# Comcast and CCI bytes



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

All the 'new' HD channels Comcast has added here in SWFL have the CCI set to 0x02. I have been unsuccessful in getting them to change this (or to realize that they are the ones inserting the byte in the bit stream).

I can understand 0x02 on HBO, Cinemax, etc.
But here are the 0x02 channels: TNTHD, USAHD, HISTHD, CNNHD, DSCHD, TLCHD, APLHD, SCIFIHD, FAMHD, DISNHD, ESPNHD, ESPN2HD

And these are 0x00: MOJO, UHD, HDT, AETVHD, MHDTV, NGCHD, FOODHD, HGTVD

This makes absolutely no sense to me. The non HD counterparts for the above channels are all 0x00 (or do not have the SCMS-A on).

And HDT vs. DSCHD??

I am in communication with 'executive care' but there seems to be a disconnect between them and the right people at the head end. I have been told it 'cannot be done' or it's because I have the Tivo, not the Comcast box (which I explained was 1: not true and 2: illegal if true).

Any ideas? (I have to call back Brian Roberts' secretary early this week and will be discussing it with her.)


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

At least you have new HD channels. Here in Jersey City we don't have new HD channels yet.


----------



## NiteCourt (Mar 31, 2005)

It makes no sense to me either but Time Warner does it too. Even to 95&#37; of the regular digital channels let alone HD.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

whats funny is I live in an area that used to be served by patriot media. Patriot marked EVERY digital channel (SD or HD) except the reboradcast locals as 0x02. Comcast bought up patriot and added like 5-8 HD channels recently. All of the new channels got put on 0x00.

the various comcast systems all are doing different things.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

drcos said:


> I am in communication with 'executive care' but there seems to be a disconnect between them and the right people at the head end. I have been told it 'cannot be done' or it's because I have the Tivo, not the Comcast box (which I explained was 1: not true and 2: illegal if true).


Actually, you're mistaken on both accounts. It is because you (we) have a TiVo; it was TiVo's decision to treat 0x02 as an absolute copy prevention, and that's the ramification you're struggling with. And applying 0x02 isn't illegal: MSOs can apply 0x02 to any cable channel they wish -- it is their prerogative; they only are prohibited from applying it to local broadcast channels.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Actually, you're mistaken on both accounts. It is because you (we) have a TiVo; it was TiVo's decision to treat 0x02 as an absolute copy prevention, and that's the ramification you're struggling with. And applying 0x02 isn't illegal: MSOs can apply 0x02 to any cable channel they wish -- it is their prerogative; they only are prohibited from applying it to local broadcast channels.


however cable frequently choices to apply copy protection flags to their cablecard systems (like tivo)- and not their own proprietary systems. (people can copy content via firewire from cable dvr's in some places where tivo content is flagged). I think that is what the author is aiming at with 1&2.

And while you are correct it is not illegal, it certainly "feels" wrong to some people that cable has different rules for cablecard customers than their own. maybe you dont have that feeling, but i dont personally think it's abnormal for people that think such a thing is another example of cable giving people the shaft. (and that's the argument I'd make to Comcast- why have they DECIDED to treat their cablecard customers differently then "regular" customers)

Myself- I think it's much less sinister and merely incompetance since various comcast systems are flagged differently. 
(I'd actually politely go down this route if I cared to enough to take the time to get into it with them- that it seems to be a mistake since so many headends and channels are wide open while others are not)

Also- tivo didn't "choose" to treat OxO2 as anything. The relevent cable standards say it is not to be copied again off the TiVo. Tivo could work around that by streaming such content like others have done- or they could create a system to MOVE content- those are the things they have decided not to do. But they can't just willy nilly let people COPY stuff.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> however cable frequently choices to apply copy protection flags to their cablecard systems (like tivo)- and not their own proprietary systems.


You're going to have to explain how the coax knows how to send one CCI byte down one pipe and a different one down another pipe -- especially when I've had a splitter splitting the signal between a TiVo and Comcast DVR. The reality is that the same is sent to both.



MichaelK said:


> (people can copy content via firewire from cable dvr's in some places where tivo content is flagged).


Again, that's blaming the cable company for something TiVo did wrong, i.e., not supporting Firewire output. That was all TiVo's doing.



MichaelK said:


> And while you are correct it is not illegal, it certainly "feels" wrong to some people that cable has different rules for cablecard customers than their own.


Well, since they don't, it shouldn't feel wrong.

Besides, there's a lot of stuff posted on these boards that "feels" wrong to me. 



MichaelK said:


> maybe you dont have that feeling, but i dont personally think it's abnormal for people that think such a thing is another example of cable giving people the shaft.


I think what you're putting your finger on is this issue of unfounded expectations; people wishing they didn't have to pay so much, wishing things worked more reliably and consistently, etc., and projecting that onto the biggest company they can blame for their wishes not being fulfilled.



MichaelK said:


> Also- tivo didn't "choose" to treat OxO2 as anything. The relevent cable standards say it is not to be copied again off the TiVo.


You are mistaken. TiVo did indeed decide to treat Copy Once as Copy Never. That's all on TiVo.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

the proprietary systems apparently do NOT look at CCI bits. they apparently look at the proprietary flags that are applied. (or perhaps since they dont even get cablelabs approval they completely ignore the DFAST rules and ignore flags)

it's documented bicker- look around at AVS forums or here. 

(what the hell does fire wire output have to do with allowing copies or not?- boy you are anti-tivo today. Did tivo also invent cancer?)

You are assuming that the COPY on the tivo is not the copy once. Apparently Tivo beleives it is. Do you really think they never discussed the issue with cablelabs? That they never thought they should at least ask so as not be in a competitive disadvantage to MS and/or others?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Michael: We'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe you're mistaken about a number of things, but if you want to go on being upset with the cable company, even though all of _these _issues happen to be TiVo's fault, I'm not going to stop you.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

as above- i am not all that upset with my cable company at all.

I think there's a little incompetence going on in cable land. But I think there's a little incompetence going on all over.

I guess you do do- you think tivo is so incompetent that they misunderstand the dfast rules.

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You believe I'm mistaken. I believe you are mistaken. Have a nice day.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

bicker said:


> You are mistaken. TiVo did indeed decide to treat Copy Once as Copy Never. That's all on TiVo.





MichaelK said:


> You are assuming that the COPY on the tivo is not the copy once. Apparently Tivo believes it is.


I am no expert on this subject, but in reading thread after thread over the last year, I can't recall seeing anyone disagree that 0x02 means copy once, and that the original TiVo recording is the "one copy". Bicker, your post is the first I can recall stating TiVo should allow one more copy.

Has this been brought up before in these threads (in which case memory IS the 2nd thing to go), or is this a new point?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

astrohip said:


> I am no expert on this subject, but in reading thread after thread over the last year, I can't recall seeing anyone disagree that 0x02 means copy once, and that the original TiVo recording is the "one copy". Bicker, your post is the first I can recall stating TiVo should allow one more copy.


Actually, that isn't what my post said:



bicker said:


> TiVo did indeed decide to treat Copy Once as Copy Never. That's all on TiVo.


TiVo is treating Copy Once as Copy Never. TiVo could allow a single copy for Copy Once material. Copy Once should allow a single copy from the TiVo to another TiVo. That is according to the actual rule. However, TiVo is under no requirement to _allow _that copy, if they choose not to (as is the case); they *would *be required to *not *allow a *subsequent *copy.


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

I thought copy once meant that the program could be recorded in the first place. But that's all, just recorded...one time. After it's recorded, it can't be copied from the TiVo that got it. The definition makes sense to me. It was copied once from the original broadcast.

But while the definition makes sense to me, the policy of applying them does not. I don't care how the technology is treating the flags, or what TiVo could do, or whatever. The point is that 0x02 flags on normal, commercial laden broadcast content has no purpose. No purpose other than to break a feature of TiVo (TTG, MRV). The content creators and networks are not asking for it. In fact, I would think they would want it given that it extends the placement of advertising. Cable HW does not offer any of these features, so this only affects TiVo users. It's crap.

I've been going round and round with Comcast in Houston over this. Here's a summary:

Noticed 0x02 showing up on common channels (BBCA, SPEED, TNTHD, NICKTOONS and TVLAND.....yeah NICKTOONS and TVLAND?, plus many others)

Called Comcast, leave messages, no help.

Filed a complaing with the Houston City Council, franchise authority, no help.

Filed a complaint with the FCC, got a letter back saying they are investigating.

Got a call from Comcast referencing the FCC complaint. Finally came to an understanding of what I was talking about, they needed to research with their MIS group. Supposed to get a call from MIS group, never did.

Continued conversation with Comcast, and the support rep says that they understand the issue and that they will be putting 'controls' into place to fix it. Yippee! The flags should have never been applied to those channels he tells me. He did not have a timeline, but said in about a week. (This was about a month ago).

Got a copy of their letter to the FCC saying that the issue has been resolved, and it mentions those 'controls'.

Still waiting to see if 0x02 gets removed. They have not. 0x02 flags are still present, I cannot see where any changes have been made relative to the statements made to me and their letter to the FCC that it has been resolved.

I called the service rep that I have been talking to about this early last week. Left a message, he has not called me back. I told him that the flags are still present in my message.

Thinking about calling again, and then perhaps writing a letter to the FCC stating that their letter from Comcast discussing the resolution of the issue is not correct. The problem still exists.

Oh, and I am emailing Verizon once per week via their website, and the emails start off with, "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE bring your FiOS TV service to my zip code...."


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Tivo is treating the initial recording, on the DVR, as the first copy. Tivo won't allow a copy to the PC because tivo considers that to be a second copy. Copy never is generally applied to VOD, many cable company DVRs won't let you record VOD.

It's not clear if tivo is being unduley conservative in their interpertation, if the requirements for cable card certification is unreasonable or if the cable companies aren't following rules.



bicker said:


> TiVo is treating Copy Once as Copy Never. TiVo could allow a single copy for Copy Once material. Copy Once should allow a single copy from the TiVo to another TiVo. That is according to the actual rule. However, TiVo is under no requirement to _allow _that copy, if they choose not to (as is the case); they *would *be required to *not *allow a *subsequent *copy.


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

This is in fact the complaint, that I cannot 'archive' from the Tivo or use TTG on these channels.
I completely understand with 'premium' channels (HBO) but why with non-premium channels?
My opinion would be that _any_ channel with commercials should be 0x00. I am with 20TIL6 here, if it was my content with commercials I would be all for spreading it around.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

lew said:


> Tivo is treating the initial recording, on the DVR, as the first copy. Tivo won't allow a copy to the PC because tivo considers that to be a second copy. Copy never is generally applied to VOD, many cable company DVRs won't let you record VOD.
> 
> It's not clear if tivo is being unduley conservative in their interpertation, if the requirements for cable card certification is unreasonable or if the cable companies aren't following rules.


 I believe Tivo took the easy approach on this one: anything other than CCI=0x0 is not allowed to be copied period regardless of the specific setting. This was a much easier approach than trying to enforce the various DFAST requirements for other settings.

Note that DVHS recorders recording from firewire port of a cable set top box or DVR can record shows with CCI=0x02 which indicates the copy on the cable DVR itself is not considered the one and only allowed copy. CCI=0x03 shows cannot be recorded with DVHS recorders as expected. To me this clearly indicates that Tivo took the easy way out and I think they admitted as much when MRV/TTG was first made available for S3 units.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

That is correct. It is strictly a matter of how TiVo decided to implement TTG and MRV. I know folks don't like the idea of that. :shrug:


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

This is the DFAST license
http://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/DFAST_Tech_License.pdf

The relevant section starts on page 27.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

moyekj said:


> I believe Tivo took the easy approach on this one: anything other than CCI=0x0 is not allowed to be copied period regardless of the specific setting. This was a much easier approach than trying to enforce the various DFAST requirements for other settings.
> 
> Note that DVHS recorders recording from firewire port of a cable set top box or DVR can record shows with CCI=0x02 which indicates the copy on the cable DVR itself is not considered the one and only allowed copy. CCI=0x03 shows cannot be recorded with DVHS recorders as expected. To me this clearly indicates that Tivo took the easy way out and I think they admitted as much when MRV/TTG was first made available for S3 units.


I dont agree (while I wont say it's entirely impossible that tivo didn't "go the easy route")-

for one- CCI 0x03 behaves sompletely differently- self destructing the recording after 90 mins.

Also unbox and other various tivo download things have various other flags with all sorts of limits- i hell of a lot more complex then allow one more copy and then stop-

So clearly tivo is capable of creating and enforcing complex rules based on what the provider wants.

There's not a single cable company box that I am aware has gotten cablelabs approval- so as far as i know not a single box has had to comply with dfast rules. So Who's to say what the cable company boxes does is the "correct" behavior? IN my mind all the other "odd" things cable does points to yet another set of rules that cable does one thing and 3rd parties have to do another.


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

bicker said:


> That is correct. It is strictly a matter of how TiVo decided to implement TTG and MRV. I know folks don't like the idea of that. :shrug:


bicker,

Why would the cable company (Comcast in my case) flag content being broadcast on any non-premium channel as anything other than 0x00?

In my case, that's how it was up until last February. Then for whatever reason, Comcast decided to flag most channels in the digital tier with 0x02.

HBO, SHOW, MAX, PPV, VOD, yes I understand those.

NICKTOONS, TVLAND, TNTHD, BBCA, why? Nothing warrants it.

Cable company equipment is immune to this because content transfer is a feature they lack. Flipping this bit one way or the other makes no difference in the context of their hardware.

But doing so, does impact TiVo features. And that's the part I don't like. I cannot see any merit, reason, or benefit as to why Comcast would have to do this. Nobody at Comcast has told me why, but a rep has told me that it should NOT have been done. I am left only to complain to the FCC as I can only interpret this as a competitive business move that results in the disabling of a feature offered by a competitor's hardware (TiVo).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

sfhub said:


> This is the DFAST license
> http://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/DFAST_Tech_License.pdf
> 
> The relevant section starts on page 27.


the problem is- no where in the document does it say with certainty if the recording on the dvr is THE copy or not.

they specifically call out PVR's as not being permitted to record 'copy never' except for a pause buffer. So if it can't copy never then obviously a copy on a pvr counts as a copy. (in that case at least- but they could have just included that phrase all over and made it clear.)

Since there's no other DVR with the ability to copy content that is required to abide by the DFAST agreement then it's tough to figure out what the "standard" is.

Or can MS Mdeia centers copy also and not just stream?

The cablecard sony dvr- never got the ability to copy did it?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

20TIL6 said:


> Why would the cable company (Comcast in my case) flag content being broadcast on any non-premium channel as anything other than 0x00?


You'd have to ask _them_. Though, be forewarned, folks have asked, and gotten either conflicting, inconsistent, misdirecting, or vacuous replies. All we know is that they're allowed, and that they do. "Why" may be inaccessible.



20TIL6 said:


> I am left only to complain to the FCC


Yeah, you won't get anywhere that way, IMHO (especially since your interpretation of why they're doing it is probably wrong, and myopic). Folks at the FCC can consider this simply a way for service providers to protect the service the service provider is offering.

If you want to get somewhere, with your concerns, get your Member of Congress to care about this. And good luck with that.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

bicker said:


> Michael: We'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe you're mistaken about a number of things, but if you want to go on being upset with the cable company, even though all of _these _issues happen to be TiVo's fault, I'm not going to stop you.


Most of us have to use cc. Tivo is subject to Cable Cards Labs rules. Most cable provided DVRs don't currently use cc and the cable company isn't subject to those rules. Tivo isn't "at fault", they have to follow rules that aren't applicable to cable company DVRs.

Setting the flag, in a matter not required by the content provider, is a cable company issue not a tivo issue. Again tivo isn't at fault.

I think the posters have a right to be upset with their cable company but I don't think there is anything that can be done about it.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

bicker said:


> All we know is that they're allowed, and that they do.


Their equipment is capable of setting the flag. You've never established your source for saying the cable company is "allowed" to.


----------



## hmm52 (Feb 25, 2008)

MichaelK said:


> Since there's no other DVR with the ability to copy content that is required to abide by the DFAST agreement then it's tough to figure out what the "standard" is.
> 
> Or can MS Mdeia centers copy also and not just stream?
> 
> The cablecard sony dvr- never got the ability to copy did it?


For whatever it's worth, I'll note my experiences with 2 Sony HDD250s that I've had since 10/05. I've used Verizon since 11/06 so that stretch is irrelevant to this discussion; CCI:0X00 across the board.

Comcast was my provider before VZ. I didn't know what a copy flag was until some of my recordings of tennis on ESPN2HD began to be denied - "recording not permitted by content provider". Comcast Philadelphia had flagged the ESPNs, the HBOs and other premiums CCI:0X02; the others remained at 0X00. The Sonys saw 2 consecutive recordings of the same channel (common in televised tennis) as copying twice. The tedious workaround was to schedule 1 minute manual recordings on another channel in between ESPN's episodic daily coverage of tournaments.

For the last 4 - 6 months with Comcast Phila., every channel was flagged CCI:0X02 including the locals, SD and HD. I never checked but I would have been shocked if they made an exception for The Weather Channel. I routinely made DVDs later from the Sony recordings with an older Panasonic DVD recorder - connected at 480i with S video cable. No problems with that regardless of copy flag. It's a relief to have FiOS nevertheless. I hope their CCI policies don't change.

The Sony DVRs haven't had their abilities expanded by software updates, except for what is enabled through Gemstar TVGOS updates. These are minor: Advertising on a side pane of the guide and the dropping of 8 hours as maximum single recording length for example.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

lew said:


> Most of us have to use cc. Tivo is subject to Cable Cards Labs rules. Most cable provided DVRs don't currently use cc and the cable company isn't subject to those rules.


Most cable-provided DVRs deployed in the field don't use CC, but all cable provided DVRs now being distributed (ie after the deadline) must use CC, assuming they weren't granted an exception, which very few were.

So, looking forward, *if* the cable provided DVRs using CC have functionality that is not allowed by a license that TiVo is forced to abide by, that is unfair. *If* however that functionality is available to both and TiVo just chose not to implement it, then that is on TiVo.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

sfhub said:


> Most cable-provided DVRs deployed in the field don't use CC, but all cable provided DVRs now being distributed (ie after the deadline) must use CC, assuming they weren't granted an exception, which very few were.
> 
> So, looking forward, *if* the cable provided DVRs using CC have functionality that is not allowed by a license that TiVo is forced to abide by, that is unfair. *If* however that functionality is available to both and TiVo just chose not to implement it, then that is on TiVo.


FiOS was granted an exception, not sure about any other systems. FiOS isn't changing the flag so it's not currently an issue.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

20TIL6 said:


> Cable company equipment is immune to this because content transfer is a feature they lack. Flipping this bit one way or the other makes no difference in the context of their hardware.


Cable company equipment does support transfers to DTCP-approved equipment over firewire. They could still be immune, but not because this is a feature they lack.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

drcos said:


> And HDT vs. DSCHD??


Have you tried contacting Discovery and asking them what copy protection they intended to set for their programming?

Explain to them that Comcast is setting CCI=0x02 and this is making it difficult to watch their channel (because your DVR is running out of space and you can't offload for future viewing) so you are thinking about dropping the channel altogether. However you thought it strange that HDT would be 0x00 (I assume your original post had a typo) while DSCHD would be 0x02, so you wanted to check with them first to see whether that was their intention.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> ... the cable company isn't subject to those rules.


They are now.



lew said:


> Setting the flag, in a matter not required by the content provider, is a cable company issue not a tivo issue.


And the cable company is allowed to set the flag as they do, on cable channels. What is at issue is how TiVo has chosen to handle that one specific flag.



lew said:


> I think the posters have a right to be upset with their cable company but I don't think there is anything that can be done about it.


People have a right to be upset about anything that they want to be upset about it. It doesn't have to make any rational sense.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

sfhub said:


> Their equipment is capable of setting the flag. You've never established your source for saying the cable company is "allowed" to.


Sure we have. You've been here long enough to have seen those discussions, here and on AVS Forum.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

CCI is intended for content owners and copyright holders to express their copy control (DRM) desires.

If George Lucas wants his broadcast of Star Wars on PPV to be CCI=0x03 (copy never) the cable company is not "allowed" to just change it to CCI=0x02 (copy one gen) on their own, unilaterally.

If Michael Moore doesn't believe in draconian DRM and wants the broadcast of Fahrenheit 9/11 on HBO to be DRM free with CCI=0x00 (copy freely), the cable company is not "allowed" to just change it to CCI=0x02 (copy one gen) on their own, unilaterally.

What the cable company controls is the Conditional Access encryption that protects people from stealing the cable company's signal. The cable company also runs an infrastructure that supports DRM specified by the content owner or copyright holder. This ends up being supported by DRM encryption, which is different from Conditional Access encryption. DRM encryption controls what can happen to the content after it leaves the cable company's transmission system and resides on end-user equipment, whether owned or leased.

Are there examples of cable companies setting CCI on their own. Yes. When consumers complain (sometimes to the content producers who then complain to the cable company), have they fixed it? Yes. Much of what we've seen has been misconfiguration by the cable company. However getting the misconfiguration fixed can be a trying process.

TiVoStephen gets involved
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=387639


> Hi folks,
> 
> It has recently come to our attention that some of our subscribers using Comcast experienced issues recording shows on HBO, Showtime and Starz in the Richmond Virginia area. We wanted to let you know that we are aware of the issue and have worked with Comcast to correct it. The channels were marked for copy protection in error. We believe that this issue has substantially been resolved and will make sure that we take appropriate action for anyone that brings these types of problems to our attention in the future. We appreciate our subscriber's help in identifying such problems. We take such reports seriously and want to take appropriate actions to get them resolved as appropriate.
> 
> ...


TiVo Exec Relations and NHL Center Ice get involved
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5799528#post5799528

http://www.cablelabs.com/news/newsletter/SPECS/spectechdec/tech.pgs/story2.html
Copy control information (CCI) - *a way for content owners to specify whether their content can be copied.* The 5C solution communicates copy control information between devices in two ways:
...
Copy control information - *a way for content owners to specify whether their content can be copied or not.* The POD copy protection solution is a "copy never" solution.

http://www.dtcp.com/data/info 20071001 DTCP V1 1p51.pdf
*Content owners need a way to specify how their content can be used* ("copy-one-generation," "copy-never," etc.). This content protection system is capable of securely communicating copy control information (CCI)

ftp://skynet.ecn.purdue.edu/pub/dist/delp/ei00-consumer/paper.pdf
1. Copy Control Information (CCI) Layer - *a means of carrying information along with the copyrighted content that expresses the intentions of the copyright holder with regard to the conditions under which an end consumer is authorized to make a copy.*

http://books.google.com/books?id=Kp...M9gfGYa&sig=xycOuMEZ55_kzAHoZ6Tda5NTdQ0&hl=en
*CCI allows content owners to specify how their content can be used*


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Oh brother. Do more research. If I have time, I'll find the references in the actual regulations, which makes very clear that video distributors can apply the CCI bytes as they see fit, for cable channels (i.e., not local broadcast channels) but informing _you _is really not that important to me tonight, no offense; you should already know this stuff, given how much you participate here.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

That's what you said last time but never came back with references.

You don't seem receptive to anything but your own ideas so I won't bother.

The question that is most important for drcos is if Discovery says their desire is for CCI=0x00 will Comcast fix the misconfiguration.

If Discovery says their desire is for CCI=0x02 then there is nothing drcos can do, CCI is being properly conveyed.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Sheesh: This didn't take much research. Just use the search!

This is from the TiVoHD & Series3 MRV/TTG/TTCB: FAQ thread:


bkdtv said:


> *FCC mandate permits cable companies to apply copy protection (CCI 0x02) -- preventing use of TTG and MRV -- on any channel outside of the limited basic tier.* This is typically an independent decision by the cable company, but it can also be done at the request of the content provider, some of whom now want copy protection as part of the contract renewal for their channel(s).


I'm really busy this month, so if you want more details, ask bkdtv, the maintainer of the FAQ.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> the proprietary systems apparently do NOT look at CCI bits. they apparently look at the proprietary flags that are applied. (or perhaps since they dont even get cablelabs approval they completely ignore the DFAST rules and ignore flags)
> 
> it's documented bicker- look around at AVS forums or here.
> 
> ...


Bicker's sole purpose in life is to tell you how wonderful the cable companies are and how they can do no wrong.

Just do what I did: Put him on ignore.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

sfhub said:


> CCI is intended for content owners and copyright holders to express their copy control (DRM) desires.
> .....


Thanks for the links SFHUB. I found them very useful and informative. I'm trying to do battle with TW here as they've even set our local broadcast at 0x02 and even after almost 3 months, refuse to change it. I already filed a complaint with the FCC but we'll see what happens (I hear it can take a very long time).


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

m_jonis said:


> Thanks for the links SFHUB. I found them very useful and informative. I'm trying to do battle with TW here as they've even set our local broadcast at 0x02 and even after almost 3 months, refuse to change it. I already filed a complaint with the FCC but we'll see what happens (I hear it can take a very long time).


About the 0x02 on local broadcast you can use these links to fight them:

TiVo MRV page that encourages you to question 0x02 on local broadcasts
http://www.tivo.com/setupandsupport/messagesonmydvr/Getting_Started_with_Multi_Room_Viewing.html

EFF page that describes limitations placed on which situations DRM can be used
http://w2.eff.org/IP/pnp/cablewp.php#27

FCC rules that specify how DRM can be used and for what content (see section 76.1904)
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/47cfr76.1904.pdf

Basically FCC has said nothing about who can or can't set CCI. If you look through the CFR there is no reference as to who can or can't set CCI, only when it can or can't be used. The DRM infrastructure was put together so that content owners could express their DRM preferences and have that be passed through the system. There are many references that indicate this.

Confusion arises because some cable companies set CCI all on their own, sometimes in a haphazard fashion with no obvious pattern. Their equipment has the ability to do this. In most cases we have found this was a mistaken configuration and once you complain to the right people it gets fixed. However, this can be a trying process. Sometimes the right people are the cable company, sometimes the FCC, sometimes TiVo, and sometimes the content owner/producer.

I maintain that the ultimate authority on the CCI value (when applicable) is the content owner. If they want something to be CCI=0x02 there is nothing you can do about it.

On the other hand, if your cable company has set CCI on their own and the content owner feels it should be otherwise, if they complain to the cable company, what we have seen is the cable company fixes the problem.

So:
CCI=non-zero on local broadcast, FCC 76.1904 disallows this.
CCI=0x03 on anything other than PPV, VOD, FCC 76.1904 disallows this.
CCI=0x02 on other channels, this is an issue the content owner needs to clarify, what their intentions are regarding CCI and how it is treated in their contract

That should give a rough idea where to pursue to get your CCI problem resolved.


----------



## hmm52 (Feb 25, 2008)

*sfhub*

Thanks for researching this and providing a thorough explanation. When I bothered to call Comcast in '06, their answer was always the same: "It's not us. It's the content provider. There's nothing we can do about it." By the time they had spread the 0X02 flag to all their channels, including the locals, I had already found a workaround for my particular situation. It still gave me a very bad impression so I jumped at the chance to leave them even though Verizon's lineup lacked one channel I wanted most at that time.


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

Despite the disagreement over whether cable companies have the right to apply 0x02, and that they do so without any direction from the content owner, I still ask why.

Why are the cable companies doing this? Is there some technical reason? Is this necessary because of their infrastructure or equipment. I cannot tell that these flags benefit them in any way. All it does is break a feature on a 3rd party device. Certainly cable wouldn't do something so dastardly!!!!


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

There could be many reasons. Often we see that it was a mistake and it takes a long time to find the person who can fix it. Sometimes it is overzealous CYA let's blanket protect all content whether asked to or not. 

Some claim that it is some tactic to use against TiVo. While that can't be ruled out, IMO mistakes are probably the biggest reason, followed by not really understanding the ramifications of their actions; who or what gets affected down the line when those flags are set.

Hey, copy protection sounds good, just set this flag and we are covered. Oh, TiVo can't do transfers? What's a TiVo? Nobody has called me to complain so everything looks fine (we'd call an complain but we can't get past 1st level CSR to find the guy responsible for turning on the flags) Why don't you just use the DVR we provide, nobody is having problems with that one.

In some cases the content producers request CCI be set. HBO has been known to be pretty active in applying CCI. They petitioned 2 years ago to have SVOD classified as a new business model and to apply copy never. SVOD is where you catch up on The Sopranos using OnDemand which is offered as a bonus when you subscribe to HBO. So you could record Sopranos when it was broadcast, but not from the archives. It isn't that big a deal for TiVo users since we can't to SVOD anyway, but maybe Motorola TiVo folks would prefer a local copy that is easier to navigate.

I think people have a point that the cable companies should really take a neutral stance on applying DRM so as to keep their customers happy. 

Comcast seems to be mostly taking the stance that we just do what the content providers specify, but we have seen a few examples lately where they are applying CCI on their own in some markets. Maybe those are Comcast-acquired fanchises vs Comcast home-grown frachises. TWC is more into the let's set CCI=0x02 and see what happens policy, but they also have markets that are mostly CCI=0x00. Verizon FIOS generally does CCI=0x00 but they supposedly set proprietary Motorola parallel DRM flags, so Motorola equipment gets DRM but TiVo users get copy freely.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

m_jonis said:


> Bicker's sole purpose in life is to tell you how wonderful the cable companies are and how they can do no wrong.


Only as much as your sole purpose in life is to make up whatever scurrilously malicious accusations against them you possibly can.

In reality, my "sole purpose" is to keep things real and not let an unrebutted soap-box of mindless anti-business rhetoric to hold sway. Sometimes that means defending a cable company from vacuous accusations; sometimes it means defending AT&T from vacuous accusations; sometimes it means defending Disney from vacuous accusations; sometimes it means defending American Airlines from vacuous accusations; etc.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

sfhub said:


> About the 0x02 *on local broadcast* you can use these links to fight them:


Thank you for finally recognizing that the laws only prohibit application of the restricted flags *on local broadcast*.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

In case it isn't clear, I'm replying to your post, not because I disagree, but to clarify.



MichaelK said:


> the problem is- no where in the document does it say with certainty if the recording on the dvr is THE copy or not.


The way DFAST is written, copy, record, and store are synonymous (from the standpoint of representing a "copy"), unless otherwise noted. This is established in Exhibit B, section 3.1, and by how the terms are used subsequently. The DFAST license makes it unnecessarily confusing by sometimes using all 3 in a sentence and sometimes using just one.



MichaelK said:


> they specifically call out PVR's as not being permitted to *record* 'copy never' except for a pause buffer.


Actually what they said was a PVR shall not _copy_ CCI=0x03 (copy never) except for storage in a 90-minute pause buffer or buffer for immediate display. They said nothing about recording, however as pointed out earlier, the way DFAST is written, they are synonymous, unless otherwise noted.



MichaelK said:


> So if it can't copy never then obviously a copy on a pvr counts as a copy. (in that case at least- but they could have just included that phrase all over and made it clear.)


Yes, that is true.

As you and others have pointed out earlier, TiVo/UDCP *are* allowed to *move* content from one unit to another. TiVo could have implemented the "move" function, but chose not to, for reasons we can speculate about, but only they can say for sure.

I agree DFAST is written in a confusing way. The CCI nomenclature of "copy no more" and "copy 1 gen" seem like they are intended to set up an infrastructure where you are allowed to make a backup copy from your original recording. They probably make more sense in the context of pre-recorded media. When applied to transmission by broadcasting, it feels like you have "lost" 1 generation by virtue of the transmission itself. When I first read DFAST I also thought you could make 1 backup copy, beyond TiVo's copy/recording, but after reading how DTCP was defined it became clearer the point of view the DFAST writers took.

There is less confusion once you realize they feel an "integrated" PVR like TiVo that combines STB (tuning/decryption) and DVR (digital recording) functionalities should be treated just like a standalone DVR connected to an STB using a DTCP connection like firewire w/r/t DRM.

If one looks at the DTCP specification
http://www.dtcp.com/data/info 20071001 DTCP V1 1p51.pdf

Section 6.4.4.3 clearly describes how a recording device should mark the _recorded_ content given the CCI of the received content. For content _received_ as CCI=0x02 (copy 1 gen) the _recorded_ content should be marked as CCI=0x01 (copy no more) or if the device doesn't support that, CCI=0x03 (copy never). Both of these prevent further copies from being created. They also match the DFAST definition of Copy One Generation.

DFAST simply preserves this same relationship because it treats a UDCP PVR just like a DVR recording from an STB using a DTCP output like firewire.

This OpenCable Host 2.0 DVR Extension document also makes it much clearer what was intended for "Copy One Generation", however since it is a CC2.0 document one could argue it is not applicable to TiVo. On the other hand, it doesn't contradict DFAST, but rather clarifies some potentially ambiguous language. Also it doesn't make sense for CableLabs to make such a huge conceptual change between CC1.0 and CC2.0 as to modify a PVR's copy/recording from being a "0" generation to being a "1" generation copy. Thus one could conclude that the PVR's copy/recording was always a "1" generation copy and the language of DFAST was just ambiguous.

http://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/OC-SP-HOST2-DVREXT-I01-050502.pdf



> _*5.2.2.2 COPY ONE GENERATION*_
> 
> OCDVR-12: Content received by the OCDVR CCI-marked COPY ONE GENERATION SHALL be
> permitted to be recorded permanently if the content is written to the TSB and is CCImarked
> ...


Beyond this, it is also dt_dc's understanding that TiVo's copy is the "one" copy:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4889437#post4889437
While no one is infallible, dt_dc is the closest I have seen in this area.


----------



## hmm52 (Feb 25, 2008)

sfhub said:


> .....Comcast seems to be mostly taking the stance that we just do what the content providers specify, but we have seen a few examples lately where they are applying CCI on their own in some markets. Maybe those are Comcast-acquired fanchises vs Comcast home-grown frachises. TWC is more into the let's set CCI=0x02 and see what happens policy, but they also have markets that are mostly CCI=0x00. Verizon FIOS generally does CCI=0x00 but they supposedly set proprietary Motorola parallel DRM flags, so Motorola equipment gets DRM but TiVo users get copy freely.


I take exception to your speculation that it is/was mostly acquired franchises. You can't get any more home grown than Philadelphia. I witnessed the company being built on the enthusiasm of Phila. Flyers sports fans in South Phila. and other parts of the city during the late 60's and early 70's. The CEO lives 3 miles from me. I doubt they still apply 0X02 to every channel including locals as they did in late '06, but I don't think they've ever cut the home grown subscribers a break.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

hmm52 said:


> For whatever it's worth, I'll note my experiences with 2 Sony HDD250s that I've had since 10/05. ...
> Comcast Philadelphia had flagged the ESPNs, the HBOs and other premiums CCI:0X02; the others remained at 0X00. The Sonys saw 2 consecutive recordings of the same channel (common in televised tennis) as copying twice. ....


Very interesting.
seems perhaps that sony then also came to the conclusion that the Recording on the drive is in fact THE single allowed copy.

Maybe tivo isn't so stupid as some have assumed...



hmm52 said:


> ...I routinely made DVDs later from the Sony recordings with an older Panasonic DVD recorder - connected at 480i with S video cable. No problems with that regardless of copy flag. It's ....


analog (s-video or composite) copies are permitted with 0x02 or even 0x03. different flag values stop analog copies or analog and digital copies.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

sfhub said:


> Most cable-provided DVRs deployed in the field don't use CC, but all cable provided DVRs now being distributed (ie after the deadline) must use CC, assuming they weren't granted an exception, which very few were.
> 
> So, looking forward, *if* the cable provided DVRs using CC have functionality that is not allowed by a license that TiVo is forced to abide by, that is unfair. *If* however that functionality is available to both and TiVo just chose not to implement it, then that is on TiVo.


the cable dvr's with CC are not cablelabs approved if i recall. THey dont bother wsating the time since they aren't sold to the public. So they needn't comply with the DFAST standards.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

m_jonis said:


> Bicker's sole purpose in life is to tell you how wonderful the cable companies are and how they can do no wrong.
> 
> Just do what I did: Put him on ignore.


made me smile...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

sfhub said:


> In case it isn't clear, I'm replying to your post, not because I disagree, but to clarify.
> 
> The way DFAST is written, copy, record, and store are synonymous (from the standpoint of representing a "copy"), unless otherwise noted. This is established in Exhibit B, section 3.1, and by how the terms are used subsequently. The DFAST license makes it unnecessarily confusing by sometimes using all 3 in a sentence and sometimes using just one.
> 
> ...


thanks for the summary and new information.

will be interesting to see if Bicker acknowledges the possibility that he is mistaken on this one....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

20TIL6 said:


> Despite the disagreement over whether cable companies have the right to apply 0x02, and that they do so without any direction from the content owner, I still ask why.
> 
> Why are the cable companies doing this? Is there some technical reason? Is this necessary because of their infrastructure or equipment. I cannot tell that these flags benefit them in any way. All it does is break a feature on a 3rd party device. Certainly cable wouldn't do something so dastardly!!!!


I too find it vexing why cable headend engineers would touch a single setting.

Cableguy763 (I think thats his name- sorry if Im wrong) who works in a headend if I understand correctly has said that all the headend gear automatically will pass any flag settings as is sent by the content owners. Makes complete sense.So if HBO wants their channels marked 0x02 all they have to do is insert the flag one time at the uplink and every single head end in America will have the flag set as such.

Its dangerous for Comcast or any cable company to set any flag. By doing so, I believe they take on responsibility and therefore potentially liability for setting flags.

If Im Comcast or any cable provider I would demand that if HBO wants a particular flag set that they provide the stream with the flag in it.

If it is true that HBO wants their content flagged 0x02 by Comcast and if Comcast agrees to that they Comcast takes responsibly (and therefore liability) if one of their head end engineers makes a mistake.

Comcasts lawyers suck- if they are allowing such a thing.

Take for example-

What happens when George Lucas says to HBO- you may not show my next movie in HD unless you ensure that it will be flagged 0x02 in every household that sees it HBO can say no problem we have agreements in place with all our cable partners that they set the flag in house. No the engineer in west nowhere Comcast territory messes up and leaves the flag off by accident. Happens to be that the king of all pirates lives in west nowhere and grabs a digital copy and 15 minutes after the movie ends theres a bittorrent with Hbos logo flying all over the internet. Lucas lawyers sue HBO. HBO points to all their contracts and says its not on them. The FBI tracks the IP address of the bit torrent upload and finds its in west nowhere- and then HBO looks into it and sees that the west nowhere Comcast HBO doesnt have the flag set. Whos on the hook to Lucas now?

never mind any situation where they arbitrarily decide what to flag or what not to flag....

(on my headend - NGC SD is flagged- NGC HD is NOT- go figure them apples...)


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

Here's a wild thought. Maybe we should not be looking at the actual content as being the reason. Maybe it's the advertising.

If there is some component of revenue sharing between the networks and cable when it comes to advertising income, then maybe cable is setting the 0x02 flag as a way to contain advertising. Why? Because they are greedy bastards and allowing advertising to be transferred across platforms, and have more opportunity to reach eyeballs could be considered to have some amount of value. Cable might be thinking that they are missing out on some additional revenue, if the 'extended' life of advertising could be considered valuable.

Really, transferring content across multiple platforms DOES have value for advertising. And since cable can act as gatekeeper at the point of consumption, they can dictate fair use.

I could see them offering 0x00 to networks as a bump to their revenue share, and the networks could pass this increase on to advertisers as an 'extended life' feature.

I doubt that these flags are being set by mistake. I think most things like this are business driven. At least when I have my tin foil hat on...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

20TIL6 said:


> ...
> 
> I doubt that these flags are being set by mistake. I think most things like this are business driven. At least when I have my tin foil hat on...


In some cases I'm sure there are logican reasons but I personally beleive in most cases it's all random mistakes. There is NO other logical explanation that I can surmise why NGC SD gets a flag and NGC HD does not on my comcast system.

Feel free to come up with a logical reason why an SD version would get flagged and not an HD version- I can't come up with one...


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> Feel free to come up with a logical reason why an SD version would get flagged and not an HD version- I can't come up with one...


I'm stumped on that one too.


----------



## hmm52 (Feb 25, 2008)

MichaelK said:


> Very interesting.
> seems perhaps that sony then also came to the conclusion that the Recording on the drive is in fact THE single allowed copy.
> 
> Maybe tivo isn't so stupid as some have assumed...
> ...


I mentioned this because I've heard that some DVD recorders won't record properly because of copy flags. For years I've been out of touch with those products so it may only concern those with digital tuners. Not mine.

With the Sonys, I've always assumed that the drive recording is the first copy.

------Something odd happened at lunchtime while checking the Sonys and S3 for input & channel switching behavior using HDMI under different firmware (long story). Until I left, none of the 3 DVRs would tune either of the ESPN HDs while the ESPN SDs, and all other channels, were fine. The 2 TVs had no problems at all. It eventually cleared but I hope it's not a portent for the future. FiOS.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

hmm52 said:


> I take exception to your speculation that it is/was mostly acquired franchises.
> ...
> I don't think they've ever cut the home grown subscribers a break.


That's not what I said.

I didn't say "mostly" and I didn't say or imply it was "giving a break" to home grown subscribers.

I offered a possibility to explain why one Comcast market set CCI but others didn't.

The fact is when Comcast acquires a franchise, many things *could* be different, the equipment, the billing, head-end configuration, software revisions, personnel, training, local management philosophies, etc.

When you have so many differences that is a potential area to look at for why one particular market set CCI and others didn't. It could easily be a mistake or a software configuration issue that doesn't affect other markets. It could be something as simple as the software config defaults CCI to some value unless you manually configure passthrough, so new channels get affected but old ones don't.

You seem to have interpreted my post (not these exact words, but that is the feeling I got) as saying there is some policy of Comcast corporate to treat acquired franchises as second class citizens. I did not say or imply that.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

20TIL6 said:


> If there is some component of revenue sharing between the networks and cable when it comes to advertising income, then maybe cable is setting the 0x02 flag as a way to contain advertising. Why? Because they are greedy bastards and allowing advertising to be transferred across platforms, and have more opportunity to reach eyeballs could be considered to have some amount of value. Cable might be thinking that they are missing out on some additional revenue, if the 'extended' life of advertising could be considered valuable.
> ...
> I doubt that these flags are being set by mistake. I think most things like this are business driven. At least when I have my tin foil hat on...


Your scenario assumes the additional ad views from duplicate copies will be reflected in a metric used to price ad sales. As far as I know the ad sales are priced on metrics like nielsen or subscriber #s. Is there some additional information or insight into ad sales that leads to the scenario you proposed?

I don't think any of us can make a general statement to explain every situation. No doubt some of these situations could be mistakes and no doubt there are other possible explanations. I know if someone like Comcast really wants to implement a policy across the board, they can get it done. They pushed 3-pak HD channels from Denver HITS distribution quite effectively in a short period.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

hmm52 said:


> I doubt they still apply 0X02 to every channel including locals as they did in late '06


I was curious about this. I have no way to verify this, but if it is something that you were curious about, perhaps you could confirm for us. It seems like someone listened to complaints and fixed the CCI situation you were exposed to before you switched to FIOS.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13754499#post13754499


ak3883 said:


> I think it was this thread(at least I know it was AVS) that I learned that Comcast turned off the 5C flags in Philly, because it was interferring with TiVO. I'm very thankful for that. The only channels that have 5C are premiums and OnDemand. I captured a lot of material from ESPNHD and KYW-DT in march, no issues with 5C or the cci flags.
> 
> Regardless, network HD should NOT have copy-once enabled. I'll check to see if any flags have changed on my system...


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11718838#post11718838


ak3883 said:


> New channels are LIVE as of 12:15AM All are set to copy-free, CCI flag is not set. All are encrypted. No NFL network for me as I don't get the sports package, they have that set up to authorize correctly.


----------



## hmm52 (Feb 25, 2008)

sfhub said:


> You seem to have interpreted my post (not these exact words, but that is the feeling I got) as saying there is some policy of Comcast corporate to treat acquired franchises as second class citizens. I did not say or imply that.


That's not what I meant. If anything in my experience, they tend to treat all their subscribers as second class citizens regardless of region or franchise, with no policy required. As noted my experience with Comcast ended 11/06, just as Verizon was turning up the heat in this area. I have the sense that they have become more responsive to customers since then as a consequence of the competition. Duoploies are far from ideal as industry structures however.

When still with Comcast, it was my thought that the eventually ridiculous extent of CCI flagging was a result of sloppiness, with very few people challenging them on it. I thought only a core part of it was intentional; the rest being an innocuous mistake - to the powers that be there anyway.

Verizon Phila. is still delivering the local HDs clearQAM in a non-conforming manner that is impossible to tune by most brands 6 months after making the changes that caused this. They are aware of the situation and many have complained. It certainly seems that it is not a priority to them. They obviously know what the changes were. They were intentional. Intended for what, I have no idea. What's your take on this?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

sfhub said:


> ... I know if someone like Comcast really wants to implement a policy across the board, they can get it done. They pushed 3-pak HD channels from Denver HITS distribution quite effectively in a short period.


I loved to know which channels exactly are from the HITS system and on what head ends they are. If those have different flags at different head ends then it's clear the head ends engineers are being wacky.

If they're all the same then it's not really indicative or anything except going forward corporate will be in charge.

But I do wonder if different places have different flags for HITS channels.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

MichaelK said:


> I loved to know which channels exactly are from the HITS system and on what head ends they are. If those have different flags at different head ends then it's clear the head ends engineers are being wacky.


From my experience, all the channels that are 3-pak are from HITS Quantum. The list is in the post below. I have not seen any Comcast user say the channels in the list aren't 3-pak for them (which doesn't rule it out). The reason we are assured all the 3-pak are from HITS is because that is the only location that has the appropriate trans-rating equipment. Even if your channels aren't 3-pak they could be from HITS, but if they are 3-pak they are definitely from HITS.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271

Keep in mind HITS is not just for Comcast. They are a business unit of Comcast that packages and resells channels to various cable providers, including Comcast.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_May_7/ai_n19053968


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> will be interesting to see if Bicker acknowledges the possibility that he is mistaken on this one....


Let's get the FAQ maintainer, bkdtv, to acknowledge the possibility that the FAQ is mistaken first. I think you're engaging in wishful thinking. Perhaps you'd love to have a rationalization for your complaints when reality doesn't match what you want, but instead matches what the FAQ says, as I relayed it to you. Y'know what's funny though. No matter how much you try to pervert the meaning of the words, none of it actually affects the fact that those the red circles are there next to our Science Channel programs wrt MRV and TTG, and will stay there.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Bicker for a guy that whines loudly all the time that people are making personal attacks you sure pick strange ways to type your thoughts.

You make crap up= 
"rationalization for your complaints"- please aim me to my complaint that you keep saying I have?
maybe you should try to read a little and look at the last reply i made to your accusation where I said I am not upset with my cable company over what I beleive to be their mistakes. It really has no real world effect on me so I dont care. I dont bother with Tivo TO Go so the little red circles with slashes mean nothing to me.

and
"try to pervert words"

what they hell is that supposed to mean?

How 'bout this-

why don&#8217;t you stop being so bitter, nasty, accusatory, and unwilling to ever say that maybe just possibly in this tiny little case you might have been ever so slightly wrong?


did you not read the post from sfhub about the DTCP and host 2.0 specs?
How about the post about Sony DVR's behaving in a manner that would appear that sony things the recording on the dvr is a "copy"?

Just going to ignore thos facts?

How's that for perverting and rationalizing things?

I doubt you will achnownledge the points of view that oppose your way of thinking. 

wonder what tomorrow's bickering will be about....


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

At this point, all I see from you is baseless hostility. I have very little interest in reading your messages. I've referred to the FAQ. Anyone who really wants to know what's what can ignore your ramblings and read the FAQ.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> At this point, all I see from you is baseless hostility. I have very little interest in reading your messages. I've referred to the FAQ. Anyone who really wants to know what's what can ignore your ramblings and read the FAQ.


wahh wahhh wahhh

Didn't you mean to say
"I'm rubber you're glue"

laughing.

I guess those facts that you dont agree with shouldn't be acknowledged.

Hostility- that's a good one. You are the poster buy for hostile attacking posts. ("pervert" , "rationalize", you dont think those are loaded words?)

Oh well.
Good night.

I guess this is another one that we'll just have to agree to disagree on.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> wahh wahhh wahhh
> 
> Didn't you mean to say
> "I'm rubber you're glue"
> ...


If it's in the FAQ then it must be true.

LOL!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

If you want it to be true, it must be true. 

Lets let it drop kids. You're not going to change my mind, or reality; and clearly I'm not going to help you change your mind.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

You know there's a problem when...


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

Funny yes, but not helpful 

So I need to fire off emails to the content providers, as well as continue with Comcast (they finally appear to have fixed my billing BTW).

I _think_ we may have the answer as to _if_ the flags can be set arbitrarily by the cable company...
0x00 for locals, anything else for other channels except 0x03 only for PPV and VOD.

If I am reading through the thread correctly. We will continue the fight.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

drcos said:


> I _think_ we may have the answer as to _if_ the flags can be set arbitrarily by the cable company... 0x00 for locals, anything else for other channels except 0x03 only for PPV and VOD. If I am reading through the thread correctly.


Correct; the only exception to that is that the service provider is not to apply a higher level of protection if they are explicitly prohibited from doing so by the content owner/distributor.


----------



## cuyahoga (Nov 15, 2002)

So, basically, if my local CBS affiliate in Philadelphia (KYW) is dropping the 0x02 on its content being delivered through Comcast, it is doing so improperly based on what FCC 76.1904 says. 

Do I have that remotely correct? Legalese hurts my head almost immediately.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CBS, copy protected, bad.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

cuyahoga said:


> So, basically, if my local CBS affiliate in Philadelphia (KYW) is dropping the 0x02 on its content being delivered through Comcast, it is doing so improperly based on what FCC 76.1904 says.
> 
> Do I have that remotely correct? Legalese hurts my head almost immediately.


More than likely it's Comcast that has set the flag and not the CBS station (meaning odds are that the CBS affiliate has not requested that the 0x02 flag be set).

However, perhaps you are in my situation where our local channels ARE set to 0x02 (by Time Warner cable) and they can (apparently) legally do so. Why? Because those stations are being digitally simulcast by Time Warner.

You'd have to check your cable card setup menu on your Tivo to see if the CBS channel is being broadcast by Comcast in RF (analog) or digital. If it's analog, (and assuming that channel is also OTA) then they cannot (legally) set the flag to 0x02. Although that didn't stop our local TW Albany either from setting all channels to 0x02.

If your CBS station is digital HD (and again, assuming it's OTA) then they cannot (legally) set it to 0x02.

But they CAN take the "analog" station, convert it to digital simulcast and set it to 0x02 (ie, where I live, cable card customers cannot receive any analog stations. They are all converted to digital simulcast, and thus, TW sets the copy protection to everything as 0x02)


----------

