# End Tivo discrimination (Multi room blocking (CCI byte)



## dcbarry (May 21, 2002)

I am looking for help from my fellow Tivo users to help eliminate "Tivo discrimination" by Time Warner Cable -- but I need the help of Comcast, Verizion FIOS and other non-Time Warner cable subscribers.


As you may know, Time Warner Cable has implemented a policy of blocking Tivo users ability to use Multi-Room viewing (or the Tivo desktop application) for every channel on their system, except for the Broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, etc) which they must NOT block by law. (This is the famous CCI byte issue.) In essence, they are attempting to de-value the TIVO.... when I have brought this up with the local office and executives, I am told how wonderful thir DVR is, and how I could use thier view-on-demand features, etc, etc.


When pressed on the issue, they claim networks *require* them do this. Which is pretty odd, because, from the casual reports of this issue, only Time Warner seems to implement this policy across the board for non-premium channels (like HBO, showtime, etc.). In fact, most Verizon FIOS users seem to report no CCI (blocking) issues.


I've spoken with one network (Food channel) which is actually owned by Scripps network informally, and my contact indicated that he doubted that any such requirement existed from the network, that it is a decision by the cable company. I was asked if I could gather some more concrete data, which he could then help me forward up to thier management. I'm also going to make a similar effort with the A&E network group as well. 


So, here is what I am asking: Can you please, (either by posting here, or by PM to me) test Multi-room viewing (or Tivo Desktop copy) of any (or all) of the following channels. It would be useful to get results for a few channels if possible, or at least one from each group (Scripp owned channels and A&E owned channels.) But any help is appreciated.

(For those of you who know how, you can simply check the CCI byte for the channels).

Please report your results (blocked or not blocked) along with your cable company and region:


(these are "Scripps" owned Networks/channels)

HGTV
DIY
Food Network
Cooking Channel (aka FIne Living)
Travel Channel
GAC (Great American)Channel

These are A&E network channels:

A&E channels
Biography Channel
History channels
Lifetime Channel
Military Channel
Crime and Investigation channel


Thanks in advance for your help with this! This may be tilting at windmills issue, but I'm not giving up with a fight here.

Cheers and thanks in advance

d.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

None of those channels are blocked here, by Comcast or by FiOS.

If someone at Time Warner is telling you that they are required by those content providers to apply the CCI byte then they're probably just guessing. You really need to pursue the issue only with the *national *corporate office, where such agreements are negotiated. If you're dealing with someone regional or local, then you're just spitting into the wind.

Once you do get to the national corporate office, I suspect that what you'll be told will change, to either "It's none of your business" (they'll put it more politely) or "We are deciding to do it, as is our right" (again, they'll put it more politely). Either answer is correct. It'll essentially be a dead-end for you, but at least you'll get a more accurate answer.


----------



## essjay22 (Nov 29, 2009)

dcbarry, where abouts are you located? dont have my tivo yet but will test this.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Service Electric Broadband Cable (Sparta NJ system) doesn't put the CCI byte to 0x02 on any channels that I subscribe to, which is their "expanded basic" tier and HD. I don't subscribe to HBO or any movie channels so I don't know if they are blocked.


----------



## Gavroche (May 27, 2007)

Comcast here only sets the flag for premium content, meaning HBO and the like.

Interestingly enough, if I record a premium program on my Series 3, I can not transfer it. If I record the same program on my series 2 from the same channel, I can. (Analog vs Digital issue, I guess, but makes for a nice loophole at least for now.)


----------



## andyf (Feb 23, 2000)

Comcast Houston

Premium channels - blocked
All other channels open


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Cox, Orange County, CA
Only premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc) have CCI set, all others are clear.

Part of the blame for this lies with TiVo using copy for MRV, though current Series 3 boxes don't really have high enough network throughput for HD streaming. Hopefully with the next retail box coming up from TiVo it will have high enough network throughput where MRV can be updated to use streaming mode instead of copying mode which will take care of MRV. For TTG of course you would still be SOL.

What I'd really like to see from TiVo is a 4-tuner model and ~ <= $100 client boxes, but I won't hold my breath on that...


----------



## dave13077 (Jan 11, 2009)

Time Warner, Central New York Region

Everything is blocked except the local broadcat, NBC,CBS,ABC,FOX


Good Luck and let me know if I can help.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

dcbarry said:


> When pressed on the issue, they claim networks *require* them do this. Which is pretty odd, because, from the casual reports of this issue, only Time Warner seems to implement this policy across the board for non-premium channels (like HBO, showtime, etc.). In fact, most Verizon FIOS users seem to report no CCI (blocking) issues.


If you can get this claim in writing, it might be good ammunition to use. But if you read all their statements that I've seen very carefully, while they seem to be implying this, they actually don't. All they really say is that the CCI byte setting is compliant with their network agreements, which is very different (ie, the agreements do not *forbid* TWC from setting the bytes.)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> If you can get this claim in writing, it might be good ammunition to use.


Very good point. This advice really applies broadly -- perhaps generally -- when dealing with any mass-market service or product provider in the country. If they're just telling you something verbally, you're probably better-off not relying on that information unless you can validate it yourself or gain some other corroboration, and especially if they won't provide it in writing.



CrispyCritter said:


> But if you read all their statements that I've seen very carefully, while they seem to be implying this, they actually don't. All they really say is that the CCI byte setting is compliant with their network agreements, which is very different (ie, the agreements do not *forbid* TWC from setting the bytes.)


Another really great point: Very often when folks are not getting what they want, they'll read (or hear) the explanation of why they're getting what they're getting but understand it in a manner such that it is easier to object to. The way I've seen this presented by Time Warner, specifically, in the past, is that what they're doing is *in accordance with* the agreements they have with the content providers and applicable laws. It is. That's true. That doesn't mean that either the agreements or the law requires them to apply the CCI byte that way, but rather what those words actually mean is that, taken together, the agreements and the law allow them to apply the CCI byte. Again, that's true.


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

I have FIOS in central NJ and can confirm that NO CHANNELS are blocked including HBO and all the premium channels. MRV and TTG work without issue on all of my TiVo's for all channels and programs.

Previously I had Comcast in this area and then they only blocked premium channels such as HBO leaving all other channel clear.


----------



## Revolutionary (Dec 1, 2004)

Cox Northern Virginia

They block (0x02) all channels other than the locals and a few completely random non-SDV cable channels.

Bastardos.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Another really great point: Very often when folks are not getting what they want, they'll read (or hear) the explanation of why they're getting what they're getting but understand it in a manner such that it is easier to object to.


Is it easier to object to if the content providers are _requiring_ the cable company to do it? It seems to me like that prevents one from objecting, at least to the cable company - there's nothing they can do about it.



> The way I've seen this presented by Time Warner, specifically, in the past, is that what they're doing is *in accordance with* the agreements they have with the content providers and applicable laws.


True. But I think they worded that very carefully so as not to prevent the reader from assuming that the agreements and/or laws require it. (In which case, the person would go away, since they'd think the cable company has no choice in the matter.)


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Although it's interesting to get all the anecdotes about CCI protection in different cable service areas, this is just rehashing old stuff.

The issue with TWC was *beat to death *in **this recent thread**. Emails were sent to TWC corporate headquarters by several posters and essentially identical responses were received -- see **this post** for an example. Note this critical excerpt:



> 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.


Any interpretation of this as saying their agreements with programmers are *forcing* them to copy protect *is just wishful thinking*. And to my knowledge this statement is *all *that TWC has ever said about this subject. Given how many of us have asked them and got this identical response, it's clear to me that's all they *ever intend *to say.

The law allows them to set CCI protection as they do, much as it galls us, and for their own (unstated) reasons they are doing it.

Please read the **linked thread** and ask yourself what *new* information you can provide in this thread.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Is it easier to object to if the content providers are _requiring_ the cable company to do it?


You've misunderstood... It is easier to object to a false claim (that the content owners are requiring it) than it is to object to a true claim (that doing it is in accordance with the law and the contracts with the content owners).



Brainiac 5 said:


> True. But I think they worded that very carefully *so as not to prevent the reader from* ...


Didn't you just word *that *very carefully?

Their job is to present their product in the best light, without lying. Yes, that means that they will work to present even their limitations in a positive light; that's perfectly fine and reasonable.

It benefits arch-consumerists to surround standard consumer marketing best practice with loads of FUD, but that's all it is, FUD. A consumer who believes that a supplier should be saying things like, "My service is really crappy, you're really going to hate it," is smokin' somethin'.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Any interpretation of this as saying their agreements with programmers are *forcing* them to copy protect *is just wishful thinking*.


I'm not sure how it's wishful thinking, since if it were true it would seem to close to door to any possibility of changing things.

But you're right - the situation seems clear: TWC specifically decided to set CCI=0x02, they know some people object, but they don't plan to change anything. There's nothing wrong with writing to them and adding oneself to the list of objectors, but I think your right that there's really nothing else we can add here.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I'm not sure how it's wishful thinking, since if it were true it would seem to close to door to any possibility of changing things.
> 
> But you're right - the situation seems clear: TWC specifically decided to set CCI=0x02, they know some people object, but they don't plan to change anything. There's nothing wrong with writing to them and adding oneself to the list of objectors, but I think your right that there's really nothing else we can add here.


It would be wishful thinking in the sense that some posters here want to catch TWC in a public lie, which they believe could be used to exert moral (or legal?) pressure on them to relax copy protection.

I'm glad you agree we're beating a dead horse here.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> It would be wishful thinking in the sense that some posters here want to catch TWC in a public lie, which they believe could be used to exert moral (or legal?) pressure on them to relax copy protection.


My point, exactly, with regard to arguing against something easier to argue against, that I made earlier. They're not lying. Their statement is absolutely honest and accurate. It is, however, not complete/directly in response to the prejudicial question asked. It is unreasonable to expect anyone, except a sworn witness in a court of law, to answer any ol' question you want to ask them, and answer it the way you want them to answer it, especially when you've cynically crafted your question so that the only complete/direct answer possible casts them in a negative light. If you want to say something negative about someone (or, in this case, a company), you're going to have to have the maturity to say yourself, and stand behind it, and indeed, make your assertion, itself, subject to critical scrutiny.



dlfl said:


> I'm glad you agree we're beating a dead horse here.


Better than beating a live horse.


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

Cox Phoenix

All digital channels blocked except local broadcast channels.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> You've misunderstood... It is easier to object to a false claim (that the content owners are requiring it) than it is to object to a true claim (that doing it is in accordance with the law and the contracts with the content owners).


Okay, I understand, if by "object to" you mean something along the lines of "argue with by saying it's a lie."



> Didn't you just word *that *very carefully?


Guilty as charged. 



> Their job is to present their product in the best light, without lying. Yes, that means that they will work to present even their limitations in a positive light; that's perfectly fine and reasonable.


I agree, I just don't blame people too much for misunderstanding it, because it specifically avoids contradicting that misunderstanding (while, as you say, not lying).



> A consumer who believes that a supplier should be saying things like, "My service is really crappy, you're really going to hate it," is smokin' somethin'.


I agree - the message from TWC is exactly what I'd expect to get from them, and I'm not objecting to it; I'm just recognizing it for what it is. It's purposefully vague (as any letter would be to a customer when the company doesn't have an answer that will make the customer happy).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I agree, I just don't blame people too much for misunderstanding it, because it specifically avoids contradicting that misunderstanding (while, as you say, not lying).


Indeed, I consider it, at that level, a fault-less situation: The writer cast the information in a positive light, which is not a transgression. The reader was not conscientious in comprehending what the write actually wrote, which is not a transgression.


----------



## HTH (Aug 28, 2000)

dcbarry said:


> I am looking for help from my fellow Tivo users to help eliminate "Tivo discrimination" by Time Warner Cable -- but I need the help of Comcast, Verizion FIOS and other non-Time Warner cable subscribers.
> 
> As you may know, Time Warner Cable has implemented a policy of blocking Tivo users ability to use Multi-Room viewing (or the Tivo desktop application) for every channel on their system, except for the Broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, etc) which they must NOT block by law. (This is the famous CCI byte issue.) In essence, they are attempting to de-value the TIVO.... when I have brought this up with the local office and executives, I am told how wonderful their DVR is, and how I could use their view-on-demand features, etc, etc.


Try disconnecting the Switched Digital Video box from your TiVo.

Here, in Lincoln, NE (also one of the beta sites for the mystro cable box software, with its own TiVo-crippling features I've posted about before) Time Warner Cable is *also blocking analog broadcast channels* from being shared between TiVos. In a test, last night I knew I didn't need to record any switched channels, so I took my SDV box out of the loop and recorded a show off of two analog broadcast channels (24 "6:00 PM - 8:00 PM" on 4 KSNB and 18 KFXL, available only in analog). Unlike the recordings made the previous night on the same channels (and 9 KPTM), I could transfer last night's programming.

To me, this proves that the Switched Digital Video box is a Trojan Horse into TiVo-user's homes. They've changed their service to require its presence to access certain channels (and such access is sporadic, often failing to tune the channel) and use it to lock down their whole analog tier against room-to-room sharing (TiVoToGo).

And they make a big deal in how these SDV boxes were developed in conjunction with TiVo and other DVR makers, when in fact they're designed to cripple their features and lock down TWC's service against them.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

I was replying to the other messages so much I never responded to the root of the thread:



dcbarry said:


> When pressed on the issue, they claim networks *require* them do this.


Others have covered this, but just be aware they don't actually claim this - they say something that leaves open the possibility, but they don't say that's the reason.



> I've spoken with one network (Food channel) which is actually owned by Scripps network informally, and my contact indicated that he doubted that any such requirement existed from the network, that it is a decision by the cable company. I was asked if I could gather some more concrete data, which he could then help me forward up to thier management. I'm also going to make a similar effort with the A&E network group as well.


That's a good idea; if the Food Channel or any other network actually cares, they would likely have a better chance of effecting a change than a cable customer would. (Although I certainly wouldn't count anything...)



> So, here is what I am asking: Can you please, (either by posting here, or by PM to me) test Multi-room viewing (or Tivo Desktop copy) of any (or all) of the following channels.


I'll try to remember to do that. My guess is that they are not copy protected for me. I'm on Comcast, and they used to copy protect everything they could with CCI=0x02, but interestingly a few weeks ago they changed everything to 0x00 (copy freely) except premium channels.



> Thanks in advance for your help with this! This may be tilting at windmills issue, but I'm not giving up with a fight here.


Realistically I think TWC is pretty set on what they're doing, but if you have the energy to pursue it I wish you luck. I must admit that if no one complains, it only makes it more certain that they won't change anything.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

HTH said:


> In a test, last night I knew I didn't need to record any switched channels, so I took my SDV box out of the loop and recorded a show off of two analog broadcast channels (24 "6:00 PM - 8:00 PM" on 4 KSNB and 18 KFXL, available only in analog). Unlike the recordings made the previous night on the same channels (and 9 KPTM), I could transfer last night's programming.


Are you sure the channels are still analog when you have the SDV box attached? Where I am, Comcast simulcasts the extended basic tier in analog and digital - if I have a CableCARD in, I get an SD digital version of those channels; if I take it out, I get them in analog on the same channel numbers.


----------



## HTH (Aug 28, 2000)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Are you sure the channels are still analog when you have the SDV box attached? Where I am, Comcast simulcasts the extended basic tier in analog and digital - if I have a CableCARD in, I get an SD digital version of those channels; if I take it out, I get them in analog on the same channel numbers.


They don't come through letterboxed. Of two channels recorded simultaneously with the SDV, one does still report it was recorded at "Best Quality", but the other does not report any quality which may mean it was digital before it got to the TiVo, possibly digitized by the SDV. However, both are locked against sharing.

KFXL and KSNB don't have alternate digital channels on the cable lineup, unlike KPTM which has KPTMDT. And an instance where 9 KPTM was recorded, it says "Best Quality" and yet is locked.

KPTM has its own problems shortly after the bottom of the hour 30) where 5.1 HD drops to stereo SD and Dolby SD from full-frame to stereo letterboxed in order slide in the time and temperature sponsored by "Children's Hospital and Medical Center", dropping the same bit of dialog in both ("Olivia was responsible for w-- no one else."). This is why I'm recording 24 in quadruplicate.

And then there's the setting of the Copy Once flag on KPTMDT ever since the Baseball World Series, but only if recording the Firewire output using a cable box, not on the TiVo.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

HTH said:


> They don't come through letterboxed.


My SD digital versions don't either - it's the same (4:3) picture you'd see on analog, but sent digitally.



> Of two channels recorded simultaneously with the SDV, one does still report it was recorded at "Best Quality", but the other does not report any quality which may mean it was digital before it got to the TiVo, possibly digitized by the SDV. However, both are locked against sharing.


I _think_ if it shows a quality level, then it is analog. I don't think the SDV dongle itself can digitize the channel, but possibly it allows access to a digital version of the channel when you'd otherwise get analog.



> KFXL and KSNB don't have alternate digital channels on the cable lineup, unlike KPTM which has KPTMDT. And an instance where 9 KPTM was recorded, it says "Best Quality" and yet is locked.


Interesting. It does sound like the SDV dongle may be adding the flags...



> And then there's the setting of the Copy Once flag on KPTMDT ever since the Baseball World Series, but only if recording the Firewire output using a cable box, not on the TiVo.


Really strange... I wonder if KPTMDT set the broadcast flag and the cable box is following it while TiVo is not? (They don't have to follow the broadcast flag.)


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

Time Warner cable, San Antonio, Tx

Everything is blocked except the local broadcast, NBC,CBS,ABC,FOX


----------



## convergent (Jan 4, 2007)

I'm with TWC in NC. MRV is blocked on everything but the broadcast channels for Tivo HD. With the Series 2, I can MRV anything. Interestingly, they have gone either further in that they completely blocked even recording on the same DVR their MLB Extra Innings last season. I paid over $100 extra for that and was unable to watch the games in HD later than play time. I had to use my old Series 2 and watch them in SD. That is just plainly stupid. MLB's own competing service allows you to watch the games later, and I'd bet that the TW DVR would too. That is more targeted against Tivo users.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Why do you think the same wouldn't apply to folks who choose to use the TWC-issued DVR to record the programming for later playback? It is really important to keep in mind same-to-same comparisons when addressing "targeting".


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Tivo needs to share the blame. AFAIK tivo is allowed to either stream the show to another DVR or to move the show to another DVR.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Yes, TiVo could have implemented a completely different feature (separate from MRV) which would allow streaming of programming tagged with the CCI byte we're discussing here. I don't believe that they've necessarily ruled that out (at least not in the same way that they've effectively ruled out QAM mapping).

However, I don't think you can say that TiVo has to share "blame" for simply not offering a feature that they haven't promised to provide. There doesn't necessarily have to be blame for everything that people don't like.


----------



## convergent (Jan 4, 2007)

lew said:


> Tivo needs to share the blame. AFAIK tivo is allowed to either stream the show to another DVR or to move the show to another DVR.


How so? Isn't the whole point of this thread to provide evidence that only TWC is doing this? When I first decided to go to Tivo in the first place, I had a lengthy conversation with TWC about why I was not wanting to continue with their DVR. One of the big points was MRV. I had been with DISH prior and loved MRV. TWC basically told me they weren't going to do MRV. The next issue was that TWC forced me to scroll through all the cable channels that I did not subscribe to in order to get to the ones I did. While that is inconvenient in its own right, many of those channels are adult channels and my kids were young. I didn't really want them even seeing the names of those shows on my TV. Again, TWC said that I was going to have to scroll through them. I moved on to Tivo because it gave me what I wanted. Now that TWC is playing games with Tivo users, I'm starting to shop around to replace them. They are apparently too big now and don't think they need to listen to their customers, but unless that changes I will eventually be moving to something else. I don't like paying what they charge and then have them crippling things that I should legally and technically be able to do with the equipment and services I've paid for, just because they can. When companies start doing things like this to promote their own competing services, you know they are starting to fail.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

convergent said:


> How so?


I agree that the attempt to cast "blame" (specifically) on TiVo is not supportable.



convergent said:


> Isn't the whole point of this thread to provide evidence that only TWC is doing this?


TWC might be on the forefront of a natural progression. Remember, what TWC is doing is no only not permitted, but the regulations very clearly were crafted in full understanding of this potentiality. TWC is not exploiting a loophole or something that someone overlooked.



convergent said:


> I don't like paying what they charge and then have them crippling


To be clear, you have an undeniable right to not like the value proposition being offered to you. Your perfect response, as a consumer, is to decline the offer and do without the service.



convergent said:


> ... things that I should legally and technically be able to do with the equipment and services I've paid for, just because they can.


There is absolutely nothing that grants you the right to do what you want to do, if TWC chooses to restrict it -- and as I mentioned above, the law does grant TWC the right to restrict it.



convergent said:


> When companies start doing things like this to promote their own competing services, you know they are starting to fail.


That's a baseless and essentially solely self-gratifying assertion. TWC is not "failing". They're making a business decision. If you do your part, declining their offer because you don't like it, then perhaps they'll change the offer. That's all that's going on here. Offer and acceptance, instead of what should be happening, if you were being true to the priorities you seem to be implying, offer and declination.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Remember, what TWC is doing is no only not permitted, but the regulations very clearly were crafted in full understanding of this potentiality. TWC is not exploiting a loophole or something that someone overlooked.


That may be true, but I don't believe it is provable. I could see this being something that was intentionally lobbied into the regulation, or that the regulators truly didn't foresee all the possible consequences of the way they wrote it. I am not sure we can know which of those is truly correct.



> To be clear, you have an undeniable right to not like the value proposition being offered to you. Your perfect response, as a consumer, is to decline the offer and do without the service.


I could not agree more. This is one of the primary reasons I stay with DTV in SD rather than switching to TW and buying HD. From my perspective TW is leaving my money on the table.



> If you do your part, declining their offer because you don't like it, then perhaps they'll change the offer.


I can only hope that they do or that DTV gets the lead out and offers me an MP4 HDTV DVR that doesn't omit this or other favorite TiVo features.

I have to agree with Bicker, only voting with your dollars will have a chance of making a difference.


----------



## keirgrey (Nov 20, 2001)

Ocean County, NJ, Cablevision seems to have only put it on National Geographic. Which is weird.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CuriousMark said:


> That may be true, but I don't believe it is provable.


Huh? It's very clearly written, in black and white -- unequivocal proof that the law is written in an unambiguous manner in this regard.



CuriousMark said:


> I could see this being something that was intentionally lobbied into the regulation


You can figure that everything in every regulation that has anything to do with anything that anyone cares about is intentionally lobbied into it.



CuriousMark said:


> or that the regulators truly didn't foresee all the possible consequences of the way they wrote it.


Read the regulation, and you'll have no trouble seeing that you're wrong about this.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

bicker said:


> TWC is not exploiting a loophole or something that someone overlooked.


I would argue that TWC is exploiting "something that someone overlooked".

Someone overlooked using the words "*shall* not cripple features of 3rd party devices" in the regulations.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

lew said:


> Tivo needs to share the blame. AFAIK tivo is allowed to either stream the show to another DVR or to move the show to another DVR.


No, they're not allowed to do either at the moment. They have to have any such solution pre-approved by CableLabs, as part of their cablecard agreement.

Now you can argue that they should have been pushing harder to get CableLabs to approve a streaming solution like that; but that's a different argument. I don't know what the bottleneck is there, or what TiVo's plans are (a streaming solution won't be backward compatible with Series 2 probably, which complicates things.)


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> No, they're not allowed to do either at the moment. They have to have any such solution pre-approved by CableLabs, as part of their cablecard agreement.


Yes, but there's an important distinction to be made - they have to approve the implementation, not the solution. The solution is allowed by the rules; CableLabs needs to approve the implementation as properly implementing that solution.



> Now you can argue that they should have been pushing harder to get CableLabs to approve a streaming solution like that; but that's a different argument.


As far as we know, TiVo has not broached the subject of streaming with CableLabs. (That doesn't mean they haven't, just that if they have then we don't know about it.)



> I don't know what the bottleneck is there, or what TiVo's plans are (a streaming solution won't be backward compatible with Series 2 probably, which complicates things.)


I strongly suspect that the "bottleneck" is TiVo. None of their existing devices can reliably stream HD in real-time, so I suspect they haven't haven't given that solution any consideration for the current generation of hardware. Maybe when there's a Series 4...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> I would argue that TWC is exploiting "something that someone overlooked".
> 
> Someone overlooked using the words "*shall* not cripple features of 3rd party devices" in the regulations.


Well, I respect your right to be overly-consumer-biased.


----------



## jcaudle (Aug 16, 2004)

Does Tivo update anything anymore? Used to be spring and fall software updates with new features. Have not seen those lately. Cox here in Northern Virginia blocks all SDV channels that use Tuning adapter. I can't wait until the recently installed Fios service is marketed in my neighborhood. They are still testing it at this point.


----------



## dcbarry (May 21, 2002)

bicker said:


> None of those channels are blocked here, by Comcast or by FiOS.
> 
> If someone at Time Warner is telling you that they are required by those content providers to apply the CCI byte then they're probably just guessing. You really need to pursue the issue only with the *national *corporate office, where such agreements are negotiated. If you're dealing with someone regional or local, then you're just spitting into the wind.
> 
> Once you do get to the national corporate office, I suspect that what you'll be told will change, to either "It's none of your business" (they'll put it more politely) or "We are deciding to do it, as is our right" (again, they'll put it more politely). Either answer is correct. It'll essentially be a dead-end for you, but at least you'll get a more accurate answer.


I agree, it is a national issue. At this point the locals are following thier instruction. My point is to negate their dubious statement that they are following the request of the broadcaster (iin this case Scripps or A&E). Sure, I'll get another excuse at that point, but one step at a time.


----------



## dcbarry (May 21, 2002)

essjay22 said:


> dcbarry, where abouts are you located? dont have my tivo yet but will test this.


I am in Santa Clarita, California on TWC.


----------



## dcbarry (May 21, 2002)

Raj said:


> Service Electric Broadband Cable (Sparta NJ system) doesn't put the CCI byte to 0x02 on any channels that I subscribe to, which is their "expanded basic" tier and HD. I don't subscribe to HBO or any movie channels so I don't know if they are blocked.


Do those channels include any /all of the ones listed in my post? Sorry to be pedantic, but I want my info to be as accurate as possible.


----------



## dcbarry (May 21, 2002)

Gavroche said:


> Comcast here only sets the flag for premium content, meaning HBO and the like.
> 
> Interestingly enough, if I record a premium program on my Series 3, I can not transfer it. If I record the same program on my series 2 from the same channel, I can. (Analog vs Digital issue, I guess, but makes for a nice loophole at least for now.)


Gavroche, where is "here"? (Paris is not a valid answer. ;-) And what would the Inspector say to all this? )


----------



## dcbarry (May 21, 2002)

Oh man... I was hoping to keep this thread strictly to gathering information, not debate. My fault. But since the door is now open, I have to object to one statement of yours...



bicker said:


> .... They're not lying. Their statement is absolutely honest and accurate. It is, however, not complete/directly in response to the prejudicial question asked. It is unreasonable to expect anyone, except a sworn witness in a court of law, to answer any ol' question you want to ask them, and answer it the way you want them to answer it, especially when you've cynically crafted your question so that the only complete/direct answer possible casts them in a negative light. If you want to say something negative about someone (or, in this case, a company), you're going to have to have the maturity to say yourself, and stand behind it, and indeed, make your assertion, itself, subject to critical scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dcbarry (May 21, 2002)

Thanks, but we are not a SDV area... yet. God help me when that FUBAR of engineering rolls out. Just another reason for TWC to make more excuses.



HTH said:


> Try disconnecting the Switched Digital Video box from your TiVo.
> 
> Here, in Lincoln, NE (also one of the beta sites for the mystro cable box software, with its own TiVo-crippling features I've posted about before) Time Warner Cable is *also blocking analog broadcast channels* from being shared between TiVos. In a test, last night I knew I didn't need to record any switched channels, so I took my SDV box out of the loop and recorded a show off of two analog broadcast channels (24 "6:00 PM - 8:00 PM" on 4 KSNB and 18 KFXL, available only in analog). Unlike the recordings made the previous night on the same channels (and 9 KPTM), I could transfer last night's programming.
> 
> ...


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

Just wondering how many times someone needs to make repeat thread for issues that were discussed before in other threads. LOL Sad thing is that DLFL posted that this is a repeat Thread Hours ago.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7535981#post7535981


----------



## dcbarry (May 21, 2002)

lew said:


> Tivo needs to share the blame. AFAIK tivo is allowed to either stream the show to another DVR or to move the show to another DVR.


Yup. Frankly, I don't see them getting easily around the technical issues, but as I pointed out in my letter to them on this topic, Frankly the should be going "balls out" for the consumer here, even if it means violating the CC spec. Maybe take some of that fresh Echostar cash, and use it for a lawyer if CableCard labs gets in a lather. I've read the spec, and just as any agreement can be read creatively, this one can be too.

My actual argument what more nuanced then what I just wrote, but yeah, I'm ticked at Tivo too. Seriously, why do I have to do all this heavy lifting? Can't things just work?


----------



## dcbarry (May 21, 2002)

convergent said:


> How so? Isn't the whole point of this thread to provide evidence that only TWC is doing this? When I first decided to go to Tivo in the first place, I had a lengthy conversation with TWC about why I was not wanting to continue with their DVR. One of the big points was MRV. I had been with DISH prior and loved MRV. TWC basically told me they weren't going to do MRV. The next issue was that TWC forced me to scroll through all the cable channels that I did not subscribe to in order to get to the ones I did. While that is inconvenient in its own right, many of those channels are adult channels and my kids were young. I didn't really want them even seeing the names of those shows on my TV. Again, TWC said that I was going to have to scroll through them. I moved on to Tivo because it gave me what I wanted. Now that TWC is playing games with Tivo users, I'm starting to shop around to replace them. They are apparently too big now and don't think they need to listen to their customers, but unless that changes I will eventually be moving to something else. I don't like paying what they charge and then have them crippling things that I should legally and technically be able to do with the equipment and services I've paid for, just because they can. When companies start doing things like this to promote their own competing services, you know they are starting to fail.


As the Original poster I can state that, blaming TWC is not the point of the post. Ultimately, getting them to change thier behavior is my goal, and illustrating the difference between them and other providers not engaging in the same behavior (its not us! blame the netorks!), was the intent.

I've already taken Tivo to task on a different post and thread.


----------



## dcbarry (May 21, 2002)

Grumock said:


> Just wondering how many times someone needs to make repeat thread for issues that were discussed before in other threads. LOL Sad thing is that DLFL posted that this is a repeat Thread Hours ago.
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7535981#post7535981


I'm aware of the other CCI thread. Mine was a call for specific data from non-TWC customers. Not that I need to defend it, although I guess I could have asked for it not to be a merit/debate post. But frankly, if you are so bothered, you could have just skipped the thread.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

The feature is Multiple Room Viewing (MRV). The method tivo uses to implement that feature, copying the complete video to the other DVR, isn't allowed if a show has a CCI flag set. That problem wouldn't exist if tivo had used a different method.

Tivo promotes the feature--MRV. Tivo doesn't promote the method that's used (copy the video). Tivo shares the blame by chosing a method to implement the feature that isn't allowed for some programs in some cable systems. Tivo shares the blame since alternate methods to implement the advertized feature wouldn't be affected by CCI.



bicker said:


> Yes, TiVo could have implemented a completely different feature (separate from MRV) which would allow streaming of programming tagged with the CCI byte we're discussing here. I don't believe that they've necessarily ruled that out (at least not in the same way that they've effectively ruled out QAM mapping).
> 
> However, I don't think you can say that TiVo has to share "blame" for simply not offering a feature that they haven't promised to provide. There doesn't necessarily have to be blame for everything that people don't like.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dcbarry said:


> A statement that omits material information or intentionally misleads is not always perjury (although it can be under given circumstances), but is still a falsehood.


You're living in a dreamland if you expect people selling you something to present their products/services in a negative light. Just get over that -- it'll be nothing other than a foundation for a never-ending fount of disappointment and frustration for you. The reality is absolutely different.



dcbarry said:


> In this case, Time Warner isn't sleeping with me, but I sure am feeling..... well, you can fill in the blank.


Then, if you're being really honest about that, instead of just engaging in cynical hyperbole, be a responsible customer and decline their offer of subscription television service. That is your strongest and most direct reaction that fits what you're saying your perceptions are.



dcbarry said:


> Seriously, it is exactly in a court of law where I expect answers to be their most precise, yet evasive, which is why the laywers are needed.


Again, you're not being realistic. It is in courts of law that we can hope to get the whole truth. Outside of the court, getting the whole truth requires work on your part. If you expect the whole truth to be handed to you on a silver platter then you really have no idea how our mass-marketplace works, and has worked to some extent, for longer than any of us have been alive.



dcbarry said:


> People and companies in a reasonable relationship (personal or business) don't engage in symantic agruments and word games.


Ridiculous. Customers are actually far worse. I cannot tell you how many discussions I overhear, where customers are boasting to friends about how they were able to intimidate some store clerk or some service provider CSR to give them some accommodation that they weren't honestly entitled to. I could pile you under with various stories of dodges and exploits that customers are renowned for executing, for certain portions of the marketplace that I follow most closely. Don't you even think for a minute that the "semantic arguments and word games" are the exclusive providence of the suppliers -- customers are king, in that regard, because customers can (and regularly do) actually get away with bald-faced lies, where suppliers are only able to to present the truth in the best light possible.



dcbarry said:


> It is pathetic that nearly all (though not all) corporations have sunk to this level


You want to understand why businesses are the way they are? Look at their customers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dcbarry said:


> Seriously, why do I have to do all this heavy lifting? Can't things just work?


By "just work" you're implying that it works in the best interests _of the consumers_, i.e., lots of value for very little cost. Symmetrically, the investors (in some cases, the same people as the customers, acting a bit schizophrenic maybe) want everything to "just work" in the best interests of long-term shareholder value. These two forces are mutually-exclusive. In the mass-market, the suppliers control what is offered and how it is priced, and the consumers control whether the transaction actually takes place, either accepting or rejecting what is offered. That's how these two mutually-exclusive forces find their way to a balance point.

In this specific example, the projection is that the investors are best served by not permitting any more copying of content than is absolutely required, in accordance with the law. Other suppliers have come to a different conclusion. So even before the consumer-biased perspective is injected into this, we see that reasonable people disagree. Each supplier takes a risk with such projections, either that they're going to under-perform by losing customers, or if they follow the alternative projection, under-perform by missing revenue opportunities.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> The feature is Multiple Room Viewing (MRV).


No, the feature is *called* Multiple Room Viewing. The feature, itself, is a copying mechanism that allows quasi-asynchronous streaming (which, of course, is not streaming in any way, shape or form). Indeed, even with regard to the written word, the feature is described as having limitations. As such the point you're making ends right there, with recognition that the feature itself is limited.



lew said:


> That problem wouldn't exist if tivo had used a different method.


Just a technical note about this. FWIR, the feature that TiVo describes cannot be served by the same mechanism that would overcome the problem outlined in this thread. There must be two separate mechanisms to cover both what TiVo has promised (and delivered) and what people in this thread want.



lew said:


> Tivo shares the blame since alternate methods to implement the advertized feature wouldn't be affected by CCI.


"Blame" in this case is clearly a product of unfounded expectations. Again, TiVo outlined the feature has limitations. There is no rational basis on which to expect the feature to work without limitations.


----------



## vong (Jul 9, 2005)

I would like to see what kind of answers you get. I have noticed a few months ago that Cablevison in northern NJ has started setting the byte on the following channels.

NICJR
SCIHD
NGCHD
BOOM
GRNHD


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

dcbarry said:


> I'm aware of the other CCI thread. Mine was a call for specific data from non-TWC customers. Not that I need to defend it, although I guess I could have asked for it not to be a merit/debate post. But frankly, if you are so bothered, you could have just skipped the thread.


Not Bothered just bored. Sorry that i have an opinion.

LMAO


----------



## cartouchbea (Jan 14, 2009)

I have been fortunate enough to recently move to an area that provides fiber optic service from our local phone company Cincinnati Bell. Cincinnati Bell only sets the CCI flag on premium channels.

The particular area I moved to is also still served by Time Warner Cable. So when I moved, I had the choice of staying with Time Warner Cable or moving to Cincinnati Bell. Cincinnati Bell has a few more channels for less $$ and the high speed internet is also faster for a bit less $$. But, I have to admit, Time Warner has had a long history (12 years) of good customer service with me and very reliable service. Once I got rid of their DVR's, I've had no complaints except 1, ...

When it came time to move, I rushed like a mad man to sign up for Cincinnati Bell based solely on the CCI issue. I never even really gave keeping Time Warner a second thought. I would have raised a stink about it with Time Warner to tell them why they are losing a customer they could potentially keep if I thought it would do any good.

Since the move I've had a couple of reliability issues with the Cincinnati Bell FiOptics internet service that probably never would have happened if I still had Time Warner. The issues left we without internet for 2 to 4 day periods. I would have considered going back to Time Warner if it weren't for the CCI issue.

For me, I love my TiVo's and I will continue to patronize whatever cable provider allows me to maximize my TiVo experience. Right now, that ain't Time Warner. But I doubt that losing a few TiVo huggers is big enough of a deal to Time Warner to warrant a policy change. Oh well, ...


----------

