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

SDV FAQ

Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by bdraw, Jul 3, 2007.

  1. Oct 1, 2009 #2241 of 2401
    SCSIRAID

    SCSIRAID Active Member

    2,321
    0
    Feb 2, 2003
    Vero Beach, FL
    Yes.. That is what impresses me about them in this case. They have poured much effort into this issue. My email file with discussions is huge and I get responses in hours to sometimes minutes. Once you get into Tech Ops... everything changes. One of the guys I deal with has a TiVo S2 DT himself.

    Carolinas... but not based in Raleigh.
     
  2. Oct 9, 2009 #2242 of 2401
    pavanb500

    pavanb500 New Member

    10
    0
    Mar 4, 2008
    Just got a letter from Bright House saying they're going SDV around the beginning of November (Port Orange/Daytona Beach, FL).

    However, when I called them, they said that I HAD to pay ~$70 for a truck roll... They did this for the Cable Cards as well, even though the tech was clueless and I ended up doing all the work - including calling in to pair it.

    What is the general experience in regards to having to pay for an installer vs. picking it up from the local office? Has anyone on Brighthouse been able to get out of the extortion fee?

    Thanks!
     
  3. Oct 9, 2009 #2243 of 2401
    mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,389
    2
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    I get the impression that most people have been having been picking them up and self-installing. (When I had one, I was a beta test installation--TWC San Diego's first--so a tech and two engineers showed up to install it and I wasn't charged).
     
  4. Oct 9, 2009 #2244 of 2401
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,991
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    I get the opposite impression but .... it is what it is.

    My theory is if you already have cards installed, there is at least a chance you might be able to pick up and install the TA. But policies on installation seem to be individually set by each local cable provider, and as far as I know there is no governing law, and not even a legal requirement for them to provide a TA.
     
  5. Oct 9, 2009 #2245 of 2401
    SCSIRAID

    SCSIRAID Active Member

    2,321
    0
    Feb 2, 2003
    Vero Beach, FL
    TWC Carolinas is no charge self install for TA's. You place your order online and they drop ship one to you preauthorized on your account. Simple as pie.
     
  6. apsarkis

    apsarkis Member

    34
    0
    Nov 16, 2004
    Tillson, NY
    TWC Hudson Valley (NY) is self-install but you have to pick them up at one of their offices. Their Port Ewen, NY office is rationing them out. They were promised on 10/7, only got 3 in on 10/16, so they only gave me one (though I have an S3 and an HDT), and a friend with an HD Tivo took another. I went back today (10/21) and they said they're still short and limiting to one to a customer (and they've already started moving some of my premium channels to SDV).
    Perry
     
  7. Hystyk28

    Hystyk28 New Member

    31
    0
    Sep 11, 2005
    Does anyone know if they flipped the switch Comcast-Garden State Cable ? I was issued a box way back, but then told not to use it. I now have a bunch of missing channels. any help would be appreciated.
     
  8. Nov 1, 2009 #2248 of 2401
    JimMatthews

    JimMatthews New Member

    8
    0
    Feb 19, 2004
    Hanover, NH
    I got a Cisco tuning adapter from Time Warner here in Portland, Maine a few weeks ago. I went into the local office (by the Jetport) for an unrelated issue, and the customer service person (Matt, who was very TiVo/CableCard savvy) offered me one. About a year ago I had signed up to be notified when they became available, but I hadn't received any notice.

    SDV channels did not show up immediately, but a call to Time Warner got them working.
     
  9. Nov 8, 2009 #2249 of 2401
    Richard Berg

    Richard Berg New Member

    7
    0
    Jan 26, 2008
    Still trying to get a tuning adapter from Comcast in NJ. Level 1 techs are totally clueless, of course.
     
  10. deandashl

    deandashl New Member

    341
    0
    Aug 8, 2008
    FCC rules. All cable franchises using SDV must provide tuning adapters. If you get the runaround, you can file a complaint.
     
  11. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,991
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    Close but not exact, I believe. If they move a channel currently not SDV to SDV they have to provide the TA. If they just use SDV to add new channels it's not required. Probably a distinction without a difference since they always seem to move some existing channels to SDV.

    I believe the rules just say they have to provide a way to keep getting all the channels you were already getting -- not specifically a TA. Probably another distinction without a difference.
     
  12. mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,389
    2
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    Where exactly is this rule you're talking about? I don't think that the FCC has codified anything about SDV into regulations, and I haven't seen where they've required that a service provider distribute TAs. They have examined a few complaints about SDV and ruled on them. In those cases, they've required the provider to issue a rebate to Unidirectional CableCARD customers, reduced fees going forward and, I think, use of a leased box without charge for a while, but AFAIK, they haven't mentioned the TA (which would only help TiVo--and now Moxi--users in any case). They've never required that people continue to get the same services, but only that they be warned when things are being added or removed.

    I could be wrong, though. Perhaps you've heard something more recent. If so, please cite your source.
     
  13. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,991
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    I didn't refer specifically to a rule and I didn't say I thought any rules mentioned a TA specifically. Anyway, my statements (right or wrong) are based on these two links:

    http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.pdf

    http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=162284&site=cdn

    Both of these reference rules by Section, Paragraph numbers, although I haven't tracked the actual rules down (yet).

    The penalties in both referenced cases are so puny as to seem meaningless to me.
     
  14. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    It's all fading in my memory, but wasn't that all just a matter of lack of notification -- that with notification they could have done what they did no problem -- and also wasn't that something that was eventually reversed?
     
  15. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,991
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    I"m not sure. Take a look at the Forfeiture Order for Cox and see what you think. It seems like more than just lack of notification to me but .... ? Note that it's pretty recent, January of this year.
     
  16. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    Reversed in June of this year:

    http://www.multichannel.com/article/306973-FCC_Vacates_SDV_Rulings_Against_Time_Warner_Cable_Cox.php

    I've got a pretty good memory for an older guy eh? ;)

    So SDV is okay (even without providing a TA). Just don't deploy SDV (even with providing TAs) without providing the advance notification you're supposed to provide.
     
  17. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,991
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    So we're back to: There is no ruling or law that requires cable cos. to provide TA's, correct?

    It doesn't warm my heart to say anything in defense of cable cos. but I believe this is fair. They tell you they are going to change the terms of their service in advance, and you have the option of dropping the service if the new terms are not acceptable. They could offer to reduce your rates in accordance with the channels you lose (without a TA), which might induce you to take that deal.
     
  18. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    Correct.
     
  19. Shmooh

    Shmooh New Member

    66
    0
    Feb 20, 2009
    Cary, NC
    How can this be? Isn't the point of CableCards that they provide access to the same channels as the rented set-top-box customers?

    I get (and have no problem with) the lack of pay-per-view and video on demand - CC's were never meant for that, and those really are a kind of 'premium' service that is not part of core television distribution. However, SDV is basically a different form of broadcasting channels. While the technology requires 2-way communication, doesn't it seem like it violates the spirit of cable card law if cable card customers can't receive those channels?

    To take it a step further, what's to stop a cable company from moving to an entirely 'video on demand' service and saying, "Sorry chumps. Rent one of our boxes or you're SOL. Yeah, we know you don't have any other cable choices. Too bad."

    I'm not arguing legality (which I know very little about for this). Just arguing that this shouldn't be allowed. Normally, I wouldn't even care - a business can conduct themselves however they want, right? But when they have a government sanctioned monopoly that is intended to provide equal and fair service, things get dicey.

    Are we sure we're interpreting the ruling correctly..? That the Cable Co's only have to provide notice that they're removing channels or adding channels CableCard customers can't receive - not actually provide access to them?
     
  20. mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,389
    2
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    Yeah, it does violate the spirit of the Plug and Play DTV Over Cable agreement. However it should be noted that (1) the FCC frog-marched cable and the CE OEMs into drafting that agreement before they felt ready and (2) the FCC has to recognize that cable cannot effectively compete with satellite's HD channel offerings without more bandwidth capacity and SDV is a fast and relatively inexpensive way for them to, in essence, increase bandwidth capacity. Forbidding them to use it would be unfair restraint of trade, unless they also forbid the satellite companies to use MPEG4 :rolleyes:.

    It sucks, but there it is.
     

Share This Page