# Need Advice - TWC violating mandate?



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

I'd love some advice from you folks .. particularly where to go from here ..

Beginning of this month TWC-San Diego launched a few new HighDef channels.. including CW and TBS. From the get-go they were having problems implementing them. It looked like the CW was just a rebroadcast of the analog station for a few days (TiVo would let me set quality of recording) .. calls to technical support were extremely unhelpful. The first round techs basically have a document that says its TiVo's fault and to talk to TiVo about it.

Now, I know what you're thinking .. you're thinking SDV .. stay with me ..

I try going up the chain of technical support about a week ago.. they eventually tell me that its a problem on their end, the NOC is aware of it and there was no other information available. Of course ... no one is permitted to talk to the NOC. One thing I was able to get them to say was that they have no deployed SDV yet and thus these channels are not being broadcast that way.

So I wait a week .. I figure if its a glitch, let them work it out. So I call in today basically insisting on getting an answer ... following up every "I'm sorry, I don't have that information" with a "Can you please tell me who I could speak to who would". The guy puts me on hold forever .. and then attempts to explain to me that the new channels are being broadcast on a frequency that the cablecards can not pick up. Again, not SDV .. just something that seems to not work with the cablecards. He also indicated to me that there were no plans to make any attempt to "fix" that situation, just that they were not going to offer those channels to CC users (note: their website makes no indication that those channels are not available to CC users).

I push the guy for quite some time trying to get someone higher up .. his response is that the technical department doesn't make those decisions .. and he wouldn't know exactly who would. So I eventually get the name of the President .. call back, ask to be transferred to her ... eventually get someone else's voicemail (not too surprisingly .. but hopefully that person is at least connected.. no title given in voicemail) .. I left a message briefly explaining what I wanted and asked to be called back.

Now .. am I overreacting .. or if this is not a deployment of SDV is it a blatant violation of the FCC mandate regarding cablecards? Is my next step (given I'm going to assume my call will go unanswered) to fill out a form to the FCC that will likely never be seen (c'mon.. its the government) .. 

Anyone have any advice here? 

-MirclMax


----------



## emmpee (Jun 10, 2003)

My understanding is that the same thing is currently happening at TWC Rochester (NY). 

Apparently the channels being blocked for CC users are "targeted for future SDV implementation", but are not currently using SDV.

Unfortunately I haven't had the time/energy to follow up to the extent you have, just sent a couple letters that got no response. Interested to see how your communications work out.


----------



## PRMan (Jul 26, 2000)

If the FCC gets enough complaints, I believe they will do something.

It can't hurt to spend a couple minutes filling out a form on the FCC website.

Complaining about PacBell/SBC/AT&T to the FCC and the California Public Utilities Commission has worked wonders for me over the years.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

emmpee said:


> My understanding is that the same thing is currently happening at TWC Rochester (NY).
> 
> Apparently the channels being blocked for CC users are "targeted for future SDV implementation", but are not currently using SDV.
> 
> Unfortunately I haven't had the time/energy to follow up to the extent you have, just sent a couple letters that got no response. Interested to see how your communications work out.


Yeah, this sounds like the "future SDV" thing.

Second link in the sig refers to a poster that had some luck complaining to the FCC (and contains a link to the FCC complaint form).


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Actually did get a call back from TWC ... apparently my message got bumped down to the appropriate "Technical Department" person (probably the person I should have been directed to the first time).

She too stated that they have not deployed SDV .. but described a situation that these channels are (for lack of a better term) "blocked" due to bandwidth issues.

I asked about the legality of this .. given the FCC mandate .. as well as the fact that one of the channels involved is a network channel (sorta.. its the CW) .. but as far as I know.. they shouldn't be blocking core tier channels.

Anyhow, she said she'd have to talk to the VP of Public Affairs who is up on the legal issues and why they are doing what they are doing.. and that she'd get back to me.

My guess is that they won't have a particularly good answer..

Does anyone know of anything other than SDV that legally permits a cable company to refuse to transmit a channel specifically to a CableCard person?


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

Blocking a local broadcast channel, even if it is the CW, is a huge no-no.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

They can in fact block certain channels from being received by Cable Card. Especially if they have plans of putting that channel on SDV within in the next 2 years.

HOWEVER... what they CAN NOT do... is block any channel, (SD, HD, Digital, or Analog) of any local Broadcast channel.

They can block the Network feed of CW, but can't block the local CW affilate who rebroadcasts a CW network feed.

So here is the question. Is the CW channel that is being blocked, a Network feed, or are they blocking the local CW Affiliate who is rebroadcasting network CW feed?

TGC


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

sinanju said:


> Blocking a local broadcast channel, even if it is the CW, is a huge no-no.


While my gut agrees with you.... can you find me anything "official" that would say this?

(And just to clarify .. its the HD version of the channel ... there is of course the analog version still available ..... and I'd say the cable co *might* argue that the signal is available via QAM .. just not CableCards)

But does anyone have any source they can point me towards? Would be helpful when/if I file a complaint with the FCC ... (Giving TWC 48hrs to get back to me)

-MirclMax


----------



## BrianAZ (Aug 13, 2007)

MirclMax said:


> Actually did get a call back from TWC ... apparently my message got bumped down to the appropriate "Technical Department" person (probably the person I should have been directed to the first time).
> 
> She too stated that they have not deployed SDV .. but described a situation that these channels are (for lack of a better term) "blocked" due to bandwidth issues.
> 
> ...


I am in a similar situation... I ordered the NHL Center Ice hockey package over the phone. I received it perfectly fine during the free preview, but once that ended, I got grey screens on those channels on the tivo while my STB received them fine. I called in and the woman immediately said "Oh, I see why it's not working... they didn't add it to your cable cards! I can't do it or it will double charge you but let me get my supervisor on the phone and he'll fix it right now."

So I sit on hold for quite a while and then she gets back on and said that appearantly she's mistaken and that it's not possible to receive ANY PPV via cable cards. She confirmed there is no SDV in my market and I replied that the statement about no PPV is just completely false. Obviously it works as I had no issues during the free preview. I got nowhere with Cox (Phoenix) so I hung up.

My next call was to Tivo support. I relayed the story to them and they agreed with me that there should not be any reason why I could not get the package. They indicated that since I had already interfaced with a supervisor (by proxy), they would escalate the case to their legal department who would call Cox and inform them that they are mandated by the FCC to enable the package for me (or get a very technical explanation of why it was not possible). They indicated it would be 4-5 business days before I got a call back. It's been 5 actual days now so I expect a call tomorrow or Friday. I'll let you know what comes of it.


----------



## BrianAZ (Aug 13, 2007)

TexasGrillChef said:


> They can in fact block certain channels from being received by Cable Card. Especially if they have plans of putting that channel on SDV within in the next 2 years.
> 
> HOWEVER... what they CAN NOT do... is block any channel, (SD, HD, Digital, or Analog) of any local Broadcast channel.
> 
> ...


Do you have any links to the 2 year rule you speak of?


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

TexasGrillChef said:


> So here is the question. Is the CW channel that is being blocked, a Network feed, or are they blocking the local CW Affiliate who is rebroadcasting network CW feed?
> 
> TGC


Oh, its definitely the local affiliate.

Love all the feedback .. would love it more if people could site some specific sources that I can throw at them.

-MirclMax


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

MirclMax said:


> Oh, its definitely the local affiliate.
> 
> Love all the feedback .. would love it more if people could site some specific sources that I can throw at them.
> 
> -MirclMax


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

sinanju said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry


If I read that right.. it looks like that gives some legal authority to The CW to demand to be carried ... that is.. essentially.. they have to say "hey.. carry us" .. now, while that might be an option (contacting the network and getting their help) .. in and of itself, the law doesn't seem to be aimed at consumers saying to the cableco that they "must carry" a specific channel.

What's particularly sad about this is.. I'm not really a fan of the CW's programming.. they're down to just "Smallville" for me. but I'm sticking this one out on principle.

-MirclMax


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

MirclMax said:


> If I read that right.. it looks like that gives some legal authority to The CW to demand to be carried ... that is.. essentially.. they have to say "hey.. carry us" .. now, while that might be an option (contacting the network and getting their help) .. in and of itself, the law doesn't seem to be aimed at consumers saying to the cableco that they "must carry" a specific channel.
> 
> What's particularly sad about this is.. I'm not really a fan of the CW's programming.. they're down to just "Smallville" for me. but I'm sticking this one out on principle.
> 
> -MirclMax


It is highly unlikely that the local CW affiliate hasn't demanded to be carried. I'm sure that if you suggested to TWC that they're in violation, their tone would change quickly. I'm sure a call to the local station as a follow-up couldn't hurt. I'd bet you'd never get as far as having to complain to the FCC.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

BrianAZ said:


> Do you have any links to the 2 year rule you speak of?


Actually I don't. I don't infact have any links to back that fact up.

Honestly, it was something I had heard, seen a while back. I don't remember where. I do remember the source was crediable enough for me to beleive that it was in deed fact.

I will admit though, that I could be wrong on that 2 year rule.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MirclMax said:


> If I read that right.. it looks like that gives some legal authority to The CW to demand to be carried ... that is.. essentially.. they have to say "hey.. carry us" .. now, while that might be an option (contacting the network and getting their help) .. in and of itself, the law doesn't seem to be aimed at consumers saying to the cableco that they "must carry" a specific channel.
> 
> What's particularly sad about this is.. I'm not really a fan of the CW's programming.. they're down to just "Smallville" for me. but I'm sticking this one out on principle.
> 
> -MirclMax


Hey thats an IDEA, Call the local Affliliate & let them know that you are unable to view them on the local cable system. Talk to whoever you can, Talk to the NEWS department as well.

I have found (From experiance) you get something in the NEWS... and sometimes (Not always though) a buisness will make changes to keep from looking bad.

Just a thought...

TGC


----------



## adamsd (Jun 23, 2005)

MirclMax I am also in the San Diego area and I have been trying to get this issue resolved for quite some time now. I started way back in July or August. Back then TWCSD started to offer ESPN2HD, but when I tuned to the channel via my Tivo box I saw a screen telling me to call and get a cable box. I rarely watch ESPN2, but it was a principle thing, plus I felt they would start doing more of this in the future, which they are now doing.

I called TWC and they told me that the contract they held with ESPN did not allow them to broadcast ESPN2HD through cable cards, but only through a set top box. That sounded fishy to me, and illegal. So I went and filed a report with the FCC. They did get back in touch with me and told me I needed to contact my Local Franchising Authority (their number can be located on your cable bill). I called them and left a message. After I few weeks they got back in touch with me and I explained the entire situation to them. They told me that they did not believe that this was a violation since cable providers do not need to provide specialized channels, such as ESPN2, via cable cards if they do not want to. Needless to say I was pretty upset. I told them that it did not seem right that this was allowed. They told me they would contact the cable company and have them contact me to explain why they feel they could do this. 

Shockingly I have not heard back anything, and this was like 3 weeks ago. I called the LFA again last week and left a message, which I have not heard anything back from yet either. I think the more people that call the LFA, the more they will realize this is a problem.

Then TWC introduces more HD channels that I can not access, and not just one this time. I am not sure if you noticed, but when the CW was introduced, they also introduced, TBSHD, and some Golf HD channel. All of them have been inaccessible from my Tivo box. So now there are 4 channels that are not available through my Tivo box. I was really pissed now, so I called Tivo and I spoke to someone who was surprised to hear of my situation. She had me call TWC while she was on the line and recording the call. She needed to hear from TWC that these channels were not on SDV, that TWC had just decided not to offer them. Once she heard that she said she was passing on the issue to the Tivo legal department and that I would need to call Tivo back to see about the resolution.

Now I am out of town for a couple of weeks for work and I have not had a chance to call back Tivo, but I plan on doing it in about a week. I would recommend you call Tivo too. The more people that complain about this the more incentive they have to resolve this issue. I told them I am a huge fan of Tivo, and have recommended it successfully to friends and family for years now. And that with this new development I am going to need to cancel and stop recommending it. Tivo definitely has a reason to get this fixed or the cable companies are going to kill their business.

I will post an update in a week or so when I get the chance to check with Tivo. If you hear from them before then, please post any updates.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

adamsd said:


> MirclMax I am also in the San Diego area and I have been trying to get this issue resolved for quite some time now. I started way back in July or August. Back then TWCSD started to offer ESPN2HD, but when I tuned to the channel via my Tivo box I saw a screen telling me to call and get a cable box. I rarely watch ESPN2, but it was a principle thing, plus I felt they would start doing more of this in the future, which they are now doing.


Thank you for relaying your story ... I just wanted to touch on one aspect .. from my countless dealings with TWC .. I believe that ESPN2HD (730) and Fox Sports Net (731) despite what it says on the website, are part of the "HD VIP Pak" .. and obviously, if you don't have that, you couldn't get them. I've tried to get them to update their channel listing to reflect this (another point I touched on with this last person on the phone). Now I can not confirm this since I don't have the "VIP Pak" .. but its quite possible that you would indeed get the channel if you had that. I wouldn't wager on it, but its a possibility.

As far as the other points in your post .. thanks.. its all being considered.

-MirclMax


----------



## adamsd (Jun 23, 2005)

Actually I have the VIP Pack and I still do not get them. I get all the other VIP Pack channels, just not the ones I listed. That is what frustrates me even more. I am paying extra for the VIP Pack and I am still having channels withheld from me.

Of course as the TWC representative let me know, if I am willing to drop Tivo with my $3.50 worth of cable cards and pay TWC about $20 dollars a month I can get a DVR through TWC and get all these channels. So kind of them.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Okay.. well at least thanks for confirming the VIP Pak BS part of that then.. Its as I expected.. but didn't want to spend the $7 just to test the theory.

-MirclMax


----------



## gbrown (Oct 31, 2006)

I've got SO many gripes about these guys. I just moved here from Silicon Valley where everything seemed to work great..


What's up with the guide? I see the program guide for STARZHDP on 669. But when I tune it, it shows blank. When I called TW CSR, I was told that I should use 703. I tried to explain that I didn't have a guide on that channel, I was told too bad.
Eastern feeds? The TW CSR said that Cablecard customers dont get eastern feeds (???)
TBSHD shows up in the guide. But I get a blank screen


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

gbrown said:


> I've got SO many gripes about these guys. I just moved here from Silicon Valley where everything seemed to work great..
> 
> 
> What's up with the guide? I see the program guide for STARZHDP on 669. But when I tune it, it shows blank. When I called TW CSR, I was told that I should use 703. I tried to explain that I didn't have a guide on that channel, I was told too bad.
> ...


1. Well, I don't know what 669 is for .. but 703 seems to be the real channel. If you're not getting guide data that's a TiVo issue. On 10/10 I had a lineup change that removed 703 from the guide data (among the other premium HD channels) and on 10/17 .. (yesterday), they were added back in. I suggest you force a connection and see if yours gets added back in. Otherwise, contact TiVo or Tribune (zap2it.com) about missing the channel data on 703. But for the record, I see data just fine on 703 .. don't get the channel.. but the guide data is there

2. Eastern feeds for what? Do you know of specific channels that cablebox subscribers are getting that CableCard users are not?

3. Yes, TBS-HD is one of the channels that this discussion was originally based upon. It is not available to CC users.

-MirclMax


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

sinanju said:


> Blocking a local broadcast channel, even if it is the CW, is a huge no-no.


Not true, perfectly legal if the channel did not file as must-carry. This is a top-ten myth on this forum.

If the CW affiliate is trying to charge your cable company for the right to carry them (a.k.a. "retransmission consent"), the cable company doesn't have to carry them. If the CW affiliate filed as must-carry to the FCC, then it cannot charge anything and the cable company has to carry it.

NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox are almost never filed as must-carry. The cable company has agreements in place for each one of them. CW varies. dt_dc usually can find out how the affiliates in your area filed. Locally, my CW is a (really) low-power broadcast station and therefore is exempt from must-carry. Here, the CW affiliate is owned by the local NBC station, and so CW is part of NBC's retransmission consent agreement.

My guess is that TWC has some problem it doesn't know about, and no one really complained about it until now.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> Not true, perfectly legal if the channel did not file as must-carry. This is a top-ten myth on this forum.


And, as I said in a later posting, it is almost unimaginable that an affiliate of the CW, with so little leverage, hasn't filed as such.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

sinanju said:


> And, as I said in a later posting, it is almost unimaginable that an affiliate of the CW, with so little leverage, hasn't filed as such.


Well lets just cut to the chase.. I can't seem to find one.. but can anyone dig up an official list of "must carry" stations? The station in question is KSWB by the way.

-MirclMax


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Well.. since no one jumped on being able to find a list .. I decided to go a different route. Picked up the phone, called the office for the VP/General Manager of KSWB and asked if they were classified as a "must carry" station. 

The person who answered my call said she'd need to find the paperwork and would give me a call back. About 30 minutes later she did, and confirmed that they *do* have "must carry" status, and send out the appropriate notices to the cable companies.

So, speculation about that part at least can be laid to rest for the time being. 

I have about another 24hrs that was given for the person @ TWC - San Diego to get back to me about these issues .. We'll see how that goes .. and if it doesn't go well.. perhaps the next step will be a chat on Monday with KSWB and see if they like the fact that they aren't being carried. (Though that only solves the issue for that station.. and I'm more bothered by the fact that they're blocking channels in general)

-MirclMax


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Like I have said many many times before...

Cable companies have us by the balls. Not enough of us complain to our State Representivies, Senators, FCA, FTC, & other government entities that we are so entitled to complain too.

Keeping certain things in mind, our Senators, & House representives *DO OCCASIONALY * make laws in *OUR* Favor in regards to Cable/Satalite/Television.

So I ask everyone who IS NOT currently happy with your cable company. To E-MAIL (Snail mail is to slow & adds 4 weeks before even getting to your senators/represantives staff) your state senator/representive about your concerns. Complain to the FTC, FCA about cable company practices.

If enough letters are received by our government they will do something about it. They have before.

If not... then our only hope is cival disobediance.... Boston Tea Party, Camden 28..... PROTEST!

TGC


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

mirclmax,
I'm in the same boat. I also have TWC SD. I called them also and they said that cable cards don't get those two new channels and they wouldn't tell me why. I also don't get the east coast versions of all Encore channels 500, 502, 504, etc... even though I pay for the movie package. If they aren't using SDV for those channels I don't get, I'm pissed. I'll jump on the bandwagon and help when I can, too.

David


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

s2kdave said:


> mirclmax,
> I'm in the same boat. I also have TWC SD. I called them also and they said that cable cards don't get those two new channels and they wouldn't tell me why. I also don't get the east coast versions of all Encore channels 500, 502, 504, etc... even though I pay for the movie package. If they aren't using SDV for those channels I don't get, I'm pissed. I'll jump on the bandwagon and help when I can, too.
> 
> David


Well I'm currently in a mode that I'm not planning on backing down on this one.. so I'll let you folks know how its turning out .. and if/when it'll help to get multiple people to complain, I'll let you know where to send the followup e-mails/calls.

As far as the East Coast channels .. as I'm not on Encore subscriber .. I wasn't aware of those .

Here is something I *could* use .. does anyone out there have CableCards & a STB? (I was thinking of starting a new thread to catch more eyes) .. but if any of you have both .. I would *really* love a complete list of all channels that fall into this category. Assuming I'll be sending a complaint to the FCC .. if not the Franchise Authority as well... I'd like it to be a complete list of all affected channels rather than just the ones I've seen.

Anyone out there capable of helping out on that aspect?

-MirclMax


----------



## jercra (Sep 1, 2007)

Perhaps I am missing something here but what possible reason would TWC have for blocking these channels for CC CE boxes only? Every STB deployed since 7/07 is required to have separable security (read Cable Cards), the same Cable Cards that are in your TiVo. Add to that the fact that if it's not switched then it's broadcast. The data is getting to every household no matter what device or how many devices decode it. There are simply no technical reasons that I can think of to deny this to CC CE boxes. Can you ask WHY they would do this?


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

jercra said:


> Perhaps I am missing something here but what possible reason would TWC have for blocking these channels for CC CE boxes only? Every STB deployed since 7/07 is required to have separable security (read Cable Cards), the same Cable Cards that are in your TiVo. Add to that the fact that if it's not switched then it's broadcast. The data is getting to every household no matter what device or how many devices decode it. There are simply no technical reasons that I can think of to deny this to CC CE boxes. Can you ask WHY they would do this?


I will admit that you pose a very fine question. The explanation I have received so far (from the person who called me back after I called the President's office) .. was because of limited bandwidth.

I'm not saying it makes sense .. I'm just telling you what they tell me. When I speak with her again, I will bring up your point.

-MirclMax


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

MirclMax said:


> I will admit that you pose a very fine question. The explanation I have received so far (from the person who called me back after I called the President's office) .. was because of limited bandwidth.
> 
> I'm not saying it makes sense .. I'm just telling you what they tell me. When I speak with her again, I will bring up your point.
> 
> -MirclMax


Originally Posted by jercra
Perhaps I am missing something here but what possible reason would TWC have for blocking these channels for CC CE boxes only? Every STB deployed since 7/07 is required to have separable security (read Cable Cards), the same Cable Cards that are in your TiVo. Add to that the fact that if it's not switched then it's broadcast. The data is getting to every household no matter what device or how many devices decode it. There are simply no technical reasons that I can think of to deny this to CC CE boxes. Can you ask WHY they would do this?

My post starts here.

It would have to do with switched digital video since the tivo's can't tune the SDV channels. The cable company boxes with cablecards don't have problems with the SDV or other 2way communications because the cablecards are only authorizing the channels where the Tivo and other third party non cable supplied doesn't have the 2 way hardware.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

ajwees41 said:


> It would have to do with switched digital video since the tivo's can't tune the SDV channels. The cable company boxes with cablecards don't have problems with the SDV or other 2way communications because the cablecards are only authorizing the channels where the Tivo and other third party non cable supplied doesn't have the 2 way hardware.


You're missing the fact that they quite openly have stated (multiple people) that these channels are NOT on SDV .. and in fact that have not deployed SDV at *all*. Its a question that I ask every time .. and I have been quite clear about it.

-MirclMax


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

MirclMax said:


> You're missing the fact that they quite openly have stated (multiple people) that these channels are NOT on SDV .. and in fact that have not deployed SDV at *all*. Its a question that I ask every time .. and I have been quite clear about it.
> 
> -MirclMax


But they could be getting low on bandwidth and starting to roll SDV out or using SDV for future channel additions.


----------



## tvofan (Jul 28, 2007)

MirclMax said:


> I will admit that you pose a very fine question. The explanation I have received so far (from the person who called me back after I called the President's office) .. was because of limited bandwidth.
> 
> I'm not saying it makes sense .. I'm just telling you what they tell me. When I speak with her again, I will bring up your point.
> 
> -MirclMax


MirclMax, I also have been dealing with TWC regarding this issue (and I posted about it on the hdtv.forsandiego forum). Whoever told you it was a "bandwidth issue" is lying. I hooked my HDTV directly to the cable, scanned the channels, and found the CW in HD on 69-1. So, the channel is coming over the cable but they haven't configured their end to tell CableCARDs how to tune it in. I had a TWC tech come out who confirmed it was an issue on their end. When I called up TWC and told them in they were in violation of the FCC rule, they wanted to take my name and add it to a list of complainers to be dealt with at some later date. It is this kind of BS that makes me want to cancel my cable and just use OTA.

Please let us know what you find out.

BTW, the day after the CW channel 705 was supposed to launch, it actually showed up (along with channel 767) during the day but it was showing the SD feed.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

tvofan said:


> When I called up TWC and told them in they were in violation of the FCC rule, they wanted to take my name and add it to a list of complainers to be dealt with at some later date.


That sounds kind of ominous, were they going to send a hitman after you?


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

If I recall correct "must carry" is relevant to whether the channel is carried at all and can be satisfied with just the analog channel.

The rule that probably is more applicable in this case is the one that says *if* a broadcast channel is carried, it must be in basic tier.

Basic tier definition has all the stuff that would be useful in arguing why you should be able to receive it. SDV might be a gray area, but they are saying it isn't in play here.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

sfhub said:


> If I recall correct "must carry" is relevant to whether the channel is carried at all and can be satisfied with just the analog channel.
> 
> The rule that probably is more applicable in this case is the one that says *if* a broadcast channel is carried, it must be in basic tier.
> 
> Basic tier definition has all the stuff that would be useful in arguing why you should be able to receive it. SDV might be a gray area, but they are saying it isn't in play here.


It might not be in play, but could be really close.


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

MirclMax said:


> I would *really* love a complete list of all channels that fall into this category. Assuming I'll be sending a complaint to the FCC .. if not the Franchise Authority as well... I'd like it to be a complete list of all affected channels rather than just the ones I've seen.
> 
> Anyone out there capable of helping out on that aspect?
> 
> -MirclMax


It should be easy to compile a list. Just go here to get the channel listing for each package. http://www.timewarnercable.com/CustomerService/CLU/TWCCLUs.ashx?menu=12807

Then uncheck all the packages you don't receive and see if you get every channel in the package that isn't an on demand or pay per view channel. I can give you the missing ones of the movie pak, but I don't have the other paks so I can't tell you those.


----------



## tvofan (Jul 28, 2007)

sfhub said:


> That sounds kind of ominous, were they going to send a hitman after you?


I should hope not! 

I got the impression they wanted to see how many people complain before deciding if/how to deal with the issue. I don't like how they think they can do whatever they want and not provide the services we pay for and they are supposed to give us.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

jercra said:


> Perhaps I am missing something here but what possible reason would TWC have for blocking these channels for CC CE boxes only? Every STB deployed since 7/07 is required to have separable security (read Cable Cards), the same Cable Cards that are in your TiVo. Add to that the fact that if it's not switched then it's broadcast. The data is getting to every household no matter what device or how many devices decode it. There are simply no technical reasons that I can think of to deny this to CC CE boxes. Can you ask WHY they would do this?


The most likely reason isnt technical.... Its most likely in preperation for SDV deployment. They likely view it as better to simply not give it to cablecards at all than to give it and then take it away later.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

sinanju said:


> And, as I said in a later posting, it is almost unimaginable that an affiliate of the CW, with so little leverage, hasn't filed as such.


Except MY CW affiliate, which did not. So you are just going to have to imagine a little harder. 

If the cable company carries a must-carry channel unencrypted using SDV in the basic tier, is that acceptable to the FCC? (Of course, it's not acceptable to anyone in this forum. I didn't bother to ask that question).

In this case, though, it sounds like a bug. They are carrying the channel, it's just that they haven't bothered to fix the CableCards. The FCC won't like this if they find out about it.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

sfhub said:


> If I recall correct "must carry" is relevant to whether the channel is carried at all and can be satisfied with just the analog channel.
> 
> The rule that probably is more applicable in this case is the one that says *if* a broadcast channel is carried, it must be in basic tier.
> 
> Basic tier definition has all the stuff that would be useful in arguing why you should be able to receive it. SDV might be a gray area, but they are saying it isn't in play here.


There is one other FCC rule that does come into play.. though it doesn't start until early 2009 .. as of last month they made it mandatory a "dual carry" policy. This would require broadcast of both analog and digital formats for these channels. 
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6478706.html

Granted, its hard to force them into something that doesn't take affect until Feb 2009 .. but they still *will* be required to do so. (Under that ruling .. if not others already)

-MirclMax


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

s2kdave said:


> It should be easy to compile a list. Just go here to get the channel listing for each package. http://www.timewarnercable.com/CustomerService/CLU/TWCCLUs.ashx?menu=12807
> 
> Then uncheck all the packages you don't receive and see if you get every channel in the package that isn't an on demand or pay per view channel. I can give you the missing ones of the movie pak, but I don't have the other paks so I can't tell you those.


Unfortunately this doesn't quite help me 100%. It would be a good start, but I was hoping for a more definitive list generated by someone who could really compare what was coming in via both systems. For example, the newly added Fox Business Channel on 249. I see a preview station. Same for 400 ESPNU. I have no idea if this is what they are showing me 'cuz I have CC's .. or for some other reason.

I'll just start up another thread and see if I can attract some eyes with the topic.

-MirclMax


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

MirclMax said:


> I will admit that you pose a very fine question. The explanation I have received so far (from the person who called me back after I called the President's office) .. was because of limited bandwidth.
> 
> I'm not saying it makes sense .. I'm just telling you what they tell me. When I speak with her again, I will bring up your point.
> 
> -MirclMax


I have Time-Warner Cable in Los Angeles and while I don't have Cablecards yet, I'm not seeing the HD feed for the CW station for LA (KTLA Channel 5) on the QAM block either(I've found the other networks).
I can get it OTA, more or less, if I position the rabbit ears just right.

I personally find all of this amusing when you consider the fact that Time-*Warner* Cable is screwing up the CBS-*Warner* Network this way.


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

MirclMax said:


> Unfortunately this doesn't quite help me 100%. It would be a good start, but I was hoping for a more definitive list generated by someone who could really compare what was coming in via both systems. For example, the newly added Fox Business Channel on 249. I see a preview station. Same for 400 ESPNU. I have no idea if this is what they are showing me 'cuz I have CC's .. or for some other reason.
> 
> I'll just start up another thread and see if I can attract some eyes with the topic.
> 
> -MirclMax


Wish I could help, I don't have a cable box either.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

JYoung said:


> I have Time-Warner Cable in Los Angeles and while I don't have Cablecards yet, I'm not seeing the HD feed for the CW station for LA (KTLA Channel 5) on the QAM block either(I've found the other networks).
> I can get it OTA, more or less, if I position the rabbit ears just right.
> 
> I personally find all of this amusing when you consider the fact that Time-*Warner* Cable is screwing up the CBS-*Warner* Network this way.


is it avalable via a cablebox? Maybe they don't have a contract to carry the HD feed.


----------



## jsquid001 (Jan 3, 2003)

Let me add my voice here as another frustrated San Diego TWC subscriber. When I saw the channels were blocked on my Tivo and called, they had someone come to my house to "fix" the issue.

3 hours later the tech learned that the channels were not available for CC devices and did not know when and if they would be available but said that I could see them if I plugged the cable line directly into my HDTV.

I never thought I would have a cable company beg me to get satellite.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

ajwees41 said:


> is it avalable via a cablebox? Maybe they don't have a contract to carry the HD feed.


I checked Time-Warner's website and the HD feeds for the CW and the former UPN now MyTV stations are not listed in their lineups.

It might be an Adelphia issue as I am a former Adelphia customer but I still find it amusingly bizarre.


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

JYoung said:


> I checked Time-Warner's website and the HD feeds for the CW and the former UPN now MyTV stations are not listed in their lineups.
> 
> It might be an Adelphia issue as I am a former Adelphia customer but I still find it amusingly bizarre.


They are in San Diego, although they're listed as 705	KSWB HD


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

MirclMax said:


> (Giving TWC 48hrs to get back to me)


Just in case anyone was keeping track .. TWC has failed to respond to me in the time frame *they* said they would. I will attempt on Monday to contact the person I last spoke to.. should I get no response .. other avenues will have to be pursued I guess..

As another side note.. I did confirm for myself one another poster had said.. KSWB-DT is being transmitted in the clear (QAM) .. in this specific case it seems they simply are unwilling to map it on the CableCard .. for whatever reason. But it *certainly* isn't a bandwidth issue, and it *certainly* isn't an SDV issue.

-MirclMax


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

MirclMax said:


> Just in case anyone was keeping track .. TWC has failed to respond to me in the time frame *they* said they would. I will attempt on Monday to contact the person I last spoke to.. should I get no response .. other avenues will have to be pursued I guess..
> 
> As another side note.. I did confirm for myself one another poster had said.. KSWB-DT is being transmitted in the clear (QAM) .. in this specific case it seems they simply are unwilling to map it on the CableCard .. for whatever reason. But it *certainly* isn't a bandwidth issue, and it *certainly* isn't an SDV issue.
> 
> -MirclMax


http://sandiegocw.trb.com/about/sta...ck-form,0,3844051.customform?coll=kswb-home-1

The above says other people are having trouble also

don't know how new that is, but I still stand by the new HD channels will be SDV.


----------



## c-surfer (Jul 25, 2001)

If they don't clear this up soon, I'm complaining to the city cable TV franchise regulator.


----------



## c-surfer (Jul 25, 2001)

Have you complained yet?

http://www.sandiego.gov/citytv/regulation/index.shtml

Maybe they'll put Michael "Mad dog" Aguirre on the case. Then Time Warner will be sorry.

http://www.sandiego.gov/cityattorney/


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Thank you for that additional avenue to explore.

I'm still currently attempting to resolve it with TWC, as I said, they were supposed to have called me back on Friday. I will call on Monday and see what their current position is.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ajwees41 said:


> http://sandiegocw.trb.com/about/sta...ck-form,0,3844051.customform?coll=kswb-home-1
> 
> The above says other people are having trouble also
> 
> don't know how new that is, but I still stand by the new HD channels will be SDV.


Wait ... we're only talking about the HD version of CW?

It's perfectly legal for TWC to not carry that until Feb. 2009. Be thankful they are carrying it at all. By then, the magical Tivo dongle will appear which will let you watch SDV content.

I agree that CW HD will eventually become SDV. This would be legal as long as the cable company provided you with equipment (i.e. the USB dongle) to view the channel.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

MirclMax said:


> If I read that right.. it looks like that gives some legal authority to The CW to demand to be carried ... that is.. essentially.. they have to say "hey.. carry us" .. now, while that might be an option (contacting the network and getting their help) .. in and of itself, the law doesn't seem to be aimed at consumers saying to the cableco that they "must carry" a specific channel.
> 
> What's particularly sad about this is.. I'm not really a fan of the CW's programming.. they're down to just "Smallville" for me. but I'm sticking this one out on principle.
> 
> -MirclMax


The last time I wandered through the CFR about this I was left with the impression that currently must-carry applies to analog broadcast channels and does not apply to digital broadcast channels until the specific analog channel is shut off. So the CW station could demand must-carry for its analog, but not digital. However, if the HD station is carried, it must be unencrypted. I know you're saying that SDV is not in place yet, but theoretically a channel could be transmitted SDV, but unencrypted. In this case it would technically comply with the law, but you still couldn't get it without a cable box unless you happened upon the freq, which could change the next time it dropped out of the neighborhood SDV pool. What the FCC would have to say about this is unknown, AFAIK.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

MirclMax said:


> I will attempt on Monday to contact the person I last spoke to.. should I get no response .. other avenues will have to be pursued I guess..


Okay.. while I am highly motivated to give TWC a piece of my mind and push this as hard as I can ... Given the current state of affairs in San Diego (massive fires), I've decided not to pursue this *today*. I'm not backing off .. just delaying a bit.

For those of you reading this that aren't from San Diego .. with something like 250,000 people being evacuated, houses burning down left and right ... it just doesn't seem right to battle over whether or not a TV station is being carried.

So stay tuned. I'm not done with this.

-MirclMax


----------



## Cajun Man (Jan 4, 2007)

emmpee said:



> My understanding is that the same thing is currently happening at TWC Rochester (NY).
> 
> Apparently the channels being blocked for CC users are "targeted for future SDV implementation", but are not currently using SDV.
> 
> Unfortunately I haven't had the time/energy to follow up to the extent you have, just sent a couple letters that got no response. Interested to see how your communications work out.


In case anyone's interested, I will be filing a complaint with the FCC regarding this and other issues, against TWC Rochester. I urge everyone -- including the original poster -- to file an FCC complaint as well.

On a semi-related note... A few years back, when the FCC's "local phone number portability" act went into effect, I attempted to transfer my home phone number to a cellular carrier. After waiting a month -- and calling the cellular carrier almost daily for updates -- I was told that my local phone company (Frontier Telephone of Rochester) could not transfer the number. (Supposedly they were not yet setup to do so, despite the fact that they were required to by the FCC mandate.)

Frustrated, I filed a complaint with the FCC. A week or so later, my cellular carrier called me with great news: Frontier somehow developed the capability to transfer my number, when just a month earlier, Frontier was adamant that they would not have the technical capability for six to nine months. Shocking! 

Sarcasm aside, I have no doubt that the complaint made the number transfer happen. For what it's worth...


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

Cajun Man said:


> In case anyone's interested, I will be filing a complaint with the FCC regarding this and other issues, against TWC Rochester. I urge everyone -- including the original poster -- to file an FCC complaint as well.
> 
> On a semi-related note... A few years back, when the FCC's "local phone number portability" act went into effect, I attempted to transfer my home phone number to a cellular carrier. After waiting a month -- and calling the cellular carrier almost daily for updates -- I was told that my local phone company (Frontier Telephone of Rochester) could not transfer the number. (Supposedly they were not yet setup to do so, despite the fact that they were required to by the FCC mandate.)
> 
> ...


Time Warner Raleigh/Durham is also moving existing HD channels to SDV, I got the letter last week. I am losing 3 HDs and not getting three new ones (TBSHD, AEHD and VERSUS). If you can post the FCC complaint link I would appreciate it. I am having trouble locating it. The FCC site directs you to the local franchising authority to file a complaint but I cannot find anything...


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

crazywater said:


> Time Warner Raleigh/Durham is also moving existing HD channels to SDV, I got the letter last week. I am losing 3 HDs and not getting three new ones (TBSHD, AEHD and VERSUS). If you can post the FCC complaint link I would appreciate it. I am having trouble locating it. The FCC site directs you to the local controlling authority to file a complaint but I cannot find anything...


Im not sure you will want them when you see what they have done to them.... They seem to have taken a page from D* and HD Lite. There are two QAM channels with three HD streams each.... about 12Mbit rate per channel. They look awful.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

I believe I have finally found the form for filing a complaint against TWC/NC. Here is the link;

Filing a complaint against your video service provider

And here is the link to more information on the site;

Cable Television Complaints; Information for Consumers


----------



## tmesser (Apr 12, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> If enough letters are received by our government they will do something about it. They have before.
> 
> If not... then our only hope is cival disobediance.... Boston Tea Party, Camden 28..... PROTEST!


I know you're (mostly) kidding about the second part, but there is another option that many people seem to be unwilling to consider: voting with your wallet. During my recent CableCARD installation fiasco, I was ready to ditch Comcast entirely and go OTA-only, right up until Executive Care stepped in and resolved it. If they start deploying SDV here before the magical USB dongle makes its appearance, I still might.


----------



## gwar9999 (Jan 16, 2007)

I've always said that Cox truly lives up to it's name (heck, even they agree since coxsucks.com is registered to Cox), but sounds like TWC is far worse. Geee, I guess there is something to be thankful for (for me).

Personally, I'm hoping that one day, DirecTV will create a CableCard interface to give us all options. I'm wondering if that day will come before Verizon offers FiOS in my area (since I expect Santa Barbara will be one of the last places to get FiOS). The only way to truly tell your cable company what you think of them is to cancel service. However, if you don't have other options for your TiVo S3/HD(currently only FiOS or OTA) then you'd have to be willing to accept the fact that you've potentially thrown away several hundred bucks (on the TiVo + service contract + CC gouging, err, installation fees).


----------



## BrianAZ (Aug 13, 2007)

BrianAZ said:


> I am in a similar situation... I ordered the NHL Center Ice hockey package over the phone. I received it perfectly fine during the free preview, but once that ended, I got grey screens on those channels on the tivo while my STB received them fine. I called in and the woman immediately said "Oh, I see why it's not working... they didn't add it to your cable cards! I can't do it or it will double charge you but let me get my supervisor on the phone and he'll fix it right now."
> 
> So I sit on hold for quite a while and then she gets back on and said that appearantly she's mistaken and that it's not possible to receive ANY PPV via cable cards. She confirmed there is no SDV in my market and I replied that the statement about no PPV is just completely false. Obviously it works as I had no issues during the free preview. I got nowhere with Cox (Phoenix) so I hung up.
> 
> My next call was to Tivo support. I relayed the story to them and they agreed with me that there should not be any reason why I could not get the package. They indicated that since I had already interfaced with a supervisor (by proxy), they would escalate the case to their legal department who would call Cox and inform them that they are mandated by the FCC to enable the package for me (or get a very technical explanation of why it was not possible). They indicated it would be 4-5 business days before I got a call back. It's been 5 actual days now so I expect a call tomorrow or Friday. I'll let you know what comes of it.


SOOOO pissed off. Tivo is dropping the ball. I waited the 4-5 business days as described above. I call back in and speak with someone named Toni who tells me it doesn't even appear that the "CSI" department has looked at the ticket!!!  

She said she would re-raise the ticket with them and that we should have a response in 3-4 days. I asked her if she felt that would do the trick or if we needed to escalate to a supervisor to ensure it gets addressed. She assured me that we would definitely have a response in a few days and that a supervisor was not necessary.

*TIVO* (Pony/Jerry/anyone) - I'm not sure if the CSR supervisors/managers frequent communities like this but I think it would sure help them get a better idea of where they have holes like this. I conveyed my frustration to "Toni" but I doubt she did anything with it other than mark it in her ticket worklog.

My prior experience with Tivo support (during frustrating install) was *GREAT*. However at this point my opinion is falling fast. Please Tivo, fix this for me so that I can feel confident about suggesting Tivo to my friends and family.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

I realize you're asking TiVo for help, but you need to understand that the problem isn't TiVo. The problem is that your cable company is intentionally blocking your cable cards from watching the NHL center ice channels.


----------



## BrianAZ (Aug 13, 2007)

Grakthis said:


> I realize you're asking TiVo for help, but you need to understand that the problem isn't TiVo. The problem is that your cable company is intentionally blocking your cable cards from watching the NHL center ice channels.


I do understand that. I also understand that I spent $600 on a system with Tivo which they provide support for. A component of that support offering is they will reach out to cable companies on you behalf when the cable co won't listen to you. In this situation, they failed to do what they promised so I feel I am rightly irritated at them. Of course, I am *MORE* irritated with the cable company but regardless, Tivo indicated they would take a specified action and they did not.


----------



## adamsd (Jun 23, 2005)

I ran into the same problem as Brian. I called Tivo about 3 weeks ago and they told me they would push the problem up to legal to deal with the cable company and to call back. I gave them some extra time and called back yesterday. The CSR I spoke with said that nothing had been done over the past 3 weeks and he apologized. Apparently the first CSR passed on the issue, but the legal department currently only handles issues where the cable company refuses to install cable cards. I of course voiced my frustration and was informed by the CSR that he does not understand why it was not passed on to a supervisor and that he would proceed to do that. He told me to call back in a week to get an update. I let him know that this was in Tivo's best interest to resolve since there is a thread of angry San Diego customers at this site. He understood and said that they will get to the bottom of this. 

I do not know how much I believe the guy, but I will give him the benefit and one more week. I will post more as I learn more.


----------



## BrianAZ (Aug 13, 2007)

adamsd said:


> I ran into the same problem as Brian. I called Tivo about 3 weeks ago and they told me they would push the problem up to legal to deal with the cable company and to call back. I gave them some extra time and called back yesterday. The CSR I spoke with said that nothing had been done over the past 3 weeks and he apologized. Apparently the first CSR passed on the issue, but the legal department currently only handles issues where the cable company refuses to install cable cards. I of course voiced my frustration and was informed by the CSR that he does not understand why it was not passed on to a supervisor and that he would proceed to do that. He told me to call back in a week to get an update. I let him know that this was in Tivo's best interest to resolve since there is a thread of angry San Diego customers at this site. He understood and said that they will get to the bottom of this.
> 
> I do not know how much I believe the guy, but I will give him the benefit and one more week. I will post more as I learn more.


Very interesting. I may fly off the handle with Tivo CSR if I call back a second time after not receiving a call as promised only to be told that they don't handle these situations and they've wasted 2 weeks of my time by having me wait.


----------



## c-surfer (Jul 25, 2001)

Any word from Time Warner yet?


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

TWC in San Diego did not carry KSWB-DT because for whatever reason they didn't want to and because nothing in the cable regulations required it. KSWB could have forced them to carry it, but they would have had to have dropped carriage of their analog channel--the FCC explicitly rejected a request by the broadcasters that would have required the cable providers to carry both their analog and digital channels on request. (The measure was called "Dual Must Carry". Apparently at least one independent broadcaster in Florida somewhere dropped their analog carriage and was thereby able to force carriage of their digital channel a couple of years back'; few national network affiliates would be able to afford to make themselves inaccessible by viewers using NTSC televisions w/o QAM tuners).

However, having chosen to carry a local digital OTA channel, they must position it and every other rebroadcast of a local over-the-air channel in their core basic tier (Code of Federal Regulations Title 47 §76.901(a)); nothing in the core basic tier may be encrypted or in any way scrambled (CFR Title 47 §76.630(a)). The concept of the basic tier is that it be a set of services that you can purchase for the lowest possible price and which you _must_ purchase in order to get any cable service, which won't require that you lease any equipment from your cable provider in order to receive it. It all must be tunable by the appropriate off-the-shelf equipment.

Reports (in hdtv.forsandiego.com, the second paragraph of this post) are that KSWB-DT _is_ present on the wire in unencrypted form as required by regulations; some guy is able to see it at 69.1 using the clear QAM tuner in his television. What they don't seem to be doing is loading pointers to it into the maps in CableCARDs. It's not clear to me what part of the FCC's regs require that they load CableCARDs with tuning information for all eligible channels; there might be nothing.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

c-surfer said:


> Any word from Time Warner yet?


Started to pursue this again. Left voice-mail for my contact @ TWC-SD today (Thursday) .. I was not called back. (Shocking, I know)

Will try again tomorrow.

-MirclMax


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

mikeyts said:


> l--the FCC explicitly rejected a request by the broadcasters that would have required the cable providers to carry both their analog and digital channels on request. (The measure was called "Dual Must Carry". Apparently at least one independent broadcaster in Florida somewhere dropped their analog carriage and was thereby able to force carriage of their digital channel a couple of years back'; few national network affiliates would be able to afford to make themselves inaccessible by viewers using NTSC televisions w/o QAM tuners).


Unless I'm mistaken .. Back in September ('07) the FCC actually passed the "Dual Must Carry" measure. (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6478706.html)

The only problem for us .. is that it doesn't seem to be enforced until Feb '09. The point of the measure is to make them carry both for 3 years after the switch-over. Ironically, I believe the measure is intended to force the broadcaster to carry the analog signal if they want to carry the digital one .. but it is written in such a way that if they carry the analog one, they'd have to carry the digital one. (If you have one, you *must* have the other.)

Feb '09 is a long way away in terms of this stuff .. and thus I consider it irrelevant other than the fact that it seems to show a "spirit" of the law that both signals should be carried.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

MirclMax said:


> Unless I'm mistaken .. Back in September ('07) the FCC actually passed the "Dual Must Carry" measure. (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6478706.html).


You are mistaken. The original ask for "dual must carry" was rejected back in 2001 (see this); the broadcasters wanted it immediately and for the duration of transition until the analog cut-off, so that cable subscribers (always 60% or better of their viewers) would have access to the digital content while they developed a market for it. At the time, only a few percent of cable's subs possessed equipment for viewing HDTV and there was no plug-and-play DTV over cable standard. Some of the cable providers who were carrying DTV were doing so as 8 VSB in 6 MHz channels.

This new "dual carriage" measure isn't the same thing. The big difference is that it's a requirement that they _continue_ to carry an analog version of the broadcasters' digital signals, not to benefit the broadcasters so much as to give subscribers with legacy analog televisions a chance to adapt. By the analog cut-off date all cable providers are likely to be carrying all of the digital channels anyway and they've always carried all of the analog channels. They're just telling them that they can't immediately reclaim the huge amount of bandwidth being consumed by the analog signals, even though there won't be any analog signals on the air anymore. What the broadcasters were begging for previously was a requirement that they add their new digital signals immediately if they demanded it. (Had it passed, KSWB-DT could have used the original measure to gain carriage on TWC, Cox and Adelphia 6 years ago; this new thing won't help them at all, since Cox picked up their digital channel a year or two ago and TWC--which bought out Adelphia--just did).

After February 2009, any digital signals that they haven't added will be eligible to gain carriage via "must carry", since it will be the broadcaster's only signal. They just won't be able to dump the corresponding analog channel, even though they're going to have to create it from the digital one, for three years.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

mikeyts said:


> After February 2009, any digital signals that they haven't added will be eligible to gain carriage via "must carry", since it will be the broadcaster's only signal. They just won't be able to dump the corresponding analog channel, even though they're going to have to create it from the digital one, for three years.


Isn't that basically what I said? 

I wasn't trying to say that the original bill was passed, but *a* "Dual must carry" bill was passed in Sept.

Your description of it seems to be completely in line with what I believed the situation to be .. even if my description of it did not fully express it clearly.

-MirclMax


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

MirclMax said:


> Isn't that basically what I said?
> 
> I wasn't trying to say that the original bill was passed, but *a* "Dual must carry" bill was passed in Sept.
> 
> Your description of it seems to be completely in line with what I believed the situation to be .. even if my description of it did not fully express it clearly.


The big difference is that this new bill really has nothing to do with "must carry", which is a provision allowing a broadcaster to force carriage of their signal, if desired. This new thing doesn't involve a broadcaster request at all--it's a mandate by the FCC forcing the cable providers to continue to put out an analog version of the digital channels, after the analog versions disappear from the air. If a digital channel broadcaster objected, the cable providers would still have to broadcast his channel in analog form.

It doesn't go into effect until the analog cut-off because it has nothing to do with the current situation. No cable provider is likely to try to drop the analog versions until they disappear. There is no "spirit of the law" which applies to today, since this law is all about temporarily preserving analog, which isn't threatened today.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

Cable co's still carrying the analog is good news to people that still want to use Series 2 Tivo's and who don't want to have a cable box for every TV. Bad news for Cable Co's and people wanting more HD due to the huge amount of bandwidth analog requires.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

cableguy763 said:


> Cable co's still carrying the analog is good news to people that still want to use Series 2 Tivo's and who don't want to have a cable box for every TV. Bad news for Cable Co's and people wanting more HD due to the huge amount of bandwidth analog requires.


Though they'll have to dedicate a significant amount of bandwidth to continued analog broadcasting, I was probably exaggerating when I called it "huge". This new "dual carriage" provision only affects local broadcasts. In my area, that'd only amount to 6 or 7 channels. Enough for 12-14 full-bandwidth digital channels, but reclaiming those analog channels is not where cable is going to get what they need to be competitive.

Unfortunately, SDV is the future; I really can't see another way. Hopefully we'll get that "tuning resolver" for S3 and THD.


----------



## adamsd (Jun 23, 2005)

I just got off the phone with Tivo. I had given them another week. You may remember last time I called I heard that the legal department at Tivo only deals with cable providers not willing to install cable cards. They passed the concern of cable providers not giving all channels to cable cards onto a supervisor. As of a week later nothing new has happened. Now Tivo is starting to piss me off. I started this issue with them a month ago and they have done absolutely nothing about it.

I strongly recommend everyone who is concerned by this thread to call Tivo and report that TWCSD is withholding channels from Tivo customers. Possibly if enough people call they will realize that they may actually lose customers if they do not help resolve this thing.

I will be calling Tivo again in about a week to see if there is anything new from them.


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

adamsd said:


> I strongly recommend everyone who is concerned by this thread to call Tivo and report that TWCSD is withholding channels from Tivo customers. Possibly if enough people call they will realize that they may actually lose customers if they do not help resolve this thing.


I did this the other day and got transferred and hung up on. Didn't have time to go through that again at the time. I'll call back again later.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

I think this one is going to interest a few of you ....

I left another voicemail today ... just got a call back .. but from a different person. Apparently my contact has been out in the field (fire related). So I was talking to a "Technical Support Supervisor". He was extremely candid with me.

According to him, there is *no* technical reason why the cable cards could not receive these channels. It is a decision that has been made by the Marketing Department and their Corporate offices. According to him (and he was by no means justifying the position, just relaying it), "We can choose to broadcast what we want to broadcast on what equipment" .. and "We don't want cable cards to have this access" and also "It is completely legal for us to do that".

As an example he brought up the the East Coast feeds that have been mentioned by some as missing .. apparently they .. for marketing reasons, chose not to allow cablecards to see those channels .. and its been that way for awhile.

He was very nice about it. Encouraged me to continue to pursue it. So .. I am ..

While I'll shoot for the franchise authority on Monday .. (Its almost 5pm on Friday now... and people will want to be going home) .. I did put a call in to KSWB .. and left a voicemail for their Director of Engineering (at the suggestion of the General Manager's office) .. and hopefully I can speak to him about all of this early next week. My guess is that they actually want their signal to be seen and would be willing to speak up about it. If it appears that they are just not too interested, I will post contact details for people to call and complain. 

I really wish TiVo's lawyers would jump in and help out with this a bit ... *sigh*

-MirclMax


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

The question in my mind is whether there actually are any FCC regs compelling them to properly download the channel maps in cable cards. You'd think that there'd at least be something requiring that they map the basic service tier (which would include KSWB). I'm not sure that there is.


----------



## tvofan (Jul 28, 2007)

MirclMax said:


> According to him, there is *no* technical reason why the cable cards could not receive these channels. It is a decision that has been made by the Marketing Department and their Corporate offices. According to him (and he was by no means justifying the position, just relaying it), "We can choose to broadcast what we want to broadcast on what equipment" .. and "We don't want cable cards to have this access" and also "It is completely legal for us to do that".


MirclMax, thanks for following up regarding this. Because of TWC's attitude regarding this issue, I turned in my CableCARDs, canceled my cable service, and went OTA only.


----------



## c-surfer (Jul 25, 2001)

Time Warner San Diego should be fined and a portion of us who were affected by Time Warner's flaunting of equal-access rules should have a portion of our bills refunded.

When I lived in a different municipality, the city regulator was fantastic. Calling the city cable TV bureaucrat was far more effective then calling AT&T customer support.

After months of getting jerked around by AT&T Broadband, I called the city. All a sudden, AT&T was out replacing the feeder line to my house, and a portion of my bill from the time I first complained to the time the problem was fixed was refunded. The city regulator even called to follow-up to see if the problem had truly been fixed.


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

ok, after being on phone for about 1.5 hours with Tivo and then TWC, I got some explanation. Tivo was going to conference me in with TWC, but somehow we lost the tivo guy and it was just me and the TWC guy. Apparently an internal memo went around recently saying that Cable Cards won't be receiving 712 and 767, but it never mentions 705 (CW). The guy got clarification from his supervisor and then explained the whole thing to me. So here's the story:

TWC, is in the process of switching all of their set top boxes to be OCAP compliant boxes and internally they have M-Cards which he said were 2 way and do get those channels, but the regular CCs that we have are 1 way cards and don't get certain things on it (as I already knew). He said they were no longer putting out the older boxes in the field, everything now is the newer OCAP boxes. He also said that the old CC won't ever get the new channels.

So basically what I think is happening is that they are deploying their new system and abandoning their old one, but will keep it running so the current customers still work. So when they added the new channels, they probably only added it to the new system and not the old. So I told him that tivo supposedly supports multistream cards and asked if I can rent those instead. He said he wasn't sure, but I would have to have them make a service call for them to come out for that anyway. So I'm going to try and see if I can get them to rent me an m-card and then see if that works.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

s2kdave said:


> ok, after being on phone for about 1.5 hours with Tivo and then TWC, I got some explanation. Tivo was going to conference me in with TWC, but somehow we lost the tivo guy and it was just me and the TWC guy. Apparently an internal memo went around recently saying that Cable Cards won't be receiving 712 and 767, but it never mentions 705 (CW). The guy got clarification from his supervisor and then explained the whole thing to me. So here's the story:
> 
> TWC, is in the process of switching all of their set top boxes to be OCAP compliant boxes and internally they have M-Cards which he said were 2 way and do get those channels, but the regular CCs that we have are 1 way cards and don't get certain things on it (as I already knew). He said they were no longer putting out the older boxes in the field, everything now is the newer OCAP boxes. He also said that the old CC won't ever get the new channels.
> 
> So basically what I think is happening is that they are deploying their new system and abandoning their old one, but will keep it running so the current customers still work. So when they added the new channels, they probably only added it to the new system and not the old. So I told him that tivo supposedly supports multistream cards and asked if I can rent those instead. He said he wasn't sure, but I would have to have them make a service call for them to come out for that anyway. So I'm going to try and see if I can get them to rent me an m-card and then see if that works.


Gee.. what a crock. There is not such thing as a one way cablecard. Its the host that sets the one way vs two way. The S-Card will receive anything that the M-Card will. Most likely the truth is that they wont give you the content because they want to reserve the channel for SDV.

Straight from cable labs....

http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.html


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

He was basically reiterating what he was told or read. It was the game of telephone. So S-Cards and M-Cards are both 2 way. But he refer to the OCAP as the "new system". So my theory about them just adding the new channels for the new system probably holds true.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

This is what you'd expect with the adoption of SDV; when they add new HD channels, they'll be added as SDV services. No doubt some services that you get now will be changed to SDV. The matter of KSWB is separate, though. There's no way that they can add that or anything else in the basic service tier as SDV.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

mikeyts said:


> This is what you'd expect with the adoption of SDV; when they add new HD channels, they'll be added as SDV services. No doubt some services that you get now will be changed to SDV. The matter of KSWB is separate, though. There's no way that they can add that or anything else in the basic service tier as SDV.


If we're still talking KSWB-HD, the dual must-carry rule doesn't go into effect until Feb. 2009. They can do whatever they want with that digital signal, including dropping it from the lineup, and it's perfectly legal. They can temporarily have it on SDV while they shuffle other things around, then move it to the basic tier on Feb 17, 2009.

Only the analog KSWB is currently must-carry on a basic tier.

But the problem is simply that the channel isn't included in the CableCard data. It's not being carried in SDV, but Tivo doesn't know it exists because the CableCard doesn't know it exists. I don't know if there's a specific rule that the CableCard data has to be correct, but it's certainly implied. It sounds like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I'm sure the OP will get a different amswer each time he asks.


----------



## c-surfer (Jul 25, 2001)

I thought the purpose of making the cable companies decouple the cable-cards from their set top-boxes was so the behavior of independent set-top box devices like Tivo would be on an equal footing and behave similarly. Clearly, 705 is working for those with Time Warner supplied boxes but not on Tivo.

When I called Time Warner San Diego over the weekend, I got 2 explanations from the customer service agent.

1. The facility in North County that handles channel 705 was *destroyed by wild fire* and that's why 705 is dead.

2. They haven't programmed the cable card platform with data for 705 yet and there's no ETA.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

c-surfer said:


> I thought the purpose of making the cable companies decouple the cable-cards from their set top-boxes was so the behavior of independent set-top box devices like Tivo would be on an equal footing and behave similarly. Clearly, 705 is working for those with Time Warner supplied boxes but not on Tivo.
> 
> When I called Time Warner San Diego over the weekend, I got 2 explanations from the customer service agent.
> 
> ...


I would select B as the most likely answer.


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

c-surfer said:


> 1. The facility in North County that handles channel 705 was *destroyed by wild fire* and that's why 705 is dead.


Haha, when in doubt, make something up. That doesn't really explain why channel 705 was dead BEFORE the fires started.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> If we're still talking KSWB-HD, the dual must-carry rule doesn't go into effect until Feb. 2009. They can do whatever they want with that digital signal, including dropping it from the lineup, and it's perfectly legal. They can temporarily have it on SDV while they shuffle other things around, then move it to the basic tier on Feb 17, 2009.
> 
> Only the analog KSWB is currently must-carry on a basic tier.


The problem with KSWB not being on CableCARDs has nothing to do with Must-Carry/Can-Carry. The fact that they rejected the original Dual-Must-Carry in 2001 (totally different in intent from the new dual carriage measure) only means that they can't be forced to carry both the analog and digital channels of any single broadcaster. If they choose to or are compelled to carry either or both of a local broadcaster's analog and digital channels, they must position them in the core basic tier and nothing in the core basic tier can be presented in a fashion rendering it unviewable with common off-the-shelf equipment. That, at least, is the spirit of the regs, which literally say that nothing in the basic service tier may be encrypted or scrambled in a section entitled "Compatibility with Consumer Equipment". Of course, the people who wrote that section could hardly have imagined CableCARDs and a need to properly program them with information for tuning the basic tier channels.

The clear intent of the regulation is to prevent cable companies from being able to charge you extra to view anything that's being broadcast on the air.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Update time:

Monday was phone-tag day .. which is why there was no update .. 

However, I just got off the phone with the Director of Engineering at KSWB. We had a nice chat about the issue. He understood fully the issues at hand. He said he would run it up the ladder at Tribune (who own the station). They'll need to find out if its TWC corporate or TWC-SD that is doing this and address it appropriately. We've set a time frame of aprox 2 weeks as a time when he should have some sort of answer about this. So I will be putting this issue on hold for that time period (or until I hear back from him). 

Now I realize that this issue goes far beyond *just* KSWB-DT (705) .. and that ultimately dealing with the Local Franchise Board .. and the FCC are inevitable. But since this is the only channel involved that really can be dealt with "locally" .. and the only one I stood a decent chance of being listened to at .. I'd like to give them a chance (however small it might be) to reverse TWC's stance on this. I believe getting KSWB back first will even make it more helpful to show how wrong their policies are in terms of the other channels.

So .. I'm on "hold". Obviously, I can't stop you folks from pursuing this on your own if you want to. (I'd rather it be as coordinated as possible though). I do ask however that you leave the folks @ KSWB alone .. They seem to be quite a friendly group over there in all of my contacts with them, and since the ball is already rolling no need to pester them.

-MirclMax


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

I thought you couldn't file ANY digital channels as must-carry today. And I don't think that Comcast is carrying the CW affiliate's digital signal out of the goodness of their heart. I think a deal was struck between the two. And it is perfectly legal to carry digital broadcast stations on other tiers besides the basic tier today. It happens all the time, especially with The CW.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6376892.html

"Because of regulations and the tension between broadcast stations and cable, digital broadcast channels aren't automatically carried. When they are, the additional programming is generally put in a digital tier subscribed to by 30%-50% of a system's subscribers. Getting a much more valuable slot on a basic-cable tier available to all subscribers requires negotiation."

It will NOT be OK to do this starting Feb 18, 2009. At that point, TV stations can file as must-carry for their digital signal (since they have no analog signal anymore) and the other rules and decisions should apply.

I realize other people had read the various rulings differently and have come to their own conclusions. I understand why you would come to these conclusions -- the rulings are confusing. But there is no ruling that explicitly says that the digital broadcast channels have to be supplied on the basic tier before the analog shut-off date. (If there is, please let me know. I couldn't find one, which surprised me.)

Edit: I finally found them, though it's still not clear if they meant all broadcast channels or just the must-carry ones. And a station can only file must-carry for digital today if they don't have an analog signal, which is rare. Also, this "basic-tier" rule is suspended if the cable company has been granted "effective competition" for that area. Has Comcast been granted an effective competition waiver in San Diego?

However, that's not the issue here. It's about getting the CableCard data updated properly. And MirclMax is correct in what he's doing. Who knows -- maybe The CW simply slipped through the cracks.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> I thought you couldn't file ANY digital channels as must-carry today. And I don't think that Comcast is carrying the CW affiliate's digital signal out of the goodness of their heart. I think a deal was struck between the two. And it is perfectly legal to carry digital broadcast stations on other tiers besides the basic tier today. It happens all the time, especially with The CW.


Federal Code of Regulation Title 47 §76.901(a):


> (a) Basic service. *The basic service tier shall, at a minimum, include all signals of domestic television broadcast stations provided to any subscriber* (except a signal secondarily transmitted by satellite carrier beyond the local service area of such station, regardless of how such signal is ultimately received by the cable system) any public, educational, and governmental programming required by the franchise to be carried on the basic tier, and any additional video programming signals a service added to the basic tier by the cable operator.


CFR Title 47 §76.630(a) begins:


> (a) Cable system operators shall not scramble or otherwise encrypt signals carried on the basic service tier.


Any local over-the-air broadcast must be carried by a cable provider as part of the basic service tier. Period. It doesn't matter under what auspices it's being carried--"Can Carry" or "Must Carry". Most over-the-air rebroadcasts are not being carried under "Must Carry"--the cable companies cannot survive without the top rated national networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox), and they negotiate deals for carriage rights with the local broadcasters and networks. Most such deals probably require the carriage of the DTV channel at this point, as well as several of the affiliated network's other products ("If you want NBC, you have to carry both the analog and digital channels, plus Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC, USA, SCI FI, ShopNBC and Telemundo"). Having paid cash for the carriage rights of any local broadcast station, they still must position it in the basic services tier.

Years ago, when cable first started carrying the DTV channels, many providers tried to place them in special tiers, encrypt and charge extra for them, which regulations prohibit. Here in San Diego County, Cox was doing it for a while. The HDTV section of AVS Forums had thread after thread about cable subscriber campaigns to force their providers to place their local DTV stations in basic services and unencrypt them as specified by FCC regs, _all of which were successful_. If any provider is doing it today it's because none of its subs has complained yet.

The defeat of the 2001 Dual Must Carry measure means that they don't have to carry both analog and digital broadcasts, but if they do carry both they _must_ position both in the basic services tier.

This is actually not relevant to the topic of this thread. TWC would seem to be carrying the CW HD in the clear as required--at least two people have reported (at hdtv.forsandiego.com) being able to tune it with their televisions' QAM tuners as 69.1. What they're failing to do is program the channel into the maps that they load into CableCARDs; I'm not certain that there's anything in the regulations which compells them to do it. If they're omitting the channel from that map maliciously and on purpose, they may have found a loophole.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> Edit: I finally found them, though it's still not clear if they meant all broadcast channels or just the must-carry ones. And a station can only file must-carry for digital today if they don't have an analog signal, which is rare. Also, this "basic-tier" rule is suspended if the cable company has been granted "effective competition" for that area. Has Comcast been granted an effective competition waiver in San Diego?


Comcast doesn't operate in San Diego--we're talking about Time Warner. In order to get an "effective competition" exemption from regulation, cable must be suffering locally in its competition with DBS and the telcos, which is pretty rare. I believe that locally, cable has well over 60% of the market (Cox San Diego is the nation's fourth largest provider).


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6376892.html


This is an interesting article. It primarily concerned the CW's problems in markets so small that there are only four broadcasters and the closest they can come to an affiliate is carriage as a sub-channel by one of broadcasters of "the big 4 networks". (I'm _really_ happy that I don't live in one of those markets--they must be _crushing_ the CW's HD primetime signal into an unwatchable mess). Cable providers definitely aren't required to carry any broadcaster's subchannels, and when they do they probably can carry them however the hell they want.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

mikeyts said:


> Comcast doesn't operate in San Diego--we're talking about Time Warner. In order to get an "effective competition" exemption from regulation, cable must be suffering locally in its competition with DBS and the telcos, which is pretty rare. I believe that locally, cable has well over 60% of the market (Cox San Diego is the nation's fourth largest provider).


You'd think San Diego would have a higher-than-average DBS subscription rate. If it's over the 15% subscriber requirement (the national average is around 22%), TWC just qualified for an exemption. The other requirement is that half of the households must be able to receive a DBS (or other) service, which is almost always satisfied. In other words, waivers will be filed as fast as they can and in most cases they will be approved.

Locally, my CW channel is an NBC affiliate. I am in a top 100 DMA market. It doesn't even transmit in digital.

Finally, my local TWC requires you rent a HD set-top box or CableCard to get the local HD channels. But they don't charge you anything extra for the HD tier. They are unencrypted, but you need the CableCard for guide information. I guess the CableCard is a COTS device -- that you can only rent from the cable company.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

mikeyts said:


> This is actually not relevant to the topic of this thread. TWC would seem to be carrying the CW HD in the clear as required--at least two people have reported (at hdtv.forsandiego.com) being able to tune it with their televisions' QAM tuners as 69.1. What they're failing to do is program the channel into the maps that they load into CableCARDs; I'm not certain that there's anything in the regulations which compells them to do it. If they're omitting the channel from that map maliciously and on purpose, they may have found a loophole.


I don't think that loophole really exists. It's like a car meeting the minimum MPG rating by simply not including an engine. A CableCard without an accurate map is useless. If this happens enough, the FCC will issue a specific ruling. I think in this case that this channel simply fell though the cracks.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> You'd think San Diego would have a higher-than-average DBS subscription rate. If it's over the 15% subscriber requirement (the national average is around 22%), TWC just qualified for an exemption. The other requirement is that half of the households must be able to receive a DBS (or other) service, which is almost always satisfied. In other words, waivers will be filed as fast as they can and in most cases they will be approved.
> 
> Locally, my CW channel is an NBC affiliate. I am in a top 100 DMA market. It doesn't even transmit in digital.
> 
> Finally, my local TWC requires you rent a HD set-top box or CableCard to get the local HD channels. But they don't charge you anything extra for the HD tier. They are unencrypted, but you need the CableCard for guide information. I guess the CableCard is a COTS device -- that you can only rent from the cable company.


CableCARDs have to be rented from your cable company because they're specific to the cable company's equipment--Motorola CCs don't work on SA networks and vice-versa. They're essentially devices to adapt the proprietary conditional access method of your cable provider's choice to your equipment. They were always intended to obtained from your cable provider and FCC regs require that they keep them in stock and distribute them on customer demand.

If your TWC system doesn't encrypt the local DTV channels, how can they require equipment lease to receive them? You should be able to tune them with any piece of off-the-shelf equipment with a clear QAM tuner.

Number 1 of the conditions for an "Effective Competition" exemption (which is a per-franchise-area matter) is that fewer than 30% of the households in the franchise area subscribe to cable. I cannot believe that that's true in very many places and certainly not in any signficant area of a market as large as San Diego. Nevertheless it could be true in specific franchise areas of the DMA, like say, Del Mar Village or Carlsbad, etc.

Looking at the "effective competitition" exemption thing (USC Title 47 §543(l)) I don't see where it effects FCC regulations on composition of the basic tier. It removes regulation of pricing of the basic tier and basic tier sell-through (i.e., it allows the exempted provider to sell video services to people without requirement that they buy the basic tier, so you could subscribe to say, the HBO digital tier without having to buy basic).

I find this "effective competition" exemption disturbing. Deregulation of cable is not a good thing for anyone except the cable providers. Better to my mind that the cable industry be driven out of business completely by their competition than that they be allowed to screw their subs over indiscriminately in the name of fair trade.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

No, you've got the criteria for effective competiton wrong. It's here:

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/1999/76/905/

DBS has grown so much over the last two years that nearly every area probably qualifies for effective competiton. That's because there IS effective competition in most markets. The FCC defines a monopoly as greater than 85% -- and DBS is on average in roughly 1 in 4 homes. But cable companies have to file for it and get it approved in each market first before they can do anything -- the default is set to "monopoly". 

I'll link to the "other" forum where I finally found the info:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12140024

Finally, I agree with you that it's a little dubious. My TWC's web site and their customer support insist you need to rent a set-top box to get broadcast HD. If you dig a little further, you'll finally find someone who will admit that you just need a CableCard. This in itself is dubious -- they support CableCards, but they either don't mention them as an option or actively steer you away from them.

The channels are probably unencrypted somewhere, and if you searched long enough you might find them. But Tivo won't see them, and you won't get any guide data for them, so what's the point?

And this gets back to the OT. There's a thread that says Tivo should provide guide data for the unencrypted QAM channels. Then, you could use those channels like the OP is trying to without having to spend weeks digging through massive amounts of red tape. The problem is, these channels are not really supported well by the cable company and could change frequently. You'd think it would be extremely difficult to keep track of all of these channels nationwide.

This is why I have DirecTV. And hopefully, in the future, FIOS TV.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Interesting. I just went looking for a discussion of the effective competition thing to find a reference to the relevant law and found that section of the U. S. Code. (The big difference is that the USC section omits the phrase "when any one of the following conditions is met"; it looks like all of them have to be). It's very close to the section of the CFR (where I should have just searched), and I found this at that U. S. Code site:


> This is a list of parts within the Code of Federal Regulations for which this US Code section provides rulemaking authority.


(The list includes 47 CFR 76, 47 CFR 80 and 47 CFR 97). I wonder if this means that all of the CFRs have to be echoed in the U. S. Code somewhere? Oh well.

As far as the CFRs go, I prefer to use the government's own site; if nothing else it's prettier . That one appears here.

I still think that it's a bad idea to allow the deregulation of cable systems under any circumstances. In _any_ urban area, huge percentages of the population couldn't use satellite if they wanted to because they don't have access to a private use site on their dwelling with the necessary line-of-sight for mounting a dish. Until the telcos get their act completely together, those people (currently including myself) are stuck with cable.


BobCamp1 said:


> The channels are probably unencrypted somewhere, and if you searched long enough you might find them. But Tivo won't see them, and you won't get any guide data for them, so what's the point?


People use those channels all the time, and have since the beginning of DTV on cable, a couple of years before the advent of CableCARDs, directly tuning them with the clear QAM tuners in their equipment. Current regulations require that they be mapped by a PSIP loop on the wire, but who knows whether that ever happens properly or whether any of the equipment is capable of reading it? I do know that in the local San Diego forums people have run threads for years updating the mapping of the clear QAM channels on the cable systems; of course this only helps the relatively few people who find the forum.

The problem is that nothing stops them from reaggregating the channels into different configurations as they see fit, so they do change location in the signal from time to time. This is a problem, and something should have been done in the regs to address it. They probably think that they have addressed it with the PSIP loop provisions in CFR Title 47, §76.640(b)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(v). Again, I'm not sure how often this is correctly implemented by the providers or how many pieces of consumer equipment can read it properly.


----------



## mjunior25 (Aug 16, 2002)

any new updates Max?



MirclMax said:


> Update time:
> 
> Monday was phone-tag day .. which is why there was no update ..
> 
> ...


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

mjunior25 said:


> any new updates Max?


No. As I mentioned, I'm giving the guy 2 weeks .. so I won't bug him until next week. And no, he hasn't contacted me. I would have said something 

-MirclMax


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

I have some good news folks!

Tune to 705 .. and there ya go! KSWB-DT.

Now, I have a call back in (voicemail) to the guy I spoke with @ KSWB, I'm trying to find out if this is a result of steps he took .. or if its just a strange coincidence. 

Hopefully, it is something they did to force TWC into showing it, and we'll be able to use it to obtain the other channels as well. I'll provide details when I know them (might be after the holiday, depending on when he gets back to me). 

Until then, enjoy 705.


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

seriously? hell yeah. You live up to your name miracle max. I'll have to try this when I get home tonight.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Thought I'd check through all the HD channels... 

723 Mojo is coming in for me as well now. I don't think it was before. Doesn't look like there is a single thing on it that interests me in the slightest, so I might just have overlooked it before .. But just in case there are those of you out there with different interests, I thought I'd mention it.


----------



## c-surfer (Jul 25, 2001)

My Tivo S3 broke on the same day Time Warner San Diego activated channel 705 for CableCards. I'm wondering if it somehow messed up my tuners?

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=375434

Did anybody else's Tivo get terminally sick around the time of the channel 705 update?


----------



## Interpol (Nov 13, 2007)

I appear to be having the same issue here in Torrance, CA where my provider is Time Warner South Bay.

Just got some Cablecards installed and I am finding that I do not receive ESPN2-HD, TBS-HD, and the East Coast feeds of HBO, despite my TWC SA8300 STB being able to tune them and me verifying that SDV is NOT currently being used. All I get on those channels is a splash screen saying "you need a Time-Warner cable box to tune this channel".

Irritating.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

MirclMax said:


> Hopefully, it is something they did to force TWC into showing it, and we'll be able to use it to obtain the other channels as well. I'll provide details when I know them (might be after the holiday, depending on when he gets back to me).


Well I chatted with the Lead Engineer at KSWB today finally ... He was happy that 705 was now available but was unaware of exactly what role, if any, he actually played. He said he did pass it up the ladder @ Tribune, but beyond that he doesn't know how it played out .. or if it even did.

So sadly, this doesn't help in the greater cause .. aside to use it as an example of how they seem to randomly be deciding what TWC wants to honor CableCard users with ..

My next steps look like they'll have to be government agencies .. starting local, moving federal afterwards.. its been a tiring week, but I'll see if I can get the ball rolling in terms of the other channels tomorrow or Friday.. if not .. early next week.

-MirclMax


----------



## DoctorBoudreau (Nov 12, 2007)

I'm brand new to these forums but I read this thread with a lot of interesting seeing as how I live in San Diego too. I'm currently a Series2DT owner and was thinking about the Tivo HD offer with the lifetime but wanted to see how well all of this tech worked with Time Warner. Sounds like things might be getting better thanks to the dedicated efforts of people like Max.

So with regard to all of this - would any of you recommend I jump sooner or later on a Tivo HD or wait for the SDV and dongle mess to sort itself out?


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

well, supposedly TW San Diego doesn't use SDV on any of it's channels right now so waiting for the dongle won't do anything. They just choose not to send certain channels to the cable cards. There's a handful of them. It really depends on if you watch any of those that you will lose.


----------



## DoctorBoudreau (Nov 12, 2007)

So at this point is it a YMMV type of situation? I'm probably not jumping to HD for a year or two due to limited funds but I'm trying to determine if I'm going to be giving up any substantial portion of the 'HD experience' by sticking with a Tivo/cable company combo.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

DoctorBoudreau said:


> So at this point is it a YMMV type of situation? I'm probably not jumping to HD for a year or two due to limited funds but I'm trying to determine if I'm going to be giving up any substantial portion of the 'HD experience' by sticking with a Tivo/cable company combo.


In a year the entire situation is absolutely certain to have changed. The CEA recently complained about the high cost of incoporating support for OCAP in new products, suggesting that they be given the choice of inexpensively implementing a set of generic interfaces for supporting Switched Digital Video and the "Holy Trinity" of cable interactive services, Interactive Program Guide, Impulse Pay-Per-View and Video On Demand (hereafter referred to as SDV, IPG, IPPV and VOD, resp.). They call this alternative "Digital Cable Ready Plus" or "DCR+". The cable industry is appalled by this suggestion (which would no doubt take another couple of years to negotiate, implement, test and get to market) and offers up a small device to allow products with USB connections and upgradeable firmware (like TiVo) to tune SDV channels; they've been moving very rapidly on this (rapid for them, at least), promising in press releases a couple of days back that the solution will be available from the largest providers to customers by the mid 2008.

TiVo has since said that they've been in negotiations to modify OCAP such that they can produce a box with both a "TiVo Mode", with their beloved GUI and DVR functionality and an "OCAP Mode", running the cable provider's downloaded OCAP GUI with no DVR functionality. The only OCAP-enabled capability that the product would have in "TiVo Mode" is tuning of SDV channels. With this, you could use the TiVo GUI for watching most linear TV and switch into "OCAP Mode" to access the cable company's interactive services, like content presented as IPPV and VOD.

So, if you're not upgrading to HDTV for a year, by the end of that time SDV shouldn't be an issue and "TiVo Series 4 w/OCAP" will either be shipping or close on the horizon.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Okay, now we're at the time where if you folks want anything to come of this, you need to act. So please, draw people similarly affected in to this thread .. if you are active on hdtv.forsandiego.com .. please post as well. 

We have a contact at the City who is taking complaints about this. I can not guarantee that anything is going to be done .. but I'm of the belief that it will *only* get fixed if as many people as possible complain.

We have a friendly worker who unfortunately was starting to get calls from out of state people with similar issues. She has asked that I remove her direct contact information (which when she said I could give out, didn't realize it was online) .. She however is the only one who checks the "hotline" .. and it is checked daily.. so please call 619 236 6010. 

Please call and tell her that you feel TWC is discriminating against you because you are using CableCards. Explain the channels that you are not receiving .. If you believe it to be true, state that you believe that FCC law maintains that CableCards should receive the same signals as set top boxes. Basically .. just give your story/complaint.

They take name/number/address .. but you can request that your complaint be sent anonymously to TWC.


And this does *just* about wrap it up for me on this windmill-tilting crusade. I do please ask that those of you who have been following this thread take 5 minutes and call and voice your complaint. One more voice *does* help. 

I thank anyone who offers their support.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Man, staging some kind of protest against SDV at this point truly _is_ tilting at windmills; "it's like singin' in the wind or writing on the surface of a lake". Various FCC commissioner have already spoken out in favor for Switched Digital Video and if there are any rules which would forbid it's use (I truly don't think there are), they'll just change 'em.

If they were doing this without sufficient justification, that'd be one thing, but if the cable industry is going to get the bandwidth necessary to compete with D*'s advertisement of "up 150 new HD channels", SDV is where they're going to get it. Everything else (3 GHz networks, MPEG4 channels, etc) involves potentially billions of dollars in upgrades to their networks _and_ would also render the added services incompatable with UDCR equipment. Even if they wanted to, any attempt by the FCC to stop them from expanding their offerings using SDV would constitute restraint of trade and Congress would be forced to rescind it.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Mike,

I'm not sure if you haven't read the entire thread or not.. but this issue has ZERO to do with SDV. TWC-SD has not even enabled SDV. 

That being said, I just received a call from the contact @ the city who is apparently getting phone calls from some of you who aren't in San Diego .. 
She has asked that I remove her direct line from my post .. so I will be doing that in just a moment .. 

Please everyone .. this is for SAN DIEGO TIME WARNER CABLE ONLY.

-MirclMax


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

I thought that I had read the entire thread. You just said:


> Explain the channels that you are not receiving .. If you believe it to be true, state that you believe that FCC law maintains that CableCards should receive the same signals as set top boxes.


TWC San Diego is about to launch SDV--they reportedly had signed contracts for the requisite hardware and software back in August and a report from the middle of last month indicates that they have it all set up and ready to go. It will deliver programming that you will not be able to access with Unidirectional CableCARD devices (though TiVos will get access through a new "tuning resolver" gadget), and it is thought that they're not mapping the new channels Versus/Golf HD, ESPN2 HD and TBS HD in CableCARDs because they intend to present them as SDV services--I thought that you were asking people to complain about that, which I think is useless, unless you believe that the opportunity to vent will help.

I believe that it was illegal for them to fail to map the CW HD in CableCARDs (at least against the spirit of the regulations if not the letter). The CW HD is a rebroadcast of an over-the-air channel, and cable is required to carry these in the core basic tier without encryption so that they can be tuned with off-the-shelf equipment. But they've apparently fixed the CW HD and those other three services that they aren't mapping to CableCARDs are not covered under those regs.

If you were encouraging people to complain about something else, then I apologize, but I've re-read your post and if that's true then it's not clear to me exactly _what_ you're encouraging folks to complain about.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

My post should not be taken on its own but as an end to the entire thread. While I'm not affected by some of the channels in question .. like the East Coast feeds of some premium stations, others are .. and have been for quite some time. 

I'm encouraging those IN SAN DIEGO who have channels that are being blocked from their cable cards, which they could otherwise receive with a SetTopBox to voice their complaints in an organized fashion if they have a complaint. 

TWC-SD has personally told me that they are blocking these channels from CableCard users on a decision reached by their marketing department and the upper bosses. It is not a technical issue, it is not an SDV issue. Is it *possible* that here, like in other reported cities, these channels are expected to be on SDV once it is active? Of course. However, I don't think one should be allowed to violate the law because eventually what you are doing won't end up being illegal. 

I don't want to go back and forth on this. I've spent about 2 months on this and frankly, I'd like to move on. Those of you who feel you are being wronged, I've done what I can through KSWB (and now 705 is live .. perhaps a coincidence) .. now, we all of our complaints can be felt at once if you call the Franchise Authority. 

If you're not bothered by this, or you're happy to wait until the tuner resolver comes out ..(though, given SDV isn't even live, there is no reason to assume these channels would come in) .. then please don't worry about it.

-MirclMax


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

So I did understand your original post. You were expressing an opinion that TWC is breaking the law by not mapping some channels to CableCARDs and urging people to complain. That's your opinion and I understand and appreciate that. In response, I was voicing my opinion that they are not breaking any laws by doing this and that complaining isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

We don't need to go back and forth on this, but I have examined the FCC regs concerning cable provider support of CableCARDs (more or less encapsulated totally in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, §76.640). Nothing in there requires that they enable access to any specific set of services through them. It may have been the FCC's intent that CableCARDs give access to all non-interactive services, but nothing encoded in the regs makes that a requirement. Take a look yourself--you can see and search the entirety of CFR Title 47 as a single web page here (note that they refer to CableCARDs as "Point of Deployment Cards" or PODs). If you can find something I've overlooked, please point it out. The FCC's order to add and amend various regulations to support CableCARDs and other "plug-and-play-DTV-over-cable" considerations is in Appendix B of this document, starting at PDF page 42.

By not mapping the the CW HD on CableCARDs they were clearly breaking specific regulations but they aren't by not mapping Versus/Golf HD, ESPN2 HD and TBS HD and any other pay cable television services that they've recently added. Other TWC divisions have actually _taken away_ large numbers of channels that people used to be able to get through their CableCARDs (notably TWC Austin and TWC Oceanic) as they converted to use of SDV, and appeal to the powers that be hasn't helped those people at all. TWC here is probably not adding any further channels to current CableCARD access so that they don't have to take them away in the near future when complete their plan and move the new channels to SDV. Being given channels for a few months and then having them snatched away would certainly piss UDCR users more than being denied services that they never had.

(BTW, I am a resident of San Diego County, one of the more active participants in hdtv.forsandiego.com, and was a Time Warner San Diego subscriber for five years prior to moving from Del Mar Highlands to Oceanside in January. The home that I currently share has been on the market for the past 3 or 4 months and I will have to move again fairly soon, and may very well end up a TWCSD subscriber again).


----------



## jb007 (Mar 17, 2001)

I left a message on the City of San Diego telephone number that was listed. I received a call back and the lady suggested I contact Time Warner San Diego directly to voice my concerns. She provided the name and direct line for: MARC FARRAR (858) 635-8486 [[email protected]], whom I called and spoke with for 20 minutes.

Marc explained TWC was in a holding pattern, waiting to see what they were going to do regarding SDV in San Diego, so it was decided not to add new channels to cable cards, when they might have to take them away later.

I told Marc it sounded OK on it's face, but since TiVo was going to be making a dongle available to receive SDV channels, TWCSD should make those channels available to cable card customers now.

He said he had heard from other customers regarding this same issue. He was polite, seemed interested, and promised to raise my concerns with the appropriate decision makers.

I urge others in San Diego that have Time Warner service to call or email Marc and voice your concerns, as advocated by MirclMax.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

I think that TWC San Diego is delayed on going live with SDV because their plan is to use the feature as it's implemented in the TWC OCAP Navigator IPG and they're still feeling out how that's going to work out. It's been in trials on other systems for about a year now and many people have hated it; one community where an early version was rolled out system wide came close to booting TWC as their provider. Locally, they've been loading it onto new Explorer 8300HDCs and giving it to people for new DVR installs. The only feedback I've heard about it on hdtv.forsandiego.com is that it's a bit slow, but nobody's *****ing about how awful it is. Of course, none of the people getting it on these new boxes had Passport or any other DVR to compare it to.

They have to delay full deployment of SDV until they feel ready to push Navigator system-wide, and to gradually start replacing anything they've got out in the field that won't run it.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

TWC has announced A&E HD and MTV HD (here). Notice the clear "Not available to cable card customers" in the footnote.

Cox has had both at least since I moved here in January. They could take them away and I wouldn't notice--I rarely watch either.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

mikeyts said:


> TWC has announced A&E HD and MTV HD (here). Notice the clear "Not available to cable card customers" in the footnote.


Channel lineup indicated that these channels were added along with HistoryHD and LMNHD (Lifetime Movie Network) .. As mikeyts mentioned, the the website clearly indicates that A&E/MTV are not available to CableCard customers. Now, while I still would argue whether they are (or should be) allowed to do this .. at least they are being up front about it.

Now .. on to the good news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I claim no credit for this happening by the way, but if our calls/complaints helped it along .. good for us.

My TiVo is currently receiving:
705 - KSWB HD (Which we've known about for a bit now)
712 - TBS HD
723 - Mojo
730 - ESPN 2 HD
767 - Versus/Golf HD

Also .. other channels that were blocked .. (non-HD)
400 - ESPNU 
249 - Fox Business - This is a *possible* not 100% sure as its showing "Paid Programming" right now.

Basically.. everything that *was* blocked is not blocked right now. Its possible that the new channels aren't available *yet* (website does say 12/20)

I'll leave it to those of you who have the East Coast feeds of the premium stations to check if they're available.

Just thought I'd share . Again .. this is for Time Warner Cable - San Diego (and only TWC-SD) ..

Yay us


----------



## adamsd (Jun 23, 2005)

So Max are you saying that you are receiving TBS, ESPN2 and Versus on your Tivo? I have always had those channels listed, but they have always shown as PPV channels requiring an HD box from TWC. They are unchanged and still messaging the need for a converter.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

adamsd said:


> So Max are you saying that you are receiving TBS, ESPN2 and Versus on your Tivo? I have always had those channels listed, but they have always shown as PPV channels requiring an HD box from TWC. They are unchanged and still messaging the need for a converter.


Yes, that is what I'm saying .. Checked again because of your message, wondering if it was just a momentary thing. But they are still coming in as I type this.

-MirclMax


----------



## DanInSD (Jul 8, 2003)

I've been following the thread for a while now (I'm also TWC in SD) and have TBDHD, ESPN2HD and GOLFHD. Nice! I hope it stays that way.

Dan


----------



## bcmarauder (Mar 15, 2003)

I had to restart my Tivo and those channels came in for me.


----------



## adamsd (Jun 23, 2005)

Interesting. As of last night when I saw this message I was still receiving the PPV screen. I will do a restart tonight after work and see what happens.


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

I checked mine, I got most of the ones Max listed. Still don't get ESPN2 though. I also tested the east coast encore package and still don't get those either. I didn't restart my box either. Maybe I'll try that. 

Even though Max doesn't want to take credit, I still credit him for at least getting them to notice and to do something about it. As far as I'm concerned, it was a direct result of Max's efforts. Thanks!


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

s2kdave said:


> Even though Max doesn't want to take credit, I still credit him for at least getting them to notice and to do something about it. As far as I'm concerned, it was a direct result of Max's efforts. Thanks!


I appreciate your comments. I spoke with the contact at the Franchise Authority (City government) .. She had not yet heard back from her contact @ TWC (they are required to respond to each complaint). Her plan was to attempt to reach him again today. I informed her of the change .. mentioned that the previous channels were working, but I didn't expect much for the new ones. But that my original complaint would extend to those as well if she did talk to TWC she could mention it.

Obviously she didn't give me any specifics .. but she said she had lots of things to discuss with the guy, many of which were CableCard related. She did confirm that there was a "movement" based on our actions here.. so clearly, a good number of you called as well, and I thank you for that. TWC *was* sent all of the complaints .. and it is definitely possible that they just figured "what the heck, lets just turn 'em on".

So .. a big thank you to everyone who joined in.

-MirclMax


----------



## adamsd (Jun 23, 2005)

Got home, did the restart and it seems like everything is coming in now. What is also interesting is that it seems like ESPN is no longer on the VIP pack according to the TWC website, which means I can now cancel the VIP pack. 

I guess the next battle now is finding out what we can do about the new HD channels that are being held from cable cards.


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

Ok, I restarted my box and now I get all the channels...including the east coast Encore stations!! It was strange though, probably a bug in tivo, upon first restart, I received the channels, but I two versions of the channel, one new and one old. So I had two 730 channels in my guide listing. One worked, the other didn't. Upon a second reboot, I only had one set of channels that work.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Someone at hdtv.forsandiego.com posted a link to this blurb:


> The new channels added today in San Diego by Time Warner are: MHD, A&E HD, The History Channel HD and the Lifetime Movie Channel HD. (The latter two channels will only be available to residents in Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos and Fallbrook.)


Interesting that two channels are only being offered in the areas that they picked up in the Adelphia sale. It's possible that they've been making broad upgrades there (Adelphia was using Motorola equipment, including DVRs running the Moxi IPG) and have launched SDV.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Well, someone has reported in hdtv.forsandiego.com that they're getting History HD and Lifetime Movies HD on their Moxi box. That blows my theory that they're presenting those channels in an SDV group. Who knows why they're only available in former Adelphia territory ?


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

adamsd said:


> I guess the next battle now is finding out what we can do about the new HD channels that are being held from cable cards.


Well.. you're more then welcome to organize people to send in complaints. I think the fact that the reversed their position on *all* of the other channels is a good precedent to use to point out that they shouldn't withhold these channels just from CableCard users ... clearly they still haven't deployed SDV .. they apparently just feel its best to keep users from watching channels *now* that they might not be able to watch later (SDV). Personally, I think that people paying for the same package should receive the same channels.

Enough complaints seem to do it. I'd recommend starting a new thread to make sure these specific channels are focussed on.

I'll let someone else take the lead this time though.

-MirclMax


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Guess what folks ...


A&E HD and MTV HD are coming in just fine now.

Enjoy!


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Yeah--there are guys saying that on hdtv.forsandiego.com. Since these are almost certainly encrypted channels, they must be sending authorization messages out to CableCARDs to enable them. TWC doesn't seem to know what they're going to do. Enjoy .

On another note, Cox SD got 12 of the new 13 channels that they're launching up in Oceanside, though they'd posted a notice indicating that we shouldn't expect them until mid January. There's a notice about them here. (They also added Starz HD On Demand and HBO HD On Demand which, of course, you can't get with TiVo). No guide information for them in TiVo (really annoying), but the labels are there, probably from PSIP.

Cox just finished an upgrade from 750 MHz bandwidth capacity to 1 GHz (enough new bandwidth for 80 19 Mbps HD channels, if they were to use it all that way) and hasn't yet threatened their customers with SDV. I'm sure that it's coming, though.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

You guys getting ESPN2 HD yet?


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

cableguy763 said:


> You guys getting ESPN2 HD yet?


Yes. As of about a week or so ago.


----------

