co contracts that have precluded the use of the copy protection flag). As we have seen in many many other threads in this community. TWC has for the most part in most of their major markets made use of the "Copy protection" flag on every channel possible except for the analog stations and local broadcasts. (Each TWC area is different though)

Here is one thing I do know. Mark Cuban who is a major owner of the HDnet Networks. TWC also dropped HDNet sadly enough. Is a fellow Texan. Some of my clients work directly with Mark Cuban. Information I have learned in the past is this. There are no laws or rules that preclude HDnet from including in their contract with ANY cable company that would ban them from encrypting &/or copy protecting the HDnet channels on any cable system. While HDnet does NOT support the use of copy protection flags, HDnet does NOT want to be one of the channels included in the Clear QAM channel line up.

One of the issues that TWC and HDNet had besides exchange of money, was the issue of the use of Copy Protection flags. I will leave it at that.

So while a cable company may or may not need to get a waiver for not having clear qam. The cable co's _*believe*_ you only need a waiver to _not_ have the locals on clear qam. That network only channels such as HDnet, Syfy, etc... *do* have the full legal right to require a cable company (via contract) be included in the non-clear qam lineup.

So what I am saying is that cablevision may have needed the waiver to encrypt only the local broadcast stations. Not the rest of the cable only networks. Such as HDnet, Syfy, USA etc...



Raj said:


> A few companies here and there may get them for inner cities but the vast majority won't bother.
> 
> And trust me, if it does attempt to become widespread, cities and towns will be looking long and hard at their franchise agreements. NYC and Yonkers were pretty upset with the FCC's decision to grant Cablevision the waiver as it is already.


There have been a few franchise agreements that have been overturned in favor of cable co's in the federal courts. Cable co's have been starting to win cases in Federal courts that are based on the fact that local goverments and states don't have the authority to regulate cable co's in some aspects. (There are exceptions like where they can lay cable, zoning laws etc..) That this authority is regulated only by the FCC. (Not saying I agree or disagree just stating facts)

A city or town can be as upset as it wants... They still won't get what they want. Example... Did NYC and Yonkers ever get the FCC to overturn cablevisions waiver? Is Cablevision still in buisness?

TGC


----------



## joeblough2 (Feb 28, 2010)

MichaelK said:


> yep-
> 
> the only people with an issue are people with cablecards and have access to clear qam.
> 
> if you have a card- the card maps everything.


i assume you mean "without cablecards".

well, this is pretty sad. back to mythtv for me, i guess. does anyone want to buy one unopened refurb TivoHD and one opened refurb TivoHD?


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

joeblough2 said:


> ...does anyone want to buy one unopened refurb TivoHD and one opened refurb TivoHD?


Yes.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

joeblough2 said:


> i assume you mean "without cablecards".
> 
> well, this is pretty sad. back to mythtv for me, i guess. does anyone want to buy one unopened refurb TivoHD and one opened refurb TivoHD?


What ya going to do with your MythTV when your cable co closes out analog and Clear QAM of everything but locals?

TGC


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ok - so you have cable at likely 75$ a month and bought a DVR for lets just 600$ over its life - and the line is drawn at 5$ a month for a cable card?


----------



## joeblough2 (Feb 28, 2010)

TexasGrillChef said:


> What ya going to do with your MythTV when your cable co closes out analog and Clear QAM of everything but locals?
> 
> TGC





ZeoTiVo said:


> ok - so you have cable at likely 75$ a month and bought a DVR for lets just 600$ over its life - and the line is drawn at 5$ a month for a cable card?


paid about $150 each for 2 TiVo HDs; they were on woot one day.

D* is already in my pocket for $100+ per month. i've refused to transition to their homegrown DVRs because they suck mightily compared to the HR10-250... but now there's only maybe 5 MPEG2 HD channels left. so i figured i'd go the Tivo HD route. however, i've procrastinated so long that i really don't have much interest in any premium/pseudopremium channels anymore, hence the desire for the basic channels only.

right now i am only an HSI customer - the clearQAM channels are there. the plan is to cancel D* and just go clearQAM. in fact i've already implemented this on myth, its just that the tivo is much better at liveTV and liveTV->recording than myth is, and has higher WAF. so, no, it's not $5 per month for me, it's probably more like $40+ more per month just to make the tivo map the clearQAM channels... which is preposterous.

as i'm getting older i watch less and less TV anyway so it's kind of a moot point. if the clearQAM channels go away, so be it.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

OCSMITH said:


> I just don't understand how so many on this forum think that QAM mapping is not important.


The only channels available in QAM are locals that I can get OTA.

If I wanted cable channels, I'd get cablecards.


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Exactly right... It's all about the bottom line. Although there will be some regulation on how much they can charge for basic cable and they will have to provide the FIRST box as part of the basic cable price.
> 
> Their will be what is called Basic Local Cable only. Those will provide you a CABLE feed of ONLY your local channels. Those channels will remain in "CLEAR QAM"
> 
> ...


Yes, that's true TGC, but none of my TVs, TiVo's or DVD recorders have FIOS, DISH or DirecTV turners build into them. They all have OTA and cable QAM turners. ( ALL THE SERIES 3 TiVo) The public did not want to have "hot" cableboxes sitting near or on their TVs for "basic" cable. Isn't that why they came out with "cable ready" TVs? That was one the selling points of cable, outlets in bedrooms, family rooms and kitchens, plug and play. This "seamless" operation is the main reason to have cable. That's why I made sure my new DVD recorder had a QAM turner.

If a had to have a "hot" cablebox hooked up to everytime I watch "basic" cable on I would get DISH or DirecTV and have only two outlets and get one of their DVRs. (722 VIP Work great) We have not needed cableboxes in 25 years for basic cable. This is big step backwards. This will kill the Series1 and 2 for some users. Yes you can get it to work but look at what you have to do to watch "The Andy Griffith Show".

I would need five "hot" cableboxes for my setup and 3 more cablecards if I did not have QAM, that's not very "GREEN" TGC.


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> The only channels available in QAM are locals that I can get OTA.
> 
> If I wanted cable channels, I'd get cablecards.


We get all basic channels in QAM here Adam.


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ok - so you have cable at likely 75$ a month and bought a DVR for lets just 600$ over its life - and the line is drawn at 5$ a month for a cable card?


Thats $60.00 a year for just channel mapping!!! HS!!!


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

joeblough2 said:


> as i'm getting older i watch less and less TV anyway so it's kind of a moot point. if the clearQAM channels go away, so be it.


Well then, Consider the Clear Qam channels gone today and so be it...

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

OCSMITH said:


> Yes, that's true TGC, but none of my TVs, TiVo's or DVD recorders have FIOS, DISH or DirecTV turners build into them. The all have OTA and cable QAM turners. ( ALL THE SERIES 3 TiVo) The public did not want to have "hot" cableboxes sitting near or on their TVs for "basic" cable. Isn't that why they came out with "cable ready" TVs? That was one the selling points of cable, outlets in bedrooms, family rooms and kitchens, plug and play. This "seamless" operation is the main reason to have cable. That's why I made sure my new DVD recorder had a QAM turner.
> 
> If a had to have a "hot" cablebox hooked up to everything I watch "basic" cable on I would get DISH or DirecTV and have only two outlets and get one of their DVRs. (722 VIP Work great) We have not needed cableboxes in 25 years for basic cable. This is big step backwards. This will kill the Series1 and 2 for some users. Yes you can get it to work but look at what you have to do to watch "The Andy Griffith Show".
> 
> I would need five "hot" cableboxes for my setup and 3 more cablecards if I did not have QAM, that's not very "GREEN" TGC.


Oh I don't disagree with you one bit. It really *SUCKS*! Can't deny that one bit. I hate the idea of cable box's all together. I would love to banish DRM, Encryption & Copy proection flags all together. For *EVERYTHING*.

However that isn't going to happen. At least anytime soon. We as consumers are loosing the battle in this area. The winners? Cable Co's, MPAA, RIAA etc. Especially since the DMCA passed as well.

The biggest problem is that we can't get the mass public behind it enough to get our congress or FCC or even the FTC to do anything about this issue, & they won't till we do. Most of the general public get DVR's provided by the cable co and leave it at that. For as many TiVo's out there, we are still on the fringe.

All sad but true...

Now that TV's can hang on the wall, and their are many many different remote control extenders. I have put all my equipment in the closets and routed cables to the TV's hanging on the wall.

TGC


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

OCSMITH said:


> Thats $60.00 a year for just channel mapping!!! HS!!!


Would you like some cheese with that whine? Play the game or go home, man.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

OCSMITH said:


> We get all basic channels in QAM here Adam.


Now you do, that has the potential to change like it has with all the Comcast users this year where Comcast has been taking everything under 25 and sending them to encrypted digital land

Diane


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

So what "basic" are we talking about?

Here they call it "broadcast basic" for channels 2-16, for $10/month, which includes OTA broadcasters ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, PBS plus some educational, shopping, local access, & one cable company channel.

I don't see encrypting the above as cost effective since they'll have to provide at least one cable box in the price (that tier is heavily regulated)

Others refer to basic when they mean "extended basic" which here is still analog up to about channel 75 (everything over that is the "digital tier")


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

ncbill said:


> So what "basic" are we talking about?
> 
> Here they call it "broadcast basic" for channels 2-16, for $10/month, which includes OTA broadcasters ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, PBS plus some educational, shopping, local access, & one cable company channel.
> 
> ...


Exactly... And I wouldn't want to pay $10/month just for that kind of basic. Just as well get OTA. In some cases, In some areas, getting your locals in OTA will give you better picture than cable. Especially if your cable company is compressing those even more.

TGC


----------



## OCSMITH (Mar 16, 2006)

ncbill said:


> So what "basic" are we talking about?
> 
> Here they call it "broadcast basic" for channels 2-16, for $10/month, which includes OTA broadcasters ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, PBS plus some educational, shopping, local access, & one cable company channel.
> 
> ...


I am talking "extented basic". It is more than OTA brodcasters. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I would just get an over the air antenna for those channels.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

OCSMITH said:


> I am talking "extented basic". It is more than OTA brodcasters. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I would just get an over the air antenna for those channels.


Well in that case yeah... All the extended are going encrypted if they haven't allready done so yet. Copy protection flags are on their way as well. Verizon though has vowed not to use copy protection flags unless required to do so by their contract with the Network. Example HBO, Showtime etc. (Or so they have said, it could change anytime)

Becoming encrypted is either by request of the Network owners when they renew contracts, or by the desire of the cable company which may or may not need a new contract with the network they are rebroadcasting.

TGC


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Exactly... And I wouldn't want to pay $10/month just for that kind of basic. Just as well get OTA.


Well, I would want to pay. In fact I do pay for "that kind of basic". I can't be the only one.

More details if interested ...

I have DirecTV, a sweet deal because a while ago they sold the R-10 SD TiVo receivers for $100 each. They charge $5/mo for each receiver after the first. So I have 4 receivers active in my house.

But I have trees in my yard, can't move to DirecTV HD. In fact I had to have the dish relocated a few years ago just to keep getting SD from the "101" satellite. One HD satellite is at 103 degrees, very close but no cigar. It would be difficult to put my dish anywhere else so I can't get HD from DirecTV.

But local HD from Comcast is "free" (more or less). I.e. they charge $10 but give you a $10 discount on your Internet service. Plus I need to pay $2/mo for a CableCARD. Since most of the HD I watch is from the networks, a TiVo HD with "that kind of basic" works just fine. But my situation is doubtlessly a bit unusual.

Around here "Just as well get OTA" is a non-starter for a lot of people, because of a dirty word called "multipath".


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> But local HD from Comcast is "free" (more or less). I.e. they charge $10 but give you a $10 discount on your Internet service. Plus I need to pay $2/mo for a CableCARD. Since most of the HD I watch is from the networks, a TiVo HD with "that kind of basic" works just fine. But my situation is doubtlessly a bit unusual.
> 
> Around here "Just as well get OTA" is a non-starter for a lot of people, because of a dirty word called "multipath".


Well in your situation I might do the same thing as you as well. Especially if their were big issues with going OTA, (ie Problems with attena placement etc..) Intersting note though I think though, is that you DO have cablecards and are paying the fee. I haven't gotten the impression your complaining about it either.

Not for sure I understand the issue with OTA and multipath in your area though being a bad thing???

TGC


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Intersting note though I think though, is that you DO have cablecards and are paying the fee. I haven't gotten the impression your complaining about it either.


I used to complain vociferously, but have just given up. It's roughly $25/yr that I'm paying to Comcast for nothing but a mapping between Comcast's channel numbers and the guide data that TiVo already sends me. I don't need the decryption feature since I only use the box for clear QAM local HD channels.



> Not for sure I understand the issue with OTA and multipath in your area though being a bad thing???


I probably didn't make my point very clearly. Multipath is a dirty word to me because, in order to get OTA, my two choices are

1) I can put up an external antenna. That's silly because I'm only 11 miles from the towers, it's a relatively expensive solution, it has bad WAF, etc.

or 2) I can pay Comcast money every month for CableCARDs for a feature that TiVo can easily give me a with a software menu. Moxi does that, the old Sony boxes did it, yada, yada, yada.

It's really #2 that's the problem. It greatly annoys me because it should be very simple to do (especially if in a non-supported screen). TiVo should hire a college kid as a summer intern. If he can implement #2 in a month's time then he's proven he's not a complete idiot (my guess is that someone already familiar with the TiVo code could knock that feature out in a week). So close, but no cigar.


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> ...every month for CableCARDs for a feature that TiVo can easily give me a with a software menu. Moxi does that, the old Sony boxes did it, yada, yada, yada.


For 3.5+ years the only substantial argument people have against this has been the idea that TiVo shouldn't spend (huge, gobs, seemingly unlimited amounts of) resources on a feature that detracts them from implementing/fixing features the greater TiVo customer-base would enjoy. 
I eventually came around to the conclusion that implementing channel:station[:frequency] re-mapping on the hardware itself was never going to happen and so came to accept that one argument. 
However, I still believe TiVo should have the ability to do pre-processing on the TMS guide data, *before* it is uploaded to our DVRs, which would allow these trivial channel:station[:frequency] changes to be made for the two or three or four of us who need it (if one believes people who make wild, unscientific guesses as to how many TiVo customers actually have channel lineup problems at any given point in time).

Here's an example of the persistence required, when trying to get TMS to fix mistakes in their database:
01/23/10: Contacted TiVo about 4 lineup errors.
01/27/10: TMS fixed the first 4 lineup errors, but introduced 3 new errors.
01/27/10: Contacted TiVo about 3 new lineup errors.
02/06/10: TiVo hadn't replied to my 01/27/10 submission and TMS still hadn't fixed the errors, so having been 7 business days, I contacted TiVo again.
02/13/10: E-mailed Zap2It about current lineup errors.
02/20/10: TMS finally fixed the 3 new errors introduced on 01/27/10.
However, they introduced yet another brand new lineup error.
02/21/10: Contacted TiVo about current lineup error.
03/01/10: E-mailed Zap2It about current lineup error.
03/06/10: TMS has fixed the last channel error and didn't introduce any new ones!


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

cogx said:


> For 3.5+ years the only substantial argument people have against this has been the idea that TiVo shouldn't spend (huge, gobs, seemingly unlimited amounts of) resources on a feature that detracts them from implementing/fixing features the greater TiVo customer-base would enjoy.
> I eventually came around to the conclusion that implementing channel:station[:frequency] re-mapping on the hardware itself was never going to happen and so came to accept that one argument.
> However, I still believe TiVo should have the ability to do pre-processing on the TMS guide data, *before* it is uploaded to our DVRs, which would allow these trivial channel:station[:frequency] changes to be made for the two or three or four of us who need it (if one believes people who make wild, unscientific guesses as to how many TiVo customers actually have channel lineup problems at any given point in time).


TiVo & their software developement department are probably like most other software companies. Not all but alot.

In that TiVo has one group working on bug fixes, and another group working on new features and improvements.

TiVo being a "for profit" corporation will almost always do a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to adding a new feature, improvement or even to bug fixes. Obviously there are some big fixes that don't require a cost-benefit analysis. However some do.

TiVo has limted financial resources as well as other limited resources. These are considered in a cost-benefit analysis.

I would issue and educated guess that Clear Qam mapping has not reached the level on the "list" for it to be included in TiVo's software releases. Meaning that the COST to Implement far outweighs the Benefit returned to TiVo, or at least the benefit factor isn't high enough to knock other features &/oir improvments off the list.

As far as channel lineups go. I am with ya there. TiVo really needs to figure out a better way to implement this features. TMS is Crap. TMS can't keep anything straight. To many different cable companies with to many cable markets and different channel line ups for anyone to keep tabs of.

Example... TWC is in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex. So you think ONE channel line up for the entire area? right? *WRONG.... *there are at least *50 DIFFERENT *channel line ups. There is one area of the city were 8 houses all within 100' of each other, have 8 different channel line ups! Go figure!

Right now in my channel line up guide there is one error. I have reported it because I don't care about that channe in the first place. It's a non HD channel of somethign no one in my family cares about. So we haven't reported it. For fear it might mess something else up! LOL

TGC


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Example... TWC is in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex. So you think ONE channel line up for the entire area? right? *WRONG.... *there are at least *50 DIFFERENT *channel line ups. There is one area of the city were 8 houses all within 100' of each other, have 8 different channel line ups! Go figure!


But that's the fault of TWC. How can TMS reasonably be expected to keep track of so many different lineups? The TWC people who are stupid enough to make those kind of decisions should all be taken out and shot, on the grounds that they are too fuqqqing stupid to be consuming the world's precious oxygen.


----------



## amatheu (Feb 6, 2010)

Tivo costumer support don't receive emails, how can we complain about not bein available to label the QAM channels, I have more than 10 channels in my TIVO that are "0" and not any more info, I can't label that channels! that is something that TIVO can fix with a simple script or add to the actual software, why others DVRs can, I have a Panasonic that I can label all that channels! there is a 5 thumbs down for TIVO


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

TexasGrillChef said:


> It's a non HD channel of something no one in my family cares about. So we haven't reported it. For fear it might mess something else up!


As you can see from my time line, you are absolutely justified in that fear.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

In the end, only OTA broadcasts, local origination channels, and shopping channels will be QAM'd in the clear. Many here don't like it, but that's pretty much the law (except shopping channels). Most folks tied to cable will also want ESPN or some other cable channel for which they will need a cable card anyway. Yes there are those who only want OTA via cable. They are a very small minority. Yes there are those who think all cable channels, or even just the expanded basic tier should be unenecrypted. They are whistling in the dark. Law abiding, God-fearing folk still think its OK to steal from cable companies if they can justify it. It turns out that cable companies take offense to that.

If you want some action, contact your Congressfolk, hope they aren't paid too much by the cable lobby, and tell them that existing federal law regarding publishing channel lineup changes should be applied to clear QAM channel lineups, effectively making them publish lineups which Tivo can, at almost zero cost, use to give you a clear QAM channel lineups with programming data.

The FCC has made a mess. Cable companies are happy. Congressional pocketbooks are happy. Tivo is in the middle. The search for the guilty and punishment of the innocent goes on. Welcome to twenty-first century America.

Yes, it would be nice if my bedroom S3 didn't have all those channels zeros, and yes, it actually be very, very easy to make the Tivo assign the actual frequency to channels when the cable folk populate the virtual channel tables with zeros (or don't populate them at all). But fixing even this would NOT provide the programming data that we want to actually use the Tivo as designed and therefore not worth corporate Tivo's time or money.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

amatheu said:


> Tivo costumer support don't receive emails, how can we complain about not bein available to label the QAM channels, I have more than 10 channels in my TIVO that are "0" and not any more info, I can't label that channels! that is something that TIVO can fix with a simple script or add to the actual software, why others DVRs can, I have a Panasonic that I can label all that channels! there is a 5 thumbs down for TIVO


OMG, you might have to actually open word and write a letter, print it out, sign it with a pen and then mail it.


----------

