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

Copy Protection Tracking Thread

Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by Stormspace, Jun 25, 2010.

  1. Feb 7, 2011 #81 of 129
    Stormspace

    Stormspace Electrocuted by TiVo

    5,171
    0
    Apr 13, 2004
    Hartsville, SC
    No one will be able to convince me that the Cable companies don't know that they are crippling a feature available to devices not their own and that is the real reason they are using the 0x02 CCI byte. I see the CCI byte as just another item in the war of escalation the cable companies have with their customers.
     
  2. Feb 7, 2011 #82 of 129
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,991
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    I agree
    Nah.... They are just pursuing their business interest. TiVo owners are only about 0.5% of their digital customer base. I don't see any sense in which you can construe them to be in a "war of escalation" with their customers. It is irritating to see the legalese they use to state their copy protection is legal while insinuating it's required by their agreements with content providers. But being irritating is legal. So is being unethical and the only practical limit on that would be if say 50% of their digital customers used TiVos -- never gonna happen for any TiVo box that doesn't have a cable co name on it.
     
  3. Feb 7, 2011 #83 of 129
    SCSIRAID

    SCSIRAID Active Member

    2,321
    0
    Feb 2, 2003
    Vero Beach, FL
    Nah... I dont buy that. I believe you can lay this one at the feet of their lawyers. Lawyers rule the roost and lawyers are paranoid. They cover their butts with 'copy one generation only' so they can never be accused of not using every method available to protect a copyrighted work. If they flag copyrighted material as 'copy freely' they dont look to be protecting the material (at least I believe a lawyer would see it that way). IMHO, the CCI 02 flag is just like the stickers on the ladder saying dont climb on the very top.
     
  4. Feb 7, 2011 #84 of 129
    Stormspace

    Stormspace Electrocuted by TiVo

    5,171
    0
    Apr 13, 2004
    Hartsville, SC
    I think that's the excuse or justification, not the reason. They must know that a side effect of their decision makes a competing product less attractive. So the real reason is that by discouraging people from using third party devices they make an additional amount of money based on VOD sales every time someone rents their box instead of going to TiVo.

    Wikipedia says that TiVo has 2.76 million subs. If each one of those subs were using cable equipment and bought one item for 5.00 each month, that's an additional 165.6 Million in revenue that cable companies could get. In a market that's fairly well saturated and resistant to price increases that is a lot of money someone is missing out on.
     
  5. Feb 7, 2011 #85 of 129
    NYHeel

    NYHeel Active Member

    1,906
    12
    Oct 7, 2003
    I'm not sure why you have fios in NJ as having copy protection. I have fios in northern NJ and have no copy protection on anything. Even HBO stuff has no copy protection. To be honest the lack of copy protection is what's keeping me as a customer since I can get better pricing from cablevision.
     
  6. Feb 7, 2011 #86 of 129
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,991
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    I don't buy the "lawyers being paranoid" theory. It seems strange the lawyers for ComCast would be so much less paranoid than those of Time Warner. :rolleyes:

    As Time Warner has said in their statements on this, they have agreements with their content providers. To think that copy protection doesn't get considered in negotiating these agreements is unimaginable to me. Time Warner would like you to think that these agreements bind them to copy protect. They cleverly hint at that in their statements but don't actually say it. Since the agreements are not public there is no way to know if that is true. Personally I think they copy protect either just because they can and/or that it hurts TiVo penetration. Circumstantial evidence that their provider agreements are not the reason is in the fact that other cable systems carrying the exact same content do not copy protect.
     
  7. Feb 7, 2011 #87 of 129
    Stormspace

    Stormspace Electrocuted by TiVo

    5,171
    0
    Apr 13, 2004
    Hartsville, SC
    The list is getting a little long so it's hard to see that there are multiple columns. This might help.

    Code:
    Cable System          0x00 0x02 0x03 0x04          Channels
    
    Code:
    New Jersey
    Comcast, Central NJ         on                     Premium Only
    Verizon FIOS, Freehold
           /Basking Ridge  on                          All     
    
     
  8. Feb 7, 2011 #88 of 129
    lrhorer

    lrhorer New Member

    6,922
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    FIOS, Comcast, et al, have virtually the same contracts with the same people as TW Cable. They also fail to mention the only content provider who demanded they not have copy protection enabled on their channels was summarily dropped from TWC lineups across the nation.

    It's much simpler than that.

    Question: Who stands to gain the most - or at least so they believe - from copy protection? Answer: The MPAA.

    Question: Who is one of the largest (maybe the largest) members of the MPAA? Answer: Time Warner, Inc.

    Two guesses who still has a controlling interest in Time Warner Cable.

    Do the math.
     
  9. Feb 14, 2011 #89 of 129
    xultar

    xultar New Member

    101
    0
    Jun 15, 2005
    I pinged Charter on Twitter and they told me that the blocked channels I listed may be due to an issue with the tuning adapter. So I will call them when I get home from SFO and see if they can fix it.

    I will keep you posted.
     
  10. Feb 14, 2011 #90 of 129
    unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,387
    2
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    Who was this content provider that actually stood up for us?

    I ask because TWC has dropped several channels lately (without dropping their prices by a penny, in fact I think they're raising them), so it's not clear which one of them it might have been.
     
  11. Feb 14, 2011 #91 of 129
    SCSIRAID

    SCSIRAID Active Member

    2,321
    0
    Feb 2, 2003
    Vero Beach, FL
    HDNet
     
  12. Mar 1, 2011 #92 of 129
    Robertjm

    Robertjm New Member

    30
    0
    Jan 6, 2006
    OK, so HOW does someone know if a recording is classified with all that 00x3 gobbledy gook? I'm on a Series 2 and have only seen a few programs marked with the Copyright flag prior to January 1st.

    HOWEVER, as of now anything that appears on Bravo is marked with Copyright restrictions and today The Naked Archealogist (History International) is showing the same to episodes which I'd watched in prior months just fine w/o copyright restrictions.

    I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area on Comcast Digital Cable and added HD in mid-December 2010 if that adds any fuel to the fire, and it's the HD box which the Series 2 Tivo is hooked up to. The other two boxes are SD boxes, but I'm not about to move my Tivo right now.

    Robert
     
  13. Mar 1, 2011 #93 of 129
    cwerdna

    cwerdna Proud Tivolutionary

    9,817
    9
    Feb 22, 2001
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Since you have a Series 2, the CCI byte value stuff doesn't apply to you. See http://www.tivo.com/copyprotection/.

    If you had a Series 3 or above, you could view the CCI byte values via TiVo's UI. The directions are again at that URL.
     
  14. Mar 1, 2011 #94 of 129
    lrhorer

    lrhorer New Member

    6,922
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Actually, both HDNet and HDNet Movies. Mark Cuban has publicly stated he is against copy protection on his networks.

    Well, it wasn't exactly recent. It was back in May of 2009, shortly after Cuban made his public statement.

    I would happily pay to receive HDNet and HDNet Movies.
     
  15. Apr 17, 2011 #95 of 129
    Dash

    Dash New Member

    2
    0
    Jul 10, 2010
    Where I have a problem in understanding this whole fiasco:
    Time Warner allows you to transfer shows between their devices, but Tivo users can't do the same thing. It really irks me that I can't transfer a children's show that was recorded on one Tivo, to the Tivo that they really want to watch it on. ...and, if we have conflicting recordings, I might record a show on a different unit, but if it is on a premium channel, I now have to watch it on that unit.
     
  16. Apr 17, 2011 #96 of 129
    Phantom Gremlin

    Phantom Gremlin New Member

    1,555
    0
    Jun 20, 2002
    Tualatin,...
    It's not very difficult to understand.

    TW doesn't want you to own a TiVo. TW wants you to rent equipment from them. This allows them to show two things to Wall Street:

    1) year over year asset and revenue growth
    2) high revenue per user

    Historically, cable has required massive amounts of capital expenditure. Which means that, historically, cable companies haven't made much in the way of profit (this has changed in recent years). And, historically, cable has financed its growth more with debt than equity, and so needs lots of revenue from which to pay the interest on that debt.

    Which means that revenue growth has been the key valuation metric. The industry has a number of "fancy" acronyms for it, such as ARPU and EBITDA, but revenue, not profit is the key.

    So, even if it were more profitable to TW for you to own your TiVo, they would have less revenue. So they do what they legally can to "discourage" you.
     
  17. Apr 18, 2011 #97 of 129
    lrhorer

    lrhorer New Member

    6,922
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    There are several big problems with those statements.

    Firstly, EBITDA is more closely tied to profit than it is revenue. High revenues with high expenses result in a low EBITDA. Moderate revenues with very low expenses result in a high EBITDA. That is how the company for which I work managed to maintain very high EBITDA margins in the 2002 - 2004 time frame despite plummeting revenues. That said, capital expenditures do not impact EBITDA calculations, and it may be true they are capitalizing new DVR purchases.

    Secondly, most CATV companies don't charge much, comparatively speaking, for DVR rentals. Of course, admittedly revenue margins, and especially free cash flow, can turn on a dime, so even tiny incremental changes in revenue can make the difference between turning a profit and incurring a loss.

    Finally, it ignores the main reasons the CTV companies don't want 3rd party equipment in the mix. They want desperately to be able to exercise full control over the security systems and capabilities of the edge device. They also want the (much higher) revenues produced by use of the leased systems, particularly in IPPV. Finally, they are all but obsessed with maintenance costs and 3rd party engineering issues.
     
  18. Apr 18, 2011 #98 of 129
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,991
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    This seems inconsistent with their pronounced tendancy to address CableCARD and Tuning Adapter service needs with the "truck roll", when many such problems don't require that. Do all these truck rolls cost them less than training some of their employees up on these issues?

    Also please define "edge device" (or give a link as Phantom Gremlin did for his/her terms). I've seen the term "edge QAM modulators" and I suspect you are using "edge" in a different sense, i.e., meaning STB's etc. at the customer site.
     
  19. Apr 18, 2011 #99 of 129
    gayste

    gayste Love TiVo!

    269
    0
    Feb 27, 2002
    Alexandria, VA
    Comcast in Alexandria, Va. checkig in...

    All clear except the HBO, MAX, SHO
     
  20. Stormspace

    Stormspace Electrocuted by TiVo

    5,171
    0
    Apr 13, 2004
    Hartsville, SC
    Thanks!
     

Share This Page