# A little rant about Time Warner killing MRV on Tivo HD



## convergent (Jan 4, 2007)

I had two Tivo Series 2 DVRs for several years and loved them. Around the beginning of the year, I bought a Tivo HD and planned to migrate to three of them. But... after the three ring circus to get Cable Cards and SDV Adapter in place and working, I learned that Time Warner has basically copy protected everything possible in the programming... so my Tivo HD works great by itself, but Multi Room Viewing is dead. There are many reasons for me to hate Time Warner, but this one is not at the top of the list. I don't really have any other options... the only other choices would be DISH or DirecTV which would kill my use of Tivo entirely. 

Now we just upgraded one of our TVs to an LCD HDTV and I didn't pay attention and have discovered that it only has component inputs... no composite video, so I can't use my Tivo Series 2 with it. If I replace it with a Tivo HD then I'll be down to one Tivo I can MultiRoom View from... 

If Time Warner hadn't dropped low enough, we bought MLB Extra Innings. They have somehow programmed that so that I can't even DVR the games on the TivoHD. I have to finish watching them within about 3 hours of the conclusion of the game, and it even blocks me from starting late and fastforwarding to catchup and finish in time. Did I say that I hate Time Warner. Someone in that company has gone crazy with the copy protection thing and it is so messed up. They don't have MRV on their DVRs, so they seem to be blocking Tivo from doing it with TivoHD. So now I have to record the games from MLB Extra Innings on one of the Series 2 Tivos. Did I say that I hate Time Warner.

Any ideas anyone has I'd love to hear. I am wondering if this would warrant a class action suit or FCC complaint on TW.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

convergent said:


> the only other choices would be DISH or DirecTV which would kill my use of Tivo entirely.


Yet it is TWC that you choose to complain about, instead of Dish Network or DirecTV. That's pretty silly, IMHO.

I think you need to think more positively towards the people who are willing to serving you (TWC) and more negatively with regard to those who aren't willing to serve you at all (Dish Network and DirecTV).



convergent said:


> I am wondering if this would warrant a class action suit or FCC complaint on TW.


Ridiculous. Nothing but an unrestrained sense of entitlement would justify such a thing.


----------



## va176thunderbolt (Jul 15, 2009)

For what's it worth, I had the same complaint I submitted to TWC in Central Ohio. It seems that MRV is blocked for almost every channel, with the exception of the broadcast channels. TWC repeatedly stated that they are passing whatever flag the original content provider set, and the they were not setting the flag to block MRV. I contacted several providers which indicated that they do not set it and don't have a problem with MRV. I gave up with TWC and switched to Wide Open West. MRV works perfectly now, and I won't be going back to TWC anytime soon.

As far as complaining about Dish/DirecTV, I choose to handle them in the same manner I am handling TWC - with giving them none of my business (voting with my wallet).


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

va176thunderbolt said:


> As far as complaining about Dish/DirecTV, I choose to handle them in the same manner I am handling TWC - with giving them none of my business (voting with my wallet).


I get what your saying about Dish, but DirecTV is releasing a new HD Tivo so you will be able to get all of their HD channels soon, and in their current testing they have streaming MRV in their boxs(So I don't see how you can put DirecTV along side Dish and TWC with the way DirecTV has handled MRV in it's own boxs).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Do be aware that, without regard to what TWC claims in terms of passing along what the network wishes, they are wholly within their rights to apply copy restriction flags themselves, of their own accord, on non-broadcast channels, unless their agreement with the channel explicitly prohibits it.


----------



## raianoat (Jan 27, 2004)

I wish that somebody had a solution to this problem. I've blogged about it on a number of occasions including here:

http://www.tivoblog.com/archives/20...ewing-mrv-copy-protection-cci-byte-explained/

I thin it would be great if TiVo could implement a streaming solution so that we could get around this issue.


----------



## convergent (Jan 4, 2007)

bicker said:


> Yet it is TWC that you choose to complain about, instead of Dish Network or DirecTV. That's pretty silly, IMHO.
> 
> I think you need to think more positively towards the people who are willing to serving you (TWC) and more negatively with regard to those who aren't willing to serve you at all (Dish Network and DirecTV).
> 
> Ridiculous. Nothing but an unrestrained sense of entitlement would justify such a thing.


Entitlement? Save the entitlement argument for someone else. I am probably one of the most "legal" people on the planet with regard to copyrights.... I buy everything I use, and so does everyone in my family thanks to me.

I do feel entitled to use the features of the products that I've bought. Time Warner has no reason to do this other than "because they can" and "because they want to block something for people that they don't want them to have". It has been pointed out in numerous threads, including this one, that other providers do not block this kind of thing. The fact that they block me from even DVRing MLB Extra Innings that I pay an additional $200 to them for, should tell you something. I can't even save a game to watch the next day on my Tivo HD. Next season I will vote with my wallet and choose MLB's deal instead of TW's.

I never said DISH or DirecTV was better. I said they were my only other options besides TW. Since neither currently offer me a way to use my Tivo, then obviously it wouldn't be a solution to my problem.

I fail to understand what you are talking about with "willing to serve me". You make it sound like they are offering me charity work or something. All three of these companies are businesses that you pay to use. In the case of TW... at least here in NC... you pay dearly to use their service. You've got this turned around... a business should be catering to their customers that are "willing to buy" their service. I have been a TW customer for many years, but would consider switching in a minute if there was some real competition.



va176thunderbolt said:


> For what's it worth, I had the same complaint I submitted to TWC in Central Ohio. It seems that MRV is blocked for almost every channel, with the exception of the broadcast channels. TWC repeatedly stated that they are passing whatever flag the original content provider set, and the they were not setting the flag to block MRV. I contacted several providers which indicated that they do not set it and don't have a problem with MRV. I gave up with TWC and switched to Wide Open West. MRV works perfectly now, and I won't be going back to TWC anytime soon.
> 
> As far as complaining about Dish/DirecTV, I choose to handle them in the same manner I am handling TWC - with giving them none of my business (voting with my wallet).


Boy do I wish there was some competition for TW here... I'd be gone pretty quick. I recently moved from NY to NC and I'm paying them about $40 more per month for less services than I had with TW in NY. I pointed this out to them and they just said basically, "tough".



bicker said:


> Do be aware that, without regard to what TWC claims in terms of passing along what the network wishes, they are wholly within their rights to apply copy restriction flags themselves, of their own accord, on non-broadcast channels, unless their agreement with the channel explicitly prohibits it.


You seem to be way more concerned about them exercising their "rights" than allowing their customers to get the most from their services and products that they've paid for. It is perfectly legal for these programs to be used in the manner that Tivo HD would allow (i.e. MRV), if they weren't blocking it. My guess is that if they had a way to block you from using a Tivo entirely, they would.

With something like a Tivo, the world is now capable of bypassing the cable TV provider entirely. Tivo should be partnering with the cable content providers to offer their customers direct subscriptions to individual channels that would work on demand just like Netflix and Amazon do. I would gladly dump cable entirely and get my local channels OTA, IF I could subscribe to the other channels that I really watch. The other 95% of what Cable provides I'd gladly do without. Of course, in my case I'd still be stuck with TW for broadband, and that's an area they are also rapidly looking for ways to restrict in terms of bandwidth.

Entitled? No. Its more like wanting to buy services from a company that is forward thinking and embracing new technologies and services, rather than increasing their profits by figuring out how to block their customers from legally using alternatives to their products, AND, charging more and more for the same services.


----------



## va176thunderbolt (Jul 15, 2009)

bicker said:


> Do be aware that, without regard to what TWC claims in terms of passing along what the network wishes, they are wholly within their rights to apply copy restriction flags themselves, of their own accord, on non-broadcast channels, unless their agreement with the channel explicitly prohibits it.


Then they should simply state that this is in fact what they are choosing to do instead of trying to pass the buck to someone else (terms of service would be a good place to bury it in legalese).


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

raianoat said:


> I think it would be great if TiVo could implement a streaming solution so that we could get around this issue.


Moxi has promised such a solution but doesn't have it yet. If/when they do, and it works well, TiVo will have a real incentive to improve their relatively slow and all too often blocked, MRV system. In my area, Comcast copy flags all Premium channels.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

I have not even gotten around to putting cable cards in my TiVo HD and I avoid the TWC restrictions in that way. I use OTA to get some of the broadcast channels in HD. Then I use Netflix for movies and such.

This policy by TWC of copy restricting is pushing me away from becoming a more embedded customer and that is a risk TWC should consider more carefully.

I had a TWC contractor stand in my living room and claim cable cards were being phased out so I would not need them. It was an outright lie that further pushed me away as a customer. My neighbor has DBS but his reception is spotty and that has led me away from that avenue. Once FIOS is available in my area I would drop TWC instantly. As it is TWC is on a slow march out of my house as other avenues for content open up.

TWC really needs to change their approach or they will be an also ran if a few short years.

TiVo really needs to change their MRV approach or others like MOXI will also pass them by.


----------



## convergent (Jan 4, 2007)

fallingwater said:


> Moxi has promised such a solution but doesn't have it yet. If/when they do, and it works well, TiVo will have a real incentive to improve their relatively slow and all too often blocked, MRV system. In my area, Comcast copy flags all Premium channels.


Out of curiosity, when Comcast flags Premium channels, does it block you from even saving them and watching later on a single Tivo? The only premium channel I have with TW is MLB Extra Innings, which is a subscription. They have the flag set so that I can save it, but it has to be fully watched within a couple of hours of the completion of the game. So if you don't start watching the game before it even ends, it will slowly delete the beginning of the game until its all gone. I don't have other premium channels with TW to compare, but this is kind of ridiculous. My wife likes to watch the games later.. sometimes the next day. So we are forced to use our older Series 2 Tivo to do this rather than the Tivo HD which we'd prefer to use.

I would think that Tivo could modify their system to allow MRV ONLY on anything, but block copying the material out of the Tivo system in any way. I'm sure that violates some ridiculous rule here... but I fail to see how that would hurt the content providers which is ultimately what these flags were designed to protect. What is the difference between streaming to another room, VS copying it to a different room's Tivo and then automatically deleting it after its been watched? Think of it as a streaming buffer of a couple hours which can be paused for a period of time... say up to 48 hours or something. I'd actually prefer to have MRV be some kind of streamed solution anyways because I end up with multiple copies of the same material scattered around my Tivos. So the real solution to this in my mind is for Tivo to work around idiotic organizations like TW by applying technology to the problems. TW's tactics will eventually catch up with them when people vote them away with their wallets.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

Recording a Premium Channel on TiVo works normally. MRV to other TiVos is blocked.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16555005#post16555005


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

I don't understand why TW is forcing you to watch the game within the next 3 hours of recording. Can you copy the file to your computer with TTMG software to preserve the file and then copy it back when you want to watch it?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

The people running Time Warner have a legal obligation to maximize their stockholders profits. Unfortunately they have decided the way to do that is: 

Treat their customers like sh**
Provide a product and service that isn't really what people want
Try not to provide the product and service that people do want
When a company believes the above is the way to maximize profits it pretty much tells you competition isn't working.

It also likely means that Time Warner has more than a few customers that would be more than happy to dump them if an suitable product was actually provided by the market.

These same unhappy customers will be more than happy to use the power of Government to sh** on Time Warner. Just look what happened when Time Warner wanted to f*** over their Rochester NY Internet customers by instituting down load caps.

Thanks


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

convergent said:


> Now we just upgraded one of our TVs to an LCD HDTV and I didn't pay attention and have discovered that it only has component inputs... no composite video, so I can't use my Tivo Series 2 with it.


I never heard of such a thing. Can you tell me the make and model? I have to see this for myself.


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

I remember TWC of NC being one of the earliest obstructors to customers using cablecard TiVo boxes. I remember people reporting that TWC would not provide cablecards, and even went as far as saying that TiVo was not supported on their network. I don't know what kind of support TWC thought would be requested, but they basically tried to close the door by not providing cablecards.

With respect to TWC and the protection flags blanketing the digital tier, I went through the same ordeal with Comcast in Houston. I filed a complaint with the FCC and after a few letters to Comcast executives and some phone calls with a support manager, the protection flags were removed. It took a few months though.

You should complain if the protection flags devalue the service for which you are paying TWC. Most cable customers just have the generic cable DVR, so protection flags and MRV mean nothing to these customers. The only thing protection flags do for cable companies is cripple a great feature on TiVo. That's probably the reason they do it. When I went through this, I contacted several of the broadcasters where Comcast was applying the flags. None of the broadcasters said they required it of Comcast to do so.


----------



## Squeege96 (May 1, 2006)

Just a thought - could PyTiVo or TTG be of help here? Technically, you are not using MRV, but transferring it to your PC. I know that with PyTiVo, you get a lot more flexibility.

Like I said, just a thought.

Also, any idea on if or when FiOS might come to your area? It looks like it would be the answer to all your prayers.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Squeege96 said:


> Just a thought - could PyTiVo or TTG be of help here?


No. The transfer is prevented at the TiVo end for both MRV and TTG. (If anything, you'd expect TTG to be _more_ restricted than MRV, since the resulting copies could go anywhere. In practice, there is no difference.)


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Don't pay for defective by design.

TWC says you're a thief. Why would give them business?

I still intend to drop HBO on Comcast due to the copy flag.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

convergent, be aware that bicker will never say the cable company is doing anything wrong, unless they are doing something illegal. They are always right. Just "think more positively" about TWC and all will be well!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

bicker said:


> Yet it is TWC that you choose to complain about, instead of Dish Network or DirecTV. That's pretty silly, IMHO.
> 
> I think you need to think more positively towards the people who are willing to serving you (TWC) and more negatively with regard to those who aren't willing to serve you at all (Dish Network and DirecTV).


The ONLY reason TWC is allowing him to use a TiVo, instead of forcing him to use a provided DVR like Dish and DirecTV do, is because the government forced them to so. If the CableCARD law had not been passed a few years back then cable would be no different then DSS with regard to DVR options.

Personally I think the government should step up an impose a similar law on the DSS providers. DirecTV and Dish combined make up 30% of the pay TV market in the US. That is more then enough that they should be held to the same standards and practices that the cable companies are.

Obviously, due to technology differences, they couldn't actually use CableCARDs. But they could come up with some sort of unified standard that would work similar to CableCARD. That would allow 3rd parties like TiVo to offer their service to everyone regardless of who their TV provider was.

Dan


----------



## lafos (Nov 8, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> I never heard of such a thing. Can you tell me the make and model? I have to see this for myself.


I don't know what convergent has, but I have a pair of Samsung T220HD ToC TV's and they lack composite or s-video inputs.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

convergent said:


> If Time Warner hadn't dropped low enough, we bought MLB Extra Innings. They have somehow programmed that so that I can't even DVR the games on the TivoHD. I have to finish watching them within about 3 hours of the conclusion of the game, and it even blocks me from starting late and fastforwarding to catchup and finish in time.


This part seems to have been missed in the discussion so far. It sounds like they have set the "copy never" flag on this channel. I gather that it's a premium channel, but NOT pay per view or video on demand, is that right? If so, it is absolutely against FCC regulations to set the channel to "copy never." Legally, they can set "copy once," which is what blocks you from using MRV, but they cannot set "copy never" except for pay per view or video on demand.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Enrique said:


> I get what your saying about Dish, but DirecTV is releasing a new HD Tivo so you will be able to get all of their HD channels soon


The DirecTV box has already slipped from 2009 to 2010. Even if ships in January 2010, that's not IMO "soon".

Based on TiVo's utter incompetence at delivering these products (just how many years has the Comcast box slipped?) I'll wager $100 that the box will ship closer to January 2011 than to January 2010.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> The DirecTV box has already slipped from 2009 to 2010. Even if ships in January 2010, that's not IMO "soon".
> 
> Based on TiVo's utter incompetence at delivering these products (just how many years has the Comcast box slipped?) I'll wager $100 that the box will ship closer to January 2011 than to January 2010.


"Soon" to me is up to five years out. The original HD Tivo was released on May 7, 2004 so whats another 2 years waiting in getting one that works with DirecTV current HD channels (At least we're getting one after all).


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

raianoat said:


> I wish that somebody had a solution to this problem. I've blogged about it on a number of occasions including here:


The solution (for the TiVo Sereis II class machines) has been out there for, oh, about 2 years.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

shwru980r said:


> I don't understand why TW is forcing you to watch the game within the next 3 hours of recording. Can you copy the file to your computer with TTMG software to preserve the file and then copy it back when you want to watch it?


Does that "extra innings" count as PPV?

someone please give the actual details, but I thought that *that* level of restriction was enforced by the FCC to be only for PPV.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The ONLY reason TWC is allowing him to use a TiVo, instead of forcing him to use a provided DVR like Dish and DirecTV do, is because the government forced them to so. If the CableCARD law had not been passed a few years back then cable would be no different then DSS with regard to DVR options.


What you have there is a nail whose head has been squarely hit.



Dan203 said:


> Personally I think the government should step up an impose a similar law on the DSS providers. DirecTV and Dish combined make up 30% of the pay TV market in the US. That is more then enough that they should be held to the same standards and practices that the cable companies are.


There are myriad things the government should do. What it will do is protect its income, mostly in the form of bribes.



Dan203 said:


> Obviously, due to technology differences, they couldn't actually use CableCARDs.


Well, yeah, they could. The two technologies could be merged without too much trouble. There would have to be legacy support, of course, for older models, but there's nothing fundamentally preventing a move to a single separable security device standard for all pay TV services.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> The DirecTV box has already slipped from 2009 to 2010. Even if ships in January 2010, that's not IMO "soon".


'Not impatient, are we?

To me it seems barely the blink of an eye since I purchased my first personal computer. That was 1979. I could have been angst ridden over the delay in providing a 32 bit computing platform, but instead I simply enjoyed the computer I had, and then in 1985 bought a 386. I could have rushed out to buy a Series II when it came out, but instead I waited until a more fully featured system - the S3 - came out, and then purchased one (and then another, and another...).

I don't see that I was greatly deprived or suffered in any significant way using a 16 bit computer or a Series I TiVo all those years. In fact, I had a blast.



Phantom Gremlin said:


> Based on TiVo's utter incompetence at delivering these products (just how many years has the Comcast box slipped?) I'll wager $100 that the box will ship closer to January 2011 than to January 2010.


Since you find them so incompetent, obviously you must have the answer to how they should have handled the situation. Would you care to share this wisdom with the rest of us?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Do be aware that, without regard to what TWC claims in terms of passing along what the network wishes, they are wholly within their rights to apply copy restriction flags themselves, of their own accord, on non-broadcast channels, unless their agreement with the channel explicitly prohibits it.


Or it is a local OTA broadcast channel. The point is, however, they *LIE* about it. Whether the CSR is just stupid, misinformed, or just plain lazy, it is still a public misrepresentation of fact by an authorized agent of the CATV company.

It's very likely the CSR simply hasn't a clue. The fact the CATV company often hires minimum wage high school dropouts to man their support lines aside, corporate TWC often deliberately prevents its employees from learning too much about the business side of the house. Two of the most evil, slimy, utterly dishonest people I have ever known personally were a VP of public relations and a VP of human resources with TWC. One was jailed for perjury and fraud, and the other finally was forced to resign for reasons unknown to me. I suspect, to paraphrase "The Duke" from Man of LaMancha, she probably suffered, "A lapse of judgement. She told the truth." Either way, whetehr through deliberate misrepresentation to its employees or failing to see to it they are properly informed, it's a lie.

A friend of mine, still a manager at TWC, once complained to the local President and GM of the San Antonio system in a large meeting, "All you want is mushrooms. Just mushrooms."

Puzzled, the GM asked, "Mushrooms?"

"That's right," he said. "All you want to do is keep us in the dark and feed us $#!t."

It's just one of many reasons I was so happy to leave the company. From what my friends tell me, they haven't improved much in the intervening years.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

convergent said:


> Entitlement? Save the entitlement argument for someone else.


Where the shoe fits...

The next part of the discussion presumes that they're applying the protection flags deliberately, which is one of two reasonable assumptions (the other being that they're doing so by mistake, which is also a reasonable assumption).


convergent said:


> Time Warner has no reason to do this other than "because they can" and "because they want to block something for people that they don't want them to have".


Gosh... a for-profit company that wants to foster profits. _Shocker!_



convergent said:


> It has been pointed out in numerous threads, including this one, that other providers do not block this kind of thing.


Yup, there isn't 100% agreement about whether doing this helps more than hurts profit. Both decisions (applying the protection and not applying the protection) are reasonable.



convergent said:


> The fact that they block me from even DVRing MLB Extra Innings that I pay an additional $200 to them for, should tell you something.


That they offer you the service at a price you're willing to pay, and still willing to pay, despite them blocking your DVRing it. That's what it tells me.



convergent said:


> Next season I will vote with my wallet and choose MLB's deal instead of TW's.


And that's also a reasonable decision on your part.



convergent said:


> I never said DISH or DirecTV was better.


My point was that you didn't rant about them, and their transgressions were far far far worse with regard to provision of service to you.



convergent said:


> I said they were my only other options besides TW. Since neither currently offer me a way to use my Tivo, then obviously it wouldn't be a solution to my problem.


If you had worded your original message as just looking for a solution to your problem, that would make sense. However, you worded your original message as a rant, so replies to your ranting are appropriate here, not just solutions to your problem.



convergent said:


> I fail to understand what you are talking about with "willing to serve me".


I was drawing a distinction between the relatively minor foibles of TWC you were complaining about as compared to the relatively humongous offenses of Dish Network and DirecTV, for which you failed to devote a proportional amount of your rant towards condemning. I was pointing out how little perspective you were demonstrating in your rant, focusing so much attention on the small problem, and relatively little attention on the big problems.



convergent said:


> You've got this turned around... a business should be catering to their customers that are "willing to buy" their service.


Business is a two-way street: Suppliers offer what they're willing to offer, and buyers purchase what, of that offered, they're willing to buy. By fixating only on what you're "willing to buy" and acting all indignant when a company makes decisions about what they're willing to offer, and how they're willing to offer it, you're not being reasonable.



convergent said:


> I have been a TW customer for many years, but would consider switching in a minute if there was some real competition.


There *is* real competition. You already mentioned that there was, and that the two competitors are *worse* (for you). With three competitors, and you dissatisfied with the *best* of them, I question whether the problem is your holding unfounded expectations, rather than what the suppliers are offering. I'm not saying that they're perfect and you're a mutant. I'm saying that things are the way they are, and you're working really hard to be unhappy, setting yourself up for disappointment, by fostering a lot of unfounded expectations.



convergent said:


> You seem to be way more concerned about them exercising their "rights" than allowing their customers to get the most from their services and products that they've paid for.


As I said before, it's a two-way street. You presented a very one-sided, biased perspective, and I provided the balance that was missing from your side of things. I believe reality is something in the middle, so your comments plus mine equal equals reality.



convergent said:


> It is perfectly legal for these programs to be used in the manner that Tivo HD would allow (i.e. MRV), if they weren't blocking it.


As I already said, it is "perfectly legal" for them to be blocking it.



convergent said:


> My guess is that if they had a way to block you from using a Tivo entirely, they would.


If it would foster profits, surely. If they didn't, then I would check my stock portfolio, and if I found that I was a TWC stockholder, or had some other standing as an owner in a fund that owns TWC stock, I would look into suing them for dereliction of their fiduciary duty to me, if they deliberately avoided doing things that fostered profit, like that.



convergent said:


> With something like a Tivo, the world is now capable of bypassing the cable TV provider entirely. Tivo should be partnering with the cable content providers to offer their customers direct subscriptions to individual channels that would work on demand just like Netflix and Amazon do.


I don't specifically disagree, but I will point out that that whole model is substantially less efficient, from a resources standpoint, than the cable television distribution model. It simply uses up more bandwidth since each viewer needs their own stream.

I'm sure, when the time comes, if you continue to wallow in unfounded expectations, you'll rant about the ramifications of this inefficiency, too, such as bandwidth caps, and such.



convergent said:


> Entitled? No. Its more like wanting to buy services from a company that is forward thinking and embracing new technologies and services, rather than increasing their profits by figuring out how to block their customers from legally using alternatives to their products, AND, charging more and more for the same services.


In other words, you think that suppliers should be focused more on you than on their owners. In other words, entitled.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The ONLY reason TWC is allowing him to use a TiVo, instead of forcing him to use a provided DVR like Dish and DirecTV do, is because the government forced them to so. If the CableCARD law had not been passed a few years back then cable would be no different then DSS with regard to DVR options.


Exactly: Now ask yourself why the government doesn't require them to let him DVR MLB, and why the government explicitly allows them to apply CCI flags. Hmmmmmmmm..... maybe it is because that the government, as representatives of our society, need to *balance* the needs of consumers and business.



Dan203 said:


> Personally I think the government should step up an impose a similar law on the DSS providers. DirecTV and Dish combined make up 30% of the pay TV market in the US. That is more then enough that they should be held to the same standards and practices that the cable companies are.


I agree completely, and that was really a good part of my point, earlier. People make all these silly little rants about the cable companies, when the *real *transgressors are circling the planet at 22,000 miles. Until we get the satellite services to comply with all the same laws that the cable companies are subject to, I think it is myopic to omit complaints against the satellite services whenever one could be applicable in the context of a complaint against a cable company.



Dan203 said:


> Obviously, due to technology differences, they couldn't actually use CableCARDs.


The law doesn't require CableCARD: It doesn't even require every cable company to use the same separable security technology -- heck the law would even allow a different separable security solution for different areas within the same cable company. So surely the law can be extended to satellite services, as is, without any changes.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> > Do be aware that, without regard to what TWC claims in terms of passing along what the network wishes, they are wholly within their rights to apply copy restriction flags themselves, of their own accord, on non-broadcast channels, unless their agreement with the channel explicitly prohibits it.
> 
> 
> Or it is a local OTA broadcast channel.


What did you think "non-broadcast" meant? 



lrhorer said:


> The point is, however, they *LIE* about it. Whether the CSR is just stupid, misinformed, or just plain lazy, it is still a public misrepresentation of fact by an authorized agent of the CATV company.


First, you evidently have no idea what the term "authorized agent" means. Employees, even front-line CSRs, are not automatically "authorized agents" of their employer. That to which they can obligate the enterprise is strictly limited, by law. You can choose to wallow in an unreasonable perspective of what a CSR should and shouldn't know, say or do, but I'll choose to remain on Earth and stick with reasonable perspectives, thankyouverymuch.



lrhorer said:


> It's very likely the CSR simply hasn't a clue.


And the fact that you actually knew that makes your transgression in this regard even worse.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Exactly: Now ask yourself why the government doesn't require them to let him DVR MLB, and why the government explicitly allows them to apply CCI flags. Hmmmmmmmm..... maybe it is because that the government, as representatives of our society, need to *balance* the needs of consumers and business.


Is MLB Extra Innings pay per view or video on demand? If it isn't, I'd like to point out again that the government DOES NOT let them apply the CCI flags that they are applying.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> The next part of the discussion presumes that they're applying the protection flags deliberately, which is one of two reasonable assumptions (the other being that they're doing so by mistake, which is also a reasonable assumption).
> Gosh... a for-profit company that wants to foster profits. _Shocker!_


What's frustrating is that I get the impression that in many cases, they aren't doing it to foster profits. They're doing it either by mistake or on a whim. Someone doesn't know what settings to use, so they set "copy once" because they figure they won't get in trouble for setting it more strictly than necessary.

And what profits would they be trying to foster, anyway? It's not like they offer an option to record/use MRV for an additional fee. Unless they have their own multi-room DVR (I think Verizon has one?), I don't see how setting the flags enables them to collect more money.


----------



## jwagner010 (Dec 8, 2007)

Bicker works for TWC and he is just feeding the same BS to this forum that you get from the TWC service Reps. But then again after we vote wiith our wallets he will be caught in their latest round of downsizing and will not be able to afford his ISP and he will go away. Please Bicker go away no one wants your BS here.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

jwagner010 said:


> Bicker works for TWC and he is just feeding the same BS to this forum that you get from the TWC service Reps. But then again after we vote wiith our wallets he will be caught in their latest round of downsizing and will not be able to afford his ISP and he will go away. Please Bicker go away no one wants your BS here.


That's not true. As much as I often disagree with him, I enjoy his writings. You just need to take them with a cup of salt due to the built in bias.


----------



## jwagner010 (Dec 8, 2007)

Then who does he work for if thats not true !!!!!!


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

By that theory Bicker must work for a lot of different companies - I'm surprised he'd have any time to post on the net. 

But seriously, what would be the fun if we only talked to people who agreed with us about everything? It would just be a bunch of people standing around congratulating each other about how right they are.


----------



## jwagner010 (Dec 8, 2007)

Perhaps something would get done !!!!! Think about that for a minute.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> By that theory Bicker must work for a lot of different companies - I'm surprised he'd have any time to post on the net.
> 
> But seriously, what would be the fun if we only talked to people who agreed with us about everything? It would just be a bunch of people standing around congratulating each other about how right they are.


heh, Bicker and I went round and round on cable cards as they were coming out and I quite explicitly accused him of being a cable representative/internet shill of some type. He denied it and since then I have come to see he is more a free market enthusiast and really is just stating his viewpoint/info as he sees it. I am actually kind of sad we agree as much as we do now a days.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> Well, yeah, they could. The two technologies could be merged without too much trouble. There would have to be legacy support, of course, for older models, but there's nothing fundamentally preventing a move to a single separable security device standard for all pay TV services.


I'm not so sure about that, but even if they could make the security system universal the tuner technology used for cable and DSS is so fundamentally different that it would be impractical for a manufacturer to design a device that could operate on both systems. So it's really not necessary to make them use the same security system.

Dan


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Is MLB Extra Innings pay per view or video on demand? If it isn't, I'd like to point out again that the government DOES NOT let them apply the CCI flags that they are applying.


You're mistaken. Cable services can apply CCI flags for any non-broadcast channels, unless their contract with the cable network explicitly prohibits it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jwagner010 said:


> Bicker works for TWC and he is just feeding the same BS to this forum that you get from the TWC service Reps.


You can always tell how lame a poster's logic is when they resort to "you must work for the company". Gosh, I'd be rolling in dough if I worked for TWC, Comcast, AT&T, DirecTV, Dish Network and the other dozen companies I've been accused of working for.

Needless to say, *you're utterly and completely wrong*. And ridiculous, as a result.



jwagner010 said:


> Please Bicker go away no one wants your BS here.


I'm not going anywhere, neither is the *reality *I provide here.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> You're mistaken. Cable services can apply CCI flags for any non-broadcast channels, unless their contract with the cable network explicitly prohibits it.


I'm not mistaken - they are restricted in what CCI values they can use. See the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Volume 2, Section 76.1904, "Encoding rules for defined business models." It states:



> (b) Except for a specific determination made by the Commission pursuant to a petition with respect to a defined business model other than unencrypted broadcast television, or an undefined business model subject to the procedures set forth in Sec. 76.1906:
> (1) Commercial audiovisual content shall not be encoded so as to prevent or limit copying thereof except as follows:
> (i) To prevent or limit copying of video-on-demand or pay-per-view transmissions, subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section; and
> (ii) To prevent or limit copying, other than first generation of copies, of pay television transmissions, non-premium subscription television, and free conditional access delivery transmissions; and
> (2) With respect to any commercial audiovisual content delivered or transmitted in form of a video-on-demand or pay-per-view transmission, a covered entity shall not encode such content so as to prevent a covered product, without further authorization, from pausing such content up to 90 minutes from initial transmission by the covered entity (e.g., frame-by-frame, minute-by-minute, megabyte by megabyte).


See (b) (1) (ii), which pertains to channels that are not over-the-air and not video-on-demand or pay-per-view. They can encode such channels only to "prevent or limit copying, other than first generation copies." This means that the CCI setting "copy once" is allowed, but "copy never" is not.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Understood, and the confusion comes in because TiVo, as a matter of its own intended implementation, treats both the same. So, for the OP, the CCI=CopyOnce that the cable company can, by law, apply, effectively results in their inability to use MRV.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Understood, and the confusion comes in because TiVo, as a matter of its own intended implementation, treats both the same. So, for the OP, the CCI=CopyOnce that the cable company can, by law, apply, effectively results in their inability to use MRV.


Yes, it's true that "copy once" prevents MRV. But the TiVo doesn't treat them both the same - it is my understanding that "copy never" results in the TiVo automatically deleting the recording shortly after the show has finished being broadcast.

The original poster described not just being unable to MRV on all non-broadcast channels, but also different behavior for MLB Extra Innings, where he had to watch it in a short time (he didn't say exactly what happens, but I'm guessing he means it's automatically deleted at that point). That sounds like what happens when a channel is flagged "copy never." If it is flagged "copy never," and the channel is not considered some kind of video on demand or pay per view, then they are violating FCC rules. Just to be clear, I of course agree that for the other channels, the cable company is well within their rights to set "copy once" (and they could set it for MLB, too, they just can't set it to "copy never").


----------



## BigInJapan (Aug 10, 2008)

I'm intrigued by this "entitlement" argument. I think this...



bicker said:


> Business is a two-way street: Suppliers offer what they're willing to offer, and buyers purchase what, of that offered, they're willing to buy. By fixating only on what you're "willing to buy" and acting all indignant when a company makes decisions about what they're willing to offer, and how they're willing to offer it, you're not being reasonable.


... is a gross misrepresentation of the system. By what logic should the buyer be limited to only want what the suppliers are currently offering? Is it not the _responsibility_ of the consumer to identify gaps in what the market is offering and scream bloody hell until some provider steps up and fills those gaps? It seems to me that deriding consumers for being dissatisfied with the offerings serves only to stifle an important driver of inovation.

Some hyperbole illustrate... imagine a town with three auto dealers. Market research tells them that white SUVs are what the majority of the people want to drive. All three dealers start stocking SUVs exclusively. They have different makes and models and whatnot, but they're all SUVs. Enough of the people in the town either don't care what they drive or really do want an SUV that all three dealers remain financially viable. However, a smaller segment of the population very much wants to drive sedans. Dealers in other parts of the country have already demonstrated that they can offer both SUVs and sedans and still be financially viable. Should the people who want the sedans just shut up and buy an SUV, or should they shout from the hilltops that they want sedans sold in their town? In the long run, is the town as a whole not better off if people get the option of driving sedans?

A system where the providers unilaterally dictate the offerings is not viable. The desire of the consumer, and the expression of that desire, is required to drive a market. In my reading, the OP was expressing his desire for better offerings and looking for the best avenue through which to express that desire. To equate that with an unjustified sense of entitlement is irrational.


----------



## BigInJapan (Aug 10, 2008)

Sorry, that last post is just encouraging off topicness. Interesting to discuss, but should be a separate thread.

Brainiac has the point we should be discussing here. Is that package considered Pay-Per-View or On Demand? It would seem not, so it would seem convergent has a legit case.

Has TW said anything specific about why your MLB recordings auto-delete?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Yes, it's true that "copy once" prevents MRV. But the TiVo doesn't treat them both the same - it is my understanding that "copy never" results in the TiVo automatically deleting the recording shortly after the show has finished being broadcast.


I'm confused.

So Tivo thinks copy once = copy never.

And Tivo thinks copy never = auto-expire in 24 hours.

So what does the auto-expire flag do? Do you get zapped by the Tivo remote for even daring to view it?

I looked at the reg., and TWC is right (except for maybe the MLB stuff). It seems like the OP is mad at the wrong company. I think Tivo's MRV implementation is flawed and outdated. Tivo needs to implement encrypted MRV before they fall behind their competitors.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> So Tivo thinks copy once = copy never.


They count the copy on the TiVo where you record the show as the "one copy," so you can't copy the show to anywhere else (via MRV, TiVoToGo, etc.).



> And Tivo thinks copy never = auto-expire in 24 hours.


I think it's more like auto-expire in 90 minutes (although the original poster said 3 hours, so maybe that's the time?). The idea is that you aren't allowed to make a recording, but you are allowed to pause the show for a time, rewind, etc. In practical terms, this means it records it to the hard drive but deletes it soon after the show has aired.



> So what does the auto-expire flag do? Do you get zapped by the Tivo remote for even daring to view it?


I'm sure the cable companies would love to have that feature. 

But I think the auto-expire flag causes the show to be automatically deleted just like copy never, but after a longer time (like a day? Or maybe the broadcaster an specify how long? I'm not sure).



> I looked at the reg., and TWC is right (except for maybe the MLB stuff). It seems like the OP is mad at the wrong company. I think Tivo's MRV implementation is flawed and outdated. Tivo needs to implement encrypted MRV before they fall behind their competitors.


Yes, the "copy once" flag, while annoying, is allowed by the regulations. But TWC seems a fair target to complain about, since not every cable company is setting that flag (they CAN, it doesn't mean the HAVE TO). However, except for MLB there's no way to force them to change it. But you're right, TiVo could solve the problem itself by implementing MRV in a different way (streaming or by having a "move recording" operation). So there's reason to complain to TiVo as well...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Brainiac 5 said:


> See (b) (1) (ii), which pertains to channels that are not over-the-air and not video-on-demand or pay-per-view. They can encode such channels only to "prevent or limit copying, other than first generation copies." This means that the CCI setting "copy once" is allowed, but "copy never" is not.


It qualifies that with "non-premium subscription television". MLB Extra innings is definitely considered a "premium" channel, so it appears they have the right to use the copy never flag on that channel. And based on that wording it sounds like they could also apply it to other "premium" channels like HBO, ShowTime, etc... That would suck for people who like to watch shows like Weeds, Entourage, etc...

Dan


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> It qualifies that with "non-premium subscription television". MLB Extra innings is definitely considered a "premium" channel, so it appears they have the right to use the copy never flag on that channel.


Except that they are explicitly listing what you CAN copy protect and how, not what you can't. It says "Commercial audiovisual content shall not be encoded so as to prevent or limit copying thereof except as follows." They then list the exceptions - cases where you can apply copy protection. If the contention is that MLB Extra Innings doesn't fall under (1) (b) (ii) because it's a "premium" channel, that would mean that they cannot apply copy protection at all, not that they can apply any copy protection they wish. I think the cable companies would argue that it's a "pay television transmission" and therefore does fall under that clause.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That doesn't make sense.  So "non-premium" subscription television can be protected, but premium subscription television can't? Seems like the content providers, especially the MPAA, would want it the other way around. So as to protect the movies broadcast on the "premium" channels like HBO, ShowTime, etc...

Dan


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

I'm not sure why they say "non-premium subscription television." Perhaps they have a definition of "subscription" television that is different from "pay" television? In any case providers can copy protect both "pay television transmissions" and "non-premium subscription television" - so I'd say if your channel falls under "pay television," then it's covered (and therefore can be copy protected with "copy once"). I haven't heard it argued that the inclusion of the phrase "non-premium subscription television" means that premium channels like HBO and Showtime are not covered under this clause (although I'm not in the cable industry, so I wouldn't necessarily know if it had been). As I said, I think the cable companies would assert that these channels _are_ covered, because they are "pay television."


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

So based on that MLB Extra Innings would have to qualify as VOD or PPV to gte the copy never flag. I know it's kind of a special deal (like Sunday Ticket) but I don't think it qualifies as VOD or PPV.

Dan


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I think it's more like auto-expire in 90 minutes (although the original poster said 3 hours, so maybe that's the time?).


Auto expire is 90 minutes after the recording finishes. So if the recording was 90 minutes, it would expire 3 hours after the recording started.

You can keep a recording around longer than 90 minutes by extending the recording, but it will eventually be deleted.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> Since you find them so incompetent, obviously you must have the answer to how they should have handled the situation. Would you care to share this wisdom with the rest of us?


Overall, I belive that TiVo isn't just incompetent, but *grossly incompetent*, based on the amount of money they have p***ed away over the last decade. They had a "first mover" advantage, but were utterly unable to capitalize. Yes, some of the problem was due to thieves like Charlie, but IMO most of the damage was definitely self inflicted. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum on TiVo Community, so I needn't continue in this thread.

I don't have any detailed "inside information" about the specific task of getting TiVo's software to work on Comcast's hardware. But my understanding is that TiVo agreed to layer their software on top of the basic functionality that already came with the box. That decision has basically doomed the effort.

The incompetence of failing to port their software to Comcast wasn't "gross", merely "routine". Many, many software companies make similar mistakes. Probably many of the following occured:


technically incompetent management at TiVo, that didn't understand what they were agreeing to, but who wanted to "make a deal" because that's what media types like Tom Rogers live for

technically incompetent management at Comcast, that didn't understand what they were agreeing to

utter lack of cooperation, and probably active obstruction by Motorola (whose box was the starting point). They certainly didn't want to have TiVo successfully upstage them.

low level engineers who looked at the technical task and said "this is a crock of s*** and it stinks". You can google for how that message was undoubtedly distorted before it arrived at the ears of top management

In short, what probably happened was the generic, routine incompetence that happens day in and day out in many, if not most, ill conceived software projects.

I'm sure that many competent engineers saw this as a train wreck waiting to happen. Unfortunately those people weren't in any position to prevent it.

This idea isn't new, but I've seen it play out in real life, over and over, throughout the years. A great S.F. story from 1972, _When HARLIE Was One_, nicely covers the situation of people knowing that a project is hopeless but being powerless to do anything about it.

The answer is simple: hire good engineers, pay them well, listen to them. That never works at big companies, only at startups.

This pervasive incompetence is also why big companies like Cisco grow so much by acquisition. They, for the most part, are utterly unable to develop good products internally. So they constantly acquire startups to either obtain their next hot product or to simply prevent their competitors from acquiring it. For a very recent real life example, just look at the battle of NTAP and EMC over acquiring DDUP. Just ended a few weeks ago, practically "ripped from the headlines".


----------



## cartouchbea (Jan 14, 2009)

Brainiac 5 said:


> What's frustrating is that I get the impression that in many cases, they aren't doing it to foster profits. They're doing it either by mistake or on a whim. Someone doesn't know what settings to use, so they set "copy once" because they figure they won't get in trouble for setting it more strictly than necessary.
> 
> And what profits would they be trying to foster, anyway? It's not like they offer an option to record/use MRV for an additional fee. Unless they have their own multi-room DVR (I think Verizon has one?), I don't see how setting the flags enables them to collect more money.


I must respectfully disagree. TW is doing everything in it's power to _legally_ limit the value-add of TiVo's over their STB's. They are completely doing it to foster profits in the following four ways:

1. The fewer value-added features that they can cause a TiVo to have, the better their cable rental boxes look. After about a year or so, they're making much more profit on a cable box then on a CableCARD. So there is a financial incentive to try to get users to use cable company DVR's.
2. TiVo users cannot purchase PPV. If TW can discourage TiVo use, and encourage use of their own cable boxes, they are much more likely to generate revenue from PPV/onDemand programming.
3. TiVo users can remove unsubscribed channels from their on-screen programming guide. Where I live, you can't do that on a TW cable box. So as you are browsing for something good to watch on your cable box, if you see something that is on a channel you don't subscribe to, you might be encouraged to "upgrade" your subscription. $$
4. Less training they have to do for CSRs and technicians. OK, maybe not. Do they really get trained on these things? Sure would make it easier to sell a TW DVR if technicians couldn't get CableCARDs working in a TiVo very easily.

So by removing the "value-add" of MRV/TTG, TW hopes to level the playing field between their DVRs and TiVo. If the playing field is "level", the thinking is that users won't want to pay for the additional TiVo hardware and service and they have more avenues to make money off of you.

Why do you think they tried to put bandwidth limits into place? Once again, profits. If people are downloading movies from iTunes, Netflix, Amazon and Blockbuster, they're not buying them from TW's onDemand service. By limiting downloads, they either force customers to buy onDemand services instead or "recover the lost revenue" in the form of higher charges for higher download limits.

That said, it would be nice if TiVo could start using streaming so that at least MRV could not be inhibited by TWC.

cartouchbea


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

bicker said:


> The next part of the discussion presumes that they're applying the protection flags deliberately, which is one of two reasonable assumptions (the other being that they're doing so by mistake, which is also a reasonable assumption).


This complaint about Time Warner applying the flags is very common, it occurs in many geographic areas. I think it's much too common for it to be "reasonable" to assume they're doing it by "mistake". IMO a more appropriate word than mistake is "malice".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Yes, it's true that "copy once" prevents MRV. But the TiVo doesn't treat them both the same - it is my understanding that "copy never" results in the TiVo automatically deleting the recording shortly after the show has finished being broadcast.


Huh? Since when?!?!



Brainiac 5 said:


> The original poster described not just being unable to MRV on all non-broadcast channels, but also different behavior for MLB Extra Innings


I would expect that it is considered premium, like HBO.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BigInJapan said:


> By what logic should the buyer be limited to only want what the suppliers are currently offering?


It's the nature of the mass-market: Mass-market suppliers create and make offers. Mass-market consumers accept or decline. Market research by mass-market suppliers develop an understanding of what mass-market consumers are likely willing to pay extra for, and that feeds into new offerings.



BigInJapan said:


> Is it not the _responsibility_ of the consumer to identify gaps in what the market is offering and scream bloody hell until some provider steps up and fills those gaps?


No one said it was. You misunderstood.



BigInJapan said:


> It seems to me that deriding consumers for being dissatisfied with the offerings serves only to stifle an important driver of inovation.


Good thing no one did that. I criticized hold unfounded expectations; not being dissatisfied.



BigInJapan said:


> A system where the providers unilaterally dictate the offerings is not viable.


A system whereby mass-market consumers expect to be able to dictate both the offering and whether they are willing to accept it or not is not viable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> This complaint about Time Warner applying the flags is very common, it occurs in many geographic areas. I think it's much too common for it to be "reasonable" to assume they're doing it by "mistake". IMO a more appropriate word than mistake is "malice".


Since they're allowed to do it, it can't be malice. You say so just because you don't like them. Big surprise.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> Since they're allowed to do it, it can't be malice. You say so just because you don't like them. Big surprise.


Thanks for proving my point.

Really, you don't think that TWC employees can do something out of malice, just to piss off non-TWC DVR users to the point where they give up and get a TWC DVR instead?


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

cartouchbea said:


> I must respectfully disagree. TW is doing everything in it's power to _legally_ limit the value-add of TiVo's over their STB's. They are completely doing it to foster profits in the following four ways:


Good set of points. Okay, I see how it can benefit them.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> > But the TiVo doesn't treat them both the same - it is my understanding that "copy never" results in the TiVo automatically deleting the recording shortly after the show has finished being broadcast.
> 
> 
> Huh? Since when?!?!


Since always. That behavior hasn't been seen much "in the wild," because almost no one has ever recorded anything marked "copy never." Since the TiVo can't get PPV or VOD, there's nothing it can receive that can legally be marked "copy once" - the only time it happens is when there's a mistake at the cable company.



> I would expect that it is considered premium, like HBO.


Which cannot be set to "copy once." There is no special exception for premium channels, only PPV and VOD.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Since they're allowed to do it, it can't be malice. You say so just because you don't like them. Big surprise.


There's no law against me dating my best friend's girlfriend in order to make him mad. So, since I'm allowed to do that, it can't be malice?

Of course in reality, I doubt they're sitting around at Time Warner HQ saying "you know what we could do to really get those irritating customers of ours..." I think it's much more likely that they either don't care how the CCI flags are set and someone just set them that way, or that they see some commercial advantage in setting them (just as you say).


----------



## lafos (Nov 8, 2004)

I had contacted TWC shortly after moving into their market. The response I received was that it was their policy to set the flags to copy once on all channels except locals. There was no place where they avoided the question.

Concerning markets and customers, this is a bit different than selecting a store, as they are the only cable provider in my area. If and when competition comes into cable as it was forced to in other industries, perhaps different behaviors will result. Until then, there is little incentive. 

On our TiVos with cards and TA, TWC overlays digital versions of the basic channels. Our solution is to have at least one without cards so we can MRV some channels besides the local ones.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

lafos said:


> If and when competition comes into cable as it was forced to in other industries, perhaps different behaviors will result. Until then, there is little incentive.


I hear that Verizon does not set the copy once flag. When and if Verizon FIOS becomes available to me, you can bet I'll switch to them in a minute.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> What did you think "non-broadcast" meant?


Whoops! 'Sorry. I missed that. I was very tired, and making mistakes when reading and replying.



bicker said:


> First, you evidently have no idea what the term "authorized agent" means.


I know exactly what it means. Again, I was tired, and that's not what I meant to type. I meant to say, "public representative".



bicker said:


> Employees, even front-line CSRs, are not automatically "authorized agents" of their employer. That to which they can obligate the enterprise is strictly limited, by law.


I am well aware. Nonetheless, companies are liable for the actions of any of their employees, including minimum wage earners with no ordinary public visibility - certainly legally but also morally and ethically.



bicker said:


> You can choose to wallow in an unreasonable perspective of what a CSR should and shouldn't know, say or do, but I'll choose to remain on Earth and stick with reasonable perspectives, thankyouverymuch.


Since training and evaluating such individuals is one of the requirements of my job, and since I have unfortunately had to be responsible for having a number of them fired, your characterization of my abilities lack even more weight than your usual pontifications. It pales even more when you consider that 3rd tier customer technical support is one of my primary responsibilities. There is no 4th tier. Your self-admitted (and demonstrated) lack of technical competence in this thread pretty much destroy any remaining credibility you might have otherwise retained in evaluating the competence of a technical support individual.



bicker said:


> And the fact that you actually knew that makes your transgression in this regard even worse.


I didn't transgress in any respect. Even if my evaluation were in error, it's still not a transgression. You are certainly (and rightfully in the event) quick to point out how many people have an inappropriate sense of entitlement as consumers. However, what you miss completely is that neither companies, employees, corporate officers, nor owners are entitled to anything, either, other than to be paid if and only if they complete a fair transaction with a satisfied client. If they cannot make money by delivering an acceptable product at a fair price, then they need to get out of the business. That definitely includes delivering competent technical support.

Again and again you apparently fail to understand that the purpose of a business is not to make money. A business is a public trust, and their purpose is to serve the public with their business offerings. To be sure, a company must (at least eventually) make money to exist, but just as a human being must eat and drink to exist, eating and drinking is not the purpose of any but the most miserable and deprived of human beings. Making money - or at least having it - is also of some import to most human beings, but only the very most depraved and worthless of individuals allow making money to be the purpose of their lives. The world is definitely far, far better off without such individuals, and without companies of a similar bent as well.

On the other hand, most companies don't feel that way, or at least do not legally and publicly claim to feel that way. You don't believe me? Just ask them. Here is an example of a mission statement from what I think you will agree is a large company. 'Nothing there about making money, at all. So is that a lie, too? If so, it is a public one, definitely authorized not only by the CEO but also the Board of Directors.

Or perhaps you prefer the company purpose as outlined in the Articles of Incorporation of that same company. Hmm. 'Nothing there specifically about profits or owners. 'Only about doing business. There are a number of other statements about shareholders in the paper, but nothing about insuring their profits or catering to their whims. Another lie?

Do companies have a responsibility to their owners? Surely. They also have a responsibility to the nation, to humanity, to posterity, to the environment, etc. Owners fall a short way down the list - nowhere near the bottom, but not at the very top, either. Unless they are also employees, owners provide nothing of value to a company except for operating capital. While quick sources of operating capital are surely convenient, they are not fundamentally essential (for all that they are virtually required in our modern business environment). The primary responsibility is also not to the employees, although they fall right below the customers. Without employees, the company could not function at all. The company can function, albeit less efficiently, without owners. Without customers, the company doesn't even have a reason to exist. The fact many companies - especially large ones - can enjoy a vast customer base where the loss of a relative handful of customers won't seriously impact the business in no way changes the fact the business exists to fill the needs of the customers. Some business have only 8 or 10 customers. Others have 8 or 10 million. It doesn't matter. Filling the customers' needs is the only purpose a business has. The vast number of giant businesses failing today are not doing so because they are failing to meet the needs of their owners. If anything, they are failing because they met the unreasonable demands of their owners and senior managers for far too long. I wouldn't be surprised if the managers of the most popular buggy whip manufacturer on the market did a fabulous job of managing their business, or that the owners were not well considered and well compensated. How much business is that company doing today? (Yes, it's an example from Other People's Money.)


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Since they're allowed to do it, it can't be malice. You say so just because you don't like them. Big surprise.


Applying the word "malice" to any non-sapient entity is highly dubious, and I can't see any way of establishing that a business is sapient. More to the point, although an individual employee of business might certainly be malicious, the "intent" of any company is certainly not to do harm to any customer. It may either unwittingly or incidentally do harm, and it may even do so through indifference, but through malicious intent? You're right on this one. Now to a competitor, maybe, possibly even if they are also a customer. To a residential consumer? Not unless virtually the whole company is comprised of psychopaths.

That said, the fact they are allowed to do it doesn't prove it isn't malicious. Malice and malicious acts are not in and of themselves actionable. One must include slander, battery, or some other violent act which results in injury, either bodily or financial.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Exactly: Now ask yourself why the government doesn't require them to let him DVR MLB, and why the government explicitly allows them to apply CCI flags.


Talk about a specious argument. The three most obvious facts about government officials as a group are that they are corrupt, they are lazy, and they are stupid. Assigning any rational motive to their actions is nearly akin to talking about the motivation of an influenza virus.



bicker said:


> Hmmmmmmmm..... maybe it is because that the government, as representatives of our society, need to *balance* the needs of consumers and business.


They rarely attempt to do either, and even when they do, their attempts are laughable, usually having precisely the opposite of the intended effect. Prohibition sought to curb alcoholic consumption. The result? Drinking skyrocketed. Drug laws seek to limit the trade in drugs. The result? Drug use continues to skyrocket. Social programs sought to eliminate poverty and suffering. The result? They are worse than ever, in the richest nation in the world. Education reform sought to reduce ignorance and improve education. The result? We have by far the worst public education system of the industrialized world, and where at one time all high school graduates were required to be fluent in at least two modern languages and one ancient language, now most Americans aren't even fluent in one.



bicker said:


> I agree completely, and that was really a good part of my point, earlier. People make all these silly little rants about the cable companies, when the *real *transgressors are circling the planet at 22,000 miles. Until we get the satellite services to comply with all the same laws that the cable companies are subject to, I think it is myopic to omit complaints against the satellite services whenever one could be applicable in the context of a complaint against a cable company.


While I agree there should be a single set of laws for all broadcast entertainment media, the rest of your argument falls flat. Because someone else is perpetrating an even less desirable action doesn't let the first party off the hook. Just because he may have killed fewer people and was himself probably an intended victim of Al Capone doesn't mean Bugs Moran wasn't a murderer.



bicker said:


> The law doesn't require CableCARD: It doesn't even require every cable company to use the same separable security technology


With a few grandfather exceptions, all CATV companies are required to support CableCards. They don't have to use them, themselves, as long as whatever solution they employ is compatible with CableCards. Right now, the only solution in production use is CableCards. The CATV companies are still working on downloadable security.



bicker said:


> heck the law would even allow a different separable security solution for different areas within the same cable company. So surely the law can be extended to satellite services, as is, without any changes.


The law could be changed without any changes? That would be a neat trick.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> It's the nature of the mass-market: Mass-market suppliers create and make offers. Mass-market consumers accept or decline. Market research by mass-market suppliers develop an understanding of what mass-market consumers are likely willing to pay extra for, and that feeds into new offerings.


I see. So Ferari is bound to go bankrupt, while such a thing could never happen to GM? As to mass-market suppliers understanding what mass-market consumers want and for which they are likely to pay, the evidence is overwhelming they often haven't a clue. The bestseller Dune was turned down (as I recall) more than 20 times before Frank Herbert finally found someone to publish it. Debbie Fields was turned down by numerous large investors. One responded, ""A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make." So much for market research.

The bottom line is GM should never have been allowed to exist in the first place. Anti-trust laws exist, they are just unenforced. If instead of 3 giant, over-bloated corporations, there were 500 or 600 independent standards-based companies, the loss of 3 or 4 would be of little consequence. There should be no such thing as a mass market - only a free one.



bicker said:


> No one said it was. You misunderstood.


If he did, it's because you stated your case badly, because it sounded very much to me as if you did indeed say that very thing.



bicker said:


> Good thing no one did that. I criticized hold unfounded expectations; not being dissatisfied.


In the context of this conversation, that's splitting a pretty fine hair, especially since the difference is probably only a matter of expression, not intent.



bicker said:


> A system whereby mass-market consumers expect to be able to dictate both the offering and whether they are willing to accept it or not is not viable.


That's not necessarily true, at all. Indeed, in a free market, it isn't true, period. In a free market, if any significant number of people at all demand a particular version of a product, then someone will provide it. The more people who decide they like the product, the more people who buy it. If most people still don't like it, then they still buy from the other vendors, and the niche producers cater to their market sector. Giant corporations destroy a free market and generally obliterate niche sectors unless they are very large in themselves.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I'm not so sure about that, but even if they could make the security system universal the tuner technology used for cable and DSS is so fundamentally different that it would be impractical for a manufacturer to design a device that could operate on both systems. So it's really not necessary to make them use the same security system.


Neither the CableCard nor the current satellite decoders have anything at all to do with tuning the incoming signal (other than the CableCard telling the tuner where to look for the signal). Neither is an RF device or has anything to do with the mechanics of signal reception. They are both simply decryption devices. They both take in virtually identical digital streams and decrypt them under the auspices of encryption keys and validation profiles provided by the respective agencies, and pass on the decrypted stream (or refuse to if the user is not authorized for the particular stream) to the host. The current hardware format is different for the two, but otherwise they are quite similar. Making a CableCard which could handle both simultaneously, in fact, would not be technologically difficult, and while I doubt it will ever happen, a single unit capable of handling any satellite or CATV system would not be terribly difficult to design.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> He denied it and since then I have come to see he is more a free market enthusiast and really is just stating his viewpoint/info as he sees it. I am actually kind of sad we agree as much as we do now a days.


'Best I can tell, he is not a free market enthusiast. He seems to be a mass market enthusiast. The two are antithetical.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> What's frustrating is that I get the impression that in many cases, they aren't doing it to foster profits. They're doing it either by mistake or on a whim. Someone doesn't know what settings to use, so they set "copy once" because they figure they won't get in trouble for setting it more strictly than necessary.


No, its company policy. There have even been a couple of public statements to the effect, I believe. According to Mark Cuban, one of the main reasons, among other things, TWC dropped HDNet and HDNet Movies is he was demanding they remove their copyright flags from his channels.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> I think Tivo's MRV implementation is flawed and outdated. Tivo needs to implement encrypted MRV before they fall behind their competitors.


All MRV is encrypted. Always has been. As to the competition, please name another 3rd party DVR which allows MRV of copy protected material.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> I'm not going anywhere


Most of us don't suggest you should.



bicker said:


> neither is the *reality *I provide here.


Oh, so now you're God? Get over yourself, bicker. You provide an opinion, nothing more. It's a more or less accurate one a little more often than the average poster's perhaps, but far, far from a gauge of reality, let alone an arbiter or provider of it.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

cartouchbea said:


> 1. The fewer value-added features that they can cause a TiVo to have, the better their cable rental boxes look. After about a year or so, they're making much more profit on a cable box then on a CableCARD. So there is a financial incentive to try to get users to use cable company DVR's.


I've heard this before, but it is utter nonsense. I happen to know for a fact TWC pays $458 each for its HD-8300C DVRs, or at least they did a few months ago, and for one large batch of them. The fee for their DVRs and CableCards I think may vary from city to city, but here locally they charge $19.95 a month for the first DVR and $9.95 a month for additional DVRs. When I was with TWC, the average lifespan of an STB was a little over 18 months. I doubt the average lifespan of a modern DVR is more than 24 months. Without even considering the overhead (probably about 250%), after 24 months at $19.95, TWC has made a grand total of $20.80 in profit. On the second DVR they won't see any return on the investment for just under 4 years, again not taking into account maintenance and delivery. Compare that to the average CATV bill of about $110 a month - $2640 in the same time period, and the profit (which actually isn't at all) is insignificant. I don't know the price of CableCards, but I imagine they are under $40 each, and the overhead should be much less. At $3 a month, in the same 24 month period the company draws in $72. In raw revenue, they probably make more on CableCards. Where it costs them is in support.



cartouchbea said:


> 2. TiVo users cannot purchase PPV. If TW can discourage TiVo use, and encourage use of their own cable boxes, they are much more likely to generate revenue from PPV/onDemand programming.


This isn't fundamentally true. I don't ever use PPV, so I don't know the current local policy, but when we first implemented PPV, and for quite some years at least thereafter, a user whose 2-way service was not working could simply call up and order by phone. They may have changed this policy, but there is nothing technically from preventing them from allowing it. I know for a fact some CATV providers allow it and it works just fine with CableCards in a TiVo.



cartouchbea said:


> 3. TiVo users can remove unsubscribed channels from their on-screen programming guide. Where I live, you can't do that on a TW cable box. So as you are browsing for something good to watch on your cable box, if you see something that is on a channel you don't subscribe to, you might be encouraged to "upgrade" your subscription. $$


That's a big stretch.



cartouchbea said:


> 4. Less training they have to do for CSRs and technicians. OK, maybe not. Do they really get trained on these things? Sure would make it easier to sell a TW DVR if technicians couldn't get CableCARDs working in a TiVo very easily.


Training is only part of the equation. The cost for supporting a platform goes far beyond just training.



cartouchbea said:


> So by removing the "value-add" of MRV/TTG, TW hopes to level the playing field between their DVRs and TiVo. If the playing field is "level", the thinking is that users won't want to pay for the additional TiVo hardware and service and they have more avenues to make money off of you.


The biggest fallacy of this argument is that TWC doesn't stand to make any significant amount of additional revenue by getting TiVo customers to convert. Here in San Antonio - one of the largest markets in the U.S., there are far fewer than 1000 Series III TiVo owners on the TWC system. I suspect as a group we in fact tend to have much larger cable bills than the average customer, and as such they actually stand to gain less from us converting than would otherwise be the case, but suppose we all went from an average of $110 a month to $230 a month when we converted to a CATV leased DVR. Allowing for the cost of buying (but not delivering or supporting, by the way) a DVR to lease to us, that leaves an extra profit of $100,000 a month. The San Antonio TWC franchise pulls in over *$1,000,000 a DAY*. The real number, after taking the actual number of TiVos and adding in the extra cost of ownership of the leased DVR is probably considerably less than $30,000 a month, or less than 0.1% of total revenue. As a revenue stream, it's just not worth considering.



cartouchbea said:


> Why do you think they tried to put bandwidth limits into place? Once again, profits.


Yes, but bandwidth limits are relevant to half their users. TiVo considerations relate to less than 1% of their customers.



cartouchbea said:


> That said, it would be nice if TiVo could start using streaming so that at least MRV could not be inhibited by TWC.


That's specious. MRV is in no way illegal. CableLabs is unlikely to approve a box which employs MRV on copy protected content, and there is nothing which says they have to approve a box which employs it via streaming as opposed to copying. It may be a harder sell in terms of federal regs, but there are no guarantees.

Why is it so hard for people to understand Cost of Ownership? So many people complain about "how much money" CATV companies are charging them, without bothering to realize equipment costs money? Many CATV companies *LOSE MONEY* on STB and DVR rentals. Where they make it up (in spades!) is on IPPV and pay VOD services. A typical CATV company often makes more on a single IPPV order than on STB or DVR rental during the entire subscription term. OTOH, I know of people with $600 a month IPPV bills.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> No, its company policy. There have even been a couple of public statements to the effect, I believe. According to Mark Cuban, one of the main reasons, among other things, TWC dropped HDNet and HDNet Movies is he was demanding they remove their copyright flags from his channels.


I'm smelling that TWC thinks MRV cuts into their gravy train on rental of Set Top Boxes, ala how Comcast WILL NOT let the channel guides on any of their STBs show you only favorite or subscribed channels (as you can on TiVo). These cablecos have long ingrained corporate stoopid and deserve to lose subs as fast as possible.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

Cable companies, as we all know, are substantially evil servants of extra-terrestrial communists. They have dark eyes and live in foggy bogs where it is always night and the light of day cannot reach, so as to expose their twisted corruption, designed to destroy the way of life so many hold dear.

The only solution is to sprinkle them daily with ground garlic and paprika, as this may weaken their hold on our dimension and force them back to the hideous realms they came from.

Or am I mixing up stuff I've heard on SyFy and the FOOD network?


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

gastrof said:


> Cable companies, as we all know, are substantially evil servants of extra-terrestrial communists. They have dark eyes and live in foggy bogs where it is always night and the light of day cannot reach, so as to expose their twisted corruption, designed to destroy the way of life so many hold dear.
> 
> The only solution is to sprinkle them daily with ground garlic and paprika, as this may weaken their hold on our dimension and force them back to the hideous realms they came from.
> 
> Or am I mixing up stuff I've heard on SyFy and the FOOD network?


Nuclear weapons. You always gotta try nukes first.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Thanks for proving my point.


Indubitably. Judging by his posts, he seems to believe if something is not illegal, then it must be ethical and moral, or that businessmen should not be held to the same standards of morality and ethics by society as a whole as any other member. Perhaps 80% of that which is not illegal is still both unethical and / or immoral, and businessmen are not to be given a pass on that judgment, the fact the government cannot (or will not) levy sanctions against them notwithstanding.



MickeS said:


> [Really, you don't think that TWC employees can do something out of malice, just to piss off non-TWC DVR users to the point where they give up and get a TWC DVR instead?


Well, careful, here. While the company is indeed responsible for the actions and attitudes of its employees, the fact some employees may engage in a particular activity does not mean it is company policy. Some (few) assembly line workers, for example, are notorious for deliberately sabotaging equipment on the line when they are angry. Of course, one main reason they are prone to such behavior is the way in which they are treated by the company. In that respect, one could argue the company deliberately encourages sabotage. Even so, sabotage is not a matter of company policy, for all that the policies ultimately engender it.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

gastrof said:


> Cable companies, as we all know, are substantially evil servants of extra-terrestrial communists. They have dark eyes and live in foggy bogs where it is always night and the light of day cannot reach, so as to expose their twisted corruption, designed to destroy the way of life so many hold dear.
> 
> The only solution is to sprinkle them daily with ground garlic and paprika, as this may weaken their hold on our dimension and force them back to the hideous realms they came from.
> 
> Or am I mixing up stuff I've heard on SyFy and the FOOD network?


I don't know, but extraterrestrial communists taste good chopped up and sauteed with a little white wine vinegar, butter, and soy sauce. Or were those mushrooms I had last night?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Thanks for proving my point.


So I guess I should start every thread I see you in with a prediction that you'll say something crabby or whining about something. Then I can wait until later in the thread and get some masturbatory gratification from posting that you proved my "point", just like you just did.



MickeS said:


> Really, you don't think that TWC employees can do something out of malice, just to piss off non-TWC DVR users to the point where they give up and get a TWC DVR instead?


You're just not that important to them. If they're going to do anything, they're going to do it to piss off their boss, not you. And the company, no, they don't regularly do things out of malice. Again, that's just you being crabby or whiney.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> There's no law against me dating my best friend's girlfriend in order to make him mad. So, since I'm allowed to do that, it can't be malice?


Are you a corporation more interested in money than in girls?



Brainiac 5 said:


> Of course in reality, I doubt they're sitting around at Time Warner HQ saying "you know what we could do to really get those irritating customers of ours..."


Yes, *that *was my point.



Brainiac 5 said:


> I think it's much more likely that they either don't care how the CCI flags are set and someone just set them that way, or that they see some commercial advantage in setting them (just as you say).


Yup, and again, they are allowed to do so.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> I know exactly what it means. Again, I was tired, and that's not what I meant to type. I meant to say, "public representative".


Even that is overstating the reality. They're a CSR. Calling them something else to make their mistake *sound *more critical is dishonest.



lrhorer said:


> Nonetheless, companies are liable for the actions of any of their employees, including minimum wage earners with no ordinary public visibility - certainly legally but also morally and ethically.


Their liability is strictly limited by law, *as I said* in the sentence you replied to. The extent of their obligation, even "morally and ethically", is often just an apology, and that's only after the company agrees that a mistake was made. Surely sometimes they may decide to offer more, but expecting more is Entitlement Mentality.



lrhorer said:


> Your self-admitted (and demonstrated) lack of technical competence in this thread pretty much destroy any remaining credibility you might have otherwise retained in evaluating the competence of a technical support individual.


Are you a moron? You think that not having technical expertise about the internal technical details of hard drives disqualifies someone to know about the business of provision of support to customers? You must be "tired" again, and "making mistakes" again while reading and replying. Since you're a "self-admitted" mistake-maker when posting, I'll chalk your silliness here up to that. Get some sleep (or get over yourself).



lrhorer said:


> Again and again you apparently fail to understand that the purpose of a business is not to make money.


And so you go into your typical socialist mumbo-jumbo. Your left-wing political nonsense is not impressive, Comrade.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Talk about a specious argument. The three most obvious facts about government officials as a group are that they are corrupt, they are lazy, and they are stupid.


I'm sure that they could say the same thing about you, with regard to whatever you do. You don't like living in a capitalist country. You've made that clear, Comrade. You don't like the fact that government balances the needs of suppliers and customers instead of kowtowing to your socialist perspectives. So your "self-admitted" enmity with your government and the society you live in, here, is understandable.



lrhorer said:


> They rarely attempt to do either, and even when they do, their attempts are laughable, usually having precisely the opposite of the intended effect.


Says the guy who thinks for-profit corporations shouldn't put the financial interests of their owners as their paramount concern. You're wrong. Get over it.

[More of Comrade lrhorer's irrelevant and self-gratifying anti-American nonsense omitted]



lrhorer said:


> While I agree there should be a single set of laws for all broadcast entertainment media, the rest of your argument falls flat. Because someone else is perpetrating an even less desirable action doesn't let the first party off the hook. Just because he may have killed fewer people and was himself probably an intended victim of Al Capone doesn't mean Bugs Moran wasn't a murderer.


But we're not talking about killing. We're talking about business. We're not even talking about violating any laws. We're way back at the point where we're law-making. And people are inanely forgiving the satellite services all manner of expectations while they pile more and more expectations on cable companies. Why? Because they smell blood. No other reason. There's a big rumble down at the town park, and time to go down an pile on. My point is that there is no more rational logic nor defense for not forcing satellite to comply with all these laws.



lrhorer said:


> With a few grandfather exceptions, all CATV companies are required to support CableCards.


You don't know the law... you really should read up on things before you post.... The law requires separable security. It does not require CableCARD. That's just one implementation. There is no requirement to have just one implementation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> I see. So Ferari is bound to go bankrupt, while such a thing could never happen to GM?


Ice cream has no bones.

I know that you "self-admitted" that you're "tired" and you make "mistakes", but try to keep up with the discussion, if you choose to reply. And make sure that when you reply that you're arguing against what I'm really posting, not something easier to argue against. Or are you also "lazy" as well as "tired" and a "mistake" maker?



lrhorer said:


> As to mass-market suppliers understanding what mass-market consumers want and for which they are likely to pay, the evidence is overwhelming they often haven't a clue.


Because they don't buy into your left-wing socialist agenda, right? 



lrhorer said:


> If he did, it's because you stated your case badly, because it sounded very much to me as if you did indeed say that very thing.


No, that's just your socialist bias talking.



lrhorer said:


> In the context of this conversation, that's splitting a pretty fine hair, especially since the difference is probably only a matter of expression, not intent.


If you think so, they you're really "tired" and "mistake"-prone. There is a world of difference between being dissatisfied and holding unfounded expectations. Regardless, the proper response to having someone tell you that you're holding unfounded expectations, when you only are dissatisfied, is to reply, "I really didn't mean to say that I expected that -- I'm just sad that I didn't get it." I take it to mean, if the poster pursues another type of response, that they did intend their unfounded expectations.



lrhorer said:


> That's not necessarily true, at all.


Then you go on to agree with me. 



lrhorer said:


> Indeed, in a free market, it isn't true, period. In a free market, if any significant number of people at all demand a particular version of a product, then someone will provide it.


You did learn something in college. :up:



lrhorer said:


> Giant corporations destroy a free market and generally obliterate niche sectors unless they are very large in themselves.


No, reality does that. Corporations make low prices for consumers and good jobs for workers a possibility. That's their only role in all this.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Indubitably. Judging by his posts, he seems to believe if something is not illegal, then it must be ethical and moral


While you're suggesting that *your own personal* preferences should be used to determine what is "ethical and moral". Get over yourself. You don't get to determine what is "ethical and moral" *for the actions of anyone but yourself*. The US Constitution provides for freedom of religion. *Your* put *yourself* forward as if you were *God* when you claim something is "wrong" just because you don't like it.



lrhorer said:


> or that businessmen should not be held to the same standards of morality and ethics by society as a whole as any other member.


The only standards of "morality and ethics" that apply to "society as a whole" is the law. Everything else is just personal opinion. We are free people. We are not subject to your personal preferences with regard to "morality and ethics". Everyone decides for themselves, and neither the government, *nor you*, get to impose such things on anyone else.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Are you a corporation more interested in money than in girls?


My point is, the fact the something isn't illegal doesn't mean you can't do it out of malice. People do things that aren't illegal out of malice all the time. Since a corporation is run by people, it can do so as well. I think what you're trying to say is that since TWC has a profit motive to set the CCI flags, that's much more likely to be the reason than "malice" (unless we discover that the board members are seriously unhinged...). But that's not the same as it "can't" be malice because they're allowed to do it.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> No, its company policy. There have even been a couple of public statements to the effect, I believe.


Oddly, that's less irritating to me than if it was due to incompetence. A number of people on this forum have been told by Comcast (which is what I have) that their nationwide corporate policy is not to set the CCI flags unless instructed to to do by the content provider. Nevertheless, where I live all non-broadcast channels are set to "copy once." I've talked to the local office about it, but basically they can't be bothered to fix it or even to inquire with the home office as to what settings they're supposed to be using.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> My point is, the fact the something isn't illegal doesn't mean you can't do it out of malice.


And my point was just because someone does something because it best serves their interests, or the interests of those to whom they owe an overriding fiduciary responsibility, doesn't make what they're doing malice, or "immoral or unethical" for that matter.



Brainiac 5 said:


> Since a corporation is run by people, it can do so as well.


No: The individual people can commit malice but the corporation cannot. Malice requires desire, which is an emotion. Only people have emotions.



Brainiac 5 said:


> I think what you're trying to say is that since TWC has a profit motive to set the CCI flags, that's much more likely to be the reason than "malice"


Or that it is just not worth the cost of ensuring that they don't frequently make the mistake... one or the other.



> mal⋅ice
> /ˈmælɪs/
> -noun
> 1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> And my point was just because someone does something because it best serves their interests, or the interests of those to whom they owe an overriding fiduciary responsibility, doesn't make what they're doing malice, or "immoral or unethical" for that matter.


I completely agree.



> No: The individual people can commit malice but the corporation cannot. Malice requires desire, which is an emotion. Only people have emotions.


Okay, but I think the person who originally attributed the decision to "malice" meant that someone or some people in the corporation decided to do it out of malice, not that the abstract entity that is the corporation in and of itself had "malice." (Not that I personally think that there was any "malice" involved from anyone.)

Anyway, I'll shut up about this particular aspect of the subject because we seem to be just splitting hairs finer and finer, when I actually agree with your main point here.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I hear that Verizon does not set the copy once flag. When and if Verizon FIOS becomes available to me, you can bet I'll switch to them in a minute.


They do not set the flag.

Also, their DVR solution allows HD streaming to other HD set top boxes, which bypasses that flag.

Finally, Tivo's MRV isn't encrypted well enough. CableLabs has to approve of the encryption scheme. "XOR 5A" isn't going to cut it. It's my understanding that they did not approve Tivo's current scheme, so the Tivo has to act like it has none.

P.S. DirecTv is also coming out with HD MRV soon, but it's not clear if there are any limitations with it or not.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> Finally, Tivo's MRV isn't encrypted well enough. CableLabs has to approve of the encryption scheme. "XOR 5A" isn't going to cut it. It's my understanding that they did not approve Tivo's current scheme, so the Tivo has to act like it has none.


Any particular reason why you think TiVo's MRV isn't encrypted well enough? Don't they use blowfish? As far as I know no one's been able to break the encryption (disable it via hardware modification yes, crack it no). In all cases where encrypted videos were "cracked", the MAK generated encryption key was required, so it seems like a fairly good encryption scheme to me.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> And my point was just because someone does something because it best serves their interests, or the interests of those to whom they owe an overriding fiduciary responsibility, doesn't make what they're doing malice, or "immoral or unethical" for that matter.


No, but it doesn't mean it isn't, either, and your use of the term "overriding" is rather typical of your posts. The responsibility is not overriding of anything in particular. There is a legal and moral responsibility relative to investors. That is all. Its relative importance must be weighed in light of circumstances. Frankly, it is often undervalued and is frequently ignored altogether, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. Just because a corporate executive has a responsibility - of any sort - does not mean he lives up to it. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there is a very strong "take the money and run" streak among executives. 'Not all, but far more than enough.



bicker said:


> No: The individual people can commit malice but the corporation cannot.


While I agree with you in general, this is not strictly true. First of all, according to the law, it isn't the case at all. Any unsubstantiated libelous or slanderous public accusations by a company, especially a press organization, is considered malice aforethought by the courts, and is actionable as such against the organization in civil court. Any violent or aggravated felonious activity authorized by officials of a company is actionable as malicious activity in a criminal court. Furthermore, any official policy of any organization driven by malice constitutes malice by the organization. Certainly by definition any organized criminal organization, many of which are officially recognized businesses, are malicious. Employees and affiliates of fundamentally non-criminal organizations have also, under company direction, engaged in malicious acts ranging from industrial espionage, bribery, fraud, extortion, sabotage, assault, and murder. These do constitute malice on the part of the business, period.



bicker said:


> Malice requires desire, which is an emotion. Only people have emotions.


Now that is just nonsense. In the first place, in this context, desire is not an emotion. It is a motivational impulse, and can even be attributed to single celled organisms who possess no emotional context. Any business most certainly desires to make money. It desires to minimize costs. It desires to eliminate or at least minimize competition. To that end, most businesses engage in aggressive competition. Some stoop to nefarious and even illegal activities, sometimes even violent ones. The notion all business is completely incapable of malice is utterly moronic. OTOH, the notion a business run by anyone but an idiot undertakes a policy directed at its mass customer base due to malicious intent is equally moronic.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

morac said:


> Any particular reason why you think TiVo's MRV isn't encrypted well enough? Don't they use blowfish? As far as I know no one's been able to break the encryption (disable it via hardware modification yes, crack it no). In all cases where encrypted videos were "cracked", the MAK generated encryption key was required, so it seems like a fairly good encryption scheme to me.


Only CableLabs can bless the encryption used for MRV. They have not blessed Tivo's encryption or method of MRV yet, as far as I can tell. Hence Tivo has none. If Tivo thinks it's good enough, they should pressure CableLabs (using the FCC) into approving it. So far, Tivo isn't doing anything about it. The ball's in their court.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> It's been hacked. You're looking in the wrong forum.


Doing so requires hardware modifications, so it's not something the average person could do. Technically nearly any commercial device can be "hacked" by modifying the hardware. The only way not to would be to have the device "self-destruct" when modified.

In any case I don't consider disabling DRM as having cracked it, even if the end results are nearly the same.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Oddly, that's less irritating to me than if it was due to incompetence. A number of people on this forum have been told by Comcast (which is what I have) that their nationwide corporate policy is not to set the CCI flags unless instructed to to do by the content provider. Nevertheless, where I live all non-broadcast channels are set to "copy once." I've talked to the local office about it, but basically they can't be bothered to fix it or even to inquire with the home office as to what settings they're supposed to be using.


My system was bought up by comcast. The old provider locked down every channel that was digital except local rebroadcast. Last week i got the letter about switching everything buy locals to digital and thought to myself- it's over MRV is over.

But then i checked my boxes and what do you know- they REMOVED the FLAGS from everything!!! :up::up:

Even the premiums are unlocked. woooohoooooo. MRV all over!!!!1


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Only CableLabs can bless the encryption used for MRV. They have not blessed Tivo's encryption or method of MRV yet, as far as I can tell. Hence Tivo has none. If Tivo thinks it's good enough, they should pressure CableLabs (using the FCC) into approving it. So far, Tivo isn't doing anything about it. The ball's in their court.


there's an offical list- tivo isn't on it. I only assume cablelabs denied it- its been way too long to be otherwise. But the weird part to me is that tivo rolled over and took it. The FCC approved tivo's method to protect the broadcast flags years back when that was still alive. I'm pretty sure the FCC declared itself arbitrator of any disputes and tivo could easily say "excuse me FCC you approved our system years ago as strong enough for broadcast tv, it's never been cracked, but cable still denies it- can you please review" and the FCC would almost certainly help tivo out.

so I guess Tivo figures it's more important to keep friendly with cable then to fight this first. Maybe they have a streaming plan. Maybe they are waiting till they get their tivo4 box approved to make a stink. Maybe they think it's best to work behind the scenes to get people to unflag stuff like comcast decided and even implemented on my system.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

morac said:


> Doing so requires hardware modifications, so it's not something the average person could do. Technically nearly any commercial device can be "hacked" by modifying the hardware. The only way not to would be to have the device "self-destruct" when modified.
> 
> In any case I don't consider disabling DRM as having cracked it, even if the end results are nearly the same.


I forget the wording exactly but even the cablecard standard says something that the encryption needs to be reasonable and that they don't expect anyone to protect against someone from openeing a box and soldering on/off chips to break in. Which, to the best of my understanding, is the only current way to get into an S3- right? (or have things changed?)


----------



## dburns (Jul 24, 2009)

guys, do we really need to go back and forth with the cable company apologists?

fact of the matter is, cable companies in most municipalities enjoy a virtual monopoly granted to it by the city franchise for *cable* television. Whether someone on this forum who'd rather call anyone who dare disagree with his opinion a communist is irrelevant. Time Warner Cable, in activating this flag, has done so clearly in an attempt to impair consumer choice by lowering the value of competitive boxes (e.g., tivo). Whether cable company apologists like it or not, agree or disagree with it, the fact of the matter is your local city government likely regulates your cable company's contract and determines which company enjoys the right to service you and your neighbors. They enjoy a *right* to your business by virtue of *your* local government.

Write your local franchise authority and complain (you'll be surprised at how effective this can be--I've already received a response from mine).

Write the networks whose content is being blocked from viewing on multiple TVs.

If Time Warner Cable doesn't start treating its customers properly, *cancel your service*. Bickering back and forth with internet trolls who attempt to demean anyone who disagrees with him is neither going to get the flag unset nor improve your service. You need to hit TWC in the wallet. The economy isn't great, business are going under left, right, and center. Companies like Time Warner Cable need your $150 a month far more than you need them right now.

As for me, if Time Warner Cable doesn't undo this by my next billing cycle, I'll either switch to uverse or get appleTVs and download my content from itunes & boxee.

complain... if you're not heard, cancel and make sure your neighbors, friends all know about their lousy service. Let TWC fail... their performance sucks anyway. Personally I've only put up with it because I've got a bit of an investment in these tivo hd boxes, and, well, inertia/laziness. This is just the last straw for me, and more than enough to motivate me to quit their service.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dburns said:


> guys, do we really need to go back and forth with the cable company apologists?


What derogatory term do we get to apply onto you? "Self-centered denier of reality"? How about neither side put derogatory labels on the other, at all? Would that work for you?



dburns said:


> fact of the matter is, cable companies in most municipalities enjoy a virtual monopoly granted to it by the city franchise for *cable* television.


There is no such thing as a "cable" television market. The commodity being sold is *subscription television service*. If you don't believe me, go ask a judge.

The only part of the service to be regulated is the local broadcast channel cable service. Before spouting off your "monopoly" nonsense again, try thinking about why the law took the time and effort necessary to put in place that regulation and did *not* extend that regulation to what you thought should be regulated.



dburns said:


> Write your local franchise authority and complain (you'll be surprised at how effective this can be--I've already received a response from mine).


I'll agree with you here. And if you don't get satisfaction, through those channels (and I would include the state DTE, here in Mass -- very helpful folks) then accept their determination that what you're asking for is unreasonable.



dburns said:


> If Time Warner Cable doesn't start treating its customers properly, *cancel your service*.


And I'll agree with you there, as well. Anyone who is still subscribing to a service that they feel is not worth what they're paying is being ridiculous.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

dburns said:


> guys, do we really need to go back and forth with the cable company apologists?


I'm certainly not a cable apologist. I hate TWC. I haven't been with them in over 12 years. But in this case, for a change, TWC isn't doing anything illegal. They are probably just covering their butts. My wild guess is that Time Warner informally made TWC set the flags for all Time Warner channels (THAT should be illegal). Then TWC realized they couldn't just set it for their channels, or else Viacom and Disney would cry foul. So TWC set the flags for ALL the channels.

I'm not much of a Tivo apologist either. Tivo has had plenty of time to get their encryption scheme approved. They've had time to modify their encryption scheme. They've had time to appeal to the FCC, or even to Congress to get the law changed. But nothing is happening.

To me, the MRV and TTG functions are like the second tuner in the S2DT. It's not really a full-blown second tuner, it kinda sort-of works for some people, and it's a feature Tivo can claim. But when you get it home and actually find out how limited it is, you get that bad taste in your mouth, as if somehow you were kinda tricked. It's not enough to make you mad, but it's enough to sour your view on the box.

I haven't seen this TWC MRV problem discussed on CNN or Time Magazine, so it must not be a big problem.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> But in this case, for a change, TWC isn't doing anything illegal.


This is only half-true. There's nothing illegal about setting the flags so you can't MRV, but the the behavior that the original poster described on MLB Extra Innings sounds like it is set to "copy never," which *is* illegal (unless it is considered VOD or PPV, which it sounds like it is not).


----------



## Zysu28 (Jul 29, 2009)

convergent said:


> I had two Tivo Series 2 DVRs for several years and loved them. Around the beginning of the year, I bought a Tivo HD and planned to migrate to three of them. But... after the three ring circus to get Cable Cards and SDV Adapter in place and working, I learned that Time Warner has basically copy protected everything possible in the programming... so my Tivo HD works great by itself, but Multi Room Viewing is dead. There are many reasons for me to hate Time Warner, but this one is not at the top of the list. I don't really have any other options... the only other choices would be DISH or DirecTV which would kill my use of Tivo entirely.
> 
> Now we just upgraded one of our TVs to an LCD HDTV and I didn't pay attention and have discovered that it only has component inputs... no composite video, so I can't use my Tivo Series 2 with it. If I replace it with a Tivo HD then I'll be down to one Tivo I can MultiRoom View from...
> 
> ...


I am new to TIVO HD and TWC's CableCard as well. Came home to watch baseball at midnight and the game was deleted already. Now...i understand they don't want us copying the games and all that other paranoid junk...but really, midnight and it's deleted? You pay $170 a year and you can't time shift a game by a few hours? TWC is criminal.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

No they're not. You're just misinformed.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> No they're not. You're just misinformed.


While I understand your sentiment, and in general it's true, in this case they actually are doing something wrong. From the behavior described, it sounds like the channel is set to "copy never," which they are not allowed to set except on PPV or VOD.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The PP didn't indicate which network the baseball game was broadcast on. Extra Innings qualifies as premium AFAIC.

Also, the problem is that the more specific you get, the more criteria apply *in both directions*. Applying a Copy Never flag where it is not permitted is a violation; it is never "criminal" as asserted.

However, your point is well-taken: My point was with regard to the general sentiment I was replying to, that video distributors are in some way doing something wrong when they apply a Copy Once flag not ordered by the cable network.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> The PP didn't indicate which network the baseball game was broadcast on. Extra Innings qualifies as premium AFAIC.


They aren't allowed to set "copy never" on premium channels, only PPV or VOD.



> My point was with regard to the general sentiment I was replying to, that video distributors are in some way doing something wrong when they apply a Copy Once flag not ordered by the cable network.


A good point with which I completely agree.


----------



## Zysu28 (Jul 29, 2009)

Brainiac 5 said:


> They aren't allowed to set "copy never" on premium channels, only PPV or VOD.
> 
> A good point with which I completely agree.


Yikes sorry Bicker-- didn't realize you would take "criminal" so personally! Are you a TWC exec? If so can you change the CCI byte flags to x02's? I'm not even asking for no copy protection, I just want a night to watch the game!

Joking aside-- Brainaic, I called Tivo today, just to start somewhere. They blame TWC. TWC blames InDemand. I noticed not ALL the mlb stations are set to x03. Some are actually x02's and that game doesn't seem to be going anywhere until Friday. Which is great. But who do i complain to when I call since the firstline folks don't know anything about this stuff.
Thanks all for the help!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

No I'm not a TWC exec, and I don't take "criminal" "personally", but rather do object to people presenting what they *want *as if it were the way things are supposed to be. The way things are supposed to be is a combination of what the law says and what the terms and conditions of service say. Nothing else.


----------



## Zysu28 (Jul 29, 2009)

Again, sorry. Just looking for help...not confrontations.


----------



## StanSimmons (Jun 10, 2000)

There are ways to get around the CCI byte on a TiVoHD/Series 3.

The first step is to break the "chain of trust" by changing the boot prom on the mainboard. This requires some surface mount soldering skills. Once that is done, it is fairly simple to replace the linux kernel and modify the tivoapp program to ignore the CCI byte.

The details on how to do this are not open for discussion on this board. You must google search for "deals freebies tivo" and do a little research on the board you find with that search.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Stan a hack that begins with replacing a chip that's soldered to the motherboard and includes having to re-hack everytime tivo updates the software (at least twice and probably 4 times a year) is beyond most customers. Probably beyond what the OP is looking to do.

Getting a PC based solution, either instead of tivo or with tivo, that can be used in a way that ignores CCI is probably the best way to go.


----------



## valkyriesound (Jul 22, 2008)

Hi folks:

I'm just catching up to this debate... I have a Tivo HD with TWC
and when I hooked up my old Series 2 I realized the MRV was off.

Can the folks who have written a good complaint letter to TWC
share their letter here? I'm not quite sure how to phrase what I
want them to do (get my MRV back) and the issues surrounding
this to communicate my displeasure appropriately. A form letter people
can use would be helpful.

Also how do I find out my TWC franchise to send a letter to?
I'm in Culver City, CA 90230

I'd love to see the responses anyone has gotten from TWC on this issue.

I've LOVE to find another service provider but I live in a condo
unit and the HOA got TWC and I have NO other options.
Over the air is impossible in this area of LA, the HOA will
not let me have a dish. I'm stuck. I believe in voting with my $
but that doesn't help when TWC has a monopoly.

Thanks!


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Zysu28 said:


> But who do i complain to when I call since the firstline folks don't know anything about this stuff.
> Thanks all for the help!


Unless you can get them to hand you up to someone who knows something about CCI bytes, it might be best to write to them and your local franchise authority, as some people have gotten action that way. I'm not sure what exact channel you're having trouble with, but it's come up on another thread that the cable companies DO consider at least MLB Extra Innings to be pay-per-view, meaning that they can set "copy never" on the channel. If that's the case here, then you can still ask, but they'd have no obligation to change the flag, and your franchise authority wouldn't have any power to make them change it either, so you may be stuck with it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I think dburns really hit the nail on the head, valkyriesound: Cancel your service, and tell the person handling your cancellation why.


----------



## StanSimmons (Jun 10, 2000)

lew said:


> Stan a hack that begins with replacing a chip that's soldered to the motherboard and includes having to re-hack everytime tivo updates the software (at least twice and probably 4 times a year) is beyond most customers. Probably beyond what the OP is looking to do.
> 
> Getting a PC based solution, either instead of tivo or with tivo, that can be used in a way that ignores CCI is probably the best way to go.


Yep, beyond most... but still doable, especially if you know someone with a SMT rework station.

Once the initial hack is done, I don't let mine upgrade themselves until I'm ready for them to upgrade. The upgrade and re-hack take about 15 minutes and doesn't require pulling the drive out of the TiVoHD.

That said, a PC based solution (while more expensive) is going to be much easier for a non-technical person to setup.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Hey bicker, I'm surprised you didn't correct this part of the post.



valkyriesound said:


> Hi folks:
> 
> I'm just catching up to this debate... I have a Tivo HD with TWC
> and when I hooked up my old Series 2 I realized the MRV was off.
> ...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Yipes. I missed it. 

TWC doesn't have a monopoly.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Also, can an HOA actually prevent you from having a dish? I thought it had been settled that rules preventing one from having an antenna or dish were unenforceable?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

OTARD prohibits HOAs from prohibiting dishes; they can impose reasonable limitations (such as "no breaching the masonry or siding" -- i.e., using only existing conduits) that could make it very difficult, if not impossible, for some unit owners for capitalize on satellite services. That's why I was very sure when I moved here to ensure that my unit had limited-common space with a southwestern exposure. We each make our own choices, about where we live, about what technologies we prefer, etc. We are responsible for the ramifications of those decisions, not satellite service providers.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

I'll be looking for a new house soon - I'll have to keep that in mind!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Zysu28 said:


> Again, sorry. Just looking for help...not confrontations.


Complain to your local cable franchise authority and the FCC.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I'll be looking for a new house soon - I'll have to keep that in mind!


There's two in my neighborhood. Both have unblocked views of the SW. And both will have FIOS TV in the beginning of next year. If you're interested, let me know. 

When I bought my previous two houses, I did bring a compass and checked for LOS. I rejected two other houses because they didn't have LOS.

When I got married, I moved into my wife's smaller apartment and not vice versa because hers had clear LOS to DirecTV and mine didn't.

Did I mention how much I hate TWC?


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

bicker said:


> OTARD prohibits HOAs from prohibiting dishes; they can impose reasonable limitations (such as "no breaching the masonry or siding" -- i.e., using only existing conduits) that could make it very difficult, if not impossible, for some unit owners for capitalize on satellite services.


HOAs can play hard to get, but you can get creative and win sometimes. For example, they can prohibit you to put antenna on the roof because it is common area, but they can not prohibit you to install the antenna within a perimeter of your balcony. So when my mom needed antenna to go on the roof because her unit faces north, I went to HOA and told them that she can install the "ugly" antenna on a balcony and there is nothing they can do about it (bluff, there was no LOS on her balcony) or they can make an exception and let her install it on the roof. Guess what. They thanked me for being so considerate of the community and going to extra expense of installing antenna on the roof.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Great story. I wonder if there is a way for the folks who have a North-facing deck, to put in a flowerpot anchored dish with a pole three stories high... that'll be quite an eye sore, but it'll put the dish with LOS to the satellite! 

I think a better solution would be for the satellite companies to put up more satellites (a regulation comparable _in effect_ to the rules that require cable companies to serve every home in a town): With satellites over the Atlantic and over the Pacific, wouldn't that give folks a shot at reception with an exposure anywhere within a 270 degree range?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> Great story. I wonder if there is a way for the folks who have a North-facing deck, to put in a flowerpot anchored dish with a pole three stories high... that'll be quite an eye sore, but it'll put the dish with LOS to the satellite!
> 
> I think a better solution would be for the satellite companies to put up more satellites (a regulation comparable _in effect_ to the rules that require cable companies to serve every home in a town): With satellites over the Atlantic and over the Pacific, wouldn't that give folks a shot at reception with an exposure anywhere within a 270 degree range?


Dish already has the "Eastern Arc".

Satellites don't exactly grow on trees for free! I don't think it's feasible to put up tons of satellites in a geostationary orbit. They'd go broke first. And because they have to be in that orbit, they are only going to be in certain places in the local sky. So it won't help much anyway.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Agreed. My suggestion was unreasonable.


----------



## valkyriesound (Jul 22, 2008)

1. No, I can't just cancel TWC- then I wouldn't have TV
2. I'm not allowed by my HOA to put a dish on the balcony (it would not have a line of sight anyway)
3. The HOA just got TWC last fall and one of the main reasons was they didn't want any dishes on the roof anymore. They've made it impossible to get a dish:
Crazy "roof pad" dimensions that have to be perfect
Requirement that dish installer bring 3 story ladder (they won't give them proper roof access)
The cable drop to my unit as to be beige in color- coax does not come in that color and who am I going to pay to paint it with a 3 story ladder anyway?
The HOA takes part of my $350 per month HOA bill to pay for TWC cable- if I got a dish I'd just be paying for TV twice.

What can I say? The situation is ridiculous! It took me months to get TWC to admit they have to provide me with a cablecard!

Anyone got that letter?


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> The cable drop to my unit as to be beige in color- coax does not come in that color and who am I going to pay to paint it with a 3 story ladder anyway?


Will Ivory be close enough to beige? Don't give up on satellite because of stupid HOA. DirecTV or Dish may not want to mess with 3 story install, but check with independent contractors. Now days they are hungry enough to do special installs. Good luck.


----------



## Gavroche (May 27, 2007)

fallingwater said:


> Recording a Premium Channel on TiVo works normally. MRV to other TiVos is blocked.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16555005#post16555005


Not so fast. I'm in the San Francisco Bar Area and have Comcast. In my case, you can transfer premium content (i.e. HBO) from a series 2 Tivo to another Tivo, but the same is not true on my Series 3 with Cable Cards. On my series 3, any program recorded from premium channels, such as HBO, can not be transferred. Furthermore, there is some premium content which you can not even record at all (on the series 3). Attempting to do so will simply give a message stating that the content can not be recorded due to copy protection.

Just FYI.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

valkyriesound said:


> 1. No, I can't just cancel TWC- then I wouldn't have TV


That one of those hard choices. Effectively, what you're saying, is that living in that HOA + TWC cable service is the best choice for you. You should feel confident in the choices you've made.



valkyriesound said:


> 2. I'm not allowed by my HOA to put a dish on the balcony (it would not have a line of sight anyway)


The points earlier were that (2a) You are allowed to put a dish on the balcony. Federal law explicitly gives you that right, and prohibits the HOA from abridging that right. They can place reasonable limitations in place, but that cannot ban dishes.

The line-of-sight issue is the overriding consideration here, and that's a reflection of the place you've chosen to live. I respect your choice in that matter, and am sorry that your choice in that matter has effectively limited your other options.



valkyriesound said:


> 3. ...


Do note that if any of those conditions were truly unreasonable, you could have them set aside, if you felt that challenging them was the best use of your resources. That's also completely your choice, and again you should feel comfortable in the choices you're making for yourself in this regard.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

valkyriesound said:


> .........The situation is ridiculous! ......


I agree, and you have my sympathy as a fellow TWC user with no other *practical* choice.

I hope *bicker*'s sage counsel will give you comfort and help you develop confidence in your choices! Actually I think he is correct, in an irritating sort of way.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

:up:


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Great story. I wonder if there is a way for the folks who have a North-facing deck, to put in a flowerpot anchored dish with a pole three stories high... that'll be quite an eye sore, but it'll put the dish with LOS to the satellite!
> 
> I think a better solution would be for the satellite companies to put up more satellites (a regulation comparable _in effect_ to the rules that require cable companies to serve every home in a town): With satellites over the Atlantic and over the Pacific, wouldn't that give folks a shot at reception with an exposure anywhere within a 270 degree range?


actually there's a development by me with several peopel running huge poles up from their balconies so they can get LOS over the building. You frequently dont even need to be over the peak of the roof- many times a roof will be sloped low enough that just being a fraction of the way up will give you clear LOS over the peak.

interesting idea you have about forcing the DBS companies to duplicate (or triple) their infrastructure to give consumers more options. I guess their argument would be similar to cables- that they try their best to reasonable accomadate everyone but they can't get 100% coverage- sort of like cable typically says their needs to be X houses per mile on a street before they agree to run a line. But who knows- maybe such a regulation is the answer.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I'm not saying that it is right to force them to do so, but rather wanted to draw the comparison you posited -- that that's exactly the kind of thing people ridiculously (IMHO) expect from cable companies.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I'm not saying that it is right to force them to do so, but rather wanted to draw the comparison you posited -- that that's exactly the kind of thing people ridiculously (IMHO) expect from cable companies.


actually thinking about it some more- I beleive the FCC did actually require Directv and Dish to reengineer their later generation satellites to ensure they covered Alaska and hawaii and not just the contiguous 48.

Like anything else the government has to balance the costs of new regulations to the benefits.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> actually there's a development by me with several peopel running huge poles up from their balconies so they can get LOS over the building. You frequently dont even need to be over the peak of the roof- many times a roof will be sloped low enough that just being a fraction of the way up will give you clear LOS over the peak.


Compliments of thereifixedit.com:


----------



## JasonRossSmith (Jul 21, 2005)

God I'm glad I don't have cable....


----------

