# Wife asks where is Caller ID?



## bengaldave (Jul 26, 2009)

Just got my Tivo HD XL up and running with cable card and SDR.

It has replaced a cablevision cable box.

We have the "triple play", which means we get cable/internet and TV from cablevision.

When we had the cable box hooked into the TV when a call comes in, we see the caller ID on the TV.

Now that the Tivo is hooked into the TV and we have given back the cable box we do not see the caller id when the phone rings.

Is there a way to get caller id on the TV when a call comes in?

Thanks in advance,


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Currently this is available only on a hacked TiVo utilizing a 3rd party application.


----------



## crazi4tv (Nov 1, 2008)

The caller ID function will not display on your TiVo when a Cablecard is inserted-the two are not compatible.


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

There is this really cool invention called the "Wireless telephone handset". Not only does it give you the caller ID, it allows you to answer the phone as well!


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

tiassa said:


> There is this really cool invention called the "Wireless telephone handset". Not only does it give you the caller ID, it allows you to answer the phone as well!


Exactly!


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

It's gone, baby.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> Exactly!


And there's this.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Why would you pay $50 for something most cordless phones can do for free?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

The Onscreen CallerID is what I miss the most about my hacked DirecTivo.


----------



## SugarBowl (Jan 5, 2007)

rifleman69 said:


> Why would you pay $50 for something most cordless phones can do for free?


because we like to know WHO is calling, but we don't care to actually answer the phone, or hear it ring.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

SugarBowl said:


> because we like to know WHO is calling, but we don't care to actually answer the phone, or hear it ring.


Do people still use land-lines? And even if you did, would you actually run the land-line connection into your Tivo?

Wow...


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

SugarBowl said:


> because we like to know WHO is calling, but we don't care to actually answer the phone, or hear it ring.


Turn the ringer off, boy that is hard! And like AbFab said, why would I want to run the phone line into my TiVo/DVR?


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Wow, what rude responses to a new poster.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Seems as though any feature that the TiVo can't do is not worth crap.

Seriously, I think this is a great feature and there are probably a lot of us that have phone lines at our equipment racks anyway (ie anyone who had a S1).


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Or many people actually have a phone outlet that is near the equipment rack anyway, an 8 foot cord and I'd be set to go.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

If you did still have the on screen caller id with Tivo you'd run into situations where that box would pop up during recordings, and would be saved as part of the program.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

WhiskeyTango said:


> If you did still have the on screen caller id with Tivo you'd run into situations where that box would pop up during recordings, and would be saved as part of the program.


I guess if you're saving from the TiVo to a DVD recording or something, it might happen. (Obviously it won't get saved to the TiVo's hard drive, but if you're recording from the TiVo's output you'd be out of luck)

But I know the old 'Save to VCR' function supressed almost all UI displays. There's no reason they couldn't use it, or something like it, to tell the TiVo that now isn't a good time for pop-ups.


----------



## moonscape (Jul 3, 2004)

AbMagFab said:


> Do people still use land-lines?


I do! - and wouldn't give it up. The connection is always clear, always there - and I'm on the phone a lot at home.

Hey - not only do I use a landline, but I prefer to use <gasp> a corded phone. I know, I know. But I always go for the corded vs cordless when I'm going to be talking for a while.

What a throwback!


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

tiassa said:


> There is this really cool invention called the "Wireless telephone handset". Not only does it give you the caller ID, it allows you to answer the phone as well!


And can SAY the Caller's name.

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-...z-Phones.list.75065_11002_7000000000000005702


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I didn't know anything could put callerid on a TV. Interesting. I have an answering machine and I can hear who is on the phone.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I want to be able to answer the phone through my Tivo just like you could with those Zenith "space phone" TVs.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

moonscape said:


> I do! - and wouldn't give it up. The connection is always clear, always there - and I'm on the phone a lot at home.
> 
> Hey - not only do I use a landline, but I prefer to use <gasp> a corded phone. I know, I know. But I always go for the corded vs cordless when I'm going to be talking for a while.
> 
> What a throwback!


Odd... you probably still use DOS, too?


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

ferrumpneuma said:


> I use a wired land line for the same reason I used wired ethernet. Reliability.
> 
> Tivo users must have Tivo connected to the mothership somehow. It's either the phoneline or wired or wireless ethernet. The former is easy for a caller ID solution all inside the tivo. If it's the latter and the user is connected with a home network chances are they also have a PC on that network that could serve up the caller ID like the hacked solution. I keep a phone line connected to my PC for sending and receiving faxes so it's no biggie.
> 
> Why do people browbeat others for bringing up features requested that Tivo regularly ignores? Tivo is good but not perfect. If caller ID does not work for you that does not mean it is not a useful feature for others.


The two are completely different, with completely different requirements:

Wired network = reliability, which is critical for digital data.

Wireless phone = ease of use, which is critical for something as mobile as a phone, and that doesn't require any sort of digital reliability.

If you are making the same conclusion for both, you're not not looking at the actual needs of either properly.


----------



## JonathanMeyers (Dec 20, 2007)

People in this forum are really defensive concerning any TiVO criticism. I have two TiVO's and I enjoy them. There is definite room for improvement. CallerID, would be an improvement even though it is pretty much useless. Also, land lines are the most dependable form of telecommunications.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

JonathanMeyers said:


> People in this forum are really defensive concerning any TiVO criticism. I have two TiVO's and I enjoy them. There is definite room for improvement. CallerID, would be an improvement even though it is pretty much useless. Also, land lines are the most dependable form of telecommunications.


If this was enabled on TiVo's, I'd still make fun of it. It's not a defender of TiVo thing for me.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

WhiskeyTango said:


> If you did still have the on screen caller id with Tivo you'd run into situations where that box would pop up during recordings, and would be saved as part of the program.


Not true. At least with the implementation that was used on hacked DTivo's. The tivo is recording the incoming stream, not what is going out to the tv. The callerID data is inserted into the display output like the close caption information IIRC it used the same commad to display the data that displayed CC information. I don't know if it recorded the data as if it were CC data.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> If this was enabled on TiVo's, I'd still make fun of it. It's not a defender of TiVo thing for me.


At least it is a somewhat useful feature. It beats reaching for the phone to see who is calling, its displayed right on the TV. And if the answering machine is in the other room or turned down or of or god forbid you don't have one because you think voicemail is a pain in the... IMO it's more useful than a free space available meter. But that is just flame bait on my part. Any feature you don't use has a tendency to be lame.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

It would be more annoying having it pop up. I remember with my first DirecTV HD STB in 2001. Having caller ID pop up, I really hated it. That is what an answering machine/voicemail is for. If it's important they will leave a message and I can call them back at my leisure.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

I have the panasonic cordless phone with talking caller id and I love it. I had on screen caller id on dish and directv and I miss it on Tivo but the talking caller id works when the TV is off.

Landlines are going away but mostly due to cost, I switched over to a VOIP solution that cost less than the telco charges just for caller id.


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

AbMagFab said:


> Odd... you probably still use DOS, too?


Yes, two DOS programs almost everyday, the same programs since 1989-1992.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> It would be more annoying having it pop up. I remember with my first DirecTV HD STB in 2001. Having caller ID pop up, I really hated it. That is what an answering machine/voicemail is for. If it's important they will leave a message and I can call them back at my leisure.


I hacked my DTivo specifically to get MRV and callerID. That's why they sell Fords AND Chevy's. You might think a Space Available Indicator would be the end all and be all added feature, I find that totally worthless and would hardly ever if ever use it. I'm not hearing impaired so closed captions is kind of sille and I don't use it. I think CallerID would be the greatest. As long as you can toggle it on and off in settings who cares if a feature is available, it doesn't mean you have to use it.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

kb7oeb said:


> I have the panasonic cordless phone with talking caller id and I love it. I had on screen caller id on dish and directv and I miss it on Tivo but the talking caller id works when the TV is off.
> 
> Landlines are going away but mostly due to cost, I switched over to a VOIP solution that cost less than the telco charges just for caller id.


You've never had cell phone not be available for long periods have you? Land lines won't go away anytime soon. cell phone is still not available in large rural areas and what happens when a hurricane or earthquake knocks down a few cell phone towers and they won't be up again for 6 months? Oh but wait I forgot VOIP is still technically a land line unless you are using some kind of wireless solution. it just isn't POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) its digital data.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> You've never had cell phone not be available for long periods have you? Land lines won't go away anytime soon. cell phone is still not available in large rural areas and what happens when a hurricane or earthquake knocks down a few cell phone towers and they won't be up again for 6 months? Oh but wait I forgot VOIP is still technically a land line unless you are using some kind of wireless solution. it just isn't POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) its digital data.


That's what a Femtocell is for. I can barely get reception at my condo from the cell tower but with the Verizon Femtocell I get full signal strength.
And in the rural areas they would still be using DSL which would be on the same lines as the phone. So it would be just as reliable as long as the Femotcell is on a UPS. Mine is covered for around 12 hours during an outage.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> It would be more annoying having it pop up.


In your opinion.

In my opinion, pausing the current show so that I can find the handset and look to see who is calling is annoying. I do not have the luxury of ignoring all incoming calls and waiting for the important ones to leave a message. I must pick up certain calls when they come in.


----------



## yjr (Apr 26, 2006)

bengaldave said:


> Just got my Tivo HD XL up and running with cable card and SDR.
> 
> It has replaced a cablevision cable box.
> 
> ...


Other than the suggestion to use 3rd party hacks, or to use a wireless phone to obtain the caller ID info...
The short answer to your question is, This feature is not available when you are not using Cablevision's cable box(at least that's the way it was when I started using a Tivo HD with cable cards 2yrs ago). As a new user of a Tivo with cable cards you will find that there are more features/channels that are not available when you do not use Cablevision's box. Couple of channels I remember were Optimum Homes and Optimum cars(they may have been SDV) I learned to live without.
I don't remember what else was not available(other than the SDV channels), I have since switched to Fios.
HTH
JerryR


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> Why would you pay $50 for something most cordless phones can do for free?


1) A cordless phone costs something.
2) A cordless phone display is not visible from across the room.

I too would prefer caller ID on my Tivo/TV, and was simply identifying an option that would display the caller prominently and could be located near the TV so it's always visible (whereas the cordless handset inevitably is in another room, in between the couch cushions, out of batteries, etc.)


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

ah30k said:


> In your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion, pausing the current show so that I can find the handset and look to see who is calling is annoying. I do not have the luxury of ignoring all incoming calls and waiting for the important ones to leave a message. I must pick up certain calls when they come in.


Then put the hand set next to you when watching TV. I have a handset near each TV.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

JonathanMeyers said:


> People in this forum are really defensive concerning any TiVO criticism. I have two TiVO's and I enjoy them. There is definite room for improvement. CallerID, would be an improvement even though it is pretty much useless. Also, land lines are the most dependable form of telecommunications.


The Op is taking about having a cable set top box with cable VOPI service. The STB must be a one piece so VOIp phone is intergrated.

Now consider that these days TiVo boxes don't need a phone line. You can use the preferred method of a home network connection. When you use a phone line for the TiVo it's trivial to get the Caller ID out, since the internal phone modem can grok it. If you don't the phone line connected, the TiVo doesn't know from the phone ringing.

Soo... "Why can't the TiVo do it?" That's why.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> Then put the hand set next to you when watching TV. I have a handset near each TV.


To quote someone



aaronwt said:


> It would be more annoying ...


But wait I'm sure that is what he does do since the On Screen CallerID isn't a feature



aaronwt said:


> That's what a Femtocell is for. I can barely get reception at my condo from the cell tower but with the Verizon Femtocell I get full signal strength.
> And in the rural areas they would still be using DSL which would be on the same lines as the phone. So it would be just as reliable as long as the Femotcell is on a UPS. Mine is covered for around 12 hours during an outage.


Even using Femtocell you aren't getting rid of a "Land Line" (assuming you are using cable or DSL anyway) you just aren't using POTS anymore. It was the "land line" reference that I was really commenting on. It really isn't getting rid of a land line if you switch to voip you are just substituting a POTS land line for an IP land line (assuming cable or DSL for broadband internet)

Out of curiosity, why are you so against the idea of having on on screen caller ID?


----------



## DaveLinger (Dec 4, 2008)

JonathanMeyers said:


> People in this forum are really defensive concerning any TiVO criticism.


Yep, I learned to keep mine to myself. Why doesn't the TiVo HD have HD menus? Why doesn't it support 1080p output? Why can't it map standard-def channels to their high-def equivalents? Questions like these get "nobody cares about that stuff and tivo doesn't have the money anyway" answers every time. Seems like TiVo cares more about adding new advertising opportunities in the TiVo interface than catching up to other DVRs' features.

But that being said, like you, I love my tivo and bought it knowing these things.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

netringer said:


> The Op is taking about having a cable set top box with cable VOPI service. The STB must be a one piece so VOIp phone is intergrated.
> 
> Now consider that these days TiVo boxes don't need a phone line. You can use the preferred method of a home network connection. When you use a phone line for the TiVo it's trivial to get the Caller ID out, since the internal phone modem can grok it. If you don't the phone line connected, teh TiVo doesn't know from the phone ringing.
> 
> Soo... "Why can't the TiVo do it?" That's why.


Your Tivo can't do it because they because they choose not to incorporate a feature that as you point out would be trivial to do. VOIP has little if anything to do with it. Add a setting in the user control to display the caller info or not, plug in a phone line and your set. The hardware is already in your tivo, the commands to get the data and display the data is already there. I have no idea how many lines of code it would take to add a menu item (not many I'm sure) and what, probably less than a dozen lines of code doing the work. Like you said it would be really trivial to do. I know every feature adds associated support costs yada, yada, yada, but I think callerID is pretty much understood and I think the additional costs for this feature would be minuscule.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Then put the hand set next to you when watching TV. I have a handset near each TV.


Oh yes, fetching the handset every time I want to watch TV is not annoying at all.

Why on Gods earth people feel their preferences should be shared by everyone else is beyond me.

Aaron, you prefer not to have caller id. Fine. But please don't try to tell us that we should not want it as well.

For you to say that your solution is better is just plane ridiculous.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

The current generation of cable provided caller-id features work through communication back to the headend (which also provides the voip phone service). This is nice because you can configure all kinds of options such as friends, avatars etc.

An alternate method which would not require headend communications would be to just use the caller-id data in the phone call itself. The same method handsets use now.


----------



## SheliaP (Jul 29, 2005)

Getting defensive about TIVO criticism are we--- sigh. Of course we do and take everything as a personal attack. Nothing is perfect.

But like many others I am a throwback. I have DSL; prefer it over cable phone (OMG give something else to Comcast and their attitude- and if it goes out- well- let's hope you get it back in a week) But anyway- If the power goes out- all my little wireless landline phone sets are dead too- so I keep one old princess phone in the bedroom. It's my security blanket. Along with the cell phone I put beside it. I am not opposed to progress. 

But really- having the wireless landline phone with caller id display located where you can look at it is NBD- on the coffeetable or arm oof the chair/couch. Or hear an answering machine- or check it later. We are becoming such Tivoheads and Couchpotatoes, and instant gratification junkies-- waiting a few seconds seems like torture or actually having to get up to answer a phone or check messages, god forbid.

Call me old (I am) fashioned-- but somewhere we have lost something here. I tivo everything (and yes I know it's not a verb- but its what I do) So I can watch it at my convenience, and gasp- actually pause it- when I want/need to do something else. Like answer a phone call from my son, check messages, or get ticked off because someone has the audacity to bother me when I am engaged in activities of such supreme importance. (It is why we ignore telemarketers and every other anon caller, isn't it?)

I realize this post may not be met kindly by posters /shrug- but there ya go. I think I am going to go outside and actually talk in person to my neighbor about the goings on in the neighborhood and what the kids are up to. How Retro.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

ah30k said:


> Oh yes, fetching the handset every time I want to watch TV is not annoying at all.
> 
> Why on Gods earth people feel their preferences should be shared by everyone else is beyond me.
> 
> ...


Where did I say my solution was better? It is my solution, hence my opinion. Of course people have different opinions. What works for one person doesn't necessarily work for another. But TiVo has been out a long time, and obviously caller ID is not a priority. Otherwise they would have added it along time ago.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> At least it is a somewhat useful feature. It beats reaching for the phone to see who is calling, its displayed right on the TV. And if the answering machine is in the other room or turned down or of or god forbid you don't have one because you think voicemail is a pain in the... IMO it's more useful than a free space available meter. But that is just flame bait on my part. Any feature you don't use has a tendency to be lame.


I think you have other problems if you can't reach for a phone while you're watching tv. Horrible and very poor excuse.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

DrewTivo said:


> 1) A cordless phone costs something.
> 2) A cordless phone display is not visible from across the room.
> 
> I too would prefer caller ID on my Tivo/TV, and was simply identifying an option that would display the caller prominently and could be located near the TV so it's always visible (whereas the cordless handset inevitably is in another room, in between the couch cushions, out of batteries, etc.)


You're assuming that one doesn't have a cordless phone in their house to begin with which is a very flawed assumption. But anyway, you're going to tell me that you're going to get up out of your seat and answer a phone call if you deem it to be important by what the caller ID says on your tv screen, when you could just simply look at the caller ID on the actual phone itself to see who's calling you? If that phone call is so important to you (and you're expecting it), why would you not have the cordless phone within arms reach?


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Where did I say my solution was better?


Here is where you said it. http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7408966#post7408966


> It would be more annoying having it pop up. I remember with my first DirecTV HD STB in 2001. Having caller ID pop up, I really hated it. That is what an answering machine/voicemail is for. If it's important they will leave a message and I can call them back at my leisure


When I said that I need to see who calls you told me to then move my handset next to me when I watch TV.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

rifleman69 said:


> But anyway, you're going to tell me that you're going to get up out of your seat and answer a phone call if you deem it to be important by what the caller ID says on your tv screen, when you could just simply look at the caller ID on the actual phone itself to see who's calling you? If that phone call is so important to you *(and you're expecting it)*, why would you not have the cordless phone within arms reach?


The highlighted qualifier you make totally invalidates your argument. I take important calls from important people and rarely am expecting the call.

I much prefer to know that a caller is a spam caller without having to get up and check the handset which is usually in the cradle charging.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Again, why so much arguing against people wanting this feature.

I really hate when people tell me that what I value is not good compared to their superior solution.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

ah30k said:


> Again, why so much arguing against people wanting this feature.
> 
> I really hate when people tell me that what I value is not good compared to their superior solution.


Thers a word that describes people like that. You can decide what it is.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> I think you have other problems if you can't reach for a phone while you're watching tv. Horrible and very poor excuse.


And that problem would be what? Not seeing anything wrong with a feature that tivo could easily implement if they wanted to that at least some people would see as useful? I can and do currently reach for the phone to check the caller ID, I just think it would be another convenience to have it displayed on the tv that I am already looking at instead of pausing and finding the phone that for some reason is always at the other end of the couch no matter which end I sit, and isn't right next to me.

And thank you so much for caring about my other problems. Trust me, if it were that important to me, I would just hack my tivo and install it myself. It isn't that hard to do. Since you cared so much about me and my problems, I'll return the favor and worry about you and your problems as well. Hope all is going well and that rash goes away.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> You're assuming that one doesn't have a cordless phone in their house to begin with which is a very flawed assumption. But anyway, you're going to tell me that you're going to get up out of your seat and answer a phone call if you deem it to be important by what the caller ID says on your tv screen, when you could just simply look at the caller ID on the actual phone itself to see who's calling you? If that phone call is so important to you (and you're expecting it), why would you not have the cordless phone within arms reach?


It's not necessarily a flawed assumption. Why would I want to make sure the phone is next to me just in case there's a phone call that I actually want to take?


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> I think you have other problems if you can't reach for a phone while you're watching tv. Horrible and very poor excuse.


No, the horrible poor action is taking your eyes off the screen to look at who's calling.

On screen CID (or large display next to set) means greatly reduced distraction. If you're going to commit to serious tv watching by buying Tivo you need to go all the way.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

DrewTivo said:


> No, the horrible poor action is taking your eyes off the screen to look at who's calling.
> 
> On screen CID (or large display next to set) means greatly reduced distraction. If you're going to commit to serious tv watching by buying Tivo you need to go all the way.


I wouldn't go that far, but my point is if someone thinks its a useful feature (in this case more than one) why is it a bad thing? In the case of caller ID as we are talking about, the hardware is already there and aside from a setting to turn it on and off, the code to do this would literally be easily less than 10 lines of code (probably only 1 or 2, but I'll be conservative and call it 10). Whats the down side? support cost for the feature, but I think that would be minimal because the only thing that it does is display data that it receives on the modem when a ring is detected. trouble shooting, is a phone line securely connected? have you signed up for caller ID service with your provider? Does another Caller id display work when connected to that line? if you answer yes to all its a bad modem and it needs to be replaced.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

ah30k said:


> Here is where you said it. http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7408966#post7408966
> 
> When I said that I need to see who calls you told me to then move my handset next to me when I watch TV.


And where did I say my solution was better?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> ...Oh but wait I forgot VOIP is still technically a land line unless you are using some kind of wireless solution. it just isn't POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) its digital data.


and anyone who's used VOIP for any longer length of time (including verizon's fios) knows that it is not as reliable as POTS.

reason being POTS is regulated so there's system redundancy and uptime requirements and none of the rest have that.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

ah30k said:


> The highlighted qualifier you make totally invalidates your argument. I take important calls from important people and rarely am expecting the call.
> 
> I much prefer to know that a caller is a spam caller without having to get up and check the handset which is usually in the cradle charging.


So you're admitting that even if you're expecting an important phone call, you don't have the phone nearby. Makes "total" cents (and yes it's spelled that way on purpose).


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)




----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

rifleman69 said:


> So you're admitting that even if you're expecting an important phone call, you don't have the phone nearby. Makes "total" cents (and yes it's spelled that way on purpose).


What the heck are you talking about?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

ah30k said:


> What the heck are you talking about?


Here, smoke this and it will make more sense (also spelled that way on purpose). No that didn't help either


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

ah30k said:


> What the heck are you talking about?


Obviously the answer is no. If you're expecting a fire, you would also not have a fire extinguisher nearby as well.

Case closed.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Dude, I said I get important calls all of the time that I am NOT expecting so I don't understand your constant harping of being prepared for calls that I was expecting.

Also, if I was expecting a fire I'd MOVE!

The only reason to keep this conversation even going is to see how wacky your next response will be.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> Obviously the answer is no. If you're expecting a fire, you would also not have a fire extinguisher nearby as well.
> 
> Case closed.


I didn't even see a case opened. Oh well, whatever.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

ah30k said:


> Dude, I said I get important calls all of the time that I am NOT expecting so I don't understand your constant harping of being prepared for calls that I was expecting.
> 
> Also, if I was expecting a fire I'd MOVE!
> 
> The only reason to keep this conversation even going is to see how wacky your next response will be.


Is there a pause button for this? I need a potty break and to get some popcorn and a drink.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

ah30k said:


> Dude, I said I get important calls all of the time that I am NOT expecting so I don't understand your constant harping of being prepared for calls that I was expecting.


So if you get important calls all of the time, why do you not have a phone near you?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

> chew popcorn
> slurp drink
> press ff
> begin stirring pot

You gotta do better than that, he doesn 't literally mean ALL THE TIME. It means frequent enough that it would be unusual to receive an important unexpected call. Could be once or twice a day in which case it would be a good idea to always carry the phone or more likely means once or twice every week or so. If I said I called my sister in LA all the time it would be more like every 3-4 weeks.

> stop stirring pot


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

You could try something like this:









_*CallerID On TV*_


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

bareyb said:


> You could try something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Useless for HDMI or component.

But then, so is any sort of "caller ID on screen" nonsense. My wife asks me why she can't use WordPerfect 5.1 anymore, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense.

Can we end this discussion? Tivo will never ever ever add this.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

I don't see S#/TivoHD caller id, but caller id with tivo Tru2way boxes.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

AbMagFab said:


> My wife asks me why she can't use WordPerfect 5.1 anymore, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense.


Microsoft is pretty good at making it's OS's backwards compatible so I am pretty sure she could use it if she installed it. Is that sense or cents I don't know anymore. 

Sorry dude I couldn't resist.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

AbMagFab said:


> Useless for HDMI or component.
> 
> But then, so is any sort of "caller ID on screen" nonsense. My wife asks me why she can't use WordPerfect 5.1 anymore, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense.
> 
> Can we end this discussion? Tivo will never ever ever add this.


Not necessarily. Most HDMI TV's also have RCA inputs. Just route the CallerID box into one of those and then when the phone rings, quickly switch inputs. Could even set up a macro on his remote to switch to that other input, pause for two seconds, and then switch back to his HDMI input. Bam. Problem solved. Another option would be to buy a smaller SD TV and route this thing to it and use it exclusively for Caller ID. Then you wouldn't even have to change inputs. It's a simple, elegant, solution.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> > chew popcorn
> > slurp drink
> > press ff
> > begin stirring pot
> ...


I strongly believe that you're very new to internet "flaming". Cordless phones are old technology, they don't need to be on a charger 24/7.

Stir the pot, I'm pretty sure you barely even made a ripple in the Gulf of Mexico.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> I strongly believe that you're very new to internet "flaming". Cordless phones are old technology, they don't need to be on a charger 24/7.
> 
> Stir the pot, I'm pretty sure you barely even made a ripple in the Gulf of Mexico.


First, I got you to bite so I must be doing something right.

Second, I have never in this thread (or any other that I could think of) said anything about cordless phones needing to be connected to the charger 24/7. Although that is where people usually put them when they are done with them. For the sake of accuracy, it would have nothing to do with cordless phone technology and everything to do with rechargeable battery technology. And then it was don't leave a rechargeable battery on a charger all the time because of the memory effects in Ni-Cad batteries would ruin the battery life. With the new Lithium batteries that isn't an issue anymore and you can leave rechargeable batteries on the charger and not have memory ruin the battery.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

oh oh my turn my turn.

leave that Lion on the charger all the time and it's clikely to over charge, grow chystals, bulge, rupture the casing, casue a short, start a fire, burn the house down, all for the sake of not implementing caller id on the tivo.

Seems tivo might be liable for burning houses down if they dont implement this!!!


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> oh oh my turn my turn.
> 
> leave that Lion on the charger all the time and it's clikely to over charge, grow chystals, bulge, rupture the casing, casue a short, start a fire, burn the house down, all for the sake of not implementing caller id on the tivo.
> 
> Seems tivo might be liable for burning houses down if they dont implement this!!!


That only happens with the cheap Korean knockoffs, but I like the way you think.


----------



## magnum68 (Aug 22, 2004)

ah30k said:


> In your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion, pausing the current show so that I can find the handset and look to see who is calling is annoying. I do not have the luxury of ignoring all incoming calls and waiting for the important ones to leave a message. I must pick up certain calls when they come in.


 Wow, people are getting really lazy now.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

magnum68 said:


> Wow, people are getting really lazy now.


Uncalled for.

Your insulting response and only quoting half of the conversation tells me that you lack the intelligence to comprehend comments in the context in which they were originally posted.

How you can leap from my comparison of two methods of determining the caller to making generalizations about my level of laziness is beyond me.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

magnum68 said:


> Wow, people are getting really lazy now.


Have you ever had on screen caller id for any length of time? It can grow on you really quickly. A perfect example of when it is really convenient, sometimes I actually do watch live tv (I know scary) or maybe a music channel , but only if it is something I really don't care about anyway, and I am doing something else at the same time (feeding pets, cooking, cleaning house, whatever) and the tv is only really on for background noise while you are occupied with something else for a while and the phone is on the other side of the room and you would have to walk past the TV. Wouldn't it be nice to have that information just a glance away? Yes you can walk across the room to see the phone or wait for the machine to pick it up or you can just look. It gives you a few more seconds if you have to wipe you hands before you pick up if you need to

Is it still lazy if you go over to pick up the important call and just ignore the junk


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> First, I got you to bite so I must be doing something right.
> 
> Second, I have never in this thread (or any other that I could think of) said anything about cordless phones needing to be connected to the charger 24/7. Although that is where people usually put them when they are done with them. For the sake of accuracy, it would have nothing to do with cordless phone technology and everything to do with rechargeable battery technology. And then it was don't leave a rechargeable battery on a charger all the time because of the memory effects in Ni-Cad batteries would ruin the battery life. With the new Lithium batteries that isn't an issue anymore and you can leave rechargeable batteries on the charger and not have memory ruin the battery.


Yes the only thing you were doing right was being wrong...which you're doing very well. Well done sir, well done!

And no, people do NOT put cordless phones back on the charger (unless they're beeping because of a low battery). Congrats to you for being the one legged "man" at an ass-kicking contest.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> Wouldn't it be nice to have that information just a glance away?


Yep, pick up the phone and check the caller ID...decide if you want to answer or not. That's much easier and it's just a glance away.

Just stop.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

OMG! You people just don't understand that TiVo needs to distinguish themselves from the competition. This is why:
1. TiVo is the ONLY DVR on the market that doesn't have caller ID (because nobody wants it)
2. TiVo is the ONLY DVR on a market that doesn't have FSI (because nobody wants it)
3. TiVo is ONLY DVR on a market that doesn't have PIP (because nobody wants it)
4. TiVo is the ONLY DVR on a market that has pause ads (because everybody loves it)
Everybody does it wrong and TiVo does it right. This is why
5. TiVo is the ONLY DVR on a market that has negative subscription growth (because consumers are stupid and don't understand that TiVo can do no wrong)


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> Yep, pick up the phone and check the caller ID...decide if you want to answer or not. That's much easier and it's just a glance away.


Close. Its just a stroll across the room, pick up the phone and a glance away, (3 steps)
I could do it in 1.



rifleman69 said:


> Yes the only thing you were doing right was being wrong...which you're doing very well. Well done sir, well done!
> 
> And no, people do NOT put cordless phones back on the charger (unless they're beeping because of a low battery). Congrats to you for being the one legged "man" at an ass-kicking contest.





rifleman69 said:


> Just stop.


Personally I do generally keep the phone on the charger unless its either a) in use or b) didn't get around to putting it back on the charger from the last time I used it. It does happen from time to time. This keeps the battery charged so I don't get the beep, prevents the couch from eating it, and also makes it easier to find the next time I need to check the caller ID.

When you need to resort to personal attacks you already lost. At least I am a man and I will stop when you stop acting like a child or you go away. Until then I will continue to voice my opinions, bring up other points to discuss, and respond to childish insults in kind. At least until I get bored with this.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

rifleman69 said:


> And no, people do NOT put cordless phones back on the charger (unless they're beeping because of a low battery).


Yes, I (and I assume others) do keep it in the charger because 
1) it keeps it in a well known location making it easier to find when the calls come in
and
2) my phones have very little life after the beeping starts so running out of power during a call is a real option. I prefer to be better prepared for conversations.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

rifleman69 said:


> Congrats to you for being the one legged "man" at an ass-kicking contest.


What is with the name calling. Are you twelve?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

I really don't understand why people are so opposed to the idea of adding a feature to tivo even if they wouldn't use it. unused features take nothing away from the features you do use and someone might actually use it and find it useful. For example, I don't like the netflix streaming. I live far enough out that sometimes my connection gets flaky and I don't get the required thru put. So for me Streaming is too unreliable for this to be a viable service. So the feature is worthless to me. Is it valuable to others? Sure is. Do I use it? Nope. If Caller ID is added would I use it? Yes do I find it useful? Yes. would others? Yes. Would everyone? No. Just like every other feature


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Any feature you add increases the complexity of the software. This translates into more cost, not only to develop it, but also to maintain it. If you don't think the benefits outweigh the costs, you don't add the feature. There are no "free" features, when it comes to software.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Yes, there are trade-offs in any new feature. Risk that you unintentionally break an existing feature, diverted attention from a different feature that could be more beneficial etc. You can never please everyone so the challenge is how can you provide the most benefit for those that desire the feature at minimal risk for those that don't. It would have been nice to respectfully discuss the pros/cons of the feature noted in this topic without some resorting to name calling and self-righteous my-way-or-the highway attitude.

Reminds me of the Free-Space-Indicator discussions.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

For those just joining, a summary:

1) Tivo doesn't have on-screen callerID
2) Tivo is not likely to get on-screen callerID in the future for a variety of reasons.
3) Some people would like to have OSCID.
4) Some people don't care for OSCID.
5) There are lots of other ways to have easy access to CID info apart from Tivo.
6) Items 3-5 are worth lots of time to post about, argue about, sling insults about, and so forth.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

DrewTivo said:


> For those just joining, a summary:
> 
> 1) Tivo doesn't have on-screen callerID
> 2) Tivo is not likely to get on-screen callerID in the future for a variety of reasons.
> ...


Good summary.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> When you need to resort to personal attacks you already lost. .


Nope, not even close. Did you win the contest?


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

ah30k said:


> Yes, I (and I assume others) do keep it in the charger because
> 1) it keeps it in a well known location making it easier to find when the calls come in
> and
> 2) my phones have very little life after the beeping starts so running out of power during a call is a real option. I prefer to be better prepared for conversations.


It's easier to find when the calls come in...can I ask an honest question...are you deaf or hearing impaired? If so, I can understand your situation, otherwise the phone doesn't need to be charged on a daily basis. I know it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, but believe one day you'll be able to figure out where you can leave a cordless phone not on the charger and know where it is!

Sincerely,
Reality


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> Nope, not even close. Did you win the contest?


I think you won. You started by saying there was something wrong with me here because I have an opinion you don't agree with. I take that as personal. Until then I never said anything personal about you. You are the one that if things aren't going your way you resort to a personal swipe at someone. I just return the favor. I'll gladly apologize for that IF you can find where I made a personal comment about you prior to that. I am man enough to do that, are you?

In fact I'll go farther than that if you can find and link to a comment in this thread prior to that point where I made any negative personal comment about anyone I will publicly apologize to that person and to you in a separate threat with the Title "I can be a real jerk some times" that will explicitly say that I started a personal attack on someone and to you and am deeply ashamed by it. Care to take me up on it?


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> I think you won. You started by saying there was something wrong with me here because I have an opinion you don't agree with. I take that as personal. Until then I never said anything personal about you. You are the one that if things aren't going your way you resort to a personal swipe at someone. I just return the favor. I'll gladly apologize for that IF you can find where I made a personal comment about you prior to that. I am man enough to do that, are you?
> 
> In fact I'll go farther than that if you can find and link to a comment in this thread prior to that point where I made any negative personal comment about anyone I will publicly apologize to that person and to you in a separate threat with the Title "I can be a real jerk some times" that will explicitly say that I started a personal attack on someone and to you and am deeply ashamed by it. Care to take me up on it?


That was a very good acceptance speech, go for a back to back next year!


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> That was a very good acceptance speech, go for a back to back next year!


I didn't think so. :down:


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> I didn't think so. :down:


:up: to the one legged man, you did it!


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

eddyj said:


> Any feature you add increases the complexity of the software. This translates into more cost, not only to develop it, but also to maintain it. If you don't think the benefits outweigh the costs, you don't add the feature. There are no "free" features, when it comes to software.


Agreed but in this case the cost really is negligible for a couple of reasons.

First everyone (most everyone anyway) understands what CallerID is so the support calls for the duh things like not having caller ID service from the phone company is pretty low.

Second, there would be 2 pieces of code the most complex of which would be adding a menu setting to turn the display of the information on and off I think Tivo can do that pretty easy. the other piece of code is literally probably 2 lines long and the code is already in the Linux kernel that is on the tivo. first line listen for a ring and collect the caller id data when the line rings, line 2 is display the dataon screen. The hacked versions used the Closed Caption Display for this so the its the display call for for Closed Captions and already has the support costs implemented.

Is there cost associated yeah how much could it be compared to some of the rally big features like Netflix or that beta search tool? it is about as costly as a bug patch IMO.


----------

