TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-02-2007, 10:02 PM   #331
skylab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer
That's completely false. It's true they do want to lease you a cable box, but it is completely false they won't be able to peddle the service to CableCard uses. Any device which will be CableCard 2.0 compatible will be able to get every service offered by SDV provided the manufacturer provided the host makes allowance for the service. VOD is right at the top of the list, and I seriously doubt any manufacturer would leave it out of their device's capabilities. One of the advantages of OCAP is it would pretty much guarantee the device would do so, but in my estimation this represents a silver lining to a potentially very large and dark cloud, rather than a sufficient argument to retain OCAP as part of CC 2.0

Note every single company which supplies Digital Terminals to CATV companies is converting their entire product line to CableCard devices. Some still use proprietary 2-Way systems, but they all are going to be CC 1.0 very soon.


The problem is many consumers want the 2-Way services on every channel. If the CATV companies only provide those services on certain channels, it will represent a very real counter-selling point for the satellite providers or competitor CATV companies where they are available.


No, it won't.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. I'm not talking about the future generation of cablecards, I'm talking about what is available now and why cable doesn't want it to work. First, contrary to your post, the current generation fo cablecards can't receive VOD, PPV, etc. Cable despises one-way cablecards because it can't peddle two-way VOD, PPV, etc. services that it has spent boatloads on in the last decade. Cable also despises one-way cablecards because it allows companies like Tivo and TVGuide to develop their own services, and, gasp, even put through ads using the cable system that is beyond the money grubbing hands of the cable companies.

Cablecard 2.0 will not see the light of day if cable can help it -- every reasonable proposal offered by the CEA has been met with resistance. Cable wants to control the interface you use to watch programming and control what you are able to do with the programming (like archive to blu-ray, DVHS, etc.). Of course, Tivo and the CEA will not agree with this. If cable gets its way then there will be no competitive market for navigation devices because these navigation devices will not, and will actually be prevented from, having features superior to a leased box.

Consumers don't want or need two-way services from the cable companies.
skylab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 10:05 PM   #332
skylab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiDefGator
And if it were your company you could make these decisions. But it's not.
How original.
skylab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 11:11 PM   #333
ah30k
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
I'm sorry, you're wrong. I'm not talking about the future generation of cablecards, I'm talking about what is available now and why cable doesn't want it to work. First, contrary to your post, the current generation fo cablecards can't receive VOD, PPV, etc. Cable despises one-way cablecards because it can't peddle two-way VOD, PPV, etc. services that it has spent boatloads on in the last decade.
All CableCARDs can receive two-way services so I think it is ironic that you start off a post saying someone is wrong and follow-up with incorrect statements.

You might want to start with this http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.html and in particular the quote...
Quote:
The media has frequently reported that first-generation CableCARD 1.0 modules are one-way devices1. This is simply not true. CableLabs had always intended to develop the CableCARD module and host receiver standards with two-way capability. However the manufacturers of digital TVs requested that a host standard be developed that only had one-way capability. This one-way cable-ready receiver was defined by the FCC's Plug & Play order and by the Joint Test Suite (JTS). It is the definition of this one-way receiver that lacks the ability for two-way functionality, not the CableCARD module. While the FCC defined the elements of the one-way cable-ready receiver, CableLabs continued to define specifications for two-way receivers.

When a CableCARD 1.0 module is used with a two-way receiver (e.g., Samsung HLR5067C) that card supports all the necessary two-way functionality for VOD, SDV, and other interactive services.

ah30k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 05:30 AM   #334
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,117
Is it safe to say that one of the big things cable companies give up by allowing this new dongle is the ability to earn revenue from advertisements placed on the program guide? If true, that clarifies why they would want to charge a significant amount per month for it.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 05:48 AM   #335
jfh3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver area
Posts: 4,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
Is it safe to say that one of the big things cable companies give up by allowing this new dongle is the ability to earn revenue from advertisements placed on the program guide?
Assuming that you actually believe this, and aren't trying to play devil's advocate -- it may be safe to say, but it wouldn't be accurate.

It's in the cable company's best interest to support a method for UDCP devices to operate as a consumer would reasonably expect in an SDV system, since their alternative is that they could lose that customer to the competition (e.g. satellite).

For those customers, they've already lost the eyeballs on the cable guide anyway, so there's nothing left to lose by supporting the dongle.
jfh3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 05:50 AM   #336
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,117
So are you saying that they don't give up revenue from advertisements placed on the program guide if they let TiVo get around OCAP for two-way services? Neat trick.

Get a grip.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 05:58 AM   #337
jfh3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver area
Posts: 4,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
So are you saying that they don't give up revenue from advertisements placed on the program guide if they let TiVo get around OCAP for two-way services? Neat trick.

Get a grip.
You really need to go read the latest NTCA FCC filing - you obviously don't understand the either the dongle solution or why the CE industry is so opposed to OCAP.

And yes, they don't give up revenue from the advertisements, because they don't get it in the first place - you can't give up what you don't have.
jfh3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 09:19 AM   #338
skylab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah30k
All CableCARDs can receive two-way services so I think it is ironic that you start off a post saying someone is wrong and follow-up with incorrect statements.

You might want to start with this http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.html and in particular the quote...

Show me a cablecard 1.0 device that does two-way services like sdv. For all intents and purposes the navigation devices are one-way.
skylab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 09:31 AM   #339
ah30k
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
Show me a cablecard 1.0 device that does two-way services like sdv. For all intents and purposes the navigation devices are one-way.
Your first comment (which I responded to) was that the CableCARDs are not two-way. Now you are talking about devices/hosts? Which is it? I can't discuss this with you if you keep changing your tune.

With respect to correct and incorrect, I prefer to stay away from intents and purposes and stick to the facts.
ah30k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 09:39 AM   #340
cableguy763
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
Show me a cablecard 1.0 device that does two-way services like sdv. For all intents and purposes the navigation devices are one-way.
I could show you about ten thousand SA cable boxes released after 7-1-07 that work two way with cablecard 1.0. They are multistream cards, but still 1.0.
cableguy763 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 09:52 AM   #341
GoHokies!
O2->CO2 Converter
 
GoHokies!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: KFME
Posts: 2,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by moyekj
Ben and/or GoHokies, here's another list of SDV channels to add to the first few posts in this thread (Cox Fairfax VA):
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb...&&#post5468367
Thanks for the heads up, post updated.

Was out in the woods camping all weekend, so I'm trying to get caught up.
__________________
  • "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

  • To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  • To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GoHokies! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 11:46 AM   #342
classicsat
Astute User
 
classicsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ontario Canada.
Posts: 17,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
I agree. It will probably be $4. That is what my calculations were based on.

Yeah, I think you're wrong about that.

However, you do make a good point. I think for $4, we should get a number of channels:

$4 - CNN, CNN Headline News, Court TV, TBS, and TNT
$4 - Disney Channel, ABC Family, Toon Disney, and SoapNet
$4 - Discovery Channel, TLC, Animal Planet, Discovery Health and maybe a couple of others
$4 - MSNBC, CNBC, and Shop NBC
$4 - AMC, USA Network, Sci-Fi, and Bravo
$4 - A&E, History Channel, Biography Channel, National Geographic

However, is that really still a la carte?
No, but it is close. That is in fact the sort of system I have available with my satellite provider (Starchoice), after their Essentials package.

I however chose their "cable classics" package, which is their basic tier and mostly cable channels that were around before the Great Canadian 2001 Channel Expansion. And most of the post 2001 channels can be added individually (after their Essentials package)
__________________
Series 2 234 Hr Lifetime.
Window XP and Ubuntu Linux on my PCs.
Watching more and more in HD direct now.
classicsat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 03:04 PM   #343
vstone
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsville, VA
Posts: 1,223
Cable copnaies actually get paid to carry some shopping networks. That's why they often end up the the basic local channel only tier. I assume that ShopNBC is also in that category.
vstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 05:58 PM   #344
FoxFireX
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 34
Not to interrupt the ongoing discussion, but just another note from San Antonio. We're getting additional SDV burn that they haven't put on their web site yet. ESPN2 HD (125) was added some months back, but is SDV only, and not marked as such. And just recently, ESPN Classic was moved from the analog tier to digital (channel 256) and guess what? SDV. So I've now lost access to a channel I used to receive. TWC and the FCC have now both received nastygrams.
FoxFireX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 03:35 AM   #345
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
A la carte

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
I think for $4, we should get a number of channels:

$4 - CNN, CNN Headline News, Court TV, TBS, and TNT
$4 - Disney Channel, ABC Family, Toon Disney, and SoapNet
$4 - Discovery Channel, TLC, Animal Planet, Discovery Health and maybe a couple of others
$4 - MSNBC, CNBC, and Shop NBC
$4 - AMC, USA Network, Sci-Fi, and Bravo
$4 - A&E, History Channel, Biography Channel, National Geographic

However, is that really still a la carte?
Well, yeah, sure, as long as they do offer each channel (other than must-carry channels) as a separate billable item, there is nothing wrong with also offering bundles.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 04:29 AM   #346
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
I'm sorry, you're wrong.
References, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
I'm not talking about the future generation of cablecards
Neither am I. All CableCards are 2-way, and always have been. Even Single Stream cards (S-Cards) are 2-Way. I repeat, it is the host which supplies layer 1 and 2 support for interworking. If the host is 2-Way, then 2-Way communications are supported. Note no host is currently officially CC 2.0, but there are plenty of 2-Way proprietary boxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
I'm talking about what is available now and why cable doesn't want it to work.
No, you're just talking out of your hat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
First, contrary to your post, the current generation fo cablecards can't receive VOD, PPV, etc.
Tell that to Time Warner Cable. They've distributed several tens of thousands of Scientific Atlanta and Pace Digital Terminals and DVRs with CableCards in them. Every single last one is 2-Way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
Cable despises one-way cablecards because it can't peddle two-way VOD, PPV, etc. services that it has spent boatloads on in the last decade.
Since every CableCard ever produced, including the very first one off the production line of any company, can handle 2-Way transactions, this is patently false. The fact they are peddling such services using ordinary CableCards pretty much bows this theory all to pieces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
Cable also despises one-way cablecards
Since no such animal has ever existed, it would be extremely difficult to despise it and at best foolish to try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
because it allows companies like Tivo and TVGuide to develop their own services, and, gasp, even put through ads using the cable system that is beyond the money grubbing hands of the cable companies.
Here you've taken a left turn from ignorance into the edges of irrationality. There is no such thing as a 1-Way CableCard, but even if there were, it would not allow TiVo or anyone else to do anything more than a 2-Way card. I think yoiu are getting CableCard specs mixed up with OCAP. OCAP has been proposed (but not approved) as part of the CC 2.0 specification, but OCAP in its essence relates ot the HOST specifications, not the CableCard, and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever about 2-Way communications either in the host or the CableCard which requires OCAP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
Cablecard 2.0 will not see the light of day if cable can help it
That is a different issue, but it is precisely the opposite of what you said above. According to you, the CATV companies want 2-Way services (which is true, actually), but now you claim they don't. Make up your mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
every reasonable proposal offered by the CEA has been met with resistance.
That is yet a third issue, not in itself directly related to the other two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
Cable wants to control the interface you use to watch programming
I suspect they could not care less, at least in this context, but CC 2.0 and OCAP have absolutely nothing to do with this issue, even if they do. Neither OCAP nor CC 2.0 address the User Interface.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
and control what you are able to do with the programming (like archive to blu-ray, DVHS, etc.).
Of course there are a lot of overlapping interests involved, but separating them out for a moment, the CATV companies per se don't really care if you can copy to an offline device - it's no skin off their nose. It's the motion picture industry who dislikes that aspect and who is pushing so hard for DRM and DHCP. They have a lot of clout with CableLabs, and in fact those strictures are part and parcel of CC 1.0. Again, the fact almost all the non CC certified DVRs supplied by the CATV companies do allow the user to copy the material (usually over firewire) argues definitively against your statement. Even CC 1.0 devices like the Series III and the TiVo HD do not allow digital copies of the content unless its DRM bits are unset. Once again, that pretty much blows your theory all to pieces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
If cable gets its way then there will be no competitive market for navigation devices because these navigation devices will not, and will actually be prevented from, having features superior to a leased box.
While the CATV companies might like for that to be true, there is nothing in CC 2.0 or even in OCAP which will prevent it. If ratified, their devices will have to pass the same OCAP restrictions and specifications as everyone else's box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
Consumers don't want or need two-way services from the cable companies.
They don't need one way services from the CATV company or anyone else. There is not a single person on this planet who has an actual need to watch television programs, nor anyone on the planet who could not do very well without a TV. That said, consumers DO want them, your protests notwithstanding. I have a close friend who is a video nut and is thrilled with the features of the TiVo. He came over just yesterday and we worked on some issues with Galleon and my Series III TiVos. He was extremely impressed with the capabilities, and was very close to the verge of buying a TiVo, but he isn't, because it does not yet handle VOD, and his wife and daughter would rebel if they could not have VOD. (BTW, many of the VOD chanels here in San Antonio are free.)

Last edited by lrhorer : 09-04-2007 at 05:46 AM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 04:55 AM   #347
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
CC 1.0 & 2-Way

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
Show me a cablecard 1.0 device that does two-way services like sdv. For all intents and purposes the navigation devices are one-way.
The Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8300C, 8300HDC, 824C, 8240HDC, 4250C, 4250HDC, 4240C, and 4240HDC, for starters. Then there's also the Motorola DCH-100, DCH-3200, DCH-3416... really, do I need to go on?
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 05:26 AM   #348
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
What's not to want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
Consumers don't want or need two-way services from the cable companies.
By the way, exactly what is it about On-Line Banking, Interactive Opinion Polls, Elections, Online Gaming, Web Browsing (including watching missed episodes of their favorite programs a few months later), being able to access broadcasts in three or four dozen different languages from as many different countries, being able to watch home movies from their Aunt's 70th birthday across the country, Video Conferencing, getting one's medical results from the lab, being able to host one's own televison show, watching channels individually dedicated to knitting, pottery, woodworking, gardening, and a hundred other hobbies, watching chanels dedicated to civil engineering, electrical engineering, criminal law, civil law, neurosurgery, internal medicine, and a hundred other professions, and all of a thousand other specialties which could be broadcast with SDV should the consumers not want?

With SDV, the local Radio Control Aircraft club could put up - say - $50 a month to provide the content and then each member of the club could pay $4 a month to have the channel, and then any content put onto the server is automatically available 24 hours a day to the members. 'Same for the Oil painting Club, etc, and for thousands of different clubs or professional organizations. Every modestly sized or larger company in town can have their own channel delivered to their employees. Again, what should they not want?
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 05:41 AM   #349
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Skylab facts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ah30k
With respect to correct and incorrect, I prefer to stay away from intents and purposes and stick to the facts.
Yes, but it seems since the facts completely contradict Skylab's opinions, he avoids them as much as possible. Frankly, I'm not quite sure what points he is trying to argue, since as you say he tends to flip back and forth. What he seems to be completely failing to understand is the CableCard is a separable security device which sits between the transceiver and the video output device. The transceiver does all the communications (both ways) at the RF level. The CableCard only handles encription and messaging to the host device. It tells the host device what to do based upon information in the digital stream sent to it by the transceiver. It does not transmit any RF signals itself, but in order for it to function at all, it must be able to take data from the host and send data back to the host. All CableCards are 2-Way.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 06:01 AM   #350
vman41
Omega Consumer
 
vman41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer
Again, what should they not want?
They don't want the cable company as gatekeeper. Give us a simple fat pipe to the internet and let the cable companies offer those services with no advantage over anyone else.
vman41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 08:45 AM   #351
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer
Well, yeah, sure, as long as they do offer each channel (other than must-carry channels) as a separate billable item, there is nothing wrong with also offering bundles.
Though the individual channels and the bundles would be the same price, of course.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 10:45 AM   #352
bdraw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer
The Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8300C, 8300HDC, 824C, 8240HDC, 4250C, 4250HDC, 4240C, and 4240HDC, for starters. Then there's also the Motorola DCH-100, DCH-3200, DCH-3416... really, do I need to go on?
Technically those aren't OpenCable 2.0 devices (formally CableCARD 2.0), since they don't use OCAP user interfaces.

They changed the name for good reason, everyone gets the card and the standard confused. The CableCARD hardware isn't changing, only the spec is.
__________________
How good can it be, if it isn't HD?
Ben Drawbaugh
Engadget HD
bdraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 10:47 AM   #353
ah30k
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw
Technically those aren't OpenCable 2.0 devices (formally CableCARD 2.0), since they don't use OCAP user interfaces.
The question was not asking for 2.0 boxes but two-way 1.0 boxes.
ah30k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 09:12 PM   #354
skylab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
You have just proven my point. All the devices cited above are only available for lease from a cable company. There are no navigation devices available to purchase in the marketplace that offer "two-way" services like sdv using cablecard 1.0. My point is that cable is trying to force people to lease their boxes rather than purchasing navigation devices on the marketplace by using sdv to deliver what has always been "one-way" programming. Its really not that hard of a concept. If you love cable so much then buy some stock and I've got a bridge to sell you.

Last edited by skylab : 09-04-2007 at 09:30 PM.
skylab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 09:18 PM   #355
ah30k
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
... My point is that cable is trying to force people to lease their boxes rather than purchasing navigation devices on the marketplace by using sdv to deliver what has always been "one-way" programming.
This is something that can be argued in a civilized manner

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
Its really not that hard of a concept.
It is when you muddy the water with incorrect statements such as saying that CableCARDs are one-way and saying other people are wrong when stating they are two-way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
If you love cable so much then buy some stock and I've got a bridge to sell you.
Could you please refer me to a single post in this thread that says someone (or even hints at it) loves cable? Please?

Why when we point out that you are wrong do you accuse people of being cable-lovers?
ah30k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 09:24 PM   #356
skylab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer

Of course there are a lot of overlapping interests involved, but separating them out for a moment, the CATV companies per se don't really care if you can copy to an offline device - it's no skin off their nose. It's the motion picture industry who dislikes that aspect and who is pushing so hard for DRM and DHCP. They have a lot of clout with CableLabs, and in fact those strictures are part and parcel of CC 1.0. Again, the fact almost all the non CC certified DVRs supplied by the CATV companies do allow the user to copy the material (usually over firewire) argues definitively against your statement. Even CC 1.0 devices like the Series III and the TiVo HD do not allow digital copies of the content unless its DRM bits are unset. Once again, that pretty much blows your theory all to pieces.
Wow, someone needs to pull their head out of the sand. Cable wants to be the sole provider of how you and I view programming -- everything from where we choose to watch to when.

Go over to the avsforum and read how cable has essentially disabled firewire ports with respect to both copying programming 5c "copy freely" directly to a comptuer and to recording 5c "copy once" programming to DVHS.

Read up a bit at http://www.eff.org/IP/pnp/cablewp.php, "who killed tivo2go," it might answer a few questions for you.
skylab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 09:39 PM   #357
sfhub
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylab
Go over to the avsforum and read how cable has essentially disabled firewire ports with respect to both copying programming 5c "copy freely" directly to a comptuer and to recording 5c "copy once" programming to DVHS.
DVHS isn't DTCP certified and thus can't copy any 5c encrypted programming. This isn't the fault of the cable company. The content copy protection flags are controlled by the content providers. If the cable company is changing the flags incorrectly, then your beef would be with the cable company, otherwise your beef is with the studios who came up with this scheme.
sfhub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 09:52 PM   #358
skylab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
DVHS can record 5c protected content. I have numerous 5c "copy once" recordings on dvhs.

Yes, cable companies have problems with mismatched flags.

Cable also rolled out a passport firmware upgrade back on 06' that disabled firewire output to PCs for recording 5c "copy freely" content. This is well documented in the avsforums.
skylab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 09:56 PM   #359
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Now that's better

Quote:
Originally Posted by vman41
They don't want the cable company as gatekeeper. Give us a simple fat pipe to the internet and let the cable companies offer those services with no advantage over anyone else.
Now that I come closer to agreeing, but it's a far cry from there to saying, "No 2-Way Services". Actually, IMNSHO, what should be ratified is someting like the following: The Host lists all available middleware available for transaction management, including all available OCAP software approved by the local CATV and available from them. The user then has the choice of which products he wishes to load and which ones he specifically does not want to load or wishes to unload. On the other side of the coin, the CATV provider should not be bound to support any non-OCAP applications. Indeed, I wouldn't even have too much of a fit if it specified they did not have to provide technical support (as opposed to service) for any device bearing non-OCAP products. That way, if the user is having problems and he wants to call the CATV company to help, the CATV company coud require he must first disable all non-OCAP utilities to prove the issue is not caused by faulty non-OCAP software. After all, there is no reason the CATV company should bear any financial responsibility for the user loading software which breaks the system.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 10:01 PM   #360
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Cc 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw
Technically those aren't OpenCable 2.0 devices (formally CableCARD 2.0), since they don't use OCAP user interfaces.
I never said they were. Skylab asked someone to list at least one CC 1.0 device which provides 2-Way communication. Oh, BTW, some of the Motorola boxes do support OCAP. NHone of the SA boxes do.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |