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

FCC fines TWC and Cox for deploying SDV

Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by stmckin, Oct 16, 2008.

  1. stmckin

    stmckin New Member

    32
    0
    Sep 23, 2006
  2. sieglinde

    sieglinde Active Member

    5,378
    0
    Aug 11, 2002
    Sebastopol, CA
    I don't think anybody has tuning adapters.
     
  3. Combat Medic

    Combat Medic No guts, no glory

    8,325
    0
    Sep 6, 2001
    San...
    That's interesting since the FCC told me that they didn't see a problem in Time Warner's SDV install. Very interesting.
     
  4. moyekj

    moyekj Well-Known Member

    11,266
    81
    Jan 23, 2006
    Mission...
  5. ah30k

    ah30k Active Member

    2,212
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    Edit - I was wrong and looked at an older fine where they were fined for not giving eniough notice. My apologies.
     
  6. GBL

    GBL covert opiniative

    1,753
    7
    Apr 20, 2000
    Twin Cities, MN
    You are looking at an older FCC proposed fine. This article has more current info:

    http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6606078.html?nid=4262
     
  7. boywaja

    boywaja Active Member

    3,158
    7
    Sep 30, 2001
    wrong, at least for their Cox Fairfax ruling

    http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.doc
     
  8. mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,408
    3
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    The FCC's "Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture and Order" concerning TWC Oceanic and Cox Fairfax were issued yesterday and can be see here and here. That article that you cite was posted in August. If you read the NALFFOs, you'll see that the basis of the fines and (more significantly) ordered refund of subscriber fees and reduction in future UDCP-using-subscriber rates was due to the implementation of SDV and not at all concerning any lack of notice.

    Maybe there was an earlier ruling against them fining them for insufficient notice to their franchising agencies, but what we're talking about is something else.
     
  9. mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,408
    3
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    Yes, there are people with Tuning Adapters, on at least a Comcast New Jersey system. See this thread.
     
  10. shabby46

    shabby46 New Member

    48
    0
    Aug 3, 2008
    Falls...
    So, cox fairfax pays $20,000 and I still get screwed?

    I feel much better now.
     
  11. socrplyr

    socrplyr Active Member

    1,092
    8
    Jul 19, 2006
    I hear you, but one thing about this type of fine is that they can give more fines for not fixing the problem. The other fine noted before that was due to notice not being given was a one time deal. If they don't move on this soon, they could be risking even more fines. Trust me by making the move to SDV they have not made $20000 extra in any single market (yet anyways). So they will be looking to not be fined again if this does stick.
    Josh
     
  12. CuriousMark

    CuriousMark Forum Denizen

    2,609
    3
    Jan 13, 2005
    SoCal
    Looking at the links provided by mikeyts here, I found it quite an interesting read. One paragraph jumped out that relates to True2way and the next TiVo DVR.
    Is it possible this is the sticking point that is holding up a true2way TiVo DVR with all the feature we know and have come to love?
     
  13. ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    0
    Jan 2, 2004
    sure would look that way. TiVo certainly has a way to make VOD/PPV compete directly with other broadband offerings. I figured comcast was pushing the Tivo design through cablelabs so it would be able to point to a 3rd party device using tru2way for the FCC. Perhaps there is more pushback from other cablelabs partners than Comcast expected
     
  14. moyekj

    moyekj Well-Known Member

    11,266
    81
    Jan 23, 2006
    Mission...
    So extrapolating, if the ruling wasn't because of lack of notice then that means that customers who continue using UDCPs and cannot use a TA should continue to get discounted rates and that should apply universally to all cable providers employing SDV.
     
  15. mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,408
    3
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    I don't know about it applying universally to all cable providers--they might actually have to issue findings and orders on a system-by-system basis. In the case of TWC Oceanic, we don't have to extrapolate--they explicitly ordered that:
     
  16. esb1981

    esb1981 New Member

    121
    0
    Dec 2, 2007
    Connecticut
    I agree. I'm no lawyer, but this tells me that implementing SDV and taking programming away from Cable Card customers is a violation. It states pretty clearly in the title for Section D: "Cox Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by Its SDV Implementation."

    This is a huge ruling, and a great win for consumers. We can only hope that other cable systems will comply with the ruling.
     
  17. milo99

    milo99 Well-Known Member

    4,235
    67
    Oct 14, 2002
    Falls...
    here's the one thing that will suck. In the ruling, it mentions channels taken away.

    Cox NoVA implemented SDV in Oct 2007. Back then, i think only NFL network HD was on SDV (as far as HD channels). SINCE THEN, they've added HD channels to the tune of about 20 or so.

    I think Cox will say that those channels were never available to us and thus we're not harmed by those not being available, since we're not paying extra for those HD channels.

    i don't care much for the small refund i'd be getting... i just want the darned TA, so hopefully this pressure from the FCC will get them to move a little faster, not to mention, educate their freagin tech support people about what all this is.
     
  18. moyekj

    moyekj Well-Known Member

    11,266
    81
    Jan 23, 2006
    Mission...
    I actually think it could be a potential big loss for cable TV consumers if it hinders SDV deployment in any way. SDV is among one of the most cost-effective means of improving bandwidth efficiency for cable companies and so hindering it's deployment could lead affected cable companies to increase prices, offer more compressed channels, offer less channels, etc.
    Especially now that TAs are becoming available at little to no cost to Tivo customers I don't thing Tivo subscribers should have a beef with it anymore. Other UDCP devices that can't benefit from TAs are still an issue and so owners of those devices still have a legitimate beef, but for the benefit of cable TV consumers as a whole (not even counting Tivo owners) hindering SDV is not a good thing.
     
  19. milo99

    milo99 Well-Known Member

    4,235
    67
    Oct 14, 2002
    Falls...
    the FCC ruling specifically says that rolling out SDV is not the problem, it's that they're not allowing fair access to the programming and limiting consumers to ONLY the cable company provided equipment.

    In other words, good job on innovation, but hurry up and offer the TA to people with cable cards so they're not forced to get your box to watch those channels. The TA is now approved by cablelabs. It's available in Comcast NJ. It shouldn't be another 6 months before we get it.

    If they're innovative enough to deploy SDV, the TA should not be 1.5 -2 years behind it.
     
  20. Revolutionary

    Revolutionary Too sleepy for TV...

    575
    0
    Dec 1, 2004
    Virginia
    Man this burns me.

    When I reported Cox to the FCC back when they implemented SDV on us in NoVa, I basically got a response to "piss off, its cool, they can do this, you're a schmuck."

    But on the positive side: I'll be getting a refund, AND this will incentivize Cox to get those damned adapters distributed already (so they can return to full price).
     

Share This Page