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 08-27-2008, 06:29 PM   #1891
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
"Mike" or "Michael", please.
Sorry... didn't know where the name ended... I guess "yts" means something?
__________________

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 08-27-2008, 08:24 PM   #1892
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
Sorry... didn't know where the name ended... I guess "yts" means something?
Yes, "Mikey" is part of my username, but you'll notice that I don't use it in my sig. On AVS Forum, my username is "michaeltscott", my full name and middle initial, hence the "ts". Everywhere, if I have a sig, it says "Mike Scott". In any case, no BFD.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 09:54 AM   #1893
classicsat
Astute User
 
classicsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ontario Canada.
Posts: 17,878
My belief is that a channel is authorized by a Service ID, which is not necessarily related to the channel number or QAM location. One will receive service key for a channel based on the package they subscribe to, regardless if it is SDV or not, so, in theory, if your UDCP receives the dynamic channel maps which include SDV assignments, has the service keys for SDV channels which you subscribe to (or it is sent unencrypted), and someone on your node with an SDV capable device chooses that SDV channels, you could view it on your UDCP device.
__________________
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 08-28-2008, 02:39 PM   #1894
ultrarunner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 25
Where can I find out the roll-out status of tuning adapters for my TimeWarner service area?
ultrarunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 03:08 PM   #1895
socrplyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrarunner View Post
Where can I find out the roll-out status of tuning adapters for my TimeWarner service area?
Wouldn't all of us like to know... No one that I have seen has confirmed any hard dates. However, when I contacted my local office they told me by the end of the year. I have also seen others post similar results after they contacted their offices.

I haven't see a single person report that they have a tuning adapter in hand at this point.

Edit: I am reporting on what I have seen for TWC Only.

Last edited by socrplyr : 08-28-2008 at 03:09 PM. Reason: See Edit:
socrplyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 04:43 PM   #1896
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrarunner View Post
Where can I find out the roll-out status of tuning adapters for my TimeWarner service area?
I suspect that would be considered proprietary company secrets, so that is why you won't see anyone who's word would be trustworthy providing that kind of information, until after TWC is ready to push that information out to the public.
__________________

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 09-04-2008, 07:12 PM   #1897
billinaustin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2
cable card in Motorola

I have a cable card in my Motorola, DCH3416. Does anyone know whether this is just a one way card or does it communicat back and forth. It is a DVR with VOD and PFV. The card is protected with a steel cage. I guess the question is whether a two way card does exist and is in use.
billinaustin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008, 07:46 PM   #1898
morac
Cat God
 
morac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,315
There's nothing special about the card. It's the DCH3416 that handles the two way communication.

In other words even if you ripped the card out of your DCH3416 and put it in your TiVo, your TiVo wouldn't magically be able to do VOD and PPV.
morac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2008, 12:09 AM   #1899
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,867
...and there is no such thing as a one-way CableCard. Every CableCard ever manufactured from day 1 will work fine in any 2-way host, and such a host will be able to deliver every 2-way service the CATV company offers. Note, however, that only a CableCard compatible with the specific CATV system's equipment will work in that CATV system, and only a 2-way host specifically designed to work with the CATV system's equipment will be able to deliver 2-way services in that system. Since it is not practical for TiVo to manufacture and sell an array of devices, each of which will probably quit working if taken to a different city, a 2-way TiVo is not practical at this time.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2008, 02:32 PM   #1900
aquaphase
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3
I just called Time Warner here in Dallas to check on any potential timeline for the SDV converter. After being transferred to the "special technical help" desk, I was surprised to know that they don't have any idea about SDV. Also, it's not in their "help" database at all. It was pretty frustrating explaining the technology to the guy who was supposed to be helping me. With about 90% of my channels missing, it looks like I'm about to jump to uVerse and dump my HD TiVo.
aquaphase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2008, 08:42 PM   #1901
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
...only a 2-way host specifically designed to work with the CATV system's equipment will be able to deliver 2-way services in that system. Since it is not practical for TiVo to manufacture and sell an array of devices, each of which will probably quit working if taken to a different city, a 2-way TiVo is not practical at this time.
I don't think that's actually true. Per the CableCARD Interface 2.0 Specification (aka, CCIF 2.0), the Host hardware implements a QPSK out-of-band transmitter which the connected CableCARD is given direct control of (alternately, if the network supports it, the host can also implement a DOCSIS modem which it can share with the CableCARD for upstream communication--if DOCSIS is there, the QPSK method must also be supported). In any case, if the host has something to say to the network, it does it by making the proper call into the CableCARD, which translates it into proprietary network-specific protocol data units and transmits them using the physical backchannel in the host. As with everything else network specific, details of how to talk back to the network are encapsulated in the CableCARD, which is the only network specific element.

Except perhaps for minor details, this was pretty much exactly the same in the original CableCARD specification. Since no one could agree on how they wanted to implement interactive services (rejecting a set of APIs for IPG, IPPV and VOD proposed by CableLabs in the spec), they shelved two-way comm.
__________________
Mike Scott

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

Last edited by mikeyts : 09-06-2008 at 04:36 PM.
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2008, 09:17 PM   #1902
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
Except perhaps for minor details, this was pretty much exactly the same in the original CableCARD specification. Since no one could agree on how they wanted to implement interactive services (rejecting a set of APIs for the IPG, IPPV and VOD proposed by CableLabs in the spec), they shelved two-way comm.
Yeah, and that was my point. I suppose it's true TiVo could have attempted to create an SDV-only capable TiVo, but I doubt at the time CableLabs would have certified it. Even today I'm skeptical they would get it through, although at this point CableLabs might be willing to certify such a beast. Other than SDV, however, there's no way a 3rd party manufacturer (or anyone else, for that matter) can easily manufacture a device guaranteed to be compatible with essentially every CATV system in the country. Of course at this point in time, TiVo owners are most concerned about SDV, but the moment SDV is no longer an issue, the other concerns will come to the front of the stove.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2008, 09:38 PM   #1903
morac
Cat God
 
morac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
Yeah, and that was my point. I suppose it's true TiVo could have attempted to create an SDV-only capable TiVo, but I doubt at the time CableLabs would have certified it.
Wouldn't such a beast basically have to contain the equivalent of both the Motorola and Cisco tuning adapters since they aren't compatible with each other?

That's basically the same reason no (non-Truway) hardware is 2-way compatible since there are at least 3 standards they'd have to implement.
morac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2008, 11:16 PM   #1904
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by morac View Post
Wouldn't such a beast basically have to contain the equivalent of both the Motorola and Cisco tuning adapters since they aren't compatible with each other?
Yes. Hypothetically it's possible, I suppose. It still wouldn't get other 2-way services, but incorporating three different QPSK modulators, or an agile QPSK modulator is possible. They would also have to have at a minimum three different code sets. No one, Tivo included, wants to get into that morass, and I don't blame them.

Last edited by lrhorer : 09-05-2008 at 11:22 PM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2008, 11:25 PM   #1905
dswallow
Save the Moderatоr
 
dswallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Long Branch, NJ, USA
Posts: 48,827
TC CLUB MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by morac View Post
Wouldn't such a beast basically have to contain the equivalent of both the Motorola and Cisco tuning adapters since they aren't compatible with each other?

That's basically the same reason no (non-Truway) hardware is 2-way compatible since there are at least 3 standards they'd have to implement.
Technically, they could have implemented the tuning adapter entirely in software on the TiVo. Yes, it would require special support on the head-end. But exactly who else is going to use the tuning adapter except TiVo anyway? And it's not like they had to implement one and only one way to do this.

Yes, it would mean providing a method for the TiVo to connect to the cable company head-end via the public internet; but that's simple enough -- adding a computer connected to the public internet that is the endpoint for encrypted communications of some sort utilizing keys delivered to the TiVo over the CableCARD, with it translating the communication to whatever form is needed by the head-end and delivering it.

But it could've been done that way, requiring no deployment of end-user hardware by any cable company to provide TiVo SDV support.

And then, technically, the "standard" would've just been the way to TiVo (or other device) initiated the connection to the centrally located "tuning adapter interface" over the public internet, and how it then communicated with that device. They didn't need to design the tuning adapter to be deployed at the end-user site, one per device.
__________________
¯\_(ツ)_/¯****************
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.
dswallow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2008, 11:26 PM   #1906
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
Yeah, and that was my point. I suppose it's true TiVo could have attempted to create an SDV-only capable TiVo, but I doubt at the time CableLabs would have certified it. Even today I'm skeptical they would get it through, although at this point CableLabs might be willing to certify such a beast. Other than SDV, however, there's no way a 3rd party manufacturer (or anyone else, for that matter) can easily manufacture a device guaranteed to be compatible with essentially every CATV system in the country. Of course at this point in time, TiVo owners are most concerned about SDV, but the moment SDV is no longer an issue, the other concerns will come to the front of the stove.
<tru2way> compliance (CCIF 2.0+M-Card+OCAP) is the way for manufacturers to make cable-system independent devices going forwards. TiVo has proposed a hybrid <tru2way> system to CableLabs (described in this ex parte FCC filing), which would have a bidirectional CCIF 2.0 interface. It would operate in either "TiVo Mode" or "Cable Mode". In "TiVo Mode" it would present the TiVo GUI that we know and love with no access to OCAP functionality other than the SDV tuning API; in "Cable Mode", it would present the cable IPG, with access to all interactive cable features (IPPV and VOD and anything else they throw at us, written for OCAP), but with no access to TiVo's recording capability. So, if you were on a TWC system and went into "Cable Mode", your "TiVo Series4" would start displaying TWC's horrible OCAP Digital Navigator, but you'd get access to VOD and PPV and, one assumes, their fancy switched sports tiers like "Nascar In Car", "NBA League Pass", "NHL Center Ice", etc; you wouldn't have any DVR trick-play functionality (except while watching VOD) or ability to record.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2008, 11:29 PM   #1907
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by morac View Post
Wouldn't such a beast basically have to contain the equivalent of both the Motorola and Cisco tuning adapters since they aren't compatible with each other?

That's basically the same reason no (non-Truway) hardware is 2-way compatible since there are at least 3 standards they'd have to implement.
No, since the beast will be <tru2way>. Code for the specific SDV protocol in use on the cable system would be downloaded into it. In TiVo's imagined Series4 product, that would be the only OCAP code which could be accessed from the TiVo GUI.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 12:15 AM   #1908
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
<tru2way> compliance (CCIF 2.0+M-Card+OCAP) is the way for manufacturers to make cable-system independent devices going forwards.
Yes, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to throw the brakes on tru2way any time soon. Indeed, it's getting less likely to be overturned every day. That doesn't necessarily mean purchasing a tru2way device guarantees operation in any particular CATV system, however, and if you have a tru2way system and it either doesn't work or the CATV provider refuses to allow you to use it, you're stuck. At this moment they must support CableCard UDCPs, but nothing says they have to support 3rd party tru2way devices.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 01:04 AM   #1909
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
Yes, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to throw the brakes on tru2way any time soon. Indeed, it's getting less likely to be overturned every day. That doesn't necessarily mean purchasing a tru2way device guarantees operation in any particular CATV system, however, and if you have a tru2way system and it either doesn't work or the CATV provider refuses to allow you to use it, you're stuck. At this moment they must support CableCard UDCPs, but nothing says they have to support 3rd party tru2way devices.
No, but it's the cable providers who created <tru2way> and the cable providers who are ramming it down our throats; the CE manufacturers are just going along for the ride. The big MSOs are all going to support it in all of their systems, but there's a possibility that some of the smaller providers won't follow suit. Hopefully the FCC will update the plug-and-play regulations to add a requirement for <tru2way> support. since it's the near end-result of their plug-and-play DTV-over-cable initiative (OCAP+DCAS--no CCIF 2.0, no CableCARDs--will be the true end of the foreseeable road).
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 02:47 PM   #1910
jcaudle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Fairfax, Va
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabby46 View Post
Maybe this has already been addressed but I didnt see it, so let me see if I understand this correctly...

Where I live (cox fairfax) SDV is now taking up about 25 of the 40 HD channels. They are saying that the tuning adapter is not rushed because there isnt much of a demand for it as very few people have tivos. The reason for SDV is to save bandwith, so if it is known that I have cablecards and I am one of the very few people in the area who has it, couldnt there be a way to have our (CC users) HD channels sent to us all the time which would barely use any bandwith since there are so few of us? At least until the TAs are available?

At the very least they could let me pick which HD channels I want to receive and have those turned on all the time. I can deal with OTA networks for now, but I miss Discovery and Food HD.
I also live in Cox Fairfax's Service area. They won't tell you anything about the tuning adapter. They profess not to know, so either they aren't going to offer them or don't want to reveal their plans.
jcaudle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 03:56 PM   #1911
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
No, but it's the cable providers who created <tru2way> and the cable providers who are ramming it down our throats; the CE manufacturers are just going along for the ride. The big MSOs are all going to support it in all of their systems, but there's a possibility that some of the smaller providers won't follow suit.
Perfectly correct, but there's a loophole. The MSOs are going to be moving to tru2way for their own equipment, but there is nothing that prevents them from refusing to allow a 3rd party tru2way device to be used by a consumer. There are any number of people right now in CATV systems who are attempting to refuse to allow the installation of CableCard systems. They haven't a legal leg on which to stand, but if it were a tru2way device, they would. There's also nothing which says CableLabs has to certify any device for tru2way use, no matter what specs it meets. OTOH, at that level I don't think they will balk, there being too much national scrutiny involved, but they could.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 04:59 PM   #1912
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
Perfectly correct, but there's a loophole. The MSOs are going to be moving to tru2way for their own equipment, but there is nothing that prevents them from refusing to allow a 3rd party tru2way device to be used by a consumer. There are any number of people right now in CATV systems who are attempting to refuse to allow the installation of CableCard systems. They haven't a legal leg on which to stand, but if it were a tru2way device, they would. There's also nothing which says CableLabs has to certify any device for tru2way use, no matter what specs it meets. OTOH, at that level I don't think they will balk, there being too much national scrutiny involved, but they could.
Implementation of <tru2way> makes absolutely no sense for the cable providers, except as it give them control over the user interface presented in third party products. It's hugely expensive in memory and processing power and they could do all of the things that they want to do with custom IPGs programmed for specific boxes and pay far less per unit. ROI from leased cable boxes is minimal and takes a long time to realize and no matter what they do, no huge percentage of their subscribership is going to choose to buy their own equipment, so they really don't need to worry much about that. They've only been working on portable interactive services at the behest of the FCC and they dragged their feet until they could come up with a solution that gives them a lot of control of the equipment in your living room--<tru2way> is that solution.

<tru2way> does have some advantages for the cable providers vis-a-vis their leased equipment in that there should eventually be a large range of compliant STBs, and they can pick and choose among them dynamically (like the wireless carriers freely pick and choose which mobile handsets to offer). They never would have gone to all this trouble (and it ain't over) just to get that.

It's true that they could legally balk at supporting third-party <tru2way> equipment, but it would be pretty much suicidal, since they've been spending a lot of time and energy publicly romancing CE OEMs into building <tru2way> support into their upcoming retail products, both televisions and STBs. They'd get raked over the coals by the press and their competition would find some way to mock them in their advertisements.

Again, hopefully the FCC will codify required support for <tru2way> into the regs and become a source of final recourse for product compliance testing, as they are for compliance to the UDCR specifications. Since it's a response to an FCC ask that's where I'd assume things are going.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 05:40 PM   #1913
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,119
I would suspect that once tru2way is supported by the MSO for their own equipment, and that separable security can be implemented via software via tru2way, then MSOs will cease support for CableCARD. They are not required to provide two means of separable security. They can readily stop supporting new CableCARD connections, and sunset support for existing CableCARD connections over a period of a couple of years.
__________________

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 09-06-2008, 05:59 PM   #1914
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
I would suspect that once tru2way is supported by the MSO for their own equipment, and that separable security can be implemented via software via tru2way, then MSOs will cease support for CableCARD. They are not required to provide two means of separable security. They can readily stop supporting new CableCARD connections, and sunset support for existing CableCARD connections over a period of a couple of years.
The current FCC requirement is that they support S-Cards (with a priviso that they can additionally support any more advanced cards as they come along, which they have, with M-Cards, which are interchangeable with S-Cards)--Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, §76.630(b)(3):
Quote:
(3) Cable operators shall ensure, as to all digital cable systems, an adequate supply of PODs that comply with the standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to ensure convenient access to such PODS by customers. Without limiting the foregoing, cable operators may provide more advanced PODs ( i.e. , PODs that are based on successor standards to those specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section) to customers whose unidirectional digital cable products are compatible with the more advanced PODs.
Though I'm sure that they'll be allowed to drop support for CableCARDs at some future point, if they were allowed to drop support for them as they felt like it, all of us who are dependent on them (i.e., CableCARD model TiVo users) would be screwed.

They're planning to move away from the use of CableCARDs themselves with something called DCAS (Downloadable Conditional Access System), a separate initiative from <tru2way>, requiring that products incorporate special secure processors into which code for proprietary security protocols and encryption/decryption can be safely downloaded. When that becomes reality, they'll certainly phase out the use of CableCARDs in their leased boxes, but it won't relieve them of responsibility to support them in consumer products.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 06:16 PM   #1915
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
<tru2way> does have some advantages for the cable providers vis-a-vis their leased equipment in that there should eventually be a large range of compliant STBs, and they can pick and choose among them dynamically (like the wireless carriers freely pick and choose which mobile handsets to offer). They never would have gone to all this trouble (and it ain't over) just to get that.
No, but add to it their loathing of DCR+...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
It's true that they could legally balk at supporting third-party <tru2way> equipment, but it would be pretty much suicidal, since they've been spending a lot of time and energy publicly romancing CE OEMs into building <tru2way> support into their upcoming retail products, both televisions and STBs. They'd get raked over the coals by the press and their competition would find some way to mock them in their advertisements.
It would be suicidal for MSOs to make it official policy. The actions of individual metropolitan providers is another matter, even if they are a division of an MSO. Look at the number of people in this forum who have been told flat out by CSRs or installers in MSO owned systems that they do not support CableCards. In addition, there are plenty of systems not owned by MSOs, and indeed not even members of CableLabs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
Again, hopefully the FCC will codify required support for <tru2way> into the regs and become a source of final recourse for product compliance testing, as they are for compliance to the UDCR specifications.
I suggest you refrain from holding your breath in the mean time.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 07:59 PM   #1916
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
Look at the number of people in this forum who have been told flat out by CSRs or installers in MSO owned systems that they do not support CableCards.
I hadn't heard any stories of that. Can you point to some threads? These people actually went to the FCC and complained about this violation of regs and got no satisfaction? (I thought that plug-and-play might exempt older, sub-750MHz capacity systems, but I just checked and those are merely exempted from compliance with a few specific standards, including implementing PSIP in streams containing unencrypted channels. Everyone using QAM for video transport qualifies as a "digital cable system" and must support CableCARD).
__________________
Mike Scott

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

Last edited by mikeyts : 09-06-2008 at 10:03 PM.
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 08:42 PM   #1917
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
I hadn't heard any stories of that. Can you point to some threads?
There are a lot of them. I really don't feel like searching through a couple of dozen threads right now to find examples. Suffice it to say a significant number of the people on this forum have reported that the CSR and / or installer claimed their system did not support CableCards, and CSRs are infamous for refusing to get a supervisor on the line. It's also true that it's rapidly getting to be less common, but there is at least one thread on this forum specifically devoted to such an instance:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb...ht=brighthouse

There was also a new post just a couple of days ago in a different thread from someone who was told their provider did not support CableCards, and another who was strongly counseled against getting a Series III TiVo because he would lose services, when he already had a CableCard in his TV and no STB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
These people actually went to the FCC and complained about this violation of regs and got no satisfaction?
No, other than one guy in Puerto Rico, I think, ultimately I'm sure they were eventually able to resolve the issue. The point is, however, they are required by law to support CableCards in UDCP systems certified by CableLabs. They are not required by law to support any 2-way system of any sort, regardless of certification. That doesn't necessarily mean they won't, but they don't have to, and if the CSR or installer refuses to take the case, there's far less recourse available. I'm not saying it will happen, or even will be necessarily very commonplace, but it's not totally unlikely it might happen to some people.

Last edited by lrhorer : 09-06-2008 at 08:47 PM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2008, 04:30 AM   #1918
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 9,119
And that's a good point, and why I'm not necessarily celebrating the fact that they have to continue supporting CableCARD even after they come up with an alternative: A lot of these rules are easy to ignore, because the details of them are not generally enforced. As long as folks keep ratifying a pro-business perspective at the federal level (and, for full disclosure, I generally do, and do so without reservation), then there will always be a gap between what's right for consumers and what is the reality consumers have to accept.
__________________

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 09-08-2008, 01:54 PM   #1919
MichaelK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
...

<tru2way> does have some advantages for the cable providers vis-a-vis their leased equipment in that there should eventually be a large range of compliant STBs, and they can pick and choose among them dynamically (like the wireless carriers freely pick and choose which mobile handsets to offer). They never would have gone to all this trouble (and it ain't over) just to get that.
....

I'm no expert but there are lots of bits on the internet (so consider the source) that the above is a major part of this. It breaks the back of the moto + SA/cisco doupoly. Comcast as an example has already contracted for piles of OCAP boxes from panasonic.

Seem's plausible to me that much of this is to "get the duopoly" in line.
MichaelK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 02:13 PM   #1920
MichaelK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
I hadn't heard any stories of that. Can you point to some threads? ....
here's mine...


moved to cable from directv with S3 introduction. 2 S3's worked fine for ~2 years with cablecards- small regional system called Patriot Media.

Patriot bought up by comcast.

My package pricing from patriot is up and comcast calls to 'convert' us to a new comcast package and gets my wife. Sales scumbag leads me wife to beleive that cable boxes are REQUIRED for new comcast packages- cablecards no longer will work. My wife is not an idiot- she has a college degree and then some- but she is not at all familiar with cablecard rules and all this BS. Perhaps the comcast salesperson used the appropriate legal terms but she made sure to leave my wife with the impression that tivo was dead and now we had to get their boxes. So my wife makes appointment to get these new boxes installed.

My wife tells me the story and I quickly explain that's not the case and call comcast to resolve it. I call comcast and get a new person and explain that my 4 cablecards are working just fine and to concel this stupid install appt. CSR agrees.

SCUMBAG saleswomen calls not 10 minutes later (must have been notified electronically that her bonus for deploying their boxes was being reduced by my call) and tries to "explain" to me why i "NEED" their boxes for all the vod stuff they offer. I tell her no thanks and she relents.

Some lowlife- likely the salesperson then reschedules the install for a new date. Comcast CSR's calls me on my cell phone while I'm at work and scolds me for not being home for installer and his new boxes. I tell her no thanks.

A couple days later, my tivo's start acting up. I get pissed off- thinking that 9.4 is acting screwy and is missing random recordings. After a couple hours of trouble shooting, I figure out someone at comcast has disabled 3 of my 4 cablecards. So now I have to call again and get them turned back on- wait on hold 7 minutes to get a csr who puts me on hold 3 minutes to "investigate"- he comes back after he figured out who to transfer me to. Transfers me and I sit on hold for another 10 minutes till someone who knows how to enable my cards finally helps me.

Had enough? It's clear that the average Joe who doesn't frequent these boards and read like a fiend on the internet may have been persuaded by all this to ditch tivo and go with the cable company's DVR.

I'm certain there is no written policy from comcast to attempt to push people away from tivo. But there is clearly a culture or lack of training/systems at play that in the real world that do discourage the use of cablecards. So sure people who are savy enough on the issues know to demand cards and fight "the man" to get them and installed. But plenty would be pushed away.

As irhorer said- it's not corporate wide but probably just some local inbred who culturally are against the cards.
MichaelK 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 04:03 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |