1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brighthouse Tampa - SDV coming!

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by theaceman, Apr 17, 2009.

  1. windracer

    windracer joined the 10k club

    11,580
    3
    Jan 3, 2003
    St. Pete, FL
    I guess it depends. If you can get into the web interface of the router you should be able to configure it to take over for your Linksys box. Assuming Brighthouse hasn't changed any of the defaults, you should be able to login and then change it to your liking. I found this, maybe it will help:

    http://support.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9441/~/cgd24g---product-faqs
     
  2. megory

    megory Advanced TiVoOligan

    1,411
    0
    Jan 22, 2003
    BH, South...
    Hey, WR, thanks. I'll give it a looksee.

    Are your channel 10 and 1010 out this morning? Not that I need to watch Power Rangers, but wondering why they're not on.

    Meanwhile, I noticed that 123 (BBCA) is gone . . . moved and, presumably, accessible only with a TA (that prevents MRV).
     
  3. megory

    megory Advanced TiVoOligan

    1,411
    0
    Jan 22, 2003
    BH, South...
    BHN, There's no way I would know that it's the functional equivalent of 54GS (but thanks for the info). And it wasn't identifiable, nor did it come with instructions or booklet. I really appreciate information and helpfulness (see WindRacer's posts and MO) and a kinder tone would be more effective as Bright House's outreach.
     
  4. megory

    megory Advanced TiVoOligan

    1,411
    0
    Jan 22, 2003
    BH, South...
    Interesting and thanks, WR.
    M
     
  5. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    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.
     
  6. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    The content owners have no say whatsoever (well, not supposedly - it is the MPAA that is driving most of this behind the scenes). No CATV provider has any contracts with the movie studios. The content providers have no official say in the matter, either. The CATV system and ONLY the CATV system has the authority to set the CCI byte or pass it on to the consumer from the content provider.

    Not if the CATV companies have their way. CableLabs is comprised of CATV system representatives and only CATV system representatives (allowing that to be the case was another one of the utterly stupid moves on the part of the FCC). No one can read the CableLabs specs, even perfunctorily, and not realize the CATV companies do not wish the customer to have any control whatsoever over the content or the terminal equipment.

    Right, Virginia.
     
  7. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    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.
     
  8. windracer

    windracer joined the 10k club

    11,580
    3
    Jan 3, 2003
    St. Pete, FL
    Nope, they're working.

    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).
     
  9. BHNtechXpert

    BHNtechXpert New Member

    94
    0
    Nov 7, 2011
    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.
     
  10. megory

    megory Advanced TiVoOligan

    1,411
    0
    Jan 22, 2003
    BH, South...
    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.
     
  11. megory

    megory Advanced TiVoOligan

    1,411
    0
    Jan 22, 2003
    BH, South...
    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.
     
  12. megory

    megory Advanced TiVoOligan

    1,411
    0
    Jan 22, 2003
    BH, South...
    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.
     
  13. BHNtechXpert

    BHNtechXpert New Member

    94
    0
    Nov 7, 2011
    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?
     
  14. BHNtechXpert

    BHNtechXpert New Member

    94
    0
    Nov 7, 2011
    This issue with Chan 33 has been resolved...
     
  15. megory

    megory Advanced TiVoOligan

    1,411
    0
    Jan 22, 2003
    BH, South...
    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.
     
  16. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    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.)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?
     
  17. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    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.
     
  18. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    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.
     
  19. BHNtechXpert

    BHNtechXpert New Member

    94
    0
    Nov 7, 2011
    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.
     
  20. BHNtechXpert

    BHNtechXpert New Member

    94
    0
    Nov 7, 2011
    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...
     

Share This Page