# Campaign for TW to get rid of CCI Byte issue



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

I'm hoping that if enough of us complain to Time Warner Cable about their stupid use of the CCI Byte (setting it to 0x02 for practically all channels except for local broadcast, PPV, HBO/SHOW, etc.)

Step #1:

Using this link from the Consumerist (http://consumerist.com/5076294/reach-time-warner-cable-executive-customer-service), I found an email address for Time Warner. Send an email to: 
[email protected]

Arguments I used:

a) I can copy freely the analog channels (in my case channels 2-78) on my Tivo Series 2, but if I have a Cable Card, TW has decided I can no longer do that.

b) TW setting of CCI byte 0x02 for all channels (again, non broadcast local, PPV, etc.) is a violation of the Cable in the Classroom (CiC) guidelines

c) other cable companies such as Comcast, and Verizon FIOS TV do not set the CCI byte for the same set of channels.

Step #2:
Contact CiC and let them know that TW Cable is not allowing for fair use and restricting the ability to transfer the same content.

Use this URL:

http://www.ciconline.org/contactcic

Step #3:
Contact Tivo and ask them to also intervene and contact your local cable provider. Although I was informed that TW policy is a Corporate policy set for ALL Time Warner offices.

Step #4:
(IMO, this one is fairly useless), file a complaint with the FCC. In my case all I got was an email with a 2 page PDF that explained how a cable card is inserted into a TV and sits between the Cable provider and the TV.

Hopefully if we all start complaining and emailing they may actually do something. (it never hurts, right)?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Like you say, it can't hurt!

Can you elaborate on the cable in the classroom issue? I'd hate to be caught complaining about something about which I know nothing!

Also, expand on the "not allowing fair use" issue, please.

Also, to others who participate in this:

Don't just copy what the OP said in your complaint. Put it in your own words -- at least that's what I think would be best. Who knows, maybe all they do is count them (?). I guess again the logic is: it can't hurt.


----------



## Andyistic (Sep 25, 2009)

This should be a sticky until TW complies with our wishes.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Like you say, it can't hurt!
> 
> Can you elaborate on the cable in the classroom issue? I'd hate to be caught complaining about something about which I know nothing!
> 
> ...


"Cable in the Classroom " is a program that was developed by the national education foundation of the US cable industry ironically. What they do is certain shows of educational value are periodically transmitted with no commercials so that an educator can record them and use them for course content in the classroom.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Fair-use is difficult because it is really only a defense against claims against you rather than a 'right' for you. You can't make someone grant you copy access but you can defend yourself.

Not saying there aren't other legal or license issues in play here that you can use.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ah30k is correct. Fair Use is not applicable. It doesn't grant anyone the right to anything. It simply allows reuse of copyrighted material for scholarly review or commentary. Even a PhD writing a sociological paper on something cannot use Fair Use to gain access to anything; it only lets them use what they already have access to.

The solution to this is strictly commercial: Folks need to demonstrate to the company that making this change will be more profitable than not making this change. There surely aren't enough TiVo owners who are TWC customers to be a convincing number to convince anyone of anything. This really needs to be a much larger and broader effort, or it will just be a waste of time and energy. You need to make contact with literally millions of TWC customers, and *get them to care about this issue enough* (that "enough" part is essential) to have thousands of them take action in response, such as canceling service or reducing service to basic. That will register as a significant event, in TWC's book, and will motivate them to consider your concerns seriously.

Best of luck.


----------



## bhoch99 (Jan 21, 2003)

I did Step 3 in September 2008. I emailed TivoStephen, who claimed that they would "bring it up with Time Warner and request they change it." I haven't heard anything since. I made the point to TivoStephen that I would gladly buy a second Tivo box for my home if I could have the ability to use MRV, so theoretically, there is economic incentive for Tivo to do this.

In addition to making the "Cable in the Classroom" argument against TWC, a case can also be made for Public Access. I produce a daily public access program that also has the CCI byte set incorrectly. As the producer of the program, I should have the right to set that byte as I choose, but Time Warner doesn't give producers the option.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> ah30k is correct. Fair Use is not applicable. It doesn't grant anyone the right to anything. It simply allows reuse of copyrighted material for scholarly review or commentary. Even a PhD writing a sociological paper on something cannot use Fair Use to gain access to anything; it only lets them use what they already have access to.
> 
> The solution to this is strictly commercial: Folks need to demonstrate to the company that making this change will be more profitable than not making this change. There surely aren't enough TiVo owners who are TWC customers to be a convincing number to convince anyone of anything. This really needs to be a much larger and broader effort, or it will just be a waste of time and energy. You need to make contact with literally millions of TWC customers, and *get them to care about this issue enough* (that "enough" part is essential) to have thousands of them take action in response, such as canceling service or reducing service to basic. That will register as a significant event, in TWC's book, and will motivate them to consider your concerns seriously.
> 
> Best of luck.


You tell us our idea is next to hopeless than wish us "Best of luck" ! 

Unfortunately, I believe your statements are correct.

However the effort required is minimal and again: what can it hurt?

I'm not comfortable referencing the CiC issue in my complaints, however. How CCI impacts this is still not clear to me.

And the Fair Use idea seems a non-starter to me.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Dear Time Warner,

This email is to complain about your setting the CCI byte to 0x02 (copy one generation) on all your digital cable channels except local broadcasts.

I am a digital cable subscriber in Time Warner Southwest Ohio and I am also a TiVo user. This copy protection disables TiVo's "Multi-Room Viewing" (MRV) feature, by which recorded programs may be transferred from one TiVo to another across a local home network. This feature is of great utility and importance to many TiVo users. Since it only works across a local network and with another TiVo, it cannot be used to widely distribute copies of recorded programs.

Your protection of all these channels not only disables the TiVo MRV functionality but is inconsistent and arbitrary as follows:

1. Other major cable delivery services (e.g., Verizon FIOS and Comcast) do not protect these same channels.

2. These same channels are not protected in their analog versions even on your systems.

It is my understanding that, although you are legally allowed to apply this protection, it is not legally required unless the content copyright holder specifically requests it. Given that other digital cable providers are not protecting this same content, it follows that such protection apparently is not being requested.

I hope you will give this complaint serious consideration and look forward to your reply.

Thank you,

<signature block>


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Posters need to complain to tivo. Some cable DVRs will stream programs to regular STB. Tivo may need to either implement a streaming or a "move" solution for shows have the CCI byte set to 0x01 or 0x02. 

Alternately tivo could lobby for a change to the CCI rules. Require the cable provider flag all shows as 0x00 unless directed to do differently by the content owner. I don't think tivo has much of a shot but they could try. Remember a number of the extended basic channels are owned, at least in part, by one or more cable providers. This solution may not be worth that much.

I think tivo has a better (but still small shot) of either getting the CCI rules changed then customers have of convincing TW to change their policy. Tivo also has the ability to come up with a MRV solution that complies with CCI rules.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Dear Time Warner,
> 
> This email is to complain about your setting the CCI byte to 0x02 (copy one generation) on all your digital cable channels except local broadcasts.
> 
> ...


So here is the initial response:


> Dear Mr. <surname>,
> 
> Thank you for writing us. You have reached the Office of the President for Time Warner Cable. I apologize for any inconvenience or frustration you have encountered.
> 
> ...


Very nice and diplomatic. We will see where it leads. Any discussions with a TWC "local employee" may be complicated by the fact that I only have one TiVo (thus MRV isn't really an issue to me -- rather TTG is what I really care about). I didn't lie about this in my email and I don't intend to lie about it, although I won't volunteer the info unless necessary.

The thought occurs to me it would be good to get another complaint email in to them from someone in the Southwest Ohio area who *does* use MRV. Then we can try to direct the first contact with the "local employee" to them.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

What about things like cspan. Wouldn't the government also want their content to not be blocked in this manner? If that is so, and I don't know if it is, then complaints to cspan and to congress directly might also make some sense. I would think the local congress critter would want teachers to be able to burn a DVD of an interesting debate or congressional hearing to take into the classroom if they so desired. In TWC areas, this is now not possible.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

CuriousMark said:


> What about things like cspan. Wouldn't the government also want their content to not be blocked in this manner? If that is so, and I don't know if it is, then complaints to cspan and to congress directly might also make some sense. I would think the local congress critter would want teachers to be able to burn a DVD of an interesting debate or congressional hearing to take into the classroom if they so desired. In TWC areas, this is now not possible.


Strangely, CSPAN-1 and -3 are copy protected on my system but not CSPAN-2. 

This suits me fine since CSPAN-2 has by far the most stuff that is interesting to me. I've been reluctant to raise the issue of -1 and -3 since I suspect the lack of copy protection on -2 is an accident, and if I rock the boat it might result in all 3 being protected!

I don't know what the legal aspects are, actually.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> You tell us our idea is next to hopeless than wish us "Best of luck" !
> 
> Unfortunately, I believe your statements are correct.
> 
> ...


CiC is impacted by CCI this way. Say discovery Channel is airing a 1 hour program on lets say "The Pyramids". If the CCI flag was set to allow MRV The a high school could have a THD and a video server (for long term storage) set up in the AV room to record these programs without commercials (remember it for CiC so no commercials) and the program would be about 45 minutes long (good for a single class hour) The afternoon before the Pyramid class comes up in World History, the teacher could check out a THD from the AV dept and set it up in the classroom and MRV to that machine for use the next day.

Because the CCI flag is set to not allow copies this cannot be done. The simplest and easiest thing they can do now is use a VHS VCR and record it on that and keep the tape. I suppose they could then use a video capture program to record it on a computer in a Tivo friendly format and then store it on a video server, but that adds to the complexities and decrease the resolution. Also keep in mind that most of the CiC programing is aired in the middle of the night (when the ad pricing is lowest anyway) so you would need to have someone up changing tapes etc for the manual process... a DVR would be PERFECT tool for recording CiC.

And remember CiC was instituted by the cable industry to enhance the education system of America by giving teachers and students access to high quality educational programing without commercials specifically so the shows could be recorded and used in the classroom. Its kind of ironic that the cable industry is making something easier and beneficial and at the same time making it less convenient.

As far as the fair use idea... Fair use is a defense for a claim of infringement not something to force a change in how something is done. In other words, IF you find a way around the CCI flag and an infringement suit were filed, you could make a fair use claim that it was for educational purposes, and in this instance, it seems to me like you could probably prevail and not have to pay a fine. Fair use does not mean they have to make it easy for you to do something.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

dlfl said:


> So here is the initial response:
> 
> Very nice and diplomatic. We will see where it leads. Any discussions with a TWC "local employee" may be complicated by the fact that I only have one TiVo (thus MRV isn't really an issue to me -- rather TTG is what I really care about). I didn't lie about this in my email and I don't intend to lie about it, although I won't volunteer the info unless necessary.
> 
> The thought occurs to me it would be good to get another complaint email in to them from someone in the Southwest Ohio area who *does* use MRV. Then we can try to direct the first contact with the "local employee" to them.


You'll have to claim TW current usage of the CCI byte is what's stopping you from purchasing a second tivo.

I don't think you'll get much support if you mention TTG. I suspect content providers would prefer we buy DVDs of old shows rather then "archive" to DVD.

I still think tivo is the company to direct your complaints. Tivo has more motivation to try to work with tivo customers then your cable company.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

I must be out of touch. Do schools have multiple tivo's, video servers and the necessary wiring/wireless to do it? 

Asking Discovery channel for educational pricing for a DVD of the Pyramid show seems a lot easier. Using a DVD recorder to record the show directly to DVD also makes more sense.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Strangely, CSPAN-1 and -3 are copy protected on my system but not CSPAN-2.
> 
> This suits me fine since CSPAN-2 has by far the most stuff that is interesting to me. I've been reluctant to raise the issue of -1 and -3 since I suspect the lack of copy protection on -2 is an accident, and if I rock the boat it might result in all 3 being protected!
> 
> I don't know what the legal aspects are, actually.


IIRC the ONLY channels that can't be CCI'd are the locals all others are fair game.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lew said:


> I must be out of touch. Do schools have multiple tivo's, video servers and the necessary wiring/wireless to do it?
> 
> Asking Discovery channel for educational pricing for a DVD of the Pyramid show seems a lot easier. Using a DVD recorder to record the show directly to DVD also makes more sense.


Yeah, that was pretty much my reaction too. I can't get excited about pushing CiC as a basis for CCI complaints, although I certainly appreciate *JWThiers'*s excellent discussion of it.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lew said:


> I must be out of touch. Do schools have multiple tivo's, video servers and the necessary wiring/wireless to do it?
> 
> Asking Discovery channel for educational pricing for a DVD of the Pyramid show seems a lot easier. Using a DVD recorder to record the show directly to DVD also makes more sense.


Many grammar schools are now getting internet access into the class room so yes things are changing an Tivo could be a reasonable upgrade if content were made available.

I used discovery as an example, they happen to also sell DVD's, I have seen some shows in the past that do NOT sell their shows in that way. And not ALL shows are available even on Discovery.

Yes a DVD recorder would probably be as easy as a VCR but the school is more likely to have a VCR. Do you want to have someone sitting up between 2 and 6 am to swap dvd's or tapes every hour.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Yeah, that was pretty much my reaction too. I can't get excited about pushing CiC as a basis for CCI complaints, although I certainly appreciate *JWThiers'*s excellent discussion of it.


You asked how CiC is affected by CCI, not if it was a real problem NOW. IF CCI were fixed to allow this multiple tivo's and video servers could be more common place.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> You tell us our idea is next to hopeless than wish us "Best of luck" !
> 
> Unfortunately, I believe your statements are correct.


Hence, my tag line. 



dlfl said:


> what can it hurt?


The most significant form of harm is the fostering of unfounded expectations on the part of folks who don't pay attention enough to come to understand the low probability. That sort of thing could lead to folks being needlessly surprised when their efforts don't lead to what they may have been led to believe they would. Better for it to be clear what the chances are; and if it works, then everyone is head-over-heals delighted.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> As far as the fair use idea... Fair use is a defense for a claim of infringement not something to force a change in how something is done. In other words, IF you find a way around the CCI flag and an infringement suit were filed, you could make a fair use claim that it was for educational purposes...


Just to be clear: "Finding a way around the CCI flag" can, *itself*, be a violation of the law. Rather, the issue is that they CCI flag concern must go away (i.e., by having the flag no longer applied by the distributor, or by TiVo reimplementing its handling of Copy Once).



JWThiers said:


> Fair use does not mean they have to make it *easy* for you to do something.


Or even *possible*.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> The most significant form of harm is the fostering of unfounded expectations on the part of folks who don't pay attention enough to come to understand the low probability. That sort of thing could lead to folks being needlessly surprised when their efforts don't lead to what they may have been led to believe they would. Better for it to be clear what the chances are; and if it works, then everyone is head-over-heals delighted.


I think your initial (correct, I think) post should prevent anyone reading this thread from having unfounded expectations. I'm hoping (but not expecting) to be "head-over-heals delighted".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I think your initial (correct, I think) post should prevent anyone reading this thread from having unfounded expectations.


Super! :up:



dlfl said:


> I'm hoping (but not expecting) to be "head-over-heals delighted".


That would be _wonderful!_


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Just to be clear: "Finding a way around the CCI flag" can, *itself*, be a violation of the law. Rather, the issue is that they CCI flag concern must go away (i.e., by having the flag no longer applied by the distributor, or by TiVo reimplementing its handling of Copy Once).


It would depend on how you get around the flag. For example, if you exploit the analog loophole, make an analog version either using a VCR or DVD recoder and re-encode it to digital and put it on a media server. Time consuming, yes. In the case of CiC where they are encouraging students and teachers to record the show, would it be illegal?



bicker said:


> Or even *possible*.


Agreed.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I wouldn't consider downgrading the signal to analog to really be finding away around the CCI flag... you're not making a digital copy, which is all the CCI flag is for. There aren't any legal problems with that approach.


----------



## skaggs (Feb 13, 2003)

A member of the AlbanyHDTV.com webiste has posted that he has successfully negotiated with Albany TWC to reduce the CCI Byte on all channels except premiums and PPV. Check it out here:
http://albanyhdtv.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=boxes&action=display&thread=3221&page=1


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

skaggs said:


> A member of the AlbanyHDTV.com webiste has posted that he has successfully negotiated with Albany TWC to reduce the CCI Byte on all channels except premiums and PPV. Check it out here:
> http://albanyhdtv.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=boxes&action=display&thread=3221&page=1


All right! Anyone emailing TWC should include this in their ammunition!


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

m_jonis said:


> I'm hoping that if enough of us complain to Time Warner Cable about their stupid use of the CCI Byte (setting it to 0x02 for practically all channels except for local broadcast, PPV, HBO/SHOW, etc.)
> 
> Step #1:
> 
> ...


I have used that link & complained on serveral occasions. Verizon FIOS isn't available to the area I am. Yet a mile away it is. Verizon IS coming to our area within the next year though. So I also included the fact that they are & simply told them that I would be switching to Verizon FIOS.

As their are other advantages to switching to Verizon than just no CCI flag. Faster internet (50/20 versus 20/2 that I get now.) An additional 40 HD channels that we currently don't get now. Including HDNET that TWC dropped!

So if you know Verizon FIOS is coming to your area (Then TWC will know it too) just simply mention that unless their service improves you will be switching as well.

TGC


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

bicker said:


> I wouldn't consider downgrading the signal to analog to really be finding away around the CCI flag... you're not making a digital copy, which is all the CCI flag is for. There aren't any legal problems with that approach.


 Technically CCI byte also has certain bits (bits 2 & 3) devoted to analog copying as well and thus covers analog copies as well. See DFAST document for details (starting page 20).
So far though I have not seen these bits set by any cable company including TW so looks like their interest is purely in preventing digital copies.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> I wouldn't consider downgrading the signal to analog to really be finding away around the CCI flag... you're not making a digital copy, which is all the CCI flag is for. There aren't any legal problems with that approach.


I would consider it a way around as opposed to thru it. Like finding a way to change the flag. Say you were testing the security of the CCI flag you could probably legally try to do, where you would run afoul of anything is if you tried to distribute directions on how to do it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

TexasGrillChef said:


> ........So if you know Verizon FIOS is coming to your area (Then TWC will know it too) just simply mention that unless their service improves you will be switching as well.
> 
> TGC


For Southwest Ohio, at least around Cincinnati, a new fiber optic video delivery service is actually being rolled out: Cincinnati Bell's FiOptic. Only one TiVo customer just got this and is posting. It's unclear what the CCI status of this will be at this time. I'm sure TWC knows about this -- or they have their head in the sand.

We need to follow progress in the linked thread  and if it turns out to not be copy protected: More ammunition!


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

Well, dip me in poo, roll me in nuts, and call me a baby ruth (my father used to say that)

I got a call from our local TW office today.

They have gotten the OK from Corporate to "reverse" the CCI bytes. They are going to (starting next week) go through all the channels and set them to copy freely (except of course, PPV, VOD, and the usual suspects with contractual obligations like HBO, SHO, etc.)

Here's hoping by next Friday I've got more news that it's actually been done!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

moyekj said:


> Technically CCI byte also has certain bits (bits 2 & 3) devoted to analog copying as well and thus covers analog copies as well. See DFAST document for details (starting page 20).
> So far though I have not seen these bits set by any cable company including TW so looks like their interest is purely in preventing digital copies.


Interesting bit of trivia. Thanks. I'll tuck that one away.



JWThiers said:


> I would consider it a way around as opposed to thru it. Like finding a way to change the flag. Say you were testing the security of the CCI flag you could probably legally try to do, where you would run afoul of anything is if you tried to distribute directions on how to do it.


As indicated by moyekj, there are separate bits of the CCI flag that would restrict analog copies. As long as they're not set, then effectively analog copies are no prohibited.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

m_jonis said:


> Well, dip me in poo, roll me in nuts, and call me a baby ruth (my father used to say that)
> 
> I got a call from our local TW office today.
> 
> ...


Congratulations Baby Ruth!

I hope this, and the Albany NY victory, are the start of an avalanche!

What TWC service region are you in? (Please don't say Albany NY )


----------



## f1.fan.newyork (Nov 30, 2008)

I just sent an email to twcable address above, giving my real email and contact info. I hope this helps. I really feel for all those users who are stuck like this with no other choice of provider. I'm not a TWC customer. In fact the reason I'm not is exactly because of the CCI flag issue. I'm "lucky" enough to be able to go with RCN in New York City. No SDV issues, no CCI problems, can multi-room to my hearts content including HBO etc. I know the cable companies figure the people who have Tivo and have this problem represent 0.01% of their customers, but they should also realize it's people like us that all the non-geeks ask for advice and recommendations. 

Also if I were stuck with TWC and the CCI issue I'm pretty sure I'd download many shows via torrent instead of recording them, but then push them back to my tivo's using pytivox. Not ideal but it works with MRV at least.


----------



## skaggs (Feb 13, 2003)

m_jonis is a TWC subscriber in the Albany, NY area.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

m_jonis said:


> Step #2:
> Contact CiC and let them know that TW Cable is not allowing for fair use and restricting the ability to transfer the same content.


I haven't read the whole thread, but unless you're a teacher, I don't think this really has much merit.

If you read the disclaimers before/after cable in the classroom airings, they say it's intended for teachers, and say it MUST BE ERASED after some specified date.

Though yeah, I used to go trolling around ~6AM on various channels to find the 'CLASS' airings of shows.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

I ended up on the phone with a guy from TWC National Cable Card Support due to a problem I had with my Tuning Adapter.

He was competent and friendly. After he fixed my problem, I took the opportunity to ask him if he knew anything about the CCI Byte protection issue. I told him about the campaign (this thread) and he said "Aha, that's why your name sounded familiar!". He said they (Cable Card Support) had been doing technical research on the issue the last day or so and were now waiting for further guidance from headquarters (who presumably are looking at the business and legal aspects). He confirmed that it has been national policy and then I mentioned that I heard TWC Albany was already unprotecting their system. He said he had heard about that but did not know if it was really happening.

The scary thought I have is that the head office, after rehashing the issue, may decide to stick to the orignal national policy and then instruct Albany to revert to copy protection.

*SO NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO GET THOSE EMAILS IN GUYS !!!!*


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Feedback (even from a small group) can have impacts. I remember when the serial port control got turned off the Verizon STBs and people complained. They ended up turning it back on.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dlfl said:


> So here is the initial response:
> 
> Very nice and diplomatic. We will see where it leads. Any discussions with a TWC "local employee" may be complicated by the fact that I only have one TiVo (thus MRV isn't really an issue to me -- rather TTG is what I really care about). I didn't lie about this in my email and I don't intend to lie about it, although I won't volunteer the info unless necessary.
> 
> The thought occurs to me it would be good to get another complaint email in to them from someone in the Southwest Ohio area who *does* use MRV. Then we can try to direct the first contact with the "local employee" to them.


I sent them an e-mail paraphrasing some of what the OP said in the original post and got a call the next day from TW. They were at my house waiting for me when i got home to look at the TiVo.

When he arrived I demonstrated the issue by showing the tech what was happening, showed him where the CCI byte was displayed, and how to get to it. Coincidentally my Tuning adapter had failed that day during a power outage, so the tech wants to correct that before moving on to the CCI issue.

I admit I didn't read the entire thread before sending my e-mail, the contents of which follows:



> Dear Sir or Madam,
> 
> I can copy freely the analog and digital channels on my Tivo Series 2, but if I have a Cable Card, TW has decided I can no longer do that. I am restricted from copying my digital channels to other devices(Tivos) in my home. TW setting of CCI byte 0x02 for these channels is a violation of the Cable in the Classroom (CiC) guidelines. Also, other cable companies such as Comcast, and Verizon FIOS TV do not set the CCI byte for the same set of channels.
> 
> I am interested in continuing using TWC as my service and while my municipality is currently looking in to municipal internet and cable service I'd prefer to to stay with a company I know. Don't make me switch.


I'm lucky as my town IS looking at becoming a cable and Internet provider.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Tech was back today(Next day) with Three tuning adapters. All three failed on arrival. Something the head end is doing to deactivate them. No idea when he will return.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Just to be clear: "Finding a way around the CCI flag" can, *itself*, be a violation of the law. Rather, the issue is that they CCI flag concern must go away (i.e., by having the flag no longer applied by the distributor, or by TiVo reimplementing its handling of Copy Once).
> 
> Or even *possible*.


I think streaming the content to another TiVo such that no full copy of the entire show is ever present on the second Tivo would meet the CCI requirement.
Now whether TiVo will find other issues in streaming such as a high resolution HD recording just not working as a stream - is another matter


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

dlfl said:


> So here is the initial response:
> 
> Very nice and diplomatic. We will see where it leads. Any discussions with a TWC "local employee" may be complicated by the fact that I only have one TiVo (thus MRV isn't really an issue to me -- rather TTG is what I really care about). I didn't lie about this in my email and I don't intend to lie about it, although I won't volunteer the info unless necessary.
> 
> The thought occurs to me it would be good to get another complaint email in to them from someone in the Southwest Ohio area who *does* use MRV. Then we can try to direct the first contact with the "local employee" to them.


I would love to complain about this as I hate the CCI bug, but I only have 1 S3 and 1 S2. The S3 can transfer everything from the S2, but the S2 cannot currently see the S3 at all due to a Tivo problem. I can't complain to TW when my problem at least is with Tivo. If Tivo fixes its side of the problem, I would be glad to e-mail TW.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> I sent them an e-mail paraphrasing some of what the OP said in the original post and got a call the next day from TW. They were at my house waiting for me when i got home to look at the TiVo.
> .............


What is your location?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Tech was back today(Next day) with Three tuning adapters. All three failed on arrival. Something the head end is doing to deactivate them. No idea when he will return.


You might want to post in the Time Warner TA thread and my recent post there could be pertinent to your problem


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

realityboy said:


> I would love to complain about this as I hate the CCI bug, but I only have 1 S3 and 1 S2. The S3 can transfer everything from the S2, but the S2 cannot currently see the S3 at all due to a Tivo problem. I can't complain to TW when my problem at least is with Tivo. If Tivo fixes its side of the problem, I would be glad to e-mail TW.


Don't let that stop you!  I don't MRV either. Just a few minutes emailing to them will add to the weight of our campaign! (You have no interest in TTG?)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> > Or even possible.
> 
> 
> I think streaming the content to another TiVo such that no full copy of the entire show is ever present on the second Tivo would meet the CCI requirement.


Yes... by "possible" I meant "possible for the end-user without TiVo changing their implementation."


----------



## [NG]Owner (Dec 19, 2006)

I added my voice to the noise....

[NG]Owner


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dlfl said:


> What is your location?


SC.


----------



## A J Ricaud (Jun 25, 2002)

[NG]Owner;7541568 said:


> I added my voice to the noise....
> 
> [NG]Owner


+1!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Tech activated a new TA and left it on my back porch for me to install. Cool. So I went to hook it up and discovered there is electric current running through the cable lines to that thing. Shocked the hell out of me.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

One other thing. Apparently the CCI byte thing has triggered a major discussion and he said it's way above his head at this point. BTW, I didn't ask him, he volunteered that info.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> One other thing. Apparently the CCI byte thing has triggered a major discussion and he said it's way above his head at this point. BTW, I didn't ask him, he volunteered that info.


That seems consistent with what I reported in post #39 here.

BTW, I think you should ask TWC about the "shocking" voltage on your cable -- that can't be right can it? I know telco lines have about 50 volts on them but that would not "shock the hell" out of you.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

dlfl said:


> That seems consistent with what I reported in post #39 here.
> 
> BTW, I think you should ask TWC about the "shocking" voltage on your cable -- that can't be right can it? I know telco lines have about 50 volts on them but that would not "shock the hell" out of you.


You Are 100% right there should not be voltage on the cable. If you have a volt meter put it on there. It could be that the cable is not grounded properly.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

I've been shocked when I had Comcast. I had to ground my splitter. I guess that is why then have ground lugs on them


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

These analog channels are going away, at which time the S2 argument will be rendered moot. If the cable companies could put a copy flag on the S2, they would. 

However, it might be a good idea to see what the History Channel has to say about the cable in the classroom issue. If they're going to effectively give up commercials by pushing them to the end, they should get something for that.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Just to be clear it isn't only about Discovery or CiC, Its about who should be imposing the CCI flag. IMO the CCI flag should be set to copy freely unless the content owner specifically says it should be something else. Since the cable providers are also in the content business also it probably wont change much, but at least then its the copyrights holder that has the responsibility of protecting their content, not a third party.


----------



## DaveDFW (Jan 25, 2005)

I'm glad to see others have gotten some response on the cci byte issue with TWC. When I tried this a couple of years ago, I got absolutely nowhere--it was a total exercise in futility.

TTYL
David


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Just to be clear it isn't only about Discovery or CiC, Its about who should be imposing the CCI flag. IMO the CCI flag should be set to copy freely unless the content owner specifically says it should be something else.


There are a lot of laws and regulations that I disagree with too. I'm not sure that that really means very much though.


----------



## supersportsfan (Sep 15, 2005)

I am in on this campaign as well, as I just sent out my email. I am in the Time Warner SoCal coverage area. I'll let you know if/when I get a response.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> There are a lot of laws and regulations that I disagree with too. I'm not sure that that really means very much though.


I don't think it is a law or regulation, if it were then FiOS would also have to comply. It appears to depend entirely on the cable company and what their policy is. IMO if the CCI flag is intended to protect the content it should be up to the content owners to decide if/when/how their content is protected. If a network for whatever reason wants their content to be copy freely that should be their choice, not the cable companies. If they wanted it to be never copy they should be able to that also. The way it is now, depending on who your provider is, a channel may be set to copy freely to copy never, why is there a difference between discover on FiOS, Comcast, Brighthouse, ...? The content belongs to the copyright holder not the cable company. It is the copyrights holders responsibility to protect their copyrights.

I'm not against the idea of some kind of protection it is about who decides when to protect it. Then again for all any of us knows it is in the contract with the cable companies that all the content will be set to what it is.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I don't think it is a law or regulation...


The regulations absolutely *do *allow distributors to apply CCI flags.



JWThiers said:


> It appears to depend entirely on the cable company and what their policy is.


As per the law, which is what I was referring to laws and regulations that we disagree with but still have to accept. What I said, specifically, was that there are a lot of laws and regulations that I disagree with too, and that I'm not sure that our not liking laws or regulations that don't explicitly benefit us means very much. Laws and regulations typically reflect a balancing of various preferences: We viewers get some of what we want (i.e., no CCI flags on OTA content, and no "Copy Never" flags on non-premium cable content), and video distributors get some of what they want (i.e., the option to apply CCI flags other than those two exclusions).


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> The regulations absolutely *do *allow distributors to apply CCI flags.
> 
> As per the law, which is what I was referring to laws and regulations that we disagree with but still have to accept. What I said, specifically, was that there are a lot of laws and regulations that I disagree with too, and that I'm not sure that our not liking laws or regulations that don't explicitly benefit us means very much. Laws and regulations typically reflect a balancing of various preferences: We viewers get some of what we want (i.e., no CCI flags on OTA content, and no "Copy Never" flags on non-premium cable content), and video distributors get some of what they want (i.e., the option to apply CCI flags other than those two exclusions).


Its been a long time since I read exactly what the regulation said but I seem to recall that it was a bit fuzzy in that area. Yes they have the right to apply a flag, but who should decide what the flag should be set to? I don't disagree with the regulation, but as I recall it, it wasn't clear as to who decided what the flag should be. Since it is the networks content not the cable companies, one would think that a networks desire would take precedence over a cable company policy. If that is the case wouldn't it make sense to ask the networks how they wanted the flag set on their content?

If we really want to make an impact the cable company really aren't the only people to be complaining to. We should also be complaining to the content owners about how come there programing is being blocked from MRV. If we could convince a Discovery Channel that it is to their benefit they could then also put pressure on the cable companies to change the flag. After all ultimately it is their content. Could it work? I don't know but it couldn't hurt to try.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Its been a long time since I read exactly what the regulation said but I seem to recall that it was a bit fuzzy in that area.


There are a few threads where this was discussed and folks posted all the necessary citations and such.



JWThiers said:


> ... but as I recall it, it wasn't clear as to who decided what the flag should be.


Please cite the specific portion of the regulations from which you got that impression.



JWThiers said:


> We should also be complaining to the content owners about how come there programing is being blocked from MRV.


That's a reasonable approach, but I doubt you'll get much traction. But good luck.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dlfl said:


> That seems consistent with what I reported in post #39 here.
> 
> BTW, I think you should ask TWC about the "shocking" voltage on your cable -- that can't be right can it? I know telco lines have about 50 volts on them but that would not "shock the hell" out of you.


Only happened when I closed the circuit. Touching one wire did nothing, but both at once...yow!


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> There are a few threads where this was discussed and folks posted all the necessary citations and such.
> 
> Please cite the specific portion of the regulations from which you got that impression.


The threads I have seen here and even what I have found thus far looking at the CFR's all define the CCI flags but don't discuss what to do IF a content provider wants to have the bit set to 0x01. That is why I think it is fuzzy. Since I don't think any cases have gone up protesting a situation like that where the owners of the content want the content to be freely copied and try to sue to get it, it hasn't been an issue. I recall a year or more ago having a discussion that Mark Cuban owner of HDNet wanted to be able to MRV content from his network, but the content is still protected. Which on the face would indicate that the cable company can do what they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its legal, more just not worth his (Cubans) effort to fight it.



bicker said:


> That's a reasonable approach, but I doubt you'll get much traction. But good luck.


From you that's high praise, As I stated previously in this thread I also don't think it would change things much if at all, but I think it would have the best chance of success.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> The threads I have seen here and even what I have found thus far looking at the CFR's all define the CCI flags but don't discuss what to do IF a content provider wants to have the bit set to 0x01. That is why I think it is fuzzy. Since I don't think any cases have gone up protesting a situation like that where the owners of the content want the content to be freely copied and try to sue to get it, it hasn't been an issue. I recall a year or more ago having a discussion that Mark Cuban owner of HDNet wanted to be able to MRV content from his network, but the content is still protected. Which on the face would indicate that the cable company can do what they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its legal, more just not worth his (Cubans) effort to fight it.


I won't even go so far as you've implied -- I think a content owner *can* contractually constrain a distributor in this regard. That wasn't the context of what we were discussing. There was nothing about the content owner asserting anything, either way, and in that context, the distributor has full sway.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> I won't even go so far as you've implied -- I think a content owner *can* contractually constrain a distributor in this regard. That wasn't the context of what we were discussing. There was nothing about the content owner asserting anything, either way, and in that context, the distributor has full sway.


I thought it was, many of the points of discussion were about CiC and the intent of that being that content being recorded for playback and if that could be used as justification for getting the CCI flag changed.

Either way, I think we agree that the cable Co's are legally setting the CCI flag and that content owners can contractually constrain the distributor (cable companies). Short of that the distributor can pretty much do what they want. We also seemed to agree that a reasonable approach is to contact the networks and complain to them, but it probably wont have much affect either.

By god I think a very warm place just froze over. Somebody write this date down bicker and I seem to agree with each other for a change.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

:up:


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> :up:


No picture of fireworks or something equally festive? I'm almost disappointed.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

I feel better now!


----------



## supersportsfan (Sep 15, 2005)

Well, maybe they have had enough of this campaign...I still have yet to receive a response to my email...


----------



## [NG]Owner (Dec 19, 2006)

Same here. No response to my email.

[NG]Owner


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

If you want replies your best bet is snail mail not email.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

Well, seems TW Albany is either going VERY slowly or stopped.

I've only noticed about 4 additional channels at 0x00 (although to be honest, I set my Tivo to not show me channels in the "analog" range that are duplicated in the "digital" range). I'll probably have to adjust that and see how many they have actually changed.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

In their email reply to my complaint email on 7 October 2009 (see post #11 of this thread) TWC said a "local employee" would be contacting me. That has not happened and I have had no other response. Thus I just sent another email asking if there was going to be any response.

My guess is they have rehashed the issue internally, decided to stick with their original policy, and have instructed Albany to get with that policy.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> In their email reply to my complaint email on 7 October 2009 (see post #11 of this thread) TWC said a "local employee" would be contacting me. That has not happened and I have had no other response. Thus I just sent another email asking if there was going to be any response.
> 
> My guess is they have rehashed the issue internally, decided to stick with their original policy, and have instructed Albany to get with that policy.


Got a reply just now from someone with "Customer Care" in their title, and it confirms what I feared: They don't plan to change anything.

The reply spouted a bunch of legalese that wasn't anything we didn't already know. It implied, without specifically stating so, that they are copy protecting as required by their contracts with content providers. I was tempted to challenge them to make that specific statement but, really, it doesn't matter. Regardless of what they say, they have the right to do what they are doing. To me this was always a long shot -- and it isn't worth any further effort.

Just remember TWC fondly in in any future decisions you make.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Got a reply just now from someone with "Customer Care" in their title, and it confirms what I feared: They don't plan to change anything.
> 
> The reply spouted a bunch of legalese that wasn't anything we didn't already know. It implied, without specifically stating so, that they are copy protecting as required by their contracts with content providers. I was tempted to challenge them to make that specific statement but, really, it doesn't matter. Regardless of what they say, they have the right to do what they are doing. To me this was always a long shot -- and it isn't worth any further effort.
> 
> Just remember TWC fondly in in any future decisions you make.


Don't suppose you'd mind posting the reply?

They have changed some of the channels for TW Albany, but not many. I'll give it another week or so.

Ironically the channels that ARE still set to 0x02 include:

Educational Access (that's the name of the channel)
Government Access (one of our local towns broadcasts there)
and
Public Access


----------



## StanSimmons (Jun 10, 2000)

I fought with TWC Dallas for a year.

I finally gave up and just hacked my TiVoHD's. I consider it a little bit of civil disobedience.


----------



## vccat (Oct 21, 2009)

sent my email today... +1


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

m_jonis said:


> Don't suppose you'd mind posting the reply?
> .........


Don't have access to it at the moment but will post it tomorrow.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Here is their last email response:


> Thank you for writing. I apologize for the delay for communication regarding the content protection settings (also referred to as "CCI bits"). Time Warner Cable, like other distributors of multichannel video programming, negotiates the distribution rights for the content it carries independently with individual rights holders. These bilateral commercial negotiations take into consideration many different factors, including the content protection and digital rights management requirements of the rights holder; applicable law, license and regulations; and the interests of subscribers. Each of these commercial negotiations, and the terms of the agreements that result, are unique to the specific distributor and programmer involved. Accordingly, Time Warner Cable cannot comment on the rights and obligations of other distributors under their separately negotiated agreements. With respect to Time Warner Cables content protection settings, however, they are established in accordance with applicable law and its own agreements with programmers.
> 
> Consistent with those settings, content delivered by Time Warner Cable that has been flagged copy one generation (0x02) can only be copied once. Therefore, and as described on TiVos website (http://support.tivo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/243/c/123,131/r_id/100041/sno/1), TiVos multi-room viewing and TiVoToGo features only permit content that has been flagged as copy freely (0x00) to be transferred to a second TiVo DVR or a PC. That is because both of these features make a second-generation copy on the downstream device. Certain content delivered by Time Warner Cable, including local broadcast television stations digital (SD and HD) signals, is flagged copy freely (0x00) and can be transferred to other TiVo DVRs and PCs.
> 
> ...


----------



## vccat (Oct 21, 2009)

I just got the very same email responce today from the email I sent to them yesterday...


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Perhaps we could get together and craft a letter to send to the FCC? It's obviously reached a point where we need intervention from someone.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Sounds to me like they are trying to baffle people with legal jargon. It is highly unlikely that the retrans agreements they sign with each network all require them to set the CCI bits to 0x02. 

They are really just being (1) overly caution and setting everything at or higher than their requirements or (2) purposefully causing woes for UDCP users or (3) are incompetent and users pay the price.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

Stormspace said:


> Perhaps we could get together and craft a letter to send to the FCC? It's obviously reached a point where we need intervention from someone.


Yeah good luck with that LOL. I will not waste anymore of my time on this issue since that is now what it appears to be a WASTE.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

ah30k said:


> Sounds to me like they are trying to baffle people with legal jargon. It is highly unlikely that the retrans agreements they sign with each network all require them to set the CCI bits to 0x02.
> 
> They are really just being (1) overly caution and setting everything at or higher than their requirements or (2) purposefully causing woes for UDCP users or (3) are incompetent and users pay the price.


I agree, although I think the legal jargon is probably appropriate to the situation -- they have to be very careful about what they say.

As has been said many times, it appears they are within their legal rights to copy protect even if NOT required by their programmer agreements, regardless of what their motivation is. I'm very pessimistic about getting anything changed via the FCC. There just aren't enough of us to have significant clout. If this affected all TWC digital subscribers that would be a different thing. However, I'm willing to participate in another long shot, as long as it doesn't take much effort on my part.


----------



## Topmounter (Apr 11, 2007)

I wonder if it is merely a coincidence that the CCI issue is only occurring at TWC and that TWC is the only MSO who has deployed Start-Over (which required special dispensation from the programmers).



And regarding the power issue... cable trunk and feeder carries 60 or 90 volts of AC power to run the line gear (nodes, amps and line-extenders), but that voltage shouldn't make it past the tap.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Brighthouse Central FL is also CCI'ing EVERYTHING they are allowed to.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Topmounter said:


> I wonder if it is merely a coincidence that the CCI issue is only occurring at TWC and that TWC is the only MSO who has deployed Start-Over (which required special dispensation from the programmers).......


"Start-Over" ? Vas is das?


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Comcast also sets the CCI flags in some areas (including where I live, unfortunately).


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Grumock said:


> Yeah good luck with that LOL. I will not waste anymore of my time on this issue since that is now what it appears to be a WASTE.


Rolling over and giving up always works so well.


----------



## Topmounter (Apr 11, 2007)

JWThiers said:


> Brighthouse Central FL is also CCI'ing EVERYTHING they are allowed to.


Interesting since Brighthouse is doing Start-Over as well.


----------



## jcaudle (Aug 16, 2004)

I think most of these cable companies are setting the CCI flags. Cox does it in its markets from what I can tell...they do here in northern virginia. The only major provider that doesn't is FIOS. That tells me the cable companies are full of it when they tell you that the channels are making them set the CCI byte. If that is true why doesn't Verizon do it?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Topmounter said:


> Interesting since Brighthouse is doing Start-Over as well.


What is "Start Over"? Never heard of it.


----------



## vccat (Oct 21, 2009)

Maybe Tivo will work on a software patch that would allow us to Stream the copy protected shows to other rooms instead of coping them? 

Even my 8+ year OLD ReplayTV units can stream shows to other rooms...


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> What is "Start Over"? Never heard of it.


Start-over is a feature on the MSO STBs and Networks where you can rewind to the beginning of a show as long as you come into the show with any remaining time. The key is that you do NOT have to have been previously tuned to that channel.

Say you come into the NLCS at the 7th inning, you can rewind to the beginning of the game even if you were not tuned to it.

Kind of like taking live TV to VOD on the fly.

If you come in after the show ends, you cannot rewind.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

jcaudle said:


> I think most of these cable companies are setting the CCI flags. Cox does it in its markets from what I can tell...they do here in northern virginia. The only major provider that doesn't is FIOS. That tells me the cable companies are full of it when they tell you that the channels are making them set the CCI byte. If that is true why doesn't Verizon do it?


 Cox is only doing it in Northern Virginia and Phoenix as far as I know. Here in Orange County, CA only the premium channels have CCI set and I think that is also the case for Cox, San Diego and some other markets I know about.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

ah30k said:


> Start-over is a feature on the MSO STBs and Networks where you can rewind to the beginning of a show as long as you come into the show with any remaining time. The key is that you do NOT have to have been previously tuned to that channel.
> 
> Say you come into the NLCS at the 7th inning, you can rewind to the beginning of the game even if you were not tuned to it.
> 
> ...


That sounds interesting, but what would that have to do with the CCI byte?


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Comcast also sets the CCI flags in some areas (including where I live, unfortunately).


I was under the impression that Comcast used to be pretty much nation-wide with their CCI byte like TW, but then had recently reversed this and most areas with Comcast are now 0x00 except for the obvious suspects.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

m_jonis said:


> I was under the impression that Comcast used to be pretty much nation-wide with their CCI byte like TW, but then had recently reversed this and most areas with Comcast are now 0x00 except for the obvious suspects.


I hope that propagates to my area soon...


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

Stormspace said:


> Rolling over and giving up always works so well.


doesn't mean enough to me to waste my personal time on it anymore. So in this case rolling over is not really what I'm doing, just thinking i have better things to do with my personal time. I guess i just dont want to wear my angry face anymore LOL . ';..;'


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Grumock said:


> doesn't mean enough to me to waste my personal time on it anymore. So in this case rolling over is not really what I'm doing, just thinking i have better things to do with my personal time. I guess i just dont want to wear my angry face anymore LOL . ';..;'


I agree that maintaining your righteous indignation takes alot to effort. It's wearing on the soul. Fortunately, I've been taking a break until now.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> It implied, without specifically stating so, that they are copy protecting as required by their contracts with content providers.


That is not true. They never said anything in their reply that could be legitimately interpreted as an assertion that "they are copy protecting as required by their contracts with content providers". Their message implied only that they would copy protect if required by contract:


dlfl said:


> Here is their last email response: ... "... With respect to Time Warner Cable's content protection settings, however, they are established* in accordance with* applicable law and its own agreements with programmers. ... "


You apparently misinterpreted the bolded phrase. It is *not* synonymous with "as required by". As a matter of fact, that phrase actually means the converse: That what they're doing _does not violate_ the law and _does not violate_ agreements with content providers.



ah30k said:


> Sounds to me like they are trying to baffle people with legal jargon.


No: People are baffling themselves by either deliberately or inadvertently misunderstanding the replies that the service provider is providing.



jcaudle said:


> ... That tells me the cable companies are full of it when they tell you that the channels are making them set the CCI byte.


Keep in mind that that is *not *what they're doing: Rather, that is simply what people who want to make the service providers look bad are _saying_ that the service providers are saying.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Grumock said:
> 
> 
> > I will not waste anymore of my time on this issue since that is now what it appears to be a WASTE.
> ...


I think Grumock is simply recognizing the reality, and judiciously picking his/her battles.

Beyond that, the FCC is the wrong direction for your preferred advocacy. What TWC is doing is provided for by the law. It isn't a loophole, or an oversight, or an exploit. It is explicitly allowed. Therefore, if you want changes, you need to have the law changed, and that requires getting someone in Congress to care about what you want, i.e., taking away some more asset protection rights from business. Typically, you would pick this up with your own local Members of Congress first: Which Congressional district do you live in? We can check your representatives' voting record and stated positions, and see if any of them are suitably anti-business and pro-consumerism.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> That is not true. They never said anything in their reply that could be legitimately interpreted as an assertion that "they are copy protecting as required by their contracts with content providers". Their message implied only that they would copy protect if required by contract:You apparently misinterpreted the bolded phrase. It is *not* synonymous with "as required by". As a matter of fact, that phrase actually means the converse: That what they're doing _does not violate_ the law and _does not violate_ agreements with content providers.
> .


I stand corrected. "Implied" was the wrong word. The TWC email left open the question of whether they are copy protecting content where not required by a programmer agreement. And since I *suspect* they are doing that, and that it is primarily motivated by their anti-TiVo attitude, I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.

I should have replied, asking them to explicitly state whether or not they are protecting content where not required by agreement.

As I have previously stated: (1) they are legally correct to copy protect as they currently do and (2) what they say about it makes little difference -- they continue to do it. I will get satisfaction on this issue when and if I exercise my right to drop their service.

As I frequently say:

Living well, err... switching providers, is the best revenge!


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

I could have misinterpreted their "in accordance with" comment as they were required to do it. Either way, I believe they are trying to lead customers to be think they are required to do it. My opinion only.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

Stormspace said:


> I agree that maintaining your righteous indignation takes alot to effort. It's wearing on the soul. Fortunately, I've been taking a break until now.


:up:


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> That is not true. They never said anything in their reply that could be legitimately interpreted as an assertion that "they are copy protecting as required by their contracts with content providers". Their message implied only that they would copy protect if required by contract:You apparently misinterpreted the bolded phrase. It is *not* synonymous with "as required by". As a matter of fact, that phrase actually means the converse: That what they're doing _does not violate_ the law and _does not violate_ agreements with content providers.


Of course a follow on question to them should be if the CCI byte were changed to allow tivo to MRV, would that violate law or agreements with content providers? Just because they are doing it one way and not violating law or agreements doesn't mean there isn't another way to do it and still not violate law or agreements. In other words, do all of your agreements stipulate this level of protection or just a company policy to do this by default if the agreements don't stipulate (copy protect everything unless legally required to not be copy protected as opposed to only copy protect what we are required to do by law or agreement).


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> I stand corrected. "Implied" was the wrong word. The TWC email left open the question of whether they are copy protecting content where not required by a programmer agreement. And since I *suspect* they are doing that, and that it is primarily motivated by their anti-TiVo attitude, I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.
> 
> I should have replied, asking them to explicitly state whether or not they are protecting content where not required by agreement.
> .............


And I just replied that way:


> Dear Mr. Orzolick,
> 
> I have had further thoughts on this, and it has become a hot topic of conversation on the TiVo internet forums.
> 
> ...


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

ah30k said:


> I could have misinterpreted their "in accordance with" comment as they were required to do it. Either way, I believe they are trying to lead customers to be think they are required to do it. My opinion only.


I agree, it was intentionally misleading while still being correct. That's why they pay lawyers and such the big bucks.

If I was in one of these mail exchanges, I would reply politely and ask them
"Do you set the CCI bytes on any channels that you are not required by contract to do so?"

If they refuse to answer, then I would forward the conversation to the FCC - not because they are doing anything illegal, but in the interest of showing that the cable companies are not being forthright about what they are doing and thus need more regulation. Consumer choice only works well if the consumers have good information, and the FCC tries to enforce that.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> .......If I was in one of these mail exchanges, I would reply politely and ask them
> "Do you set the CCI bytes on any channels that you are not required by contract to do so?" .....


Done ! (We cross-posted)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I stand corrected. "Implied" was the wrong word. The TWC email *left open* the question of whether they are copy protecting content where not required by a programmer agreement.


Absolutely. They effectively responded to the portions of the inquiry for which response was warranted, while not responding to the portions of the inquiry for which there was no obligation, nor utility in responding. It was quite a good response in that regard. Not that the response was specifically pleasing to the recipient -- an expectation that a response to an inquiry will always be personally satisfying is unreasonable -- but the response did answer everything that needed to be answered, politely and as definitively as possible while servicing the overriding objectives.



dlfl said:


> I should have replied, asking them to explicitly state whether or not they are protecting content where not required by agreement.


As others have indicated, why bother? You're essentially asking a private company for privileged information, the revealing of which does nothing to serve their overriding objectives. You might as well ask Bush's Baked Beans, KFC and Coca-Cola to send you their secret recipes.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> If they refuse to answer, then I would forward the conversation to the FCC - not because they are doing anything illegal, but in the interest of showing that the cable companies are not being forthright about what they are doing and thus need more regulation.


Ridiculous. The FCC would rightfully first check to see if the interrogation was within the realm of that which subscribers have a right to expect to receive a privileged reply. On finding no such obligation, the FCC would rightfully ignore the complaint as just another consumer who thinks they're entitled to things that they simply are not entitled to. Entitlement mentality is rampant in our country, so it won't even be a surprised to anyone there.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Absolutely. They effectively responded to the portions of the inquiry for which response was warranted, while not responding to the portions of the inquiry for which there was no obligation, nor utility in responding. It was quite a good response in that regard. Not that the response was specifically pleasing to the recipient -- an expectation that a response to an inquiry will always be personally satisfying is unreasonable -- but the response did answer everything that needed to be answered, politely and as definitively as possible while servicing the overriding objectives.
> 
> As others have indicated, why bother? You're essentially asking a private company for privileged information, the revealing of which does nothing to serve their overriding objectives. You might as well ask Bush's Baked Beans, KFC and Coca-Cola to send you their secret recipes.


Actually I was one of the "others", and I agree TWC is probably not obligated to divulge that info. The effort required was so little, I just figured why not try it, just in case the response might be interesting.

BTW, didn't Duke the dog actually sell the Bush's Baked Beans recipe?


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

bicker said:


> Ridiculous. The FCC would rightfully first check to see if the interrogation was within the realm of that which subscribers have a right to expect to receive a privileged reply. On finding no such obligation, the FCC would rightfully ignore the complaint as just another consumer who thinks they're entitled to things that they simply are not entitled to. Entitlement mentality is rampant in our country, so it won't even be a surprised to anyone there.


Not ridiculous! Complaints to the FCC have two purposes: the first is to complain about practices contrary to current regulations, and the second is to raise issues for future regulations. I agree that absolutely no action should be taken against Time-Warner for what they do, and I stated that. But in the future, regulations can be made so that Time-Warner is forced to make clear what they are doing. Making companies responsible for what they do is part of the purpose of the regulations, which are supposed to support a competitive environment.

You can't claim that consumers should make the decision in the marketplace of what practices to choose, and then say that consumers should be denied the information they need to make the choice. The regulatory apparatus is there in part to provide that information.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Regulations must be in compliance with the charge of a regulatory agency: Agencies cannot legitimately decide that they have power that was not granted to them.

Consumers are not owed any information they want, no matter how much you try to fabricate such an entitlement.

Consumers are welcome to use the lack of detail in responses to their interrogations as criterion for deciding against accepting offers from suppliers, if they wish.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

bicker said:


> Consumers are not owed any information they want, no matter how much you try to fabricate such an entitlement.


You're putting words in my mouth, Bicker. Where did I say they were?

Do you deny that the FCC has a legitimate goal of ensuring that consumers are given information about cable companies and their practices in order to improve competition?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

"Do you deny...?" WTF? (or perhaps, more like WTFDYTYA?) This isn't a Senate hearing. My earlier message was very clear. The obligations of service providers to provide information about their operations are very clear. Those obligations stem *from the service offered*, and the particulars thereof.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Consumers are welcome to use the lack of detail in responses to their interrogations as criterion for deciding against accepting offers from suppliers, if they wish.


Yes, plus in this case we already know the answer to the question being discussed anyway. People from this forum have asked some of the cable networks whether they request that cable companies copy-protect their channels, and have been told that they do not. For those channels, clearly TW is doing it of their own accord.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Yes, plus in this case we already know the answer to the question being discussed anyway.


That's a good point, and goes back to what I was saying with regard to lack of intellectual integrity in some recent threads... asking a question that you already know the answer to is just another form of deception.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Yes, plus in this case we already know the answer to the question being discussed anyway. People from this forum have asked some of the cable networks whether they request that cable companies copy-protect their channels, and have been told that they do not. For those channels, clearly TW is doing it of their own accord.


I wasn't aware of this so I, at least, was only asking a question I *suspected* I knew the answer to. I would be interested in links to any posts that are examples of this.

Even If we knew the answer, it would be interesting to know what reason TWC might give for doing this (other than screwing TiVo owners). [Yes *bicker*, I know this may be privileged so they don't have to say anything.]


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> That's a good point, and goes back to what I was saying with regard to lack of intellectual integrity in some recent threads... asking a question that you already know the answer to is just another form of deception.


In my last email to TWC I asked them *why* they are doing it. That is *not* something we know the answer to. There could be other business reasons (or just laziness) behind it, other than just wanting to devalue TiVo's.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I wasn't aware of this so I, at least, was only asking a question I *suspected* I knew the answer to. I would be interested in links to any posts that are examples of this.


I'm certain I read it in this forum somewhere, if I can find any of those old threads I'll post a link...


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> In my last email to TWC I asked them *why* they are doing it. That is *not* something we know the answer to. There could be other business reasons (or just laziness) behind it, other than just wanting to devalue TiVo's.


I think it's a reasonable question in any case. It's a more polite way of saying back to them "Your last reply didn't really answer my question, could you actually answer it this time?" (Of course the answer can certainly be "no, we can't (or won't) answer it;" but then at least it's clear where things stand.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Even If we knew the answer, it would be interesting to know what reason TWC might give for doing this (other than screwing TiVo owners). [Yes *bicker*, I know this may be privileged so they don't have to say anything.]


I posted an opinion in another thread and it seemed appropriate for this one too.



> I think the cable companies know exactly what they are doing. Deliberately* disabling a major function of a "competing" product either to discourage people from buying from a 3rd party rather than rent cable equipment or to drive people to use their own form of MRV if they offer such a function. And they don't even have to do anything. They're just taking advantage of the wording in their various provider agreements.
> 
> * Of course, someone would have to prove this.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> That is *not* something we know the answer to.


Bull. (In the context of my assertion.)


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Do we know what he answer is or do we *think *we know what the answer is. I don't think I have ever seen anything from TWC that says anything other than {paraphrasing} "The way we have things now in this regard meets our contracts with the content providers and doesn't violate any regulation." That someone would actually ask is there a way to do the same thing and allow me to use the features of my tivo is actually the right way to go about it. If you have an issue with how something is done ask if there is anything that can be done to correct the issue. If the reasons for the CCI flag being set is because of company policy rather than regulation or contract commitments, maybe they can change the policy. One thing is for sure, if they don't know you are not satisfied with the policy they will never change it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Bull. (In the context of my assertion.)


But not bull in the context of my statement to which you responded, and from which you *removed* the context in your quoted portion.

Just to clarify (although I don't see how any readers could be confused at this point ) my statement was that we don't know *why* TWC is doing the dirty deed. We naturally *suspect* -- but we don't really *know*. It's possible they are just being lazy or have some other business reason for doing it. If someone does have actual evidence they do it as an anti-competitive measure against TiVo, please post it.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

bicker said:


> "Do you deny...?" WTF? (or perhaps, more like WTFDYTYA?) This isn't a Senate hearing. My earlier message was very clear. The obligations of service providers to provide information about their operations are very clear. Those obligations stem *from the service offered*, and the particulars thereof.


Such vehemence from somebody who is not willing to read carefully himself, but demands others read him carefully.

I entirely agree with you that Time-Warner has no current obligation to provide such information. I have stated so previously. That does not mean that the FCC cannot institute such a requirement in the future. People complaining now may be able to influence what Time-Warner will have to do in the future.

The CCi byte issue is an area where TW's competitors have a competitive edge over TW. TW is trying its best to obscure that fact to folks, as it has every right to do. But the FCC has the right to require disclosure of such issues.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> ........I entirely agree with you that Time-Warner has no current obligation to provide such information. I have stated so previously. That does not mean that the FCC cannot institute such a requirement in the future. People complaining now may be able to influence what Time-Warner will have to do in the future.


That makes sense to me.


CrispyCritter said:


> ........
> The CCi byte issue is an area where TW's competitors have a competitive edge over TW..........


HHmmmm.... Don't follow that one. The only market I am aware of where TWC's competitors get an advantage by the CCI issue is Series 3 TiVo users, and they are only about 0.5% of digital cable subscribers -- not a significant competitive edge.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> Such vehemence from somebody who is not willing to read carefully himself, but demands others read him carefully.


Don't confuse my refusal to play someone else's game for carelessness. I just mentioned something similar in another thread; I'm making my point. I have no interest in feeding into the cynical or careless manner of rhetoric others are using to try to distract attention away from the point I want made.



CrispyCritter said:


> I entirely agree with you that Time-Warner has no current obligation to provide such information. I have stated so previously. That does not mean that the FCC cannot institute such a requirement in the future.


*After *which it may be reasonable to expect such answers -- not before.



CrispyCritter said:


> People complaining now may be able to influence what Time-Warner will have to do in the future.


Just like lynch mobs were able to influence who got hung without trial.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Don't confuse my refusal to play someone else's game for carelessness. I just mentioned something similar in another thread; I'm making my point. I have no interest in feeding into the *cynical or careless manner of rhetoric others* are using to try to distract attention away from the point I want made.


Just to clarify here, I'm sure *bicker* is not referring to those of us who are using civil, reasoned, serious discussion to argue our points -- just you other guys! 


bicker said:


> Just like lynch mobs were able to influence who got hung without trial.


C'mon now....nobody's threatening violence or circumvention of laws here. We're just peacefully petitioning the Sheriff to do his duty. If he doesn't agree our complaints are valid, he can do nothing -- where is the analogy to a lynch mob?


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

bicker said:


> Don't confuse my refusal to play someone else's game for carelessness. I just mentioned something similar in another thread; I'm making my point. I have no interest in feeding into the cynical or careless manner of rhetoric others are using to try to distract attention away from the point I want made.
> 
> *After *which it may be reasonable to expect such answers -- not before.


Sorry, Bicker, I still claim you're being careless here. You were wrong about what I was saying before, and you are still wrong.

Where did I say that I expected Time-Warner to give such an answer? I don't. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't give them a chance to answer.


----------



## NotVeryWitty (Oct 3, 2003)

bicker said:


> I have no interest in feeding into the cynical or careless manner of rhetoric others are using to try to distract attention away from the point I want made.





bicker said:


> Just like lynch mobs were able to influence who got hung without trial.


Pot, meet black kettle.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

NotVeryWitty said:


> Pot, meet black kettle.


LOL ! And I used so many more words to say about the same thing in my post #134! That's what I get for trying to be nicer about it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> Sorry, Bicker, I still claim you're being careless here. You were wrong about what I was saying before, and you are still wrong.


No, you just disagree with what I said. Big difference. Especially since what I said better matches the reality that subscribers are going to experience, in reality.



NotVeryWitty said:


> Pot, meet black kettle.


It's called "response in kind" -- it is a means of balancing a horribly unbalanced discussion. The anti-business drivel here is so deep you could drown in it.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

I doubt anything very much short of iminent bankruptcy related directly to their deployment of copy protection or federal legislation prohibiting it would convince them to rescind their policy.

Consider the following:

Time Warner Inc is one of the largest members of the MPAA. Although they no longer own Time Warner Cable outright, there are still very deep ties in TWC, both financial and political, to Time Warner and to other motion picture interests. Just look at the people on their Board of Directors.

The only content provider of whom I know (Mark Cuban) who demanded TWC remove the CCI byte from their broadcasts of his channels (HDNet and HDNet Movies), instead had his channels removed from the lineup in every TWC market.

Edit: I should not have said "removed". The byte doesn't get removed to disable CCI. It gets set to zero.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> The only content provider of whom I know (Mark Cuban) who demanded TWC remove the CCI byte from their broadcasts of his channels (HDNet and HDNet Movies), instead had his channels removed from the lineup in every TWC market.


That probably explains why they aren't on BHN in central FL also.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

bicker said:


> No, you just disagree with what I said. Big difference.


I agree; it's a big difference. Please tell me what we disagree on.

If you would actually read what I said, instead of jumping to conclusions and making up your own version, you would discover that you haven't yet pointed out a single instance where we disagree.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Why start now.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> ........... That does not mean that the FCC cannot institute such a requirement in the future. People complaining now may be able to influence what Time-Warner will have to do in the future.
> ...........


*bicker*, I don't understand your reaction to this statement. Perhaps you don't favor the idea (understandable) or you think it's a lost cause (understandable). But your reaction of comparing this to a lynch mob, besides being a faulty analogy, seems to suggest a much stronger objection than just not favoring the idea, or thinking it's a lost cause.

So what is so horrendous about this idea as to justify your response?

If you claim the lynch mob analogy *isn't* faulty, that requires some clarification. I've already stated why I believe it's faulty (No violence is being used or threatened. No laws are being broken.)

You should know that I agree with you about invalid use of the M word, and unreasonable expectations from business. But your seeming overreaction on this and similar interchanges is puzzling to me, and also does nothing to promote acceptance of your valid points, IMHO.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Regulations must be in compliance with the charge of a regulatory agency: Agencies cannot legitimately decide that they have power that was not granted to them.


Nonsense! Agencies have often assumed powers not specifically granted them, and it is not generally considered other than legitimate unless the power is specifically denied them or agencies in general, or unless the power falls far from the charter of the agency. The most famous example in U.S. history is probably Marbury vs. Madison, wherein the Supreme Court under John Marshal asserted for themselves the authority of judicial review. The Constitution never granted the judicial branch any such powers, and an extremely strict interpretation of the Constitution might hold the court exceeded their authority. Nonetheless, there was no one who had clear authority to oppose the ruling, and President Jefferson was certainly not going to complain, so it stuck, and the courts retain the power of judicial review to this day. In an ironic turn-about-is-fair-play maneuver, in the 1830s Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the rulings of the Marshall court concerning the handling of Indian affairs in Georgia, asserting for the presidency a passive way to avoid the rulings of the court. Speaking of Madison, his pioneering use of the pocket veto can readily be considered another example. The bottom line is, unless their doing so steps on someone else's toes, and as long as nothing says they can't, then an agency often can get away with asserting powers for themselves not specifically granted to them.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Interesting history lesson *lrhorer*! You must be another CSPAN-2 fan.

Furthermore, an agency usurping power is not the only possible response to user complaints the agency receives. It can recommend action to the boss (el presbo) and/or to congress, which can result in the agency's scope (power) being modified/expanded so as to address the complaints.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that process.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Interesting history lesson *lrhorer*! You must be another CSPAN-2 fan.


Nope, I'm afraid not. 'Never once watched it. Books are my thing when it comes to history. Or science. I mostly reserve TV for recreation, although I admit I do enjoy PBS, which often has scientific or historical content.



dlfl said:


> Furthermore, an agency usurping power is not the only possible response to user complaints the agency receives. It can recommend action to the boss (el presbo) and/or to congress, which can result in the agency's scope (power) being modified/expanded so as to address the complaints.
> 
> Absolutely nothing wrong with that process.


Well, there's nothing wrong with the idea of the process. The actual implementation often leaves much to be desired.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Nope, I'm afraid not. 'Never once watched it. Books are my thing when it comes to history. Or science. I mostly reserve TV for recreation, although I admit I do enjoy PBS, which often has scientific or historical content.
> ..........


If books are your thing you should give CSPAN-2 Booknotes a try. Every weekend from 8am Saturday thru 8am Monday (or TiVo time-shifted to a time of your choosing!)


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> If books are your thing you should give CSPAN-2 Booknotes a try. Every weekend from 8am Saturday thru 8am Monday (or TiVo time-shifted to a time of your choosing!)


I think perhaos I shall. It can't hurt. What's this "TiVo time-shift" thingy, though?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> I think perhaos I shall. It can't hurt. What's this "TiVo time-shift" thingy, though?


Have you ever seen that real old TV show called "The Time Machine". They finally made a real one.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Sorry I've been gone; I've had a death in the family.


dlfl said:


> If you claim the lynch mob analogy *isn't* faulty, that requires some clarification. I've already stated why I believe it's faulty (No violence is being used or threatened. No laws are being broken.)


An analogy is a parallel, not a tautology.

Beyond that, I consider the deception I objected to, itself, to a type of violence.



dlfl said:


> You should know that I agree with you about invalid use of the M word, and unreasonable expectations from business. But your seeming overreaction on this and similar interchanges is puzzling to me, and also does nothing to promote acceptance of your valid points, IMHO.


I doubt even you believe that. You just want to moderate the discussion, whereas my interest is in making very clear just how objectionable the abuse of the term is.

As it is, I see no value in folks referring to cable companies as monopolies, and will object to that deception each time it is posted.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> .......... I consider the deception I objected to, itself, to a type of violence.


What type of violence? Certainly not physical violence. Simply complaining about something (as in the statement to which you responded with the lynch mob analogy) is not violence in any reasonable sense of the word.


bicker said:


> .......... I doubt even you believe that. You just want to moderate the discussion, whereas my interest is in making very clear just how objectionable the abuse of the term is.
> .........


I guess by your standards, illustrated above, I should consider your doubting my sincerity as some type of violence.

Some moderation in your discussion would be a good thing. Your objections to labeling cable cos as monopolies are made *less clear *by your lack of moderation.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

There are 328 threads with the word "monopoly" in the Main Tivo Forums.
There are 113 threads with the word "monopolies" in the Main Tivo Forums.

Hasn't this been discussed enough?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> The anti-business drivel here is so deep you could drown in it.


Hmm. Businesses are not tasked with looking out for my well being, so a response where I don't look out for their well being is only fair play. So you come to a consumer forum and expect it to be all rainbows and unicorns for businesses?

TiVo users are a minority, so in order to get equal time we have to be more vocal about our displeasure.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> What type of violence? Certainly not physical violence.


Indeed, not *physical* violence.



dlfl said:


> Simply complaining about something (as in the statement to which you responded with the lynch mob analogy) is not violence in any reasonable sense of the word.


Correct: It is the deception inherent in using the emotionally-laden rhetoric, some of which I've mirrored back at you in this thread; You have very clearly demonstrated how that kind of rhetoric incites you, when you disagree with it. Perhaps in the future you'll think more carefully about the rhetoric of yours that I was mirroring, and find some other way to express something less likely to end up deceiving casual readers into developing unfounded expectations as a result of your comments.



dlfl said:


> Some moderation in your discussion would be a good thing. Your objections to labeling cable cos as monopolies are made *less clear *by your lack of moderation.


Not at all. My point is well-understood, as evidenced by how people who think only with their consumer-brain are reacting so viscerally to my comments.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> So you come to a consumer forum and expect it to be all rainbows and unicorns for businesses?


When this forum becomes a blindly pro-consumer/blindly anti-business forum, perhaps you'll have a point.



Stormspace said:


> TiVo users are a minority, so in order to get equal time we have to be more vocal about our displeasure.


Well let's count the number of messages in this thread that are pro-consumer and compare that to the number of messages that are pro-business, and see how close they are to equal, and which way the bias is.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> When this forum becomes a blindly pro-consumer/blindly anti-business forum, perhaps you'll have a point.
> 
> Well let's count the number of messages in this thread that are pro-consumer and compare that to the number of messages that are pro-business, and see how close they are to equal, and which way the bias is.


Businesses have the forum you get every month in the mail. It's the one that is unyeilding and devoted to high minded ideals like shareholder value. We have the TCF. Rainbows and Unicorns all around for us here.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> .......... Perhaps in the future you'll think more carefully about the rhetoric of yours that I was mirroring, and find some other way to express something less likely to end up deceiving casual readers into developing unfounded expectations as a result of your comments.


Hmmm.... Nah! I said what I meant and I meant what I said. My rhetoric was at a level appropriate to the facts. Yours goes overboard.


bicker said:


> ..........
> Not at all. My point is well-understood, as evidenced by how people who think only with their consumer-brain are reacting so viscerally to my comments.


I think you're misinterpreting the reaction to your posts!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Businesses have the forum you get every month in the mail.


That's not a forum. Beyond that, you have failed to demonstrate the especial value in having any forum kept devoid of balance. That's just a recipe for a unending death-spiral of whining and discontent.



dlfl said:


> Hmmm.... Nah! I said what I meant and I meant what I said. My rhetoric was at a level appropriate to the facts. Yours goes overboard.


It is not surprising to me that folks with an anti-business perspective will think that the pro-business rhetoric is in some way more egregious than their own rhetoric.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> It is not surprising to me that folks with an anti-business perspective will think that the pro-business rhetoric is in some way more egregious than their own rhetoric.


It is not surprising to me that you apparently wrongly assume I have an anti-business perspective. In doing this you ignore many other posts of mine, frequently in direct response to your posts, and you incorrectly read implications into my current posts in this thread.

You make it increasingly difficult for anyone to take your posts seriously.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> It is not surprising to me that you apparently wrongly assume I have an anti-business perspective.


Ridiculous. Read what you've written. You're trying to play this moderate perspective, but that is simply not the case. You simply do not prosecute as rabid of an anti-business perspective as others... that doesn't make your perspective at all balanced or fair to the "other" side.



dlfl said:


> In doing this you ignore many other posts of mine, frequently in direct response to your posts, and you incorrectly read implications into my current posts in this thread.


I'm referring to the specific messages that I replied to. You may be more balanced elsewhere and elsewise.



dlfl said:


> You make it increasingly difficult for anyone to take your posts seriously.


I'm not concerned. The people who don't take my posts seriously don't take complying with the law seriously, and/or don't take balancing the needs of business and consumer seriously -- they are already dead-set against reasonable perspective. Lost causes, if you will. Go back and read what you've been replying to: The issue is the casual reader and the manner in which the spewage of anti-business perspective in these threads recently may tend to foster unfounded expectations and poison the pool. Essentially, a bunch of cry-babies want to make sure everyone is prepped for as much discontent as they've prepped themselves for. It is a very self-centered and cynical perspective that I'm arguing against. It's a shame you've let yourself become dragged into practicing it.

But kudos to you for continuing to try to turn the discussions personal against me, instead of keeping to the topic and trying to defend the irresponsible, irrational and/or contemptible behaviors I've been arguing against.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Ridiculous. Read what you've written. You're trying to play this moderate perspective, but that is simply not the case. You simply do not prosecute as rabid of an anti-business perspective as others... that doesn't make your perspective at all balanced or fair to the "other" side.


The problem is you either don't read what I've written or you won't take the time to understand it. I'm about as pro-business (and consumer) person as you could find. Thus there is only one way to characterize your statement: flat out wrong!


bicker said:


> I'm not concerned. The people who don't take my posts seriously don't take complying with the law seriously, and/or don't take balancing the needs of business and consumer seriously -- they are already dead-set against reasonable perspective. Lost causes, if you will. Go back and read what you've been replying to: The issue is the casual reader and the manner in which the spewage of anti-business perspective in these threads recently may tend to foster unfounded expectations and poison the pool. Essentially, a bunch of cry-babies want to make sure everyone is prepped for as much discontent as they've prepped themselves for. It is a very self-centered and cynical perspective that I'm arguing against. It's a shame you've let yourself become dragged into practicing it.


Well now we have a litmus test: people who don't take your posts seriously are scofflaws, idiots, unreasonable, etc. Thanks for that simple test. 


bicker said:


> But kudos to you for continuing to try to turn the discussions personal against me, instead of keeping to the topic and trying to defend the irresponsible, irrational and/or contemptible behaviors I've been arguing against.


Thanks -- I'm sure nothing *you've* said about *me* should be taken personally , and please refer to my signature for the rest of my reply.


----------



## questors (Jun 4, 2009)

Here is the response I got to my email complaint. They do say that they will take our concerns into consideration going forward. Let them know how you feel.


Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding Time Warner Cable&#8217;s content protection settings (also referred to as &#8220;CCI bits&#8221. Time Warner Cable, like other distributors of multichannel video programming, negotiates the distribution rights for the content it carries independently with individual rights holders. These bilateral commercial negotiations take into consideration many different factors, including the content protection and digital rights management requirements of the rights holder; applicable law, license and regulations; and the interests of subscribers. Each of these commercial negotiations, and the terms of the agreements that result, are unique to the specific distributor and programmer involved. Accordingly, Time Warner Cable cannot comment on the rights and obligations of other distributors under their separately negotiated agreements. With respect to Time Warner Cable&#8217;s content protection settings, however, they are established in accordance with applicable law and its own agreements with programmers.


Consistent with those settings, content delivered by Time Warner Cable that has been flagged &#8220;copy one generation (0x02)&#8221; can only be copied once. 
TiVo&#8217;s multi-room viewing and TiVoToGo&#8482; features only permit content that has been flagged as &#8220;copy freely (0x00)&#8221; to be transferred to a second TiVo DVR or a PC. That is because both of these features make a second-generation copy on the downstream device. Certain content delivered by Time Warner Cable, including local broadcast television stations&#8217; digital (SD and HD) signals, is flagged &#8220;copy freely (0x00)&#8221; and can be transferred to other TiVo DVRs and PCs.


Time Warner Cable appreciates your feedback and will take your concerns into consideration going forward. Thanks again for being a Time Warner Cable customer.


Regards,


John Orzolick

Customer Care Advocate

Time Warner Cable Corporate Office


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

bicker said:


> But kudos to you for continuing to try to turn the discussions personal against me, instead of keeping to the topic and trying to defend the irresponsible, irrational and/or contemptible behaviors I've been arguing against.


I think that last statement just about says it all. You are saying anybody you argue with is behaving irresponsibly, irrationally and contemptibly. I certainly felt unjustly insulted in your responses to me, and you made no attempt to argue rationally with me. You just made flat claims against things that were never said or implied in my posts. I tried to get you back on topic, and you've completely refused. If you're not interested in a rational debate with folks, I don't know what more we can do.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

questors said:


> Here is the response I got to my email complaint. They do say that they will take our concerns into consideration going forward. Let them know how you feel.
> 
> Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding Time Warner Cables content protection settings (also referred to as CCI bits). Time Warner Cable, like other distributors of multichannel video programming, negotiates the distribution rights for the content it carries independently with individual rights holders. These bilateral commercial negotiations take into consideration many different factors, including the content protection and digital rights management requirements of the rights holder; applicable law, license and regulations; and the interests of subscribers. Each of these commercial negotiations, and the terms of the agreements that result, are unique to the specific distributor and programmer involved. Accordingly, Time Warner Cable cannot comment on the rights and obligations of other distributors under their separately negotiated agreements. With respect to Time Warner Cables content protection settings, however, they are established in accordance with applicable law and its own agreements with programmers.
> 
> ...


That appears essentially identical to the response I got and posted in post #83 of this thread.

The only tangible change I'm aware of is that TWC Albany NY apparently reversed or curtailed their plans to remove copy protection -- I suspect as a result of the attention we've focused on it. 

Anyone have an update on Albany TWC?


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Okay, so it seems, now we need to start pestering the content providers.
Start contacting the Discovery Channel, Sy Fy, (maybe the parent companies?) etc, to see if they'll reveal what they require of the cable companies. If we're annoying enough, maybe the squeaky wheel will get some grease.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

steve614 said:


> Okay, so it seems, now we need to start pestering the content providers.
> Start contacting the Discovery Channel, Sy Fy, (maybe the parent companies?) etc, to see if they'll reveal what they require of the cable companies. If we're annoying enough, maybe the squeaky wheel will get some grease.


Just keep what is in this post about what happened to HDNet when Mark Cuban "Demanded to have his bits changed to 0" (Sounds naughty, changing his bits) in mind. I do think its the best course of action, but I'm not sure it will fruitful.


----------



## misterjon (Sep 11, 2008)

The email I got back from TW was identical. The rep didn't even bother taking the quotation marks off whatever document he cut and pasted it from. I've tried following up with him but have received no reply. If anyone has made any further progress with TW Los Angeles, or found anyone to speak to there, please post it.

"Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding Time Warner Cable's content protection settings (also referred to as "CCI bits"). Time Warner Cable, like other distributors of multichannel video programming, negotiates the distribution rights for the content it carries independently with individual rights holders. These bilateral commercial negotiations take into consideration many different factors, including the content protection and digital rights management requirements of the rights holder; applicable law, license and regulations; and the interests of subscribers. Each of these commercial negotiations, and the terms of the agreements that result, are unique to the specific distributor and programmer involved. Accordingly, Time Warner Cable cannot comment on the rights and obligations of other distributors under their separately negotiated agreements. With respect to Time Warner Cable's content protection settings, however, they are established in accordance with applicable law and its own agreements with programmers.

Consistent with those settings, content delivered by Time Warner Cable that has been flagged "copy one generation (0x02)" can only be copied once. Therefore, and as described on TiVo's website, TiVo's multi-room viewing and TiVoToGo(tm) features only permit content that has been flagged as "copy freely (0x00)" to be transferred to a second TiVo DVR or a PC. That is because both of these features make a second-generation copy on the downstream device. Certain content delivered by Time Warner Cable, including local broadcast television stations' digital (SD and HD) signals, is flagged "copy freely (0x00)" and can be transferred to other TiVo DVRs and PCs.

Time Warner Cable appreciates your feedback and will take your concerns into consideration going forward. Thanks again for being a Time Warner Cable customer."​


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

steve614 said:


> Okay, so it seems, now we need to start pestering the content providers.


No, I don't think so. As bicker pointed out somewhere in the middle of the never ending arguing that no one really cares about, I think we may be misreading "in accordance with" to mean that they are required to do it. They are probably using the term "in accordance with" to mean they are allowed to do it.

Big difference.

I have no doubt that the content providers are not requiring TW to set these bits.

The only choice I see at this point (after asking them politely) is to talk with your wallet and go elsewhere for your TV programming.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> I tried to get you back on topic, and you've completely refused. If you're not interested in a rational debate with folks, I don't know what more we can do.


The feeling is mutual.



ah30k said:


> The only choice I see at this point (after asking them politely) is to talk with your wallet and go elsewhere for your TV programming.


Absolutely. :up: :up:


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

ah30k said:


> .............
> I have no doubt that the content providers are not requiring TW to set these bits.
> 
> The only choice I see at this point (after asking them politely) is to talk with your wallet and go elsewhere for your TV programming.


As a practical matter it doesn't make any difference whether the content providers are requiring copy protection. Even if they're not, TWC is allowed to do it and they are doing it for whatever reason -- which we don't actually know, although we suspect it's to hurt TiVo.

I stated early in the thread I thought this was a long shot. But it was interesting (and almost effortless) to "poke the bear" and see what the response would be. Even if we could prove the content providers aren't requesting protection, we are such a miniscule part of their subscriber base that we don't have the clout to get TWC to stop doing something they are legally allowed to do. We *have* made sure they are aware of our complaint and they have confirmed they don't give a damn about it.

As I frequently say:
"Living well, err.... switching providers, is the best revenge". 

And it will be so sweet when I do it!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> That's not a forum. Beyond that, you have failed to demonstrate the especial value in having any forum kept devoid of balance. That's just a recipe for a unending death-spiral of whining and discontent.
> 
> It is not surprising to me that folks with an anti-business perspective will think that the pro-business rhetoric is in some way more egregious than their own rhetoric.


If the cable cos business plan with regard to third party products wasn't so deplorable there would be no need for this thread. Content providers slipped a copy protection measure past congress under the banner of protecting premium content. The cci byte on sd digital channels is hardly the premium content like hbo and vod that was used as the model for the laws.

I think they got away with something they shouldn't have, Whtyer tey are a monopoly, illegal trust, or just a bad corporate citizen makes no difference to me.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> If the cable cos business plan with regard to third party products wasn't so deplorable there would be no need for this thread.


While I agree with that part...



> Content providers slipped a copy protection measure past congress under the banner of protecting premium content. The cci byte on sd digital channels is hardly the premium content like hbo and vod that was used as the model for the laws.


... this part isn't true. The FCC regulations allow them to put copy once on any channel except the broadcast ones; there never was nor was there intended to be any restriction that they could only set the CCI bits for premium channels. For VOD and PPV they do in fact have a different rule, and they are allowed to set even more restrictive copy protection.

The one way I do see that the rules operate a bit differently than was originally intended is that when they were written, it was assumed you would be recording onto removable media (like D-VHS). With removable media, "copy once" would be a lot less restrictive - for instance, you could play the D-VHS tape anywhere you had a D-VHS deck; you weren't restricted to the one on which you recorded it. Since DVRs came out, we've moved to non-removable storage, making copy once more of a big deal. (But that change was not an evil plot on the part of the cable companies, it came about because of TiVo and ReplayTV.)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I think we subscribers have had it pretty darned good for the last decade and a half. Has it been profitable for service providers? Yes, most of them, but we subscribers have also gotten an incredible value for the money. Unbalanced in *our* favor. And I assure you, I've taken advantage of it. And I noted this when Project Calvary went into effect here in my town, and I lost the benefits of (analog) cable-ready on two televisions. I'm sad: As a consumer, I would have preferred to get more for less. I don't see anything wrong with _that_ perspective. However, just because we've had this great bonanza for so long doesn't mean we're entitled to it in perpetuity... I'm sorry I just don't, and the regulations concerning the application of CCI bytes reflects that fact. The only thing I see that is "deplorable" is the sense of entitlement that serves as foundation to expectations that we should continue to receive such an unbalanced superior value in perpetuity.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> However, just because we've had this great bonanza for so long doesn't mean we're entitled to it in perpetuity... I'm sorry I just don't, and the regulations concerning the application of CCI bytes reflects that fact.


And the regulations as they are now certainly do take consumers into account, and try to preserve the features that consumers consider essential. We can still record TV for time-shifting, quibbles about moving it elsewhere aside. With no regulations, cable companies could have made it impossible to record television completely! (The networks would have LOVED that.)



> The only thing I see that is "deplorable" is the sense of entitlement that serves as foundation to expectations that we should continue to receive such an unbalanced superior value in perpetuity.


Well, it's always going to be true that if you remove features (by, for instance, restricting recording in a way it wasn't restricted before) and charge the same amount or more, the customers will understandably feel that they've lost on the deal. I wouldn't expect them to feel otherwise.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Well, it's always going to be true that if you remove features (by, for instance, restricting recording in a way it wasn't restricted before) and charge the same amount or more, the customers will understandably feel that they've lost on the deal. I wouldn't expect them to feel otherwise.


Granted that that is human nature, despite not being justifiable under the circumstances I outlined.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

dlfl said:


> That appears essentially identical to the response I got and posted in post #83 of this thread.
> 
> The only tangible change I'm aware of is that TWC Albany NY apparently reversed or curtailed their plans to remove copy protection -- I suspect as a result of the attention we've focused on it.
> 
> Anyone have an update on Albany TWC?


While I have not yet examined every single channel yet, I have examined the following:

Channels 2 - 120
Channels 140, 142, 200, 201, 210, 215, 221, 222, 235, 301, 310, 320, 325, 340, 345, 401, 403.

I am leaving out the HD locals for the time being.

Of the channels listed above, TW Albany has changed some to be 0x00.

Those channels are:
2-13, 20, 21, 22, 76, 77, 91, 200, 201


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

m_jonis said:


> While I have not yet examined every single channel yet, I have examined the following:
> 
> Channels 2 - 120
> Channels 140, 142, 200, 201, 210, 215, 221, 222, 235, 301, 310, 320, 325, 340, 345, 401, 403.
> ...


Not very encouraging so far. Will you be checking your 40 or so HD channels?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> ... this part isn't true. ...there never was nor was there intended to be any restriction that they could only set the CCI bits for premium channels.


I'm not so sure. I distinctly remember VOD and Premium channels being paraded before the press as the reason for the copy protection measures. Granted it seems that they were just sugar coating it to make the protection go down easier with a public that wasn't far sighted enough to see what would happen.

At the time I was only using a VCR and wouldn't have understood the implications anyway, but I am painfully aware of the pill the media companies have made us swallow now.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> I'm not so sure.


Read the regulation. If what you're saying was true, the regulation wouldn't be worded the way it is.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Read the regulation. If what you're saying was true, the regulation wouldn't be worded the way it is.


Oh yeah. Yet another perfectly written government requlation -- accomplishing exactly what was intended, and as it was represented to the public, with no unintended consequences. Oh yeah. 

If it's really that good, it's exceptional.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Oh yeah. Yet another perfectly written government requlation -- accomplishing exactly what was intended, and as it was represented to the public, with no unintended consequences. Oh yeah.


That's non-sequitur. Explain why the regulation says that MSOs can apply the CCI tag "Copy Never" only on premium channels instead of saying that MSOs can apply the CCI tags "Copy Never" and "Copy Once" only on premium channels. If there was ever any (using your word) *intent* to have MSOs not apply "Copy Once" to non-premium channels, then the regulation would have been worded that way. You're grasping at straws. You seemingly want that the reality would have been patently consumerist. Instead, it was *balanced* and that results in a situation you're not happy with. That's life. However, it doesn't justify your arguments.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> That's non-sequitur. Explain why the regulation says that MSOs can apply the CCI tag "Copy Never" only on premium channels instead of saying that MSOs can apply the CCI tags "Copy Never" and "Copy Once" only on premium channels. If there was ever any (using your word) *intent* to have MSOs not apply "Copy Once" to non-premium channels, then the regulation would have been worded that way. You're grasping at straws. You seemingly want that the reality would have been patently consumerist. Instead, it was *balanced* and that results in a situation you're not happy with. That's life. However, it doesn't justify your arguments.


My point (again since you choose to ignore it) is simply that there is frequently a gap between the intent and the effect of regulations (and laws, policies, etc.), and that if this particular case doesn't have that gap (as you claim) then it is unusual rather than typical.

As usual you imputed motives not justified by my statements.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> My point (again since you choose to ignore it) is simply that there is frequently a gap between the intent and the effect of regulations (and laws, policies, etc.)


And my point was that your saying so in this thread was non-sequitur: Your point was not relevant to the CCI byte issue, and as such served only to try to make casual readers think something other than the reality.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Are neither of you willing to cede the last word on this? We all know you disagree so ceding the last word won't be perceived as agreeing with the other.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

What bicker brings to the discussion isn't a sense of community but one of antagonism. So while he may think he just bringing balance, he does so with an in your face attitude that doesn't engender any good feelings. Typically the environment here is one of mutual respect, but by his words he has none for the people here. This post is just an observation however and not meant as a personal attack though I'm certain he'll take it as such.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> What bicker brings to the discussion isn't a sense of community but one of antagonism.


Actually, I typically post pretty matter-of-factly until attacked. Some few people apparently want an unrebutted soap-box for their one-sided blindly-consumerist perspectives, which is an unreasonable expectation and also doesn't serve members of the community well, since it simply spreads such misconceptions wider, spreading dissatisfaction and discontent wider.

So the attack on the "sense of community" you talk about stems from the unreasonable and unconscionable conduct of the folks to whom I reply.



Stormspace said:


> So while he may think he just bringing balance, he does so with an in your face attitude that doesn't engender any good feelings.


I'm a mirror of the attitude engendered within those messages I'm replying.



Stormspace said:


> Typically the environment here is one of mutual respect,


That's not the case. The environment here, at times, have even chased away the good folks at TiVo, withholding their contributions to our community, because of the abusive tendencies of those few people with one-sided blindly-consumerist perspectives I referred to earlier.



Stormspace said:


> but by his words he has none for the people here.


That's simply untrue, and since scurrilous and personal, is absolutely a personal attack... the first unequivocal one in this thread. Congrats... you've violated the terms and conditions of the forum.



Stormspace said:


> This post is just an observation however and not meant as a personal attack though I'm certain he'll take it as such.


That's a ridiculously assertion: Your comments were not directed at my perspectives but rather at my person. You've done a very good job of demonstrating what a personal attack truly looks like.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> What bicker brings to the discussion isn't a sense of community but one of antagonism. So while he may think he just bringing balance, he does so with an in your face attitude that doesn't engender any good feelings. Typically the environment here is one of mutual respect, but by his words he has none for the people here. This post is just an observation however and not meant as a personal attack though I'm certain he'll take it as such.


I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. He has no respect for differing opinions and while he may on occasion have a valid point they are generally overshadowed by his total arrogance.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. He has no respect for differing opinions and while he may on occasion have a valid point they are generally overshadowed by his total arrogance.


Or maybe *bicker*'s just playing us, enjoying the "visceral reactions" he provokes (?).

Think about what our response should be if that's true.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

I don't really agree with those who think that Bicker is on here just to start arguments. It seems there are few voices on here that are not truly one sided. Most of what i read on here is just complaining about providers, & how the small &#37; that we represent to those providers, are treated unfairly. I find most of his responses on here a good counter point to some of the complaining. We all want to be heard & we all want what we are paying for. Sometimes I wonder if the problems I have with my 3rd party equipment is what I paid for?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Or maybe *bicker*'s just playing us, enjoying the "visceral reactions" he provokes (?).
> 
> Think about what our response should be if that's true.


I guess that could be true, but that would make him a *troll *and I really don't start any name calling. I think it best to just describe the actions and let everyone decide for themselves.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Grumock said:


> I don't really agree with those who think that Bicker is on here just to start arguments. It seems there are few voices on here that are not truly one sided. Most of what i read on here is just complaining about providers, & how the small % that we represent to those providers, are treated unfairly. I find most of his responses on here a good counter point to some of the complaining. We all want to be heard & we all want what we are paying for. Sometimes I wonder if the problems I have with my 3rd party equipment is what I paid for?


But you can disagree with someone and provide a counter argument without being disrespectful. How he does things sometimes is just poor behavior no matter how you look at it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

That's a patently self-fulfilling assertion. You refuse to acknowledge your own role in shaping the attitude of the messages in reply to yours; as I said, I just mirror the attitude of the message I'm replying to.

You don't *like* the reality I outline. I'm sorry that you're sad. But don't expect an unrebutted soap-box for what I consider wrong or bad information.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

I have no problem with bicker's content-oriented messages - he offers a valuable, consistent perspective. I often don't agree with him, but I often do. It would be a shame if he were not here.

However, lately he's been answering content with non-content and rants. I will ignore him until he returns to the bicker of old.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> I have no problem with bicker's content-oriented messages - he offers a valuable, consistent perspective. I often don't agree with him, but I often do. It would be a shame if he were not here.
> 
> However, lately he's been answering content with non-content and rants. I will ignore him until he returns to the bicker of old.


Hmmm.... How far back to you have to look to see the "bicker of old" ?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Probably right before you started replying to my messages.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> Actually, I typically post pretty matter-of-factly until attacked. Some few people apparently want an unrebutted soap-box for their one-sided blindly-consumerist perspectives, which is an unreasonable expectation and also doesn't serve members of the community well, since it simply spreads such misconceptions wider, spreading dissatisfaction and discontent wider.
> 
> So the attack on the "sense of community" you talk about stems from the unreasonable and unconscionable conduct of the folks to whom I reply.
> 
> ...


I simply stated a fact. I'm sorry you do not agree, but I'm not surprised either. In general people seldom react well to criticism, which is what it was and not a personal attack. I believe your commentary is important, I just think the tone in which it is delivered could be adjusted.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Not very encouraging so far. Will you be checking your 40 or so HD channels?


TW Claims over a hundred, but I don't get all of them.

Of channels 1747-1897 the only ones that are set to 0x00 are our locals.

1804
1806
1808
1810
1811
1813
1815
1896
and
1897


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> That's a patently self-fulfilling assertion. You refuse to acknowledge your own role in shaping the attitude of the messages in reply to yours; as I said, I just mirror the attitude of the message I'm replying to.
> 
> You don't *like* the reality I outline. I'm sorry that you're sad. But don't expect an unrebutted soap-box for what I consider wrong or bad information.


If that's your reality you are living in Fantasy land. I have provide 2 independent sources of the definition of monopoly that support what I have asserted. When asked what your definition is the answer is silence. Or an in your face reply that makes wild claims as to the character of the various posters and that is respectful? I don't think so. You should change your signature from correct in an irritating sort of way to just irritating.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> If that's your reality you are living in Fantasy land.


Not at all. I'm living in the real world. If you want any more evidence, just remember you're complaining about *the way things are*. Your assertion isn't just about me, but about society itself, that has arrayed itself as I've described, despite your being unhappy about it.

How much further do you really want to quibble about this?


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Cool it guys...get back on topic.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Not at all. I'm living in the real world. If you want any more evidence, just remember you're complaining about *the way things are*. Your assertion isn't just about me, but about society itself, that has arrayed itself as I've described, despite your being unhappy about it.
> 
> How much further do you really want to quibble about this?


My complaint has been about your definition of (or should I say lack of definition of, you still haven't given one, let alone a link to a independent definition) monopoly. Not about what cable companies do or don't do or what I think they should or shouldn't do (Although my opinion is just as valid as anybodies). In addition to this, you you show a complete lack of respect to differing opinions. So again if your reality thinks I have argued otherwise, I think you are living in a different reality.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

From Cnet at http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10385865-94.html?tag=commProfileMain;profileBot

"Speaking of power grabs, recall that the FCC has tried repeatedly, at the strong urging of media lobbyists, to force electronics and software manufacturers to implement the so-called broadcast flag. Responding to a signal embedded in programming, TVs, DVRs, and computers would be forced to limit the ability of consumers to time-shift programming, a capability we've enjoyed since the invention of the VCR."

I think it's interesting that at least this media outlet is completely unaware of what cable companies are doing. The very thing the article mentions affects TiVo users in a real way.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

orangeboy said:


> There are 328 threads with the word "monopoly" in the Main Tivo Forums.
> There are 113 threads with the word "monopolies" in the Main Tivo Forums.
> 
> Hasn't this been discussed enough?


Actually, no. Perhaps a better statement would be, "It hasn't been discussed methodically enough." There's been a lot more emotion and rhetoric than logic and evidence involved. Given the nature of the discussion, this is perhaps not surprising, but emotions are not facts and feelings are not necessarily logical.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Have you ever seen that real old TV show called "The Time Machine". They finally made a real one.


Without a flux capacitor?!?!?!


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

questors said:


> Here is the response I got to my email complaint. They do say that they will take our concerns into consideration going forward. Let them know how you feel.


Oh, yeah, right! 'Ever hear of the "Bedbug Letter" incident relating to a railroad passenger in a Pullman car? I suspect the story may be a myth, and it certainly seems anecdotal, but there's a hard kernel of truth in it. You maybe expected them to write, "Kiss off, Creep!"?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> As a practical matter it doesn't make any difference whether the content providers are requiring copy protection. Even if they're not, TWC is allowed to do it and they are doing it for whatever reason -- which we don't actually know, although we suspect it's to hurt TiVo.


That's unlikely. TiVo in and of itself is too small to make any really serious trouble for TWC merely by its existence. I find it more likely to be a knee-jerk reaction engendered by the mindset of the management at TWC. They fear, greatly, anything which might even hint at reduced profits for the MPAA members.

Do you know how to catch a monkey?



dlfl said:


> I stated early in the thread I thought this was a long shot. But it was interesting (and almost effortless) to "poke the bear" and see what the response would be.


I could have told you what the response would be.



dlfl said:


> Even if we could prove the content providers aren't requesting protection, we are such a miniscule part of their subscriber base that we don't have the clout to get TWC to stop doing something they are legally allowed to do.


We don't even have the clout to stop them from doing something they are not legally allowed to do. In case you hadn't noticed, Echostar is still in violation of rulings by a federal district court, and TWC is a lot bigger than Echostar.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> And the regulations as they are now certainly do take consumers into account, and try to preserve the features that consumers consider essential. We can still record TV for time-shifting, quibbles about moving it elsewhere aside. With no regulations, cable companies could have made it impossible to record television completely! (The networks would have LOVED that.)


That's backwards. The networks want their commercials played as often as possible. If you record one of their commercials, they positively love it. That you happen to copy their video content is incidental. They don't sell it, so your copying and distributing it doesn't "cost" them anything of which to speak. The networks sell advertising, not programming. It's the Motion Picture Association members who don't want their content copied. They sell programming content. (This all a bit oversimplified, but it's the gist of it.)


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> That's backwards. The networks want their commercials played as often as possible. If you record one of their commercials, they positively love it. That you happen to copy their video content is incidental.


Except that they blame DVR's for people NOT watching commercials, because they can fast forward past them. Also, the price they can charge for commercial time is directly related to ratings - and people watching a time-shifted recording don't count in the ratings. (I know they have "DVR ratings" now, but advertisers are going to pay based on the traditional ratings system.)

What you say makes sense, which is probably why the networks and advertisers don't think that way.


----------



## brk (Mar 4, 2009)

Why doesn't Tivo change/add a feature to stream the data to the second (or third) Tivo. Effectivly the same as MRV and no second copy. Would this make it ok per the rules (if it could be done)?

Personally, I would prefer this anyway as I like to keep one copy of each show.

Edit - nevermind - I see that is discussed on many other threads... hopefully will result in some news soon!


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Without a flux capacitor?!?!?!


The flux capacitor is 1980's tech, it was replaced by the neutrino injector in 2320... Wait a minute what year is it? 2009?!? Darn it, I wasn't supposed to say that yet ignore that.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> The flux capacitor is 1980's tech, it was replaced by the neutrino injector in 2320... Wait a minute what year is it? 2009?!? Darn it, I wasn't supposed to say that yet ignore that.


Keep watching _*Flash Forward *_and all will be revealed!


----------



## gamo62 (Oct 12, 2002)

If anyone here lives in Cincinnati and has access to their new FiOptics service, RUN do not walk! It is amazing!!! And best of all, NO, NO, NO CCI0x02 bytes are set for non premium digital cable channels!


----------



## cartouchbea (Jan 14, 2009)

gamo62 said:


> If anyone here lives in Cincinnati and has access to their new FiOptics service, RUN do not walk! It is amazing!!! And best of all, NO, NO, NO CCI0x02 bytes are set for non premium digital cable channels!


Ditto!

AND, their "low end" 10Mb internet service is faster than Time Warners "standard" tier for about $20 less. If I recall correctly, CB also has 20Mb and 30Mb service available too.

Sooooo glad to be kicking Time Warner to the curb.

If it weren't for the copy protection from Time Warner I'd probably have continued to live in blissful oblivion and had them transfer service to my new address. But because Time Warner copy protects (darn near) everything, I am no longer a Time Warner cable or RoadRunner customer.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

Any updates on this? Progress? Anything???  Are you listening Time Warner Cable???? 

P.S. Unfortunately Cincinnati Bell's FiOptics is going to take a LOOOOONG time to cover all of Greater Cincinnati. It will just be a few neighborhoods at a time with an emphasis on areas with a high concentration of MDU's!


----------



## dmart1nez (Jun 14, 2007)

I am in the North Texas area and STUCK with TWC. I went thru the whole thing with their customer support and then wrote to their President and Finance guys (I wrote ALL EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT!!!) Finance guy - Nice guy - emailed me this back:

Dear Ms. Martinez:



Thank you for your inquiry regarding Time Warner Cables content protection settings (also referred to as CCI bits). Unfortunately, I am unable to give you a general answer regarding content protection because Time Warner Cable, like other distributors of multichannel video programming, negotiates the distribution rights for the content it carries independently with individual rights holders. These bilateral commercial negotiations take into consideration many different factors, including the content protection and digital rights management requirements of the rights holder; applicable law, license and regulations; and the interests of subscribers. Each of these commercial negotiations, and the terms of the agreements that result, are unique to the specific distributor and programmer involved. Accordingly, Time Warner Cable cannot comment on the rights and obligations of other distributors under their separately negotiated agreements. With respect to Time Warner Cables content protection settings, however, they are established in accordance with applicable law and its own agreements with programmers.



Consistent with those settings, content delivered by Time Warner Cable that has been flagged copy one generation (0x02) can only be copied once. Therefore, and as described on TiVos website support.tivo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/243/c/123%2C131/r_id/100041/sno/1), TiVos multi-room viewing and TiVoToGo features only permit content that has been flagged as copy freely (0x00) to be transferred to a second TiVo DVR or a PC. That is because both of these features make a second-generation copy on the downstream device. Certain content delivered by Time Warner Cable, including local broadcast television stations digital (SD and HD) signals, is flagged copy freely (0x00) and can be transferred to other TiVo DVRs and PCs.



We appreciate your feedback and will take your concerns into consideration going forward. Thanks again for being a Time Warner Cable customer.



Sincerely,



Christopher C. Loy
Vice President of Finance
Time Warner Cable - North Texas

so sounds like he is laying the blame on the programming channels - like SYFY, FLN, etc. I am trying to locate the EXECUTIVES for these programming channels and see what they have to say about TWC saying it is THEIR fault that TWC has to block these channels!


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Well, that proves TWC has a form letter answer. 
I think that's the 3rd one posted here, all exactly the same.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dmart1nez said:


> so sounds like he is laying the blame on the programming channels


You've misread it... what he's laying the blame on the programming channels for is specifically, "unable to give you a *general *answer". No where does the form letter say that any specific content provider places specific requirements on Time Warner Cable.

This is the sentence most relevant to the inquiry: "With respect to Time Warner Cable's content protection settings, however, they are established *in accordance with* applicable law and its own agreements with programmers." Note here that there is a careless tendency to read this as saying that the law and/or the agreements require content protection -- that interpretation, though, is nothing short of faulty comprehension.

You might want *more* information, but as we've said in this thread many times, there is no obligation for you to get what you want. No one has posted any proof that there is substantial benefits to be gained from service providers providing such more detailed information regarding the underpinnings of their internal operations and policy decisions.



dmart1nez said:


> I am trying to locate the EXECUTIVES for these programming channels and see what they have to say about TWC saying it is THEIR fault that TWC has to block these channels!


Given that you misunderstood what Time Warner Cable wrote, you're probably better off *not* exposing that fault to folks you're trying to get to help you.

I know it is really difficult for some folks, but the hardcore truth of the matter here is that they're doing what they're allowed to do and your *best *option to try to bring about any change in this regard is to cancel your service and tell them why. If you're not willing to do that, then you are voluntarily sacrificing the only significant leverage you have.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> You've misread it... what he's laying the blame on the programming channels for is specifically, "unable to give you a *general *answer". No where does the form letter say that any specific content provider places specific requirements on Time Warner Cable.
> 
> This is the sentence most relevant to the inquiry: "With respect to Time Warner Cables content protection settings, however, they are established *in accordance with* applicable law and its own agreements with programmers." Note here that there is a careless tendency to read this as saying that the law and/or the agreements require content protection -- that interpretation, though, is nothing short of faulty comprehension.
> 
> ...


She (or we) only have to point out to the content providers that TWC is doing this, whether they should or not can be left up to the two of them.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> This is the sentence most relevant to the inquiry: "With respect to Time Warner Cables content protection settings, however, they are established *in accordance with* applicable law and its own agreements with programmers." Note here that there is a careless tendency to read this as saying that the law and/or the agreements require content protection -- that interpretation, though, is nothing short of faulty comprehension.


To be fair, they clearly worded that very carefully so as not to preclude the possibility that a reader would misinterpret it in that way (in which case, the reader would go away and not bother them anymore).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Indeed -- only an idiot would provide a reply the only advantage of which is that its critics could exploit it to take unwarranted pot-shots at them.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> You might want *more* information, but as we've said in this thread many times, there is no obligation for you to get what you want. No one has posted any proof that there is substantial benefits to be gained from service providers providing such more detailed information regarding the underpinnings of their internal operations and policy decisions.
> 
> Given that you misunderstood what Time Warner Cable wrote, you're probably better off *not* exposing that fault to folks you're trying to get to help you.
> 
> I know it is really difficult for some folks, but the hardcore truth of the matter here is that they're doing what they're allowed to do and your *best *option to try to bring about any change in this regard is to cancel your service and tell them why. If you're not willing to do that, then you are voluntarily sacrificing the only significant leverage you have.


Normally I wouldn't jump into an old thread but I've been on vacation and felt I needed to add my $0.02 worth.

The only example I can think of where there is at least some comments posted on this subject in this forum where it has been reported what a content providers intent was, is Mark Cuban and HDNet. It has been reported a few times here that Cuban wanted the CCI byte to be copy freely. I don't think you will find HDNet on comcast anywhere anymore. Draw from that any conclusion that you might, your guess is as good as anyones. That said Comcast is within its rights to do what it is doing. Our only recourse is to try to get either:

Tivo to change the way they do MRV (ie either stream over a home network or move over a network (instead of copy)).
ComCast and the content providers onboard with the idea that allowing customers to MRV or long term archival of their content wont hurt their profits (similar to what people did the VHS tapes) if they go after the pirates who are actually illegally selling their content for money.
Or get the FCC to change their rules to allow the second option.
Personally my order of preference would be 1 (move option), 2, 3, 1 (stream), but I really don't see any of it happening anytime soon.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> The only example I can think of where there is at least some comments posted on this subject in this forum where it has been reported what a content providers intent was...


It was not only established, as you noted, that not only do broadcasters have a say in this, but it was also established that they have good reason, even if we viewers don't like it the reason, for having a say in this. If a content provider wants to assert its perspective, they can do so in the contract. If they choose not to do so, it belies any assertion, even by the content provider themselves, that they intended to preclude copy protection on their content. I'm not going to name names, as you did, but people in the industry are known to say one thing to people like you, and then when it comes to business do something different.



JWThiers said:


> Our only recourse is to try to get either:
> 
> Tivo to change the way they do MRV (ie either stream over a home network or move over a network (instead of copy)).
> ComCast and the content providers onboard with the idea that allowing customers to MRV or long term archival of their content wont hurt their profits (similar to what people did the VHS tapes) if they go after the pirates who are actually illegally selling their content for money.
> ...


I totally agree. TiVo doesn't have the money to spend on something so anti-partner, though. And Time Warner Cable (they're the ones who actually do this a significant amount -- Comcast does not) has been approached and folks have been rebuffed. That doesn't preclude further trying, of course, but that goes back to what I said before, i.e., if you are unwilling to unsubscribe from the service and do without (which is generally the case, from what I can tell), then there is really no reason to take your concerns in this regard seriously. And finally, the FCC is going to balance the desires of viewers for bonuses with regard to how they interact with their entertainment with the needs of business.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> It was not only established, as you noted, that not only do broadcasters have a say in this, but it was also established that they have good reason, even if we viewers don't like it the reason, for having a say in this. If a content provider wants to assert its perspective, they can do so in the contract. If they choose not to do so, it belies any assertion, even by the content provider themselves, that they intended to preclude copy protection on their content. I'm not going to name names, as you did, but people in the industry are known to say one thing to people like you, and then when it comes to business do something different.


I only named names because it is such a rare thing to get actual examples of a network wanting the CCI byte set one way and the distributor wanting something else. Having said that, as you said 


> people in the industry are known to say one thing to people like you, and then when it comes to business do something different.


I didn't say that anything is established fact I said that it had been posted here a few times that Cuban wanted the CCI byte set less restrictively (As much as I like TCF its hardly the best source of fact (its a good source of opinion)). *IF* those posts are in deed true and HDNet actually tried to get the CCI byte set to their liking and Comcast said no even that might not be the only reason for HDNet not being on Comcast (or BHN in central FL either). It would just interesting that the only network that at least publicly said they tried to get the CCI byte set is not carried by Comcast anymore. Does it mean anything? I don't know, but people can make their own opinions.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> Our only recourse is to try to get either:
> 
> Tivo to change the way they do MRV (ie either stream over a home network or move over a network (instead of copy)).
> ComCast and the content providers onboard with the idea that allowing customers to MRV or long term archival of their content wont hurt their profits (similar to what people did the VHS tapes) if they go after the pirates who are actually illegally selling their content for money.
> ...





bicker said:


> I totally agree. TiVo doesn't have the money to spend on something so anti-partner, though. And Time Warner Cable (they're the ones who actually do this a significant amount -- Comcast does not) has been approached and folks have been rebuffed. That doesn't preclude further trying, of course, but that goes back to what I said before, i.e., if you are unwilling to unsubscribe from the service and do without (which is generally the case, from what I can tell), then there is really no reason to take your concerns in this regard seriously. And finally, the FCC is going to balance the desires of viewers for bonuses with regard to how they interact with their entertainment with the needs of business.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "anti-partner"? How is changing the way they do MRV to be in compliance with what is allowed (streaming so no copy is on any machine except the one that actually recorded it or doing a secure move so that only one usable copy exists) anti-partner? I thought that these are the two ways that Tivo's MRV function could legally be incorporated and be in compliance with the CCI byte.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I only named names because it is such a rare thing to get actual examples of a network wanting the CCI byte set one way and the distributor wanting something else. Having said that, as you said
> 
> I didn't say that anything is established fact I said that it had been posted here a few times that Cuban wanted the CCI byte set less restrictively (As much as I like TCF its hardly the best source of fact (its a good source of opinion)). *IF* those posts are in deed true and HDNet actually tried to get the CCI byte set to their liking and Comcast said no even that might not be the only reason for HDNet not being on Comcast (or BHN in central FL either). It would just interesting that the only network that at least publicly said they tried to get the CCI byte set is not carried by Comcast anymore. Does it mean anything? I don't know, but people can make their own opinions.


Well, remember, the majority of complaints about application of CCI bytes is with regard to TWC. Wait! They don't offer HDNet at all. Neither do Cablevision, or Brighthouse. Actually only a small percentage of legacy cable systems carry HDNet. It's not a Comcast-only thing.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Well, remember, the majority of complaints about application of CCI bytes is with regard to TWC. Wait! They don't offer HDNet at all. Neither do Cablevision, or Brighthouse. Actually only a small percentage of legacy cable systems carry HDNet. It's not a Comcast-only thing.


True, So lets expand the issue for the sake of discussion. I can understand having a default set of conditions that the cable companies use for a boiler plate contract, and setting the CCI byte to copy once (your original recording) is certainly reasonable, by default they are protecting the content (I could also see it from the other side you don't ask for it we set it to the less restrictive, but that would be a whole different topic). What if a network specifically asks for the less restrictive setting (Or if it is set to the less restrictive by default (like FIOS) and they want it more restrictive)? Should that be a major sticking point in the contract negotiation? IMO IF the network specifically says I want this setting ANY cable company should say "Sure. Whatever you want the content belongs to you." Should the cable company be able to say "No, this is the setting you get we get to decide how the CCI byte is set not you the content owner. And if you don't like it there's the door."

A related question but not really germane to the discussion in general, Is HDNet on FIOS?

For bicker a personal question. Did you ever get FIOS installed and if so how do you like it so far?


----------



## rocko (Oct 29, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> A related question but not really germane to the discussion in general, Is HDNet on FIOS?


Yes. HDNet and HDNet Movies are available on FIOS. As with all channels there is on copy protection.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

rocko said:


> Yes. HDNet and HDNet Movies are available on FIOS. As with all channels there is on copy protection.


Thanks.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> .......,,,Should the cable company be able to say "No, this is the setting you get we get to decide how the CCI byte is set not you the content owner. And if you don't like it there's the door."
> ..........


First, welcome back JW, you lucky dog!

I think the cable co clearly *can *take that position -- after all a contract or agreement is only entered into if both parties find mutually acceptable terms. Whether it's to their advantage to take that position is something they have to decide, and we probably don't get to know their thinking about it. But if you want to know what Tiger Woods might be thinking just tune in any "news" program.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Should the cable company be able to say ...


As you suggested earlier in your message, it is a contract negotiation. That means that both sides get to say. And if the two sides' positions are antithetical to each other, and neither side wishes to sacrifice their position, then there is no agreement, and hence no contract.

And that's okay. The assumption that every service provide must carry every bit of content, and every content provide must find a way in to every home, is without merit. Pervasive distribution is a nice goal, but not an imperative of the system.



JWThiers said:


> A related question but not really germane to the discussion in general, Is HDNet on FIOS?


Yes. I've checked it out. Bleh.... nothing special. I probably won't be tuning the channel in much, if at all.



JWThiers said:


> For bicker a personal question. Did you ever get FIOS installed and if so how do you like it so far?


My first impressions can be found here:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7643578#post7643578

Updating that... I've had FiOS for two weeks now, and the PQ seems to be about the same as Comcast, if not a little worse. We had some audio drop-outs on Dollhouse this past week (which apparently other FiOS folks have had -- I haven't heard from any Comcast folks yet, about that), which we've never had before on that program, and the HBO and Cinemax movies we've watched all weekend seem to be just as pixelated during action, water, and fire scenes as with Comcast, if not moreso.

So, so far, with regard to FiOS TV versus Comcast TV, I'm not impressed with FiOS.

However, I didn't switch due to television. I switched due to Internet. And the 25/15 (provisioned at 25/25) service from FiOS is definitely better than "Blast!" from Comcast. There isn't that much of an improvement in download speed (but there is some), but there is a very big improvement in upload speed. I post podcasts and videocasts for my church, and when uploading 300 MB files all the time, that symmetrical service really makes a big difference.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> As you suggested earlier in your message, it is a contract negotiation. That means that both sides get to say. And if the two sides' positions are antithetical to each other, and neither side wishes to sacrifice their position, then there is no agreement, and hence no contract.
> 
> And that's okay. The assumption that every service provide must carry every bit of content, and every content provide must find a way in to every home, is without merit. Pervasive distribution is a nice goal, but not an imperative of the system.
> 
> Yes. I've checked it out. Bleh.... nothing special. I probably won't be tuning the channel in much, if at all.


Glad to hear you seem at least marginally satisfied with FIOS (I wish it were an option for me).

Back to the topic at hand. Like I said I don't have a problem with having a default position in the boiler plate even if it isn't the one I think it should be.  I don't even have a problem with parts of the contract being carved in stone. I just don't think that it is right for the cable companies to force CCI bytes that the rights holder doesn't want and says so explicitly. Its one thing if the subject isn't brought up, but if it is I don't see why the cable company would even care. It just seems like an overstepping by the cable company. Note, I am not arguing what the CCI byte should be from my point of view as a consumer, but what the providing network wants as a company. I doubt every network would even care what the CCI byte is, but it would be nice to know that if they wanted to they could change the byte. As it stands now it is pretty obvious that even if Discovery or History or ESPN or USA or TNT or SyFy or any other non OTA channel wanted to change the CCI byte they couldn't do it. Well they could they just wouldn't be available on anything but the legacy cable systems, FIOS and U-Verse. none of which are available in large areas of the country.

Oh well.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Oh well.


Yes, often things in the commercial realm will be a balance of what consumers want and what business wants, and so sometimes consumers may not get what they want, as a result.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> First, welcome back JW, you lucky dog!
> 
> I think the cable co clearly *can *take that position -- after all a contract or agreement is only entered into if both parties find mutually acceptable terms. Whether it's to their advantage to take that position is something they have to decide, and we probably don't get to know their thinking about it. But if you want to know what Tiger Woods might be thinking just tune in any "news" program.


Thanks, had a GREAT Time. PM me if you want details.

Its not a question of CAN they take the position that the CCI byte is non negotiable (Obviously they can), its a question of SHOULD they take the position that the CCI byte is non negotiable.

Personally if it were up to me, the network would be the ones setting the CCI bytes and they could do it on a per show basis. The cable companies should only be adding the default CCI byte if the network doesn't set it themselves.

I'd actually probably want to modify it slightly to allow for do with it what you want DVD, portable device etc., another for moving it around as local network only but no DVD's or portable devices, another for record once no network transfers, another for no permanet recording at all. But that is me. If I have to stay within the current rules the networks should be setting the bytes.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Yes, often things in the commercial realm will be a balance of what consumers want and what business wants, and so sometimes consumers may not get what they want, as a result.


In this case it isn't about what consumers want, it is about what a network wants to do with their content. I think that any channel on FIOS should be able to say "We want more restrictive settings." I think They should also be able to tell BHN (Or any other cable company) they "want less restrictive" if they want. If they don't care they can just let the default of the cable company decide.

Truthfully, I don't understand why the cable company would even care one way or the other what the bytes are set to. Simplistically they should be just the delivery system.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

If the cable company didn't care, then they'd do the least (i.e., nothing). There have been discussions about how cable companies can benefit from the right to set CCI if they choose to and aren't prohibited to. I suspect people biased against the application of CCI bytes by service providers will deny the existence of those reasons, as a matter of course, like some airline passengers deny the existence of the reasons for aspects of TSA security screening.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> If the cable company didn't care, then they'd do the least (i.e., nothing).


Well, the CCI byte is going to be set to _something_. Making it 0x00 and 0x02 take the exact same amount of effort. I've always thought that perhaps they don't care and were being conservative, figuring that no one ever got in trouble by protecting things MORE than they needed to be.



> There have been discussions about how cable companies can benefit from the right to set CCI if they choose to and aren't prohibited to.


Perhaps people have discussed other reasons, but the only suggestion I remember is that the cable companies want to set it to make TiVo a less attractive option. That's possible, although I doubt that they care all that much about TiVo at this point. Have people come up with other reasons?



> I suspect people biased against the application of CCI bytes by service providers will deny the existence of those reasons, as a matter of course, like some airline passengers deny the existence of the reasons for aspects of TSA security screening.


I don't think JWThiers was denying the reasons, he just mentioned he doesn't know what they would be. I don't either, although I'm willing to be enlightened.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I believe you would be, but I'm sure you've seen them. I recall discussions about how restricting copying helps enhance the value of the basic offering, because would tend to prompt subscribers to become more reliant on VOD, a service offering which often reflects very well on the service provider. While TiVo, itself, is probably inconsequential, like you say, the prospect of a path by which subscribers are taken away from the UI controlled by the service provider also cements a firm reason for employing the restriction.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Ah, VOD is an interesting point. I could see how that could be a substitute for being able to record things or move recordings around.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Ah, VOD is an interesting point. I could see how that could be a substitute for being able to record things or move recordings around.


If it is a move to place more cable STB's in the home so to promote cable VOD services, wouldn't that be an anti-competitive move?

I had always thought it was to promote more cable STB's so that one device couldn't access content and move it around where you consume it. You'd be forced to subscribe to a device on each set to receive those channels.

With my S2 I could record any digital channel and then move it anywhere in the house without having a digital receiver in that room. These were standard def recordings and no different than what the HD records, yet somehow they are treated differently when accessed by an HD unit. Why. So far the only answers have been "because they can" and from the CC help desk, They don't want "people selling television shows". Really? People sell TV shows? I must be out of touch.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> If it is a move to place more cable STB's in the home so to promote cable VOD services, wouldn't that be an anti-competitive move?


I guess, but I think not in a way that would be easy to argue is illegal.



> I had always thought it was to promote more cable STB's so that one device couldn't access content and move it around where you consume it. You'd be forced to subscribe to a device on each set to receive those channels.


Perhaps so. Gee, I still remember the days when Comcast used to advertise that satellite was terrible, because you actually had to pay *per TV*. 

There are many legal ways to enable watching in another room, and I expect that in the future we'll see many products like the Moxi DVR that do that.



> With my S2 I could record any digital channel and then move it anywhere in the house without having a digital receiver in that room. These were standard def recordings and no different than what the HD records, yet somehow they are treated differently when accessed by an HD unit. Why. So far the only answers have been "because they can"


Well, they don't really need any other reason.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> With my S2 I could record any digital channel and then move it anywhere in the house without having a digital receiver in that room. These were standard def recordings and no different than what the HD records, yet somehow they are treated differently when accessed by an HD unit. Why. So far the only answers have been "because they can" and from the CC help desk, They don't want "people selling television shows". Really? People sell TV shows? I must be out of touch.


I think one reason is because the S2 is analog. "They" don't care about analog because that produces inferior copies.
What "they" don't want you to have is a perfect digital file (what the HD Tivos record) because copies would be as good as the original.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

steve614 said:


> I think one reason is because the S2 is analog. "They" don't care about analog because that produces inferior copies.
> What "they" don't want you to have is a perfect digital file (what the HD Tivos record) because copies would be as good as the original.


Well in that case they should remove copy protection on all my SDV channels, since they are never perfect (always pixelated, some freezes)!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> If it is a move to place more cable STB's in the home so to promote cable VOD services, wouldn't that be an anti-competitive move?


Quite the opposite... the separable security ban was put in place to foster competition between STB makers -- increasing demand for STBs thereby *aides *competition, by increasing the demand, thereby making it more worthwhile for companies like Pace, Digeo, Samsung, Thompson, etc., to offer tru2way-compatible STBs for sale.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

steve614 said:


> I think one reason is because the S2 is analog. "They" don't care about analog because that produces inferior copies.
> What "they" don't want you to have is a perfect digital file (what the HD Tivos record) because copies would be as good as the original.


While I agree the digital copy should be better, in practice my analog recordings of the digital channels were indistinguishable from the original on my largest analog set(32" JVC). All SD channels looked like crap on my 42" plasma.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> While I agree the digital copy should be better, in practice my analog recordings of the digital channels were indistinguishable from the original on my largest analog set(32" JVC). All SD channels looked like crap on my 42" plasma.


Indeed. But analog copies of copies, or copies of copies of copies, and so on, look worse with every generation, which makes content providers breathe a bit easier. Whereas a 1,000,000th generation digital copy is still identical to what was recorded directly from TV.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Arguing against what I just posted - of course if the first copy you make of an analog source is onto a digital medium (like a DVD recorder), then you can make as many copies (or generations of copies) as you want from that point on without degredation.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Arguing against what I just posted - of course if the first copy you make of an analog source is onto a digital medium (like a DVD recorder), then you can make as many copies (or generations of copies) as you want from that point on without degredation.


That's kinda what S2 TiVos do.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> Quite the opposite... the separable security ban was put in place to foster competition between STB makers -- increasing demand for STBs thereby *aides *competition, by increasing the demand, thereby making it more worthwhile for companies like Pace, Digeo, Samsung, Thompson, etc., to offer tru2way-compatible STBs for sale.


What we are talking about is increasing the demand for their product at the expense of another. Putting mechanisms in place that makes one's own product more attractive or not as unattractive isn't exactly objective behavior.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> What we are talking about is increasing the demand for their product at the expense of another.


Not at all. The competition spawned is for the equipment. Again, that was the point of the regulation.



Stormspace said:


> Putting mechanisms in place that makes one's own product more attractive or not as unattractive isn't exactly objective behavior.


You're making gibberish up now. The law promotes effective competition, and it is clear that increasing demand for STBs will help spawn competition in a space, the sale of digital host devices (STBs), that the FCC itself recognized has not enjoyed enough competition in recent years.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> That's kinda what S2 TiVos do.


Good point.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> Not at all. The competition spawned is for the equipment. Again, that was the point of the regulation.
> 
> You're making gibberish up now. The law promotes effective competition, and it is clear that increasing demand for STBs will help spawn competition in a space, the sale of digital host devices (STBs), that the FCC itself recognized has not enjoyed enough competition in recent years.


Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. The CCI bit(legal or not) undercuts the competition by removing a feature offered by the Cable co's competition. That particular practice limits competition.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

No, I'm not missing the point. Rather, I making it clear that the competition that the FCC aimed to foster was competition between STB makers. The CCI flag doesn't "undercut the competition". Indeed, it fosters competition between STB makers, as i indicated earlier.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> No, I'm not missing the point. Rather, I making it clear that the competition that the FCC aimed to foster was competition between STB makers. The CCI flag doesn't "undercut the competition". Indeed, it fosters competition between STB makers, as i indicated earlier.


I think another major point is that if the cable company sets the CCI flags, their equipment has to respect those flags just like TiVo, Moxi, and whatever else. TiVo is free to engineer around the problem by streaming, doing a move instead of a copy, etc.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I think another major point is that if the cable company sets the CCI flags, their equipment has to respect those flags just like TiVo, Moxi, and whatever else.


And I think that is the point. The cable co. doesn't care that the CCI flag is set because their DVR's don't allow transfering (AFAIK), while at the same time, they know that Tivo does allows transfers. 
They now have the ability to undercut a competitor's feature with a legal alibi.
Therefore, they get the people who figure "well, if I can't do <insert feature here>, I might as well get a cable co. DVR".


> TiVo is free to engineer around the problem by streaming, doing a move instead of a copy, etc.


I don't think anyone disagrees with this statement.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I think another major point is that if the cable company sets the CCI flags, their equipment has to respect those flags just like TiVo, Moxi, and whatever else. TiVo is free to engineer around the problem by streaming, doing a move instead of a copy, etc.


All of the above are good points but still doesn't explain why the cable company should be allowed to set the CCI Byte to something other than what the originating network wants if they express the desire for it to be some specific setting? This only becomes an issue when the network specifically says they want their content to be set to one thing and the cable company mandates it be another. That IMO is wrong no matter which way the cable company mandates the setting. If a network wants it one way that is the way it should be.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> All of the above are good points but still doesn't explain why the cable company should be allowed to set the CCI Byte to something other than what the originating network wants if they express the desire for it to be some specific setting? This only becomes an issue when the network specifically says they want their content to be set to one thing and the cable company mandates it be another. That IMO is wrong no matter which way the cable company mandates the setting. If a network wants it one way that is the way it should be.


I'm not aware of a known case where a cable co is setting copy protection different than what the network wants -- did I miss it?

I agree with your desire for the way things should work, however. Apparently the existing option of a network simply specifying what they want in their agreement with the cable co (or else no agreement) doesn't cut it for you, correct?

So are you advocating what you think should be written into law? How would this law work to achieve what we want? The cable co could still just refuse an agreement with a network rather than be forced to set the flag a way they don't wish to. If you write the law to say that this issue cannot be the basis of a cable co refusing the agreement, that is unworkable. They can always come up with a plausible other reason for refusing the agreement, e.g., can't agree on price or other terms.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

dlfl said:


> They can always come up with a plausible other reason...


Yep. The same way a racist employer can skirt the anti-discrimination laws.
The excuse could be anything from "under qualified" to "we've ceased hiring at this time".


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Well in that case they should remove copy protection on all my SDV channels, since they are never perfect (always pixelated, some freezes)!


Haha... been there... done that... Misery loves company.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

steve614 said:


> Yep. The same way a racist employer can skirt the anti-discrimination laws.
> The excuse could be anything from "under qualified" to "we've ceased hiring at this time".


It does get complicated when you attempt to legislate morality. But we do agree it must be done in some cases, e.g., "Thou shall not kill", even with all the complications. Is it worth the complications in other cases, such as you mention? I don't know. It takes a sting operation to catch the racist employer (or apartment landlord, etc.), then there's the court case, and we just don't have the resources to do that for every suspected violation.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> No, I'm not missing the point. Rather, I making it clear that the competition that the FCC aimed to foster was competition between STB makers. The CCI flag doesn't "undercut the competition". Indeed, it fosters competition between STB makers, as i indicated earlier.


How?

Lets put it out there. How many people in this thread think that doing an end run on features offered by competing products fosters competition?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> How?
> 
> Lets put it out there. How many people in this thread think that doing an end run on features offered by competing products fosters competition?


I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify or be more specific? Do you essentially mean "does it foster competition for TWC to set CCI=0x02 on all channels except local broadcast?" ?

Also I strongly suspect this doesn't address the essential point(s) of disagreement between you and bicker.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dlfl said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify or be more specific? Do you essentially mean "does it foster competition for TWC to set CCI=0x02 on all channels except local broadcast?" ?
> 
> Also I strongly suspect this doesn't address the essential point(s) of disagreement between you and bicker.


It sounds like Bicker says Nullifying features, such as MRV, using the CCI byte on competing products fosters competition.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

But why would we expect a competitor to "foster competition"? I don't like what TWC does but if they think it helps their competitive position in the DVR market they may well do it, as long as it's legal.

I can't vote on your question because it seems to have a false premise.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> If the cable company didn't care, then they'd do the least (i.e., nothing). There have been discussions about how cable companies can benefit from the right to set CCI if they choose to and aren't prohibited to. I suspect people biased against the application of CCI bytes by service providers will deny the existence of those reasons, as a matter of course, like some airline passengers deny the existence of the reasons for aspects of TSA security screening.


I am sure they have their reasons and I think TWC does care how the bit is set. I think they set it to try and get more digital outlets in the home. Why do you think MRV is a feature that is only reluctantly looked at by cable companies. 
I am perfectly ready to concede they have a business reason for setting the restriction. I doubt TWC has some personal vendetta going on. 
However I think that business reason for TWC or any other needs to balanced against the FCC mandate to foster competition by creating an environment for 3 rd parties to compete. 
Thus my call for the FCC to look at rules on the wholesale setting of CCI and provide some clear guidelines/rules that includes the interests of cable companies and content owners (some want less restriction) and CE companies making 3rd party devices with features designed to make their product more competitive(MRV).

now from TiVo inc. perspective I would think that developing a streaming approach to sharing shows would have a better long term payoff than lobbying the FCC. Though they could do both.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dlfl said:


> But why would we expect a competitor to "foster competition"? I don't like what TWC does but if they think it helps their competitive position in the DVR market they may well do it, as long as it's legal.
> 
> I can't vote on your question because it seems to have a false premise.


My point really is that TWC is actively reducing their competitions STB features using a mechanism designed to prevent certain behavior. And while this practice may be legal, it does not foster competition by providing a level playing field.

So while the cable companies may be doing something completely legal lets not pretend they are doing any thing other than looking out for their own best interests.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> My point really is that TWC is actively reducing their competitions STB features using a mechanism designed to prevent certain behavior. And while this practice may be legal, it does not foster competition by providing a level playing field.
> 
> So while the cable companies may be doing something completely legal lets not pretend they are doing any thing other than looking out for their own best interests.


I'm not sure anyone (including bicker) is pretending this. For the most part it's natural for corporations and people to act in their own interest, unless prevented by law or moral code. Even acts of charity, sportsmanship or altruism (IMO) are in the interest of the person/entity doing them because they make them feel better about themselves, which is a big reward, not to mention the good publicity.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dlfl said:


> I'm not sure anyone (including bicker) is pretending this. For the most part it's natural for corporations and people to act in their own interest, unless prevented by law or moral code. Even acts of charity, sportsmanship or altruism (IMO) are in the interest of the person/entity doing them because they make them feel better about themselves, which is a big reward, not to mention the good publicity.


I think TWC is abusing the authority they were given (Setting the CCI byte) to 
hamper a competing product (STB's). Also, based on the fact that TWC will be offering MRV within the next 6 months(Info courtesy the Cable guy) on their own boxes using a mechanism designed around the limitations they imposed in the first place suggests to me that it was done at least in part to hinder competition in the STB market, not foster it.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

My view is that it's probably not a coincidence that Time-Warner is a media company and thus at the top level has strong proponents in favor of DRM. I don't think they are setting the bytes because of TiVo.

I am concerned that the NBC-Comcast merger will affect Comcast's position on this.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I'm not aware of a known case where a cable co is setting copy protection different than what the network wants -- did I miss it?


The ONLY case that has ever been reported here, is HDNet. Reportedly Mark Cuban wanted CCI set to 00 and the cable company (I don't recall which one was reported in the post) wanted 03. HDNet is now only on FIOS and U-Verse that I am aware of (major carriers) U-Verse has its own boxes that allow for an MRV type expirience and FIOS sets EVERYTHING to 00. All other carriers either already or are moving to everything (except whats required by law) to 03. Is it the ONLY factor? I don't know but it seems odd to me.



dlfl said:


> I agree with your desire for the way things should work, however. Apparently the existing option of a network simply specifying what they want in their agreement with the cable co (or else no agreement) doesn't cut it for you, correct?
> 
> So are you advocating what you think should be written into law? How would this law work to achieve what we want? The cable co could still just refuse an agreement with a network rather than be forced to set the flag a way they don't wish to. If you write the law to say that this issue cannot be the basis of a cable co refusing the agreement, that is unworkable. They can always come up with a plausible other reason for refusing the agreement, e.g., can't agree on price or other terms.


Should it be written into law? There are a ton of issues surrounding it the least of which are copyrights issues and the like. But it appears to me that the the cable companies its my way or the highway approach isn't really a negotiation. I think that the intent of the CCI byte as written us correct by saying that PPV is copy never with limited life, premiums may be copy once and allow streaming, and OTA as copy freely. I think the intent is that set between Premium and OTA should be either what the network wants or if nothing is requested what the cable company decides (Them erring on the side of caution is OK with me). But IF a NETWORK request something else let them have it. If the cable companies wont honor the requests from a network it might have to be added into the FCC rules. I don't like a ton of rules, but I think that what we have now is an unintended consequence and cable companies exploiting the letter of the rules.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And so we go around again. As if anything anyone has said in this thread over the last year or more has meant anything. At this point, all I'm reading is retreading of the same, tired old "I'm a consumer and the world should revolve around me" silliness that we have way too much of in our country already.

I asked several times in this thread and related threads whether the folks asking for clarifications, explanations, and such were sincerely looking for information, or were just looking to get their rocks off by having another platform to take baseless pot-shots at service providers. Effectively, those folks have lied by claiming sincerity.

I'm getting off this carousel at this point. I'm sure that I'll meet you on the next carousel -- my objective to ensure that casual readers get the real story, see a balanced picture of how things are, instead of a gurgling stew of consumerism-gone-mad. I figure at this point, the only people left in this thread are those who actually have already made up their mind, have no interest in understanding the business' side of things, and therefore will gain nothing from further discussion.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

CrispyCritter said:


> My view is that it's probably not a coincidence that Time-Warner is a media company and thus at the top level has strong proponents in favor of DRM. I don't think they are setting the bytes because of TiVo.
> 
> I am concerned that the NBC-Comcast merger will affect Comcast's position on this.


+1


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> I figure at this point, the only people left in this thread are those who actually have already made up their mind, have no interest in understanding the business' side of things, and therefore will gain nothing from further discussion.


the already made up mind would also include you 

and now I will go apologize to our cable company overlords


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

TWC has started putting CCI 0x02 on all channels but locals as of Wednesday. Anyone know if I remove the cable cards I could get around that?


----------



## notting (Dec 15, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> TWC has started putting CCI 0x02 on all channels but locals as of Wednesday. Anyone know if I remove the cable cards I could get around that?


Only in the sense that you might then get the analog version of channels, which can't have CCI set.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

notting said:


> Only in the sense that you might then get the analog version of channels, which can't have CCI set.


I'm seriously considering dropping digital cable. We've reviewed what we watch on the digital stations and believe we can do with out them, or find another way to watch them if they are important.


----------



## lafos (Nov 8, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> TWC has started putting CCI 0x02 on all channels but locals as of Wednesday. Anyone know if I remove the cable cards I could get around that?


We have 3 HD's and a S3. Only two have cards. We left the cards out of the other two for just this reason. Though SD analog, it does let us get some use out of MRV. I've been tempted to drop digital cable, too, but was outvoted, 1 to 1.


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

Not sure if it will do any good, but I also just emailed TWC:


> I have been a TWC customer using a Tivo HD, cablecard and tuning adapter for a while now. I switched to your service after 9+ years of DirecTV because they had stopped offering a Tivo based DVR and I wanted to go HD. I have used your company's DVR as well as the DirecTV, Dish and UVerse ones and found them all lacking compared to Tivo.
> 
> I just purchased a 2nd Tivo HD to use in our kids game room and am waiting (over a week) for a truck roll to install the cablecard for it. (I find it ridiculous that you require a truck roll that costs ME money for that, but that's another issue.) My main complaint is that I'm finding out that, apparently, your company is setting the CCI copy protection bit on every program I have recorded on my original Tivo unit; thus blocking a core feature of the Tivo DVR's: Multi Room VIewing (MRV)
> 
> ...


----------



## Malk (Feb 8, 2010)

eric_n_dfw said:


> Not sure if it will do any good, but I also just emailed TWC:


good luck, I'm sure you'll get the canned response from the corporate office if you get any at all.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Malk said:


> good luck, I'm sure you'll get the canned response from the corporate office if you get any at all.


He probably will, but I think it's still a good idea to send it. Most companies do at least track how many requests/complaints they get on various topics, so every letter may help.


----------



## Malk (Feb 8, 2010)

Brainiac 5 said:


> He probably will, but I think it's still a good idea to send it. Most companies do at least track how many requests/complaints they get on various topics, so every letter may help.


I would agree with you 100%, that some may track information like that, if they care about their customer base.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

lafos said:


> We have 3 HD's and a S3. Only two have cards. We left the cards out of the other two for just this reason. Though SD analog, it does let us get some use out of MRV. I've been tempted to drop digital cable, too, but was outvoted, 1 to 1.


As an update. We dropped digital about three months ago. Using the cost savings of returning the equipment we added netflix. The addition of netflix made those that missed digital happy and we can once again MRV.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

If letters could make TWC change it would have happened long ago. If they ever do change it will be for their own business reasons.

If you want to write somewhere where it could actually make a difference, send a comment to the FCC, see **this**. This is almost as simple as sending an email.

BTW, the boilerplate response TWC sends out may be found in **this post** earlier in this thread. It will be interesting to compare this to what eric_n_dfw gets now. Cutting through all the words this response simply says "what we are doing is legal, and that's all we're going to tell you". Frustrating isn't it?

TiVo owners are less than 0.5% of TWC's customers. Don't expect to exert much pressure on them (other than possibly through the government, i.e., Congress and the FCC).


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

Well, ice cubes may be forming in hell today because an actual human being from TWC called me about my complaint email. She said she would be contacting the technician for my area about it and would call or email me back. 

Not holding my breath, but I was pretty surprised to even hear from someone.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

eric_n_dfw said:


> Well, ice cubes may be forming in hell today because an actual human being from TWC called me about my complaint email. She said she would be contacting the technician for my area about it and would call or email me back.
> 
> Not holding my breath, but I was pretty surprised to even hear from someone.


I'll bet you that they didn't understand the email and are sending the technician out to "fix it". That basically means he'll find out the issue is with a policy they have, communicate that upstream, and then you'll get a verbal saying they can't do anything about it.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

Stormspace said:


> I'll bet you that they didn't understand the email and are sending the technician out to "fix it". That basically means he'll find out the issue is with a policy they have, communicate that upstream, and then you'll get a verbal saying they can't do anything about it.


I think you are for sure on the right track.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Now, where's that jpg of Don Quijote


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

vstone said:


> Now, where's that jpg of Don Quijote


It won't hurt for him to try. Another voice being heard that is displeased cannot be bad.


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

As feared, the response is, basically, "There is no problem, all is working as we want it." 



> Mr. Smalling,
> 
> All of our CCI levels are set by corporate guidelines. Yes, a lot of our programming is set to "Copy Once". Our off air broadcasters are set to" Externally Defined", and PPV are set to "Copy Never". Again this is governed by Corporate, not locally.
> 
> ...


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

Here is my draft reply to TWC - anyone see anything I should revise?



> ​Thank you for your investigation of this, however you've only confirmed my suspicions that TWC corporate policy is to basically give non-TWC DVR owners the shaft.
> 
> The statement that, "a lot of our programming is set to "Copy Once"", seems very dubious to me since of the 100+ programs currently recorded on my older Tivo HD, the only ones being allowed to be copied to my new Tivo are those from the local broadcast stations. Besides, why wouldn't you put, "Externally Defined" on all content? (outside of maybe premium or PPV shows)
> 
> ...


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

eric_n_dfw said:


> Here is my draft reply to TWC - anyone see anything I should revise?


You misspelled "Sincerely".

Give it a shot. Like I said earlier, it certainly can't hurt.


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> You misspelled "Sincerely".
> 
> Give it a shot. Like I said earlier, it certainly can't hurt.


 I scrutinized spelling everywhere but there!

Thanks.


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

Going to rewrite it before sending to be a little less inflamatory. 

Also, the CableCard finally paired up. The Twitter folks ( @TWCableHelp ) checked with the CCard help desk but they said they didn't do anything - just a really slow pairing for some reason.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

TWC doesn't like TiVo's because they decrease their bottom line. They "care" only to the degree the FCC makes them care, and so far that hasn't worked very well. It's not because they are bad guys -- there is no moral imperative they should like TiVo's.

Their copy protection policy is legal and they don't have to tell us anything other than stating that what they do is legal.

I don't like it any more than the rest of you -- but these facts have been established for a long time now.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I don't like it any more than the rest of you -- but these facts have been established for a long time now.


Nonetheless, I think it's worthwhile to complain. It's probably true that there aren't enough TiVo owners for their complaints to make a difference, but the only way to absolutely ensure that is not to send those complaints at all. In any case, complaining won't do any harm, so why wouldn't one do it?

I agree that the facts are well established, and there's really no need to discuss them amongst ourselves. However, complaining about the (well-understood) state of affairs to our respective cable companies is a different matter.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Nonetheless, I think it's worthwhile to complain. It's probably true that there aren't enough TiVo owners for their complaints to make a difference, .....


It's not just probably true. TiVo users are less than 0.5% of their customer base and all of us are captive customers if we want to use our TiVo's to record cable programming.


Brainiac 5 said:


> .....but the only way to absolutely ensure that is not to send those complaints at all. In any case, complaining won't do any harm, so why wouldn't one do it?


I agreed with this when this campaign started (see my post #2 in this thread) but that was nine months and many letters to TWC ago. As bicker correctly analyzed in post #6:


bicker said:


> The solution to this is strictly commercial: Folks need to demonstrate to the company that making this change will be more profitable than not making this change. There surely aren't enough TiVo owners who are TWC customers to be a convincing number to convince anyone of anything. This really needs to be a much larger and broader effort, or it will just be a waste of time and energy. You need to make contact with literally millions of TWC customers, and get them to care about this issue enough (that "enough" part is essential) to have thousands of them take action in response, such as canceling service or reducing service to basic. That will register as a significant event, in TWC's book, and will motivate them to consider your concerns seriously.





Brainiac 5 said:


> I agree that the facts are well established, and there's really no need to discuss them amongst ourselves. However, complaining about the (well-understood) state of affairs to our respective cable companies is a different matter.


OK -- if you like beating dead horses! 

If you want to write somewhere where it would be more likely to make a difference, send a comment to the FCC, see **this**.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> ...
> 
> I don't like it any more than the rest of you -- but these facts have been established for a long time now.


We need to learn what the Mongols taught the Chinese. "When the horse dies, get off."


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

I decided not to send the response email I posted here yesterday and, instead sent this shorter, less inflammatory one:


> Thank you for your response. Can you please described the meaning of, "Copy Once"? Because I would assume that would mean I could copy it to one other TiVo in my house after the initial recording. In reality, absolutely nothing recorded on non-broadcast channels is copyable at all. Including over 100 different recordings across dozens of channels.


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

Re: Beating a dead horse
You may be right, but if we don't complain to TWC and/or the FCC, then there definitely is no chance of a fix. I would vote with my pocket book if there was a viable alternate, but, IMO, there currently is none.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

eric_n_dfw said:


> I decided not to send the response email I posted here yesterday and, instead sent this shorter, less inflammatory one:


better - the first one was filled with so many different things and accusations hard to prove that they could evade answering in so many ways. 

the second one, with its focus on one issue, is much better. Sometimes you just have to keep asking simple single subject questions to get at the truth. Kinda like playing 20 questions.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Regarding "copy once"...

When your Tivo records a show, it is copied to the hard drive. That is the one and only copy you are allowed to have.
Transferring to a computer or another Tivo constitutes a second copy, which is not allowed under "copy once".


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

steve614 said:


> Regarding "copy once"...
> 
> When your Tivo records a show, it is copied to the hard drive. That is the one and only copy you are allowed to have.
> Transferring to a computer or another Tivo constitutes a second copy, which is not allowed under "copy once".


I think he knows that, but asking them to explain it brings the issue to light.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

steve614 said:


> When your Tivo records a show, it is copied to the hard drive. That is the one and only copy you are allowed to have.


Interestingly, Motorola cable company-supplied DVRs don't see it that way - people with devices like D-VHS that can record from firewire are able to copy shows with copy once from a recording on their DVR onto D-VHS. (Of course, just try getting a cable company DVR with firewire nowadays... not easy.)

I think they can and will easily argue that the copy on the hard drive is the one copy, but it's interesting that the cable companies themselves have in the past supplied equipment that bases its restrictions on a different interpretation. (Not that it helps us any.)


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

eric_n_dfw said:


> Re: Beating a dead horse
> You may be right, but if we don't complain to TWC and/or the FCC, then there definitely is no chance of a fix. I would vote with my pocket book if there was a viable alternate, but, IMO, there currently is none.


I suspect some of the recent posters here haven't reviewed this thread to learn more of the history of this, but anyway I was one of the first people to write a letter to TWC on this 9 months ago. TWC has never responded with anything more meaningful then the letter I referenced in an earlier post and I see no reason to think things would change (unless forced by the FCC) -- in fact the trend has been for other cable systems to impose similar protection.

I too initially received a response that they would have a local rep contact me about it, but after several weeks nothing happened and when I pinged them again the standard response verbage was sent.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> ... and I see no reason to think things would change (unless forced by the FCC) -- in fact the trend has been for other cable systems to impose similar protection.


One person on this forum (I don't remember who now) contacted their local Comcast office, and eventually got the copy once taken off their channels. This person was also told that Comcast's national policy is or would be to only protect the channels of networks that specifically asked for it. I have Comcast where I live, and originally all my channels were copy once; I don't know if this is related to that person's experience, but some time ago my channels suddenly all changed to copy freely. So as far as I can tell, the trend with Comcast is toward _removing_ the protection.

Maybe TWC will never change their mind about this, but as I said before, the only way to absolutely guarantee that 100% is to stop asking them to. I say complain away, of course keeping the realistic expectation in mind that nothing is going to change.

In any case, I don't see why it would be important to anyone for people _not_ to complain to their cable company. What will complaining hurt? It can't be that they just can't stand to think of the person wasting their time, because we spend far more time discussing it here than it would take to send a letter of complaint.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> ......... I say complain away, of course keeping the realistic expectation in mind that nothing is going to change.


 That speaks for itself! Doesn't that define "futile" ?


Brainiac 5 said:


> In any case, I don't see why it would be important to anyone for people _not_ to complain to their cable company. What will complaining hurt? It can't be that they just can't stand to think of the person wasting their time, because we spend far more time discussing it here than it would take to send a letter of complaint.


Time spent writing to TWC is wasted because TWC isn't engaged in the discussion. Time spent on this forum is not wasted because (hopefully) all parties are actually engaged.

I don't see why it would be important to anyone to encourage people to waste time and energy complaining when the realistic expectation is that nothing is going to change (using your words). Is the unspoken thing here actually just that complaining makes us feel better? If so let's all open our windows tonight, lean out, and yell "TWC I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!".  This will do as much good as writing them letters, I suspect.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> That speaks for itself! Doesn't that define "futile" ?


Well, I don't mean there's absolutely no possibility that anything will ever change until the end of time. What I mean is, no one should expect TWC to immediately change their mind based on one letter. In the long run, maybe there's a 0.000000001% chance they'll change their mind if you and others write to them - but if you don't write to them, the chance is 0%.



> Time spent writing to TWC is wasted because TWC isn't engaged in the discussion. Time spent on this forum is not wasted because (hopefully) all parties are actually engaged.


It's entirely likely that TWC does keep track of the number of people who've complained about this. The point of writing them is to add one to that number, for whatever effect that might have someday. Time spent discussing whether or not we should do that is mildly amusing, but has even less probability of affecting anything than writing.



> I don't see why it would be important to anyone to encourage people to waste time and energy complaining when the realistic expectation is that nothing is going to change (using your words).


Well, it's not like complaining involves heavy manual labor and takes years of your life. You write a quick note and drop it in the mailbox. It's entirely rational; while the _expectation_ is that nothing will change, that's not a certainty; writing is a very small amount of effort in exchange for a very small chance that it will do any good. If someone wanted to devote their entire life to campaigning for TWC to remove copy protection, I would advise against that.



> Is the unspoken thing here actually just that complaining makes us feel better?


No, the point is that if everyone stops complaining, then they haven't even the tiniest reason to ever reconsider. A tiny, minor, insignificant reason like the TiVo owners being upset is better than no reason at all.



> If so let's all open our windows tonight, lean out, and yell "TWC I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!".  This will do as much good as writing them letters, I suspect.


Well, if they're keeping track of complaints (which is somewhat likely, given that they have a form letter reply for this exact complaint), then writing will add your vote for no "copy once." Yelling out your window will just make you hoarse.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

If TWC ever does relent on copy protection it will be for some reason that is a lot more important to them than one more complaint!

By now I think all thread readers have heard (more than) enough pros and cons on whether it's worth their time to complain to TWC -- may the force be with them whatever they choose to do!


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Agreed!


----------



## StanSimmons (Jun 10, 2000)

When TWC Dallas first started putting the cci byte on everything, they put it on the rebroadcast OTA channels as well. I wrote them and they promptly removed it from the OTA channels... They have never budged on any other channels. I gave up after a year of letters and phone calls and just hacked my TiVoHDs to ignore the cci byte entirely, making MRV useful once again. 

I hate that they are forcing me to "break the law" to make my equipment continue to function in the way that it was designed.


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Well, it's not like complaining involves heavy manual labor and takes years of your life. You write a quick note and drop it in the mailbox. It's entirely rational; while the _expectation_ is that nothing will change, that's not a certainty; writing is a very small amount of effort in exchange for a very small chance that it will do any good. If someone wanted to devote their entire life to campaigning for TWC to remove copy protection, I would advise against that.


Yeah, that's pretty much my attitude about this. You never know who you'll get a hold of when you talk to a big company like TWC. You could get that one person with some common sense who has lunch with a senior exec and mentions it.

Probable, no. But worth a shot at least.

I also figure that if the new HD DirecTivo's ever come out and they have working MRV or at least streaming and TWC still hasn't changed their tune, I'll jump ship back to them. (I was a DirecTV HDVR2 user before going HD and being forced onto TWC to keep my Tivo experience)


----------



## TheSubmariner (May 31, 2008)

StanSimmons said:


> When TWC Dallas first started putting the cci byte on everything, they put it on the rebroadcast OTA channels as well. I wrote them and they promptly removed it from the OTA channels... They have never budged on any other channels. I gave up after a year of letters and phone calls and just hacked my TiVoHDs to ignore the cci byte entirely, making MRV useful once again.
> 
> I hate that they are forcing me to "break the law" to make my equipment continue to function in the way that it was designed.


Love to know how you hacked it...  Might want to try that myself.


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

StanSimmons said:


> When TWC Dallas first started putting the cci byte on everything, they put it on the rebroadcast OTA channels as well. I wrote them and they promptly removed it from the OTA channels... They have never budged on any other channels. I gave up after a year of letters and phone calls and just hacked my TiVoHDs to ignore the cci byte entirely, making MRV useful once again.
> 
> I hate that they are forcing me to "break the law" to make my equipment continue to function in the way that it was designed.


Curious if you did your own EPROM swap or farmed it out. I'm a competent solderer, but just barely.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

eric_n_dfw said:


> Yeah, that's pretty much my attitude about this. You never know who you'll get a hold of when you talk to a big company like TWC. You could get that one person with some common sense who has lunch with a senior exec and mentions it.


But it's common sense that causes them to copy protect! TiVo's are a PITA to them, and hurt their bottom line. Anything they can legally do to lessen the TiVo experience, and thus drive customers to their DVR's and VOD, is common sense. You should be hoping you get the one person who thinks their company should be run as a charity.


eric_n_dfw said:


> I also figure that if the new HD DirecTivo's ever come out and they have working MRV or at least streaming and TWC still hasn't changed their tune, I'll jump ship back to them. .......


Now your talking common sense! This would do more than 10,000 complaints to get TWC to relent.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

eric_n_dfw said:


> Re: Beating a dead horse
> You may be right, but if we don't complain to TWC and/or the FCC, then there definitely is no chance of a fix. I would vote with my pocket book if there was a viable alternate, but, IMO, there currently is none.


An alternative is to drop cable completely or at most the minimum you can get for local channels. Then use the money you save to get the fastest internet you can afford and use Netflix, Amazon, Apple, to get legal downloads, streams of the shows that you can no longer get on cable. If you still need more there is always other means (Torrents). depending on your viewing habits you may find you actually get the same content and save money because you are only getting exactly what you wanted. It ain't perfect (might be watching stuff delayed or from last season), but ...


----------



## StanSimmons (Jun 10, 2000)

TheSubmariner said:


> Love to know how you hacked it...  Might want to try that myself.





eric_n_dfw said:


> Curious if you did your own EPROM swap or farmed it out. I'm a competent solderer, but just barely.


I farmed out the installation of the surface mount socket for the patched rom. I found the guy by searching for "Deals, Freebie and TiVo" and "Full Service PROM Modification" I'm not sure if he is still doing it.

After replacing the rom, the hacking is pretty straight forward. At the site you found above, search for "cci byte" and you should find everything you need. If all you want is MRV back, then you only need to apply the 3 cci byte patches. This will leave encryption alone and allow you to transfer programs to unhacked S2/S3/S4 boxes.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

StanSimmons said:


> I hate that they are forcing me to "break the law" to make my equipment continue to function in the way that it was designed.


When you wrote "they", did you mean TWC, Tivo, or both?

I'd also write letters to Tivo telling them how disappointed you are that other products can MRV just fine and theirs can't. Not even their newest product. You can also ask them when their "Home Media Solution" will be released, and if we should tack two years on the end of that like we did for the new DirecTivo.


----------



## StanSimmons (Jun 10, 2000)

BobCamp1 said:


> When you wrote "they", did you mean TWC, Tivo, or both?
> 
> I'd also write letters to Tivo telling them how disappointed you are that other products can MRV just fine and theirs can't. Not even their newest product. You can also ask them when their "Home Media Solution" will be released, and if we should tack two years on the end of that like we did for the new DirecTivo.


TWC... My TiVoHDs functioned just fine until TWC started being jerks.

I have written (many times) to TiVo suggesting that they modify MRV to allow streaming as an option on CCI Byte protected shows. The S3/HD/HDXL units have been capable of this since at least v9.4, but TiVo hasn't implemented it in MRV. For more info, see: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=403174


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Streaming web video via HME/VLC != streaming 1080i HD with MRV. The word here is that the Tivo HDs cannot reliably stream up to full HD (19mb/s) from Tivo to Tivo via MRV because of horsepower limits. I don't think this is true for a single stream from T->T, but it's certainly true for more than one. Of course they could have put in a limit to only allow one stream to/from a single Tivo, but for whatever reason they haven't.

And the only answer I can come up with, especially now that the Premieres could do it without breaking a sweat, is that they have a quid pro quo going with the content providers or cableCos.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> And the only answer I can come up with, especially now that the Premieres could do it without breaking a sweat, is that they have a quid pro quo going with the content providers or cableCos.


That's also the best answer I can come up with. Here's a snippet from the CEOs bio:

Prior to joining PRIMEDIA, Tom was President of NBC Cable and Executive Vice President of NBC, as well as NBC's chief strategist. Among his many accomplishments, Tom founded CNBC, the nation's leading business news channel and established the NBC/Microsoft cable channel and Internet joint venture, MSNBC. In addition, he served as co-chairman of the Arts and Entertainment, and History Channels, and was responsible for overseeing many other cable channels including Court TV, Bravo, American Movie Classics, Independent Film Channel, the National Geographic Channel, and numerous regional sports channels.​
I'm sure he's got a lot of buddies still working at those content providers.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I'm sure he's got a lot of buddies still working at those content providers.


Yep, and from the beginning, even before he took over, TiVo has always been very concerned about not upsetting content providers.


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

I don't want to go off topic here so I've started a new thread about my TWC displeasure and the prospects of going elsewhere, feel free to chime in if you want: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=453144

Otherwise, thanks to you all for giving me a sounding board to complain about TWC's CCI shenanigans.


----------



## eric_n_dfw (Jul 15, 2003)

FWIW, I never did hear back from the TWC contact regarding my followup CCI question to here. Maybe she thought it was rhetorical? In any case, I just sent her this email and doubt I'll hear back from her as a result of it either:


> Although I haven't heard back from you with my last question, research online has convinced me that your company has no interest in ever changing this policy. I believe Time Warner cable places the most stringent CCI flag they can legally use in order to coerce their customers into leasing TWC equipment instead of Tivo's DVR's. I also believe that unless forced by legislation, they will continue this bullying practice as there are just not enough Tivo owners out there for them to care.
> 
> This practice, combined with amazing levels of ineptitude by your company's technicians to get CableCard and SDV tuning adapters to work are forcing me to consider ending my relationship with TWC. As a 9+ year Tivo owner, the majority of which on DirecTV, I am sad to have to stop supporting a company like Tivo because of TWC's poor level of service, but I simply can't justify paying a monthly fee for a service that cripples my own equipment for no good reason.
> 
> ...


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

eric_n_dfw said:


> FWIW, I never did hear back from the TWC contact regarding my followup CCI question to here. Maybe she thought it was rhetorical? In any case, I just sent her this email and doubt I'll hear back from her as a result of it either:


Again, why not send a version of your comments somewhere where it has a better chance of making a difference, e.g., see **this**. You could just put a small wrapper on your most recent letter. Filing a comment only takes a few seconds.


----------

