# Help correct the FCC record re: Tuning Adapters



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Do you agree with these statements filed with the FCC in comments by the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and Time Warner Corporation (TWC) on or about 15 June 2010:

NCTA:


> Cable operators are committed to continuing to provide and support Tuning Adapters. Because Tuning Adapters are working, Commission action is not necessary to ensure that consumers with UDCPs have access to channels delivered through switched-digital technology


TWC:



> The tuning adapter solution has been fully deployed and enthusiastically embraced by eligible consumers, eliminating any need for the Commission to intervene. 22 TWC has now made tuning adapters available to eligible customers who want them in each division where it has deployed SDV technology.....





> In TWCs experience, consumer feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. As of May 2010, TWC had deployed over 16,000 tuning adapters. That significant penetration attests to the efforts that TWC has undertaken to make customers aware of the tuning adapter offer and to ensure that the devices are available.


If you don't agree with these statements (or if you do agree), you can file a comment very easily at this link:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=97-80

This is in the overall context of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the FCC's NPRM of 26 April 2010, "Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, 
Compatibility Between Cable Systems and
Consumer Electronics Equipment" (*Proceedings 97-80*)

On the linked page are links to view all the associated FCC documents and to file a comment. I suggest the "ECFS Express" method at this link:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=brxhu

If you file a comment, it along with your name and address will be published on the 97-80 page linked above. (No anonymous smears allowed!)

There's a lot of easily reachable information in the various public and FCC filings linked on the 97-80 page.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

The filing TiVo made pretty much says it all.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020505199

I'd actually like to second that particular filing, but I think you have to create a new filing to do that. Not a very friendly system to show support one way or the other.

The suggestion TiVo has made about IP based communications with the head end sounds like a really efficient and inexpensive way to go. Leave it to cable companies to come up with the most proprietary and convoluted solution possible. Those cable companies are determined to do the exact same thing AT&T did back in the 70's with their telephone equipment. The government put a stop to that behavior in a big way. They should be doing the same now.

I believe the current situation violates the intent of the original legistaltion and there has been a total failure in providing real-world 3rd party access. The tuning adapter requirement has all but removed any shred of compliance. Those filings made by the cable operators are simply a knee-jerk response as if there was no problem before SDV, which isn't true.

I don't really know what to say in a filing, it looks very formal. It would be nice if I could just add concurrance to an existing statement somwhere.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

CraigHB said:


> The filing TiVo made pretty much says it all.
> 
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020505199
> 
> ...


If you use that **express link** I provided, a "filing" (of a comment) is not much more complicated than composing an email. You just put in "97-80" for the proceedings #. Why not just say what you said in your post? You can reference the TiVo filing, put in a link to it, or copy and quote parts of it in your comments.

As you can see, most comments are filed by the vested special interests. If individuals don't file comments, they are relying on the diligence of the FCC staff to somehow ferret out what customers really think. Are you comfortable with that?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

I think it's very important for consumers to weigh in this topic. While TiVo's filing may reflect reality in the field, the FCC has no obligation to give their filing more weight than the cable industry filings. It's only through feedback from consumers that they can see the truth of the situation.

Filing doesn't have to be as formal as what TiVo has produced. In fact, if you've posted a cable card or tuning adapter horror story here or elsewhere I'd urge you to file and quote liberally from your own account.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

It says 87-90 is "closed"?

My comment:
I strongly disagree with Time Warner's comments about Switched Digital Video Adapters. As a recent consumer that had CableCARDs and a tuning adapter installed the process was far from easy. I needed 2 service appointments and spent over 5 hours with customer service on the phone. TW employees are NOT familiar with the purpose of the tuning adapter or how to troubleshoot or install them. Even the best tech I had help from (who finally got everything working) knew less about TiVo than I did. If I did not press them, call them, tweet them, complain to them, do my own research and just overall was persistent, I have zero faith TW would have got my TiVo working properly. The system is a mess for the average consumer, no doubt.


----------



## wesmills (Mar 8, 2006)

cwoody222 said:


> It says 87-90 is "closed"?


That's because it's 97-80. 

I uploaded my comments, including on the integration ban waiver and the other points for which the FCC sought comment. This is trivially easy; people should definitely get involved.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

Done, I submitted.


----------



## Bort13 (May 28, 2002)

I filed.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

wesmills said:


> That's because it's 97-80.
> 
> I uploaded my comments, including on the integration ban waiver and the other points for which the FCC sought comment. This is trivially easy; people should definitely get involved.


I think the integration ban was aimed at letting companies go digital more easily as they could provide simple free DTA box for folks being moved off analog. Also I think it wasa carrot to get the cable companies playing ball on the gateway idea.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

The 97-80 Proceedings "home" page I referenced in the first post of this thread only lists the 40 most recent comments "filings". Thus, for example the Time Warner filing I quoted from has fallen off the bottom of the list. However, this page also has a link near the top called "Search for Comments in 97-80" that will allow you to find all the comments filings.

Just FYI, the NCTA filing I quoted from is:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6015649948

and the Time Warner filing I quoted from is:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6015649845

The Time Warner quotes are blatant examples of lack of good faith on their part. The management responsible for these statements has either (1) isolated themselves from the reality of company operations (which is inexcusable misfeasance) or (2) just plain lied. (malfeasance).


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Good job guys. Some really good comments so far. Still trying to collect thoughts for my contribution. 

This is a really great opportunity. Think of it as your chance to tell the FCC, and your cable company, exactly what you think about how they operate with regard to set-top boxes, cableCARD, tuning adapters, etc.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Come on folks, keep those cards and letters, err... comments filings coming!

TWC and NCTA file ridiculous statements like those quoted in the first post because they believe they will get away with it, i.e., their customers will not get involved and call them on it. It takes only a small effort on your part to prove them wrong!


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Is 97-80 the appropriate filing to support taking application of the CCI byte out of the hands of the cable operators, and solely in the hands of the content providers?


----------



## shaown (Jul 1, 2002)

I made a comment to, stole some of the above text and added my own points.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

Okay, comment submitted.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

orangeboy said:


> Is 97-80 the appropriate filing to support taking application of the CCI byte out of the hands of the cable operators, and solely in the hands of the content providers?


I don't think it would hurt to mention it, but I don't think it is so I wouldn't use it for the only reason for my submission.

Since it is a cable labs decision, I don't think it would hurt to have the opinions also on file towards the potential Allvid solution and what rules may apply.


----------



## Dr_Zoidberg (Jan 4, 2004)

I've submitted. Thanks for the link!


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> I don't think it would hurt to mention it, but I don't think it is so I wouldn't use it for the only reason for my submission.
> 
> Since it is a cable labs decision, I don't think it would hurt to have the opinions also on file towards the potential Allvid solution and what rules may apply.


Thanks. I did some digging around, and I believe the appropriate Filing is 03-255, "Plug and Play", based on the following text:



> 5. The initial decisions and rules adopted in the Navigation Devices proceeding
> implementing this statutory provision included, inter alia, the following:
> 
> Section 629 covers not just equipment used to receive video programming, but also
> ...


It is my opinion that the liberal application of CCI byte x02 by the _operator_ contrary to the content _owner_'s original CCI byte setting is a clear violation of Section 629:



> Section 629 of the Communications Act, which is titled Competitive
> Availability of Navigation Devices, requires the Commission to:
> adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability, to consumers of
> multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel
> ...


Application of CCI byte x02 by the operator denies the use of the MRV service to navigation devices NOT offered by the MVPD service provider, when the content _owner_ has this byte set to x00. If the content owner's intention is to allow "copy freely", the operator should not change the byte. Please correct me or explain why the operator has any right to change the CCI byte to something other than the content owner's intended setting. I just don't see how changing the CCI byte prevents theft of service...


----------



## CountRugen (Jun 27, 2010)

Comment Submitted


----------



## Macros_1 (Apr 23, 2010)

Comment Submitted


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Now there's a new round of reply filings from TWC, Comcast, NCTA, Verizon, TiVo, and more. Lots of cable industry back slapping about how they're clearly right because they all agree with one another.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=97-80

Keep your filings coming. We need a consumer voice among all this cable industry nonsense.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I love Montgomery County, Maryland's comments.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6015658381


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

When I first read the cable cos objections to IP-back-channel I was impressed -- I thought they had some good points related to cost, reliability, and time delay through the Internet.

However, after reading other submissions and thinking more about it, I'm all in favor of IP-back-channel. And I don't see how anything could be less reliable than the TA. Getting rid of that extra box would be such a relief. I sympathize with the cable cos about having spent a lot furnishing TA's and having to spend more to implement IP-back-channel, but let's face it: the money really comes from us -- not them.

This comment filing by the Consumer Electronics Association and Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition  is a nice read from the TiVo owner's point of view, and makes the point that the cost factors will favor IP-back-channel by a huge margin once market penetration achieves (the desired) high level.

It's too bad that advances such as IP-back-channel have to be forced on the cable cos, but I think it's necessary because of the lack of competition in the Cable TV market (i.e., most addresses in the country have at most one cable operator to choose from). If it weren't for this, I would say let the free market rule. Or maybe I'm just rationalizing because I hate how my TiVo and TA (don't) work together.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

That was an interesting document. What I gather they're saying is there's nothing wrong with the continuation of cable cards. It's very feasible both economically and practically with the addition of an IP backchannel. That sounds like a great fix for the current TA/cable card mess. 

Until SDV, my only complaint about cable cards was their poor support by my cable provider. That's not the technology's fault. It stems from a resistance to support third party devices and the lack of FCC enforcement. What's interesting (and what I was not aware) is the idea that all equipment would require insertion of a cable card upon installation. Providers have complied with the cable card requirement, but have "welded" the cards to their leased devices instead. They weren't supposed to do that, but got away with it.

If they can get cable cards to work with SDV using an IP backchannel, I'm all for it. Cable cards are only a failure because providers do everything they can to discourage the use of them. If that can be corrected, I'll be fine with it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

CraigHB said:


> ........If they can get cable cards to work with SDV using an IP backchannel, I'm all for it. Cable cards are only a failure because providers do everything they can to discourage the use of them. If that can be corrected, I'll be fine with it.


There is the danger that cable cos may not make sufficient effort to make IP backchannel work either. The only apparent solution to that is another "integration" requirement, i.e., that all their equipment supplied after a certain date must use IP backchannel too.

The benefits of this, even if it happens, are probably two years away. Actually I hope by that time I won't be wanting a cable company for TV at all.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

dlfl said:


> There is the danger that cable cos may not make sufficient effort to make IP backchannel work either. The only apparent solution to that is another "integration" requirement, i.e., that all their equipment supplied after a certain date must use IP backchannel too.


This is what I was going to suggest in my filing. If I can ever stop ranting and finish it.

I think the CEA feels like two-way isn't nearly as urgent as it once was. Over the top services can overcome a lot of that. If they can get reliable, convenient access to all the linear programming they will be competitive enough to crack open the set-top market.


----------



## flyers (Dec 19, 2006)

+1


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

dlfl said:


> There is the danger that cable cos may not make sufficient effort to make IP backchannel work either. The only apparent solution to that is another "integration" requirement, i.e., that all their equipment supplied after a certain date must use IP backchannel too.
> 
> The benefits of this, even if it happens, are probably two years away. Actually I hope by that time I won't be wanting a cable company for TV at all.


Going with online sources for content may be a viable option in the future, but how far. I could just retain the most basic cable TV service to qualify for my bundle discount (it's pretty good) then get the bulk of my television programming through other means. However, at this point, online content is not nearly rich enough to replace the programming I currently get with digital cable. I could possibly get by with OTA plus online content, but in my current residence, I have no OTA access.

I really like having all my services through one provider (cable bundle). It's highly convenient, inexpensive, and I only have to pay one bill. I really would rather I didn't have to change that. The services have been reliable and have worked very well for the last several years up until SDV threw a spanner in the works.

IP backchannel may very well be poorly supported, but that wouldn't be any different than the cable card/tuning adapter situation we're dealing with now. At least I wouldn't be strapped with a cable company set top box.


----------



## Dvhsskater (Jun 16, 2010)

Tuning adapters suck


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Filed my submission. 

I basically said I have an issue with cable companies arbitrarily setting the CCI byte (copy protection). This specifically undercuts the functions of 3rd party devices and allows the cable companies to unfairly take advantage of people who do not want to rent devices from them. It should be regulated so that the content owners (NOT the cable companies) have sole control on what programming gets protected.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

My filing is in. Get me started and I go on for 12 pages.  It was nice to vent my spleen someplace where it might make matter after years of frustration.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

nrc said:


> My filing is in. Get me started and I go on for 12 pages.  It was nice to vent my spleen someplace where it might make matter after years of frustration.


Wow, what a document, complete with internal links and references. Hope you don't suffer post-partum depression from it! 

I especially liked this:


> Convenience is a prime concern for todays consumer.4 They want a device that is
> trouble free to install and operate. For most of people I speak with about TiVo, the
> inconvenience of CableCARD and tuning adapters prevents them from seriously
> considering a third party device. There will only be a competitive market for third party
> ...


That summarizes my chief complaint about TiVo/CableCARD/Tuning Adapters -- too much hassle and too little reliability.

One thing I wondered about: You seem to be using "linear channels" where I would think "switched channels" would be the correct terminology. I thought linear channels meant those that were not SDV (?)

Thanks for a prodigious effort!


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

dlfl said:


> Wow, what a document, complete with internal links and references. Hope you don't suffer post-partum depression from it!


Thanks. Like I said, years of frustration released. Basically I went through the FCC's filing and wanted to make sure that I specifically addressed each point. I type my documents in Markdown (Multimarkdown really) so the formatting was easy, it was getting all the words lined up that took a while. 

Thanks for bringing the submission form to our attention. I used the non-express version of the form which allows you to upload a document. I hope everyone with a cable card or tuning adapter horror story here will contribute.



> One thing I wondered about: You seem to be using "linear channels" where I would think "switched channels" would be the correct terminology. I thought linear channels meant those that were not SDV (?)


"Linear programming" is the term the FCC uses to refer to all pre-scheduled programming. It's defined somewhere in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. So linear channels just means all the channels that carry scheduled programming.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

nrc said:


> ........."Linear programming" is the term the FCC uses to refer to all pre-scheduled programming. It's defined somewhere in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. So linear channels just means all the channels that carry scheduled programming.


You are indeed correct on this. From a footnote in the NPRM:


> The term "linear programming" is generally understood to refer to video programming that is prescheduled by the programming provider.


I think this will be a surprise to many posters on this forum, as it was for me.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

dlfl said:


> ...I think this will be a surprise to many posters on this forum, as it was for me.


It honestly doesn't surprise me that a federal entity would use (the meanings of) words or terms contrary or differently then it's citizens would use. How else could they obfuscate some of the things that get passed?


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

@nrc, nice filing there, good read.

I came accross the following notice of inquiry about the AllVid proposal which could be the successor to cable cards. I couldn't figure out where that document would be listed on the FCC site. It would also be a good one to comment on;

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0421/FCC-10-60A1.pdf

I think it's pretty exciting. The idea of one box that can deliver all of my content throughout the home via IP sounds like a great way to go. It would also be something my S3 could just "plug into" with a software update.


----------



## E94Allen (Oct 16, 2005)

CraigHB said:


> I think it's pretty exciting. The idea of one box that can deliver all of my content throughout the home via IP sounds like a great way to go. It would also be something my S3 could just "plug into" with a software update.


Sound good but does it allows the Closed Captions to pass though via IP to disply on the TV?


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

The idea is to richen access and feature sets while improving convenience, not detract from any of that. So, I would be highly surprised if that was something that just gets lost in the translation (so to speak). 

Right now I have 4 boxes and 4 cable connections to deliver my connectivity and content (cable modem, phone modem, simple CATV box, TiVo). It would be so incredibly convenient to have one box and one cable connection. The rest would all live on my existing home network be that WiFi, CAT6, or MoCA, just brilliant.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

CraigHB said:


> @nrc, nice filing there, good read.
> 
> I came accross the following notice of inquiry about the AllVid proposal which could be the successor to cable cards. I couldn't figure out where that document would be listed on the FCC site. It would also be a good one to comment on;


Thanks, and thanks for the link to the Allvid filing.

The proceedings page for that proposal is here:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?z=urekv&name=10-91

If you want to file comments on this proposal you can use the express link and then enter "10-91" as the proceedings number.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

Thanks for that, I'll check it out.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

I liked this gem from the filing by John Whittle, posted 6/30/2010, referring to the TWC SDV/Tuning Adapter implementation and modifications required to achieve IP backchannel:


> The commission should not worry about Time Warner having to re-engineer since from the current service record this would be a first time they engineered the system.


Unfortunately, even if IP backchannel is imposed, unless it becomes mainstream, i.e., actually used in millions of MSO-provided boxes, it will suffer from the same slipshod implementation as TA's have. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the TA concept (other than requiring a separate box -- which is a big thing). It's the implementation that is the problem -- and it will always be a problem for anything that only affects less than 0.5% of TWC customers.

To be completely honest, it's possible that at least some of the TA problems we have could be caused by design flaws of the TiVo software and USB interface.

The only thing an IP backchannel implementation guarantees is there won't be a separate box -- and that's a big thing I agree. However, either TiVo or the cable cos. can still screw it up.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

dlfl said:


> The only thing an IP backchannel implementation guarantees is there won't be a separate box -- and that's a big thing I agree. However, either TiVo or the cable cos. can still screw it up.


Right, any solution that the cable companies aren't forced to use themselves will be at the mercy of their willingness to ensure that it's working properly. There have to be FCC penalties for not making sure that everything is working.

One possible benefit of the IP back channel could be that as a ordinary web service it could publicly expose a lot of diagnostic information. This could help identify the source of a problem and could be fed back to the FCC.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

I would bet the SDV equipment at the head-end already has a web server built-in for internal setup and diagnostics. The cable companies are probably making a big deal out of something that isn't really that hard to do, probably just a matter of software, or firmware. They'd rather put more effort into not doing it then it would actually take to do it. You'd think they'd jump on the idea. What makes more sense, spending a boatload of money on premise equipment or writing some software to cover it all in one fell swoop. TiVo has already said they would handle the software on their end so what's the problem? Is it simply because it wasn't something the cable companies came up with themselves?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Bump.... Keep those filings coming folks! (See first post.) The FCC shouldn't have any doubt about the experiences we have had, and the misrepresentations the cable operators are feeding them, as they ponder their decisions.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

(I am a TWC customer in Dallas)

I've had my tuning adapter on my new TiVo Premiere for but less than two weeks now. It was installed and setup at the sametime when the TiVo was setup with the cable car. Essentially, a "from scratch" setup. Prior to that time, I was using a Series 1 TiVo with analog cable directly into the box.

I won't go as far to say I enthusiastically embrace it as I would much prefer to not have to deal with it at all, but based on my limited experience, I'll say "It basically works" . I can surf through the SDV channels (essentially, all the HD channels that aren't a network channel) using LiveTV on my Premiere and it tunes them. It's actually quick, too. Really, not much difference than a non SDV channel. To be honest, it's faster than I thought it would. Of course, all is not 100% perfect. There have been a few occasions where I change to a channel and it won't come in. But if I move to a different one and come back, it comes in. 

Again, all of this is based on limited experience. I don't think I have run into an issue where a recording was missed due to a SDV tuning issue. I will keep a close eye on my Now Playing list to see if I am missing things I think should be there, and will also occasionally check "Recording History" to see if anything was missed due to a tuning issue.

For now, I will refrain from commenting to the FCC. In fact, I probably won't comment at all. And suspect you all will thank me for that.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

I've got to agree... my initial install was a nightmare and I'm still leery of any SDV channels they move around being messed up but otherwise, my setup is working.

*knocks on wood*

I don't even know the SDV adapter is there mostly.

I have trouble with 1 channel that "freezes" sometimes (which I think is more of a signal / digital cable issue, not SDV) and if my TiVo remains on an SDV channel for HOURS (3+) it loses it's signal.

Aside from the freezing issue, I haven't lost any recordings due to a non-tuning channel (since it was installed and setup properly).


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I should add that on this past Sunday, I got a message on my TiVo saying my lineup had changed. TWC added several new HD cable channles (HLN, AMC, MTV, BET, etc) I was able to tune eveyone of them without issue. I didn't need to do anything. It just worked.

As far as the time out issue. I know I read about that in either my TiVo manual or on-line at TiVo's website. IIRC, if you are watching "LiveTV", you get a prompt asking you if you want to keep watching. But I can't recall how it works if you are recording a long program.

I think I may have actually seen this prompt one time. But I can't recall if I was watching from the TiVo or if I was watching via my cable box.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

The Live TV prompt makes sense. I've never cut off a recording (even the 3 hours of Big Brother After Dark) but if it's making an overnight recording I'll lose the signal when I wake up.

I bet TiVo sits there at the prompt for awhile and then gives up. But if it goes to make another recording it obviously re-tunes the channel and all is well.

I had the opposite with my TWC removing channels from SDV and putting them back to analog. They did this but didn't update their "channel map" (or else TiVo didn't get the info until the next 48 hours). Until that happened TiVo was looking for the channel on SDV and it wasn't there.

They're adding some new HD channels in the coming weeks and I assume they're SDV so I'm waiting to make sure they do it right this time. They've actually added some of these new channels to the Tribune Lineup already which I'm shocked by. It's still 4+ weeks away!


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

jsmeeker said:


> There have been a few occasions where I change to a channel and it won't come in.


This is what will cause you to miss recordings. The Tivo will tune to the channel and if it doesn't come in, you get a blank recording, so to speak.
How often does this happen when you tune manually?



> I will keep a close eye on my Now Playing list to see if I am missing things I think should be there, and will also occasionally check "Recording History" to see if anything was missed due to a tuning issue.


You are wise to do so.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

The TiVo doesn't try to re-tune the channel?


I bumped into an tuning adapter issue last night. While watching some live TV, there were a few power sags. Each time, it tripped up the tuning adapter. The yellow light started to blink. TiVo displayed a message. After a few minutes, it started to work again. But the weird thing is that it disrupted a reording on a channel that I didn't think used SDV. (the local ABC channel)

I guess if they are sensitive to power issues, it's time to get the TiVo and the tuning adapter onto a small UPS.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

jsmeeker said:


> The TiVo doesn't try to re-tune the channel?
> ......


Nope. And it seems like it would be so easy to implement.

TiVo used to give the manual (tune-up/tune-down) workaround on one of their support pages but a few months ago they removed it and substituted a statement to the effect that there are no known issues with Tuning Adapters.

In a TiVo customer service chat session I was told that tuning failures are completely the fault of the tuning adapter, i.e., blame the cable co.

I'm told via PM from a TiVo employee on this forum that this issue was brought to the attention of TiVo Customer Service, and my contact information was also given to them. But there has been no follow up.

The Premieres also have this problem.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

jsmeeker said:


> The TiVo doesn't try to re-tune the channel?


It doesn't for OTA channels when there's no signal.
I have to admit I don't know how the TiVo functions with the TA, but based on my experience with OTA and what I've read here, I figured that it was a strong possibility that this is the scenario that would cause missed recordings.

--edit--

What dlfl said.


----------



## NiTE (Apr 27, 2010)

dlfl said:


> Nope. And it seems like it would be so easy to implement.
> 
> TiVo used to give the manual (tune-up/tune-down) workaround on one of their support pages but a few months ago they removed it and substituted a statement to the effect that there are no known issues with Tuning Adapters.
> 
> ...


It gets far worse than you can ever imagine...

Im in tivo tuner adapter hell right now

and if this isnt bad enough

support.tivo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/148

the rep forgot to ask me if there were any other tivos in the room before having me clear and delete everything (aka "Room Check"). I forgot I re-connected my series 2 since my new original series 3 isn't working! about 10 years of Data lost for no reason. Clear and delete didn't solve the problem anyway.

My new 2nd series 3 wont work, and now my premiere soon will stop working..and my series 2 with lifetime just got wiped clean for no reason.
It had a new 80 gig drive too, to prevent data loss.
I was even more upset to learn he has only a few weeks experience.

I guess I must blame myself for forgetting the series 2 was back on, and that series 3 remotes work series 2 boxes.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

For me, two things would improve the tuning adapter situation dramatically. 

One would be to fix whatever causes the situation described above, where you tune into a channel but get a black screen, and you have to change down, then back up again to get the channel. That's a biggie.

The second would be to add a USEFUL status indicator (an LCD panel, for instance) on the front of the box, instead of an LED. Something that would at least give a more user friendly indication as to what the issue is, or where it is in the boot and handshake process. Trying to describe the various blink patterns over the phone to a technician is infuriating. It could be as simple as a basic display from a calculator, and it STILL would be better than what they have now.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

nrc said:


> the FCC has no obligation to give their filing more weight than the cable industry filings.


The cable companies are the ones implementing the tuning adapters to allow competitors access to their market. The cable companies benefit financially if the tunning adapters don't work. Why would the FCC give any weight to the cable company's filing?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

shwru980r said:


> The cable companies are the ones implementing the tuning adapters to allow competitors access to their market. The cable companies benefit financially if the tunning adapters don't work. Why would the FCC give any weight to the cable company's filing?


That's a good question. And yet the cable industry has successfully prevented progress on achieving the goals of the Telecom Act for over a decade. The FCC seems to assume good faith on the part of the cable industry. It's a mistake that they've made time and time again.

Even though it appears that they understand a need for new rules to generate some kind of progress, they're also considering a blanket waiver to CableCARD rules for "low cost devices" which would open up a vast new loophole for the cable industry to take advantage of.

Meanwhile, industry filings continue pouring in and the consumers voice is at risk of being overwhelmed. Commenters are now freely cross-filing comments between the CableCARD rulemaking notice and the Allvid notice of inquiry.

The cable industry is trying to pull a Chewbacca defense. They say that further CableCARD rules are unnecessary because of the Allvid initiative, but the Allvid initiative is unnecessary because over the top services like NetFlix demonstrate that there's already a competitive market.

Be sure to make your voice heard.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=97-80


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

In a recent filing in these proceedings the NCTA gives their version of why CableCARD failed:



> o The CableCARD approach failed largely due to rational consumer choices. UDCPs worked only with one-way cable services, required significant up-front payments, and required the consumer to assume the risk of obsolescence.
> 
> o Instead, consumers chose to lease devices that offered VOD and other valuable services and provided them the flexibility to swap boxes when the next model was released or return boxes if they terminated service.


http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016055479

I would argue that most consumers make the "rational choice" because the cable industry has continued to make it as inconvenient, expensive, and impractical as possible to choose any other option.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

nrc said:


> I would argue that most consumers make the "rational choice" because the cable industry has continued to make it as inconvenient, expensive, and impractical as possible to choose any other option.


I am making the rational choice to not deal with Time Warner Cable for just the reasons you list.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I just hope that proposed AllVid bridge device comes to fruition. That's like the holy grail of consumer video choice.

Dan


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

FCC to bring new rules 10/14 possibly

Personally I am not overly optimistic about the whole thing. I figure in the end the cable companies will get their way and we will still be second class citizens. I will still be following it to see what happens, but in the end I may just cancel cable. I have such a huge backlog of shows I could easily go a couple years or so without cable when combined with Netflix.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

In their latest filing the NCTA reports that they told the FCC in a private meeting that TiVo's citations of consumer complaints about Tuning Adapters, including some from this forum, are mostly outdated or misrepresented.


> During the meeting, Ms. Harold asked us about statements TiVo has made about complaints from consumers arising from their use of Tuning Adapters. We explained that NCTAs Reply Comments addressed TiVos citations to various complaints generated from the TiVo Community and our research had found that many, if not most, of the quotes were outdated, had been edited to redact favorable statements, and that the customers had in fact successfully completed their installations.1


http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020915275

I can't seem to locate their reply comments where they addressed this specifically. But there you go, the NCTA continues to claim that everything is just peachy.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

I got a reply (snail mail) from the FCC yesterday regarding my comments I had posted as a result of this thread.

It basically told me that the FCC was not the organization to contact for problems with my cable and I should contact my cable provider.

Huh?

I was CLEARLY explaining how incompetent Time Warner is about CableCards and asking for no specific issue to be resolved.

Nice to know it seems the FCC threw my comments into the "ignore" pile.

*sigh*


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

cwoody222 said:


> I got a reply (snail mail) from the FCC yesterday regarding my comments I had posted as a result of this thread.
> 
> It basically told me that the FCC was not the organization to contact for problems with my cable and I should contact my cable provider.
> 
> ...


Sleep well -- your government is protecting you!

Of course..... they could protect you better if you paid more taxes so they could hire more bureaucrats.

And they wonder what motivates the Tea Party movement?


----------



## murraymh (Apr 20, 2008)

dlfl said:


> Sleep well -- your government is protecting you!
> 
> Of course..... they could protect you better if you paid more taxes so they could hire more bureaucrats.
> 
> And they wonder what motivates the Tea Party movement?


So what's the option Cranky...we should throw ourselves on the tender mercies of Comcast & Time Warner???

I sure as hell ain't no fan of the FCC, but having no regulations for these businesses scares the s***out of me.


----------

