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. Eccles

    Eccles Mostly harmless

    350
    0
    Dec 27, 2001
    Austin, TX
    Well at least here in Austin, Time-Warner is using the demise of OTA analog as a carrot to lure new analog users onto cable. If they plan on dropping analog, they'll have to provide free digital STB's or face lawsuits for bait-and-switch marketing.
     
  2. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    1
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Oh, I would think so, yes. It's not at all unusual for a vendor to offer discounts - in this case a free STB - to new customers, and the cost of the STB is a small price to pay to land a new customer.

    Oh, wait, did you mean free STBs to customers who switched prior to the conversion based upon the marketing campaign? I'm not at all familiar with that section of the law, so you may be perfectly correct, but I'm sure there is some sort of acceptable time limit. Even if not, however, the cost of an STB is also small compared with the value of keeping an existing customer.
     
  3. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,401
    44
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    Luckily I get to dictate what parts of my posts are the main points and which ones are trivial. You don't get to dictate that to me.

    No, I'm claiming the results of the current situation prove the intent of the participants now. There is no significance, whatsoever, what intent was in the past. Only people who live in the past care about that.

    Bull. Someone asked me to waste time, because they didn't like the perspective I'm projecting. There's a difference.

    Bull, again. Truth is a reflection of consensus. If you actually believe there is such thing as absolute truth in matters of government regulation, then I cannot help you.

    Absolutely. My point was that is the way things are, and the trends are still in that direction, so trying to assert that some past perspective should prevail over the will of the country at this time is ludicrous.

    You're entitled to your opinion.
     
  4. sfhub

    sfhub Active Member

    1,384
    15
    Jan 6, 2007
    I'm sorry, results simply do not prove intent. They do not disprove either. Results are simply that, results.

    If you want to prove intent you need to come up with something more than results.
     
  5. m_jonis

    m_jonis Member

    630
    0
    Jan 3, 2002
    Albany, NY
    One of the problems with dropping the analog stations (at least with TW cable) is that they will implement the CCI byte 0x02 on ALL channels (including digital simulcast of local broadcast stations). Thus, effectively rendering TTG and MRV useless except for local broadcast HD channels. So in my case, I can TTG/MRV (well, if I had two TivoHD I could MRV anyway) 6 HD local stations and nothing else.
     
  6. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,401
    44
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    Indeed... it was "the other guy" who brought up the whole issue of "proving" anything. In the end, for most things, it comes down to Occum's Razor: What is the most likely explanation. Expecting that they're doing things just for spite is not a likely explanation.
     
  7. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    1
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    I agree entirely with the second statement and disagree categorically with the first. Neither of us gets to dictate what is trivial or important. That is entirely beyond the capability of any person or group. An item is important if it has a significant impact on the question at hand, opinions to the effect completely notwithstanding. You are perfectly free to have any opinion you want of what is important of your posts, my posts, or anyone else's, just as I am free to gauge the importance of any sections of your posts or the post itself. I also intend no offense, but if you don't want people to judge the relative merits of your posts for themselves, then don't post. Take note that I hope you and others do decide to post quite freely. Just don't expect that we will think the same things are important that you do, or that you are free to dictate to anyone else what they should consider important about them.

    <sigh> Frankly I thought my rebuttal made that point clear. I guess it didn't.

    That's not what you said in the context of the discussion. I pointed out the situation was caused by loopholes in the spec written back in 1998, compounded by a lack of a response from the FCC at that time. You responded (emphasis mine):

    Then why did you bring it up? My points had little or nothing to do with the intent at any time. In the context of your statement, it is current intent which has no relevance. In the context of my statement, intent at any point in time is outside the scope of the argument.

    I'll definitely allow that your posts here generally embrace that notion. Others, however, seek to place blame for actions in the past, which requires examining past intent. Nonetheless, the fact remains you were the one who brought up the question of past intent, not me.

    Bull right back at you. You made statements of questionable validity and I asked you to back them up with facts. Without facts to back it up, no statement can be considered anything more than an unsupported opinion. There is nothing necessarily wrong with holding forth an unsupported opinion, but you claim your perspective is other than that, which means the onus of proof lies upon your shoulders. Don't whine if we tear your argument to shreds when you refuse to offer any such proof.

    For the record, I neither like nor dislike your perspective and it wouldn't matter in the least if I did. The entire issue is that your perspective in no way provides support for the statement you made, which is to say the failure on the part of the FCC was deliberate, ostensibly because of some ulterior motive relating to the pro-business regulatory environment.

    That's utter nonsense. When better than 90&#37; of the population of the Earth thought the Earth was flat, it didn't make it so. Most of the Earth's population probably still thinks the universe is only a fraction of its actual size or age.

    To paraphrase Indiana Jones, "I am not seeking truth, I am seeking fact". If you think there is anything such as truth at all - absolute or otherwise - in government regulation then I cannot help you. The thing is, what you or I or the entire population of the Earth think is irrelevant. Either there was direct intent involved or there was not, and no amount of consensus will change the fact. The relevant facts proximate to the event are irretrievable, so any statement to either effect is nothing but opinion. We can both base that opinion on the results as we perceive them, but that in no way makes it anything but an opinion. I have no problem with freely admitting it, and I specifically did so from the outset so that no one would think I was stating anything other than unsupported opinion. For some reason you seem horrified that someone might realize you are holding forth on an unsupported opinion.

    Your post never made that point at all. Perhaps it was what you were thinking, but it's not what you typed. More importantly, I never suggested anything at all concerning any perspective, past present or future. I merely pointed out that the FCC's refusal to sink it's teeth far enough into the problem is the main proximate cause for the mess we're in. Had they followed through with their mandate at any point right up to the present moment, the issue would have disappeared. If they follow through within the next 30 seconds, then the issue will dissipate, although much less slowly than if they had followed through a year ago. Two years ago and it would have been a minor footnote. Four years ago and the situation would never have ocurred at all. It's getting to be more of a problem by the day, though, and will continue to do so in the future, completely irrespective of how pro-business the government might be. At some point in the not too distant future the mess will become an essentially intractable one, regardless of anyone's intent.

    Edit: Perhaps my memory fails me, but I don't recall specifically having asked you to provide proof of your statements. Maybe I did, but it seems to me you were the one who brought up the notion of proof, asking me if I wanted you to prove some things concerning the current regulatory envionment.
     
  8. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    1
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    If you mean me, you've got the wrong guy. I'm the one who said, "Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by stupidity". You're the one who claimed the situation is the result of some specific intent to the actual end, not me.

    Oh, and just BTW, Occam's Razor is based upon the simplicity of the explanation, not some evaluation of its likelihood. The whole idea of Occam's razor is to try to eliminate attempts to evaluate the merits of an idea based upon some arbitrary notion of probability. The original statement was "do not multiply entities". The most common current formulation is, "The simplest solution supported by all the facts is the best."
     
  9. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    1
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    There are ways around that, of course, but in essence you are correct, except that the simulcast local channels are also exempt from copy protection. Nonetheles, hopefully this fact will irritate enough people that they demand copy protection be eliminated altogether and congress will force the elimination of copy protection, at least for MRV situations.

    OK, OK, I know, but I can dream, can't I?
     
  10. hsfjr

    hsfjr (no subject)

    27
    0
    Apr 13, 2002
    SDV-land...
    Heard a quote once (in a podcast) about arguing on the internet... sadly, its not at all P.C.

    Someone start a new thread when the tuning resolver is released so I can ignore this one from now on...
     
  11. pmiranda

    pmiranda New Member

    669
    1
    Feb 12, 2003
    Austin, TX
    I'm sure there'll be 10 new threads on the subject, so you can probably safely unsubscribe from this one...in fact, I think I will right now... click.
     
  12. ehardman

    ehardman Member

    159
    0
    Feb 18, 2004
    Kansas
    I added several users from this thread to my ignore list, but it is still out of hand. A new thread would be a good idea.
     
  13. vstone

    vstone New Member

    1,235
    0
    May 11, 2002
    Martinsville...
    Maybe we should just invite several participants to take their argument outside while the rest of us stay inside and have a beer on me!
     
  14. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,401
    44
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    I suspect if anyone launches any substantive discussion about SDV, unique and different from any issues brought up previously, that discussion will become the focus of the thread.
     
  15. mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,408
    3
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    That's apparently not true--there is certainly no language in the regulations which even implies that and both Cox and Time Warner locally have encryption applied to their entire digital simulcast, including the locals. (What's even worst is that they mark the streams "Copy One Generation". Since they put the map the channels to the digital simulcast in CableCARDs, I can freely use TiVo Desktop to move a recording of a local broadcaster's HD channel to my PC but not the crappy digital SD version of the same program :rolleyes:). The digital simulcasts are not, after all, what's broadcast over-the-air, and thereby aren't explicitly covered by CFR Title 47 Section 76.630, particularly when what is broadcast over-the-air is present on the cable in its original form (and occupying 10 times the bandwidth). There's no one whose television cannot tune the still-present analog versions and relatively few whose televisions can.

    If the cable providers ever go all digital there will be no analog over-the-air broadcasts, so if there's a special standard definition version it will again be something that they're creating in their plant, not subject to current FCC rules. The FCC should probably amend those rules :).
     
  16. Nugget

    Nugget New Member

    7
    0
    Nov 4, 2002
    Austin TX USA
    While that is strictly true, it would be courteous to keep in mind that this is a sticky thread at the top of the board and perhaps deserves a more measured approach than the general rabble threads below. Infrequent visitors to the community (such as myself) rely on sticky threads such as this one to stay up-to-date with any change to the SDV situation and this unrelated bickering is detrimental to that goal.
     
  17. mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,408
    3
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    One of the other people who occasionally look at this thread hoping for some news on SDV sent me a PM to ask whether I had any notion of a release date for the Tuning Resolver. (Why do people come here looking for news on the Tuning Resolver when there are threads dedicated to it elsewhere in this forum :rolleyes:)?

    To my knowledge, the closest thing to a release date that we have on the Tuning Resolver is this joint press release by the National Cable Telecommunications Association and TiVo, Inc. which contains the statement:
    This says that they expect the first cable operators to start distributing the thing some time within the next 3 months. I would speculate that the next thing that we'll hear on the topic is that someone has been informed by their cable operator and/or TiVo that the tuning resolver is available. Until then, there's no use fretting about it: chill. If it gets significantly past June with no sign of the TR, then we can all cry bloody murder :D.

    This information is referenced in the FAQ under the topic "Is this likely to change anytime soon?" (which maybe should be retitled something like "Will I ever be able to tune SDV channels with my TiVo?"--I've PM'd bdraw with the suggestion that he rename it).
     
  18. mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,408
    3
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    [I accidentally deleted my original response to this post--you and I have discussed that offline, so you know how I feel].

    The gist of it was that I don't particularly appreciate people who don't actually use this or any other forum that I'm active in coming in and asking that we consider that it's inconvenient for them to wade through any discussion that doesn't pertain to the information that their looking for. As non-participants in the forum, if there's something in these discussion that you find useful, that's wonderful, but don't expect us to make any effort at all to make it easy for you. Why should we? By your own admission, you hardly ever come here.

    This is the SDV FAQ thread--in my opinion, any thread with FAQ in the title has one important post, being the first one. The first post, which tries to collect and present the information that we have on the topic of SDV, is the sole reason why this has a sticky, so we don't lose track of it. Any of the rest of the discussion is up for grabs, so long as it's centered on the topic of the FAQ, and the exchange between lrhorer and Firekite, though it'd broken down into sniping at each other without making any new points, began as a discussion of whether cable providers are justified in their decision to use SDV, which seem totally appropriate to me.
     
  19. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    1
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Any bets?
     
  20. mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,408
    3
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    I think that they'll come in on time. They're trying to head off being made to produced DCR Plus; if they don't get a fait-accompli solution to the ugliest part of the problem (tuning SDV channels on low-end products) in the field, the FCC is very likely to order them to do the CEA's proposed DCR Plus and you'll be able to count the number of <tru2way> products ever brought to market on the fingers of one foot.
     

Share This Page