TiVo Community Forum banner
  • TiVoCommunity.com Ambassador Program Now Open! >>> Click Here

Brighthouse Tampa - SDV coming!

111K views 375 replies 54 participants last post by  jwbelcher 
#1 ·
Brighthouse Central Florida has a thread, thought it time to start a Tampa one!

So SDV is scheduled to arrive in the Tampa Bay Brighthouse market on 5/6/09. In early April, Brighthouse put an ad in the St. Pete Times: "Bright House Networks has launched a new digital video delivery technology known as Switched Digital Video (SDV). SDV is a robust bandwidth management system that makes it possible to offer more digital video programming services than before including new HD channels. To be able to offer more new video services, Bright House Netowkrs will be moving some existing programming services to the SDV system as well as adding new services on the SDV system."

The first round of SDV channels are scheduled for 5/6 with more coming on 5/27.

Given SDVs imminent arrival, I contacted BHN for information on a Tuning Adapter for TiVo. They say (e-mail support reps and phone reps) there is no estimate as to when the Tuning Adapters would be available, or even if they would be providing them.

Tampa support seems to be trailing significantly behind Central FL/ Orlando market support. I know support is thin for tuning adapters in general, but it seems that the Orlando BHN at least prepared for SDV and cableCARD device support and has been offering TAs since February. Also on a side note, it seems nearly impossible to acquire mCARDS in Tampa, at least I've had no luck with 3 service calls, and a bunch of calls/ chats and e-mails.

Any one know or have better luck finding out when/if Tuning adapters will be available in Tampa or SDV and Tivo support in general?
 
See less See more
#227 ·
Meanwhile, I noticed that 123 (BBCA) is gone . . . moved and, presumably, accessible only with a TA (that prevents MRV).
The TA has nothing to do with MRV, whatsoever. The CCI byte is part of the MPEG2 bitstream, and can be set to values other than 0x00 on any broadcast video irrespective of the delivery mechanism. The TA, OTOH, does absolutely nothing to the bitstream of any video. The TA's only function (only capability, for that matter) is to overwrite the channel map on the CableCard. This allows video streams to be mapped to any timeslot on any QAM carrier on the CATV spectrum based upon requests from the UDCP (in this case, a TiVo). In short, this means the TiVo, using the upstream modulator in the TA, can request Power Rangers from the headend. The headend responds to the TA, saying something like "Channel 123 is at 672 MHz, timeslots 01 - 05". The TA then overwrites the entry for 672 MHz, timeslots 01-05 on the CableCard, and the CableCard instructs the tuner to tune in 672 MHz. Meanwhile, at the headend, the video server system has started to send the content to the QAM modulator for 672MHz feeding the node that serves your house. The bitstream form the tuner starts coming in to the CableCard, and it splits off the timeslots and decrypts the content, sending it on to the device's video processor. That is SDV, and nothing in the entire process has anything to do with the CCI byte.
 
#228 ·
Are your channel 10 and 1010 out this morning?
Nope, they're working.

Meanwhile, I noticed that 123 (BBCA) is gone . . . moved and, presumably, accessible only with a TA (that prevents MRV).
Yeah, it looks that way. I can get it on my TiVo with the TA, but not on the other ones anymore. You wouldn't have been able to MRV that channel even before it was SDV, though, since it was in the digital range (above 99).
 
#229 ·
Which limits the content to residing on the DVR. That is unacceptable:

1. The DVR is frail. The ability to deploy RAID is minimal or non-existent. My servers have more than 20 terabytes available fault tolerant storage, each, and counting. How many DVRs can make that claim?

2. The storage capabilities of the DVR are limited. Adding a single external drive is pretty pathetic when it comes to expanding a system, and doing so makes the system even more frail, not less. What's more, multi-drive arrays are bulky and usually rather noisy. The storage really needs to be elsewhere than in the living room or theater. If the DVR were able to store its content on a network drive, then that would be something. 'Not everything, but something.

3. There is no way to back up the content. Every night my primary server backs up any new material to the backup server via rsync. The entire contents of the backup server are archived to off-line hard drives on a regular basis. If the DVR supported backups, that would also be something.

4. There is no way to edit the content. I pad every recording in an attempt (sometimes unsuccessful :mad: ) to insure the entire program is recorded. That results in a lot of wasted space, so I trim every program to length. The very few which have commercials have them removed. Then I convert the MPEG2 content to h.264, which takes up less space and transfers much faster. None of that is available on any DVR of which I know.

They have, but the question is not "bigger". It is largely moot. A streaming solution allows MRV or some variant, but it does not allow TTG. That is unacceptable.

That's a cop-out. The fact is the content providers are not for the most part demanding that the CATV systems protect the content, and some (Mark Cuban, for example) are pushing hard for the CATV systems NOT to protect the content. The law specifically states that the CATV system and only the CATV system is responsible for the decision to set the CCI byte. Certainly, it is possible for a content provider to require as part of their contract agreement for the CCI byte to be set, but such contracts are not in evidence. Implying they are is nothing but a sleazy attempt to deflect the issue and make the company look as if it is not implementing capricious and arbitrary policies that negatively impact the customer when in fact the opposite is the case.
I fullly expected this response (albeit not so wordy :) ) and my only response to you is this. I realize you want all these things but the reality is these programs are not yours to do with as you please (nor are they ours). I also realize that you want to move the recordings around your network as you see fit and that for the most part would fall into the honorable intentions category but this is actually where the problems begin...the intentions quickly go from honorable to less than honorable because the next thing ya know they end up on a usenet server somewhere...now that's not to say that you do that BUT enough do where it has become a problem.

All of the above considered your frustration and efforts should be directed at the content providers and the rules they set forth for us to rebroadcast the material to you. Then and only then will things change. In the meantime you can continue down the path of blaming cable providers for this, that and the other thing in preventing this but it just isn't so despite what you may have read, been told or have concluded and your frustration and efforts in that direction are wasted.

In the meantime I have passed on your frustrations and I want you to know that it isn't that we don't care...we have rules and contracts we have to follow too.
 
#230 ·
I fullly expected this response (albeit not so wordy :) ) and my only response to you is this. I realize you want all these things but the reality is these programs are not yours to do with as you please (nor are they ours). I also realize that you want to move the recordings around your network as you see fit and that for the most part would fall into the honorable intentions category but this is actually where the problems begin...the intentions quickly go from honorable to less than honorable because the next thing ya know they end up on a usenet server somewhere...now that's not to say that you do that BUT enough do where it has become a problem.

All of the above considered your frustration and efforts should be directed at the content providers and the rules they set forth for us to rebroadcast the material to you. Then and only then will things change. In the meantime you can continue down the path of blaming cable providers for this, that and the other thing in preventing this but it just isn't so despite what you may have read, been told or have concluded and your frustration and efforts in that direction are wasted.
Please, we have enough to deal with, with BHN and it's general, TiVo-uninformed personnel.

If you are here to troubleshoot our problems constructively, and give us technical help, that's great -- we can use a troubleshooter here and someone within BHN who is TiVo savvy.

But if, as it appears, you are here with BHN political motivation to tout the BHN line . . . that PR effort isn't going very well.
 
#231 ·
Channel 33 has been out since about 2 am. Anyone else? I was recording all the Law and Orders for the upcoming week of few shows (I record on 33 so I can transfer via MRV--something, as we all know, BHN prevents from HD stations such as 1238 on its system). When I turned TV on, noticed the recordings have a black screen, althouth they're recording! Grrr.
 
#232 ·
Called BHN and apparently this is a county-wide downage. 1237 is fine (go figure) but, I wanted to record on my large storage TiVO and transfer PRN. So, I guess I'm SOL.
 
#233 ·
Please, we have enough to deal with, with BHN and it's general, TiVo-uninformed personnel.

If you are here to troubleshoot our problems constructively, and give us technical help, that's great -- we can use a troubleshooter here and someone within BHN who is TiVo savvy.

But if, as it appears, you are here with BHN political motivation to tout the BHN line . . . that PR effort isn't going very well.
Suggestion one...let's dispense with the flaming and sarcasim shall we (you modified your post but I saw the troll comments)? I'm here to help, have a long standing track record in doing just that (feel free to verify) and in the meantime what can I do for you?
 
#234 ·
Channel 33 has been out since about 2 am. Anyone else? I was recording all the Law and Orders for the upcoming week of few shows (I record on 33 so I can transfer via MRV--something, as we all know, BHN prevents from HD stations such as 1238 on its system). When I turned TV on, noticed the recordings have a black screen, althouth they're recording! Grrr.
This issue with Chan 33 has been resolved...
 
#235 ·
I'm waiting for you to be helpful. This is OUR forum and if your only contribution is to put down TiVo, you are easily ignored.
 
#236 ·
I realize you want all these things but the reality is these programs are not yours to do with as you please (nor are they ours).
That is not the point. There are certainly laws against copyright infringement, and I am not suggesting they be violated. The simple fact is, however, the majority of TiVo users out there ARE able to move their recordings around as they see fit. The majority of MSOs do not copy protect their broadcasts. That is a fact, and one you are ignoring.

By the way, they don't belong to the content providers who you claim are pushing for this, either. They belong to the content owners - usually a studio. Exactly why people who don't own the content should be allowed to dictate what the end user's equipment can or cannot do with the content is a real puzzle, to me. A car dealer cannot sue you if you violate the patents on an automobile, nor in any other way prevent you from doing so. Why should the wholesaler (the content provider) or the retailer (the CATV system) have any say whatsoever in the matter? (Yes, I know it's because that's what the law says.)

I also realize that you want to move the recordings around your network as you see fit and that for the most part would fall into the honorable intentions category but this is actually where the problems begin...the intentions quickly go from honorable to less than honorable because the next thing ya know they end up on a usenet server somewhere...now that's not to say that you do that BUT enough do where it has become a problem.
The issue is not some hypothetical problems, but whether Brighthouse and certain other MSOs are copy protecting their broadcasts due to contractural obligations, or simply as a matter of policy and then attempting to deflect the perceived responsibility for the decision to the content providers. After all, the customer does not buy directly from the content provider, so what does it matter if they think the content provider is an @%^@$$%?

In the following, I am going to use the term "you" to refer to the CATV systems in general or Brighthouse Networks specifically, not you, personally.

All of the above considered your frustration and efforts should be directed at the content providers and the rules they set forth for us to rebroadcast the material to you.
First of all, my only frustration is being lied to. I don't suffer from the problem in the least. I'm not a Brighthouse customer, and I have no issues with the CCI byte. I have severe issues with anyone who lies in an attempt to deflect blame for anything.

Secondly, most of the content providers have publicly stated they have no such restrictions set forth in their contracts, and as I already mentioned, a number of them have specifically stated they do not wish to have their content protected. Again, Mark Cuban is a good example. So either they are lying, or you are. Which is it? The fact the majority of CATV systems are not copy protecting their broadcasts strongly suggests the latter.

I can freely move all the content in my house around any way I choose. I could even, if I so chose, copy the content to DVDs and start selling it on the street. It would be illegal to do so, and the copyright owners could rightfully have me thrown in jail if I did. Neither you nor the content providers could, however, because it is none of your business. For some reason, the FCC doesn't realize this and for some bizarre reason thinks it has some responsibility to the broadcast industry, and must protect their perceived interests, real or imagined.

For the record, I do not ever copy content to DVDs or distribute them on the street, for money or otherwise.

Then and only then will things change. In the meantime you can continue down the path of blaming cable providers for this, that and the other thing in preventing this but it just isn't so despite what you may have read, been told or have concluded and your frustration and efforts in that direction are wasted.
These are the indisputable facts:

1. You claim to have contractural obligations.
2. No such obligations are in evidence. (Feel free to point to some.)
3. Every CATV system in the country has similar contracts with the very same providers as Time Warner, Frontier, Brighthouse, etc.
4. The majority of MSOs do not copy protect their content.
5. There is no law requiring you to enter into a restrictive contract.

These facts add up to some strong conclusions:

1. At the very least, you are not acting as an advocate for your customers.
2. Either you are lousy negotiators, acquiescing to contractural restrictions the majority of MSOs are not countenancing, or...
3. You are lying through your teeth, and there are few or no such contractural obligations guiding your policy.

In the meantime I have passed on your frustrations and I want you to know that it isn't that we don't care...we have rules and contracts we have to follow too.
There is one and only one rule you have to follow, and that is the FCC regulations which clearly state that you, and only you, have the responsibility for deciding whether or not to set the CCI byte, to reset it, or to pass through the content provider's settings. 'Not a very restrictive rule, for you, is it? The statement, however, is typical of the obfuscation we regularly encounter. It suggests, without actually stating as fact, there are multiple regulations at play, suggestively from multiple sources. The rule (singular) is clearly spelled out in the so called "Plug-N-Play" FCC ruling of 2003, pulled from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.

As to the vague insinuation your hands are tied by contractural agreements, why should we believe you? Because you say so? Because there is no way you would ever attempt to deflect responsibility for internal policy by suggesting there are external influences tying your hands?

I used to work for an MSO (Time Warner). One reason I quit was because their strategy for just about everything was to come up with some arbitrary and capricious policy and then lie through their teeth to try to deflect blame. By the reports I continue to get from sources within the organization, this problem has not gotten any better. We never could believe a single word that came from any exec's mouth back then. Why should it be different now?
 
#237 ·
Suggestion one...let's dispense with the flaming and sarcasim shall we (you modified your post but I saw the troll comments)? I'm here to help, have a long standing track record in doing just that (feel free to verify) and in the meantime what can I do for you?
Your point is well taken, but then so is his. Let me say that I sympathize with you on a personal level. As a semi-official BHN representative, your hands are tied by the party line. Mine would be, as well, if I still worked for Time Warner. Since I do not, however, I am free to remark on what sleezy, slimy, lying SOBs they are. Their problem is, however, their protestations to the contrary are just one more lie in a very long string of lies, and far from appeasing the public, just yet more firmly demonstrates what lying a$$-wipes they are.

As to any technical advice or help you may offer your customers, they should indeed be grateful, not abusive.
 
#238 ·
I'm waiting for you to be helpful. This is OUR forum and if your only contribution is to put down TiVo, you are easily ignored.
I suggest you lighten up. First of all, I haven't seen him put down TiVo, yet, with the exception of one off-hand comment which I addressed. It appears, however, we have the ear of at least one industry insider with possibly some means of communicating up the chain of command. I suspect his communications channels are limited, but still they have more clout than any civilian resource. Certainly it is a far better resource than some minimum - wage drop-out or pennies-an-hour Asian contractor manning a CSR line.
 
#239 ·
Your point is well taken, but then so is his. Let me say that I sympathize with you on a personal level. As a semi-official BHN representative, your hands are tied by the party line. Mine would be, as well, if I still worked for Time Warner. Since I do not, however, I am free to remark on what sleezy, slimy, lying SOBs they are. Their problem is, however, their protestations to the contrary are just one more lie in a very long string of lies, and far from appeasing the public, just yet more firmly demonstrates what lying a$$-wipes they are.

As to any technical advice or help you may offer your customers, they should indeed be grateful, not abusive.
Correction...official, not semi-official... that said lets address the obvious perception problem that you have with BHN. I don't know what made you feel this way but I would love to hear your story and do whatever I can to address your concerns. To be honest I've heard a lot of feedback...yours however is not common so it's important for me to know what the heck happened. If this isn't the place feel free to private msg me and I'll pass my contact number and we can talk or whatever feels best for you.
 
#240 ·
I suggest you lighten up. First of all, I haven't seen him put down TiVo, yet, with the exception of one off-hand comment which I addressed. It appears, however, we have the ear of at least one industry insider with possibly some means of communicating up the chain of command. I suspect his communications channels are limited, but still they have more clout than any civilian resource. Certainly it is a far better resource than some minimum - wage drop-out or pennies-an-hour Asian contractor manning a CSR line.
Quoting from your post above...

I suspect his communications channels are limited, but still they have more clout than any civilian resource.


Not so fast there sparky :) You would be surprised (shocked actually). So before bounding my hands trust me when I say I have the ability and communication channels (as you put it) to address anything you can think of assuming of course it can be addressed.

Certainly it is a far better resource than some minimum - wage drop-out or pennies-an-hour Asian contractor manning a CSR line.

The ONLY time you will speak to someone overseas is IF you end up with the RR National Help Desk over a software issue (meaning not BHN related). They handle these issues however are not contractors to BHN but actually support Roadrunner. Depending on how you answer the questions from the IVR (or don't answer them) you will be routed to the best possible destination for your question. If you are routed to the wrong people simply ask to be transferred to your local office.

You of course do have another option and that is to reach out to me directly and I will make sure you are taken care of. In most cases within minutes...there are no bounds to what I can do so feel free to try it sometime. So if you post a question to me between 8am and 12am expect a response back quickly except for holidays and Sunday...it might be an hour or two...
 
#241 ·
I'm not a Brighthouse customer, and I have no issues with the CCI byte.
If you are not a BHN customer then why are we having this discussion? With all due respect it seems pointless to argue about something that doesn't affect you. I'm here to support OUR customers with problems common to TiVO and BHN whatever that may be, not argue IP rights, enforcement and contract issues.

Also... PLEASE don't lump BHN with TWC as to how things are done. It's obvious that you harbor some ill feelings for your past employer... I get that BUT we are entirely two different companies. What you know about TWC in almost all cases will not apply to BHN. This is a common mistake...I hear it all the time but we are not mirrors of TWC despite what you might think. We do work closely together on some things but beyond that we are very different. TWC is publicly held...we are not for starters. If you want some history behind us by all means let me know.

In the meantime...if there is anything I do to can help those with BHN services by all means please let me know.
 
#242 ·
All,

This thread is supposed to be about SDV on BHN. I suggest that its time to get back on-topic. Since many of us are now on the Series4 (Premiere) platform this thread probably belongs in a different area all-together since its not Series 3 specific anymore.

Thanks,
~Sam
 
#243 ·
Correction...official, not semi-official...
In that case, your hands are even more bound. As a company official, you cannot make any statements that paint the company in a bad light - not if you want to keep your job, or even avoid the risk of legal actions.

that said lets address the obvious perception problem that you have with BHN.
I have no perception issues with BHN in particular. I have serious issues with the CATV industry. Surely you are aware BHN is a player in that industry and a member of CableLabs? Don't feel like the lone stranger, however. I have just as many issues with the Consumer Electronics industry, the FCC, and CATV subscribers. All of us have contributed to this mess.

I don't know what made you feel this way
Without going into a multi-volume dissertation on economics, industry, and patent / copyright law, all I can say is, "Take a look around you." First, remove any rose-colored glasses, though.

but I would love to hear your story
My story starts sometime around the 14th century when patent and copyright law was developing along with the intellectual advances that eventually led to the industrial revolution and ultimately to the technological explosion in World War II, which continues to this day. It's certainly not a story I would choose to relate in full in a forum such as this. Any major metropolitan library will have many, many volumes dedicated to the subject.

OTOH, my personal story is much, much duller, and I assure you, despite your concern, you really don't want to be bored to tears with it.

and do whatever I can to address your concerns.
My only concerns are that dishonesty and insincerity be eliminated, and that no one, no matter who, is allowed to obtain any resources - not so much as a single penny - they did not earn. Beyond that, "Live and let live", I say. Inherent in that last statement is the notion that industry and especially government needs to keep their damn noses out of my business and anyone else's.
 
#245 ·
Quoting from your post above...

I suspect his communications channels are limited, but still they have more clout than any civilian resource.


Not so fast there sparky :) You would be surprised (shocked actually). So before bounding my hands trust me when I say I have the ability and communication channels (as you put it) to address anything you can think of assuming of course it can be addressed.
You are saying you report directly to the Board of Directors? If so, that would be unusual, indeed. Most corporations go to great lengths to insulate their senior executives from the public and from the rank and file employees.

Certainly it is a far better resource than some minimum - wage drop-out or pennies-an-hour Asian contractor manning a CSR line.

The ONLY time you will speak to someone overseas is IF you end up with the RR National Help Desk over a software issue (meaning not BHN related).
If all of your support staff is internal, then you (meaning BHN, of course) are one of a vanishing number of large companies of which this is true. I also applaud you if it is the case. That said, it doesn't guarantee a competent CSR will be on the line. Our own tech support is sometimes dismally bad, yet many of our customers spend six figures a month on our service. None of them spend less than $350 a month.

You of course do have another option and that is to reach out to me directly and I will make sure you are taken care of.
That is extremely rare these days. Please take note of my earlier message. It's a valuable resource, and should not be trivialized.
 
#247 ·
That's LRhorer, if you please.

I don't mind at all having a discussion with you but this isn't appropriate for this thread as Sam said.
I happen to disagree. One cannot effectively discuss the technology without addressing the underlying technological and regulatory environment. Such superficial treatments are a large part of the reason we have to live with the problems we have now.

I will not however argue issues of IP with you...
IP... Intellectual Property?

SDV of course has nothing to do with Intellectual Property, MRV, TTG, or any other issue. It's a vary narrow and quite trivial topic, although the industry's approach to the technology has been in many respects typically obtuse. The FCC should never have caved in to the CE manufacturers and allowed a UDCP spec to be developed in the first place. It was moronic at the outset. They also should not have caved in to the satellite providers, allowing them a different security setup. They should never have exempted any broadcaster, including OTA broadcasters, from supporting the spec. Every receiver of any sort manufactured after 1998 should have been required to include a CableCard slot (or some analog of one). The CATV companies should never have been allowed to form CableLabs or to allow them to dictate specifications for 3rd party devices. The organization should have been completely independent, with no economic or political ties to any of the involved parties. Finally, the design of the TA was the worst kludge proximately possible.
 
#248 ·
Hey there...

I appreciate your more on topic switch and VERY persistent efforts to engage in a debate with me and even more so your rather detailed "state of affairs" as you see them. But I'm not gonna bite..sorry. I'm here to support OUR customers as needed with BHN/Tivo issues and to communicate impactful events as needed and to make sure no customer issue goes unresolved. I'm extremely busy monitoring all of the communities where our customers call home and frankly just don't have the time to engage you right now.

There may come a time when I'm bored and prickly and we can create our own thread and go wits to wits but this isn't time or place to do it. One thing we won't be doing is discussing woulda, shoulda, couldas as in above...sorry. I have no interest in that kind of stuff. It's past tense and pointless.

On that note... have a Happy Thanksgiving! I wish you and your families nothing but the best. I will be checking each of the communities over the holiday weekednd but if something comes up and you need me in a pinch (this includes any service related issues) simply email me at BHNtechXpert@mybrighthouse.com or post here and I'll get an alert and respond back.
 
#250 ·
Doh!

"Bright House TV is not supported on 'jailbroken' devices. Please restore your iPad to factory defaults, then reinstall Bright House TV."

:down::down:
Found a workaround: xCon. Kinda cool having streaming Brighthouse video on my iPad. :up: Now if only I could stream from my TiVo!

The Brighthouse app doesn't seem to have all my channels, though. For example, BBCA is missing. Still, it's neat.
 
#251 ·
More channels moving to SDV ... received another letter from BHN:

May 15, 2012

Dear Valued Customer,

Bright House Networks would like to thank you for choosing us as your video service provider. We are writing to you as a valued customer in order to provide advance notice of important upcoming changes that may affect your ability to access certain programming on unidirectional retail devices.
Bright House Networks utilizes a new digital video delivery technology in your area known as Switched Digital Video ("SDV"). SDV is a robust bandwidth-management system that makes it possible for us to offer more digital video programming services than ever before, including new HD channels.
In order to launch even more new video services, we are migrating some existing services to the SDV system which is a bi-directional two-way platform. Unfortunately, your unidirectional one-way retail television or other device does not support bi-directional programming delivered over the SDV system without additional equipment from Bright House Networks such as a digital set-top box or tuning adaptor.

Please be advised, therefore, beginning on or after June 20, 2012, Bright House Networks will deliver the following packages on the SDV system and this programming will no longer be available on unidirectional retail devices:

Package Channel Number
Zeal 2 channel 164
Zeal 3 channel 167
Cooking Channel channel 142
Fox Business channel 149
Trinity Broadcasting Network channel 131

If you already use a digital set-top box or tuning adaptor from Bright House Networks, then you will continue to be able to receive video programming delivered on the SDV system. If not, you may contact Bright House Networks to obtain a digital set-top box or tuning adaptor that is capable of supporting two-way communications with the SDV system.

You may continue to use your unidirectional retail device with your Bright House Networks provided CableCARD to receive video programming other than the programming delivered on the SDV system. Bright House Networks will notify you in advance of any other programming changes.

Please contact us at 1-888-289-8988 if you have any questions.

We thank you again for choosing Bright House Networks.
At least the wording has changed since the last time and it mentions the TA now.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top