A little rant about Time Warner killing MRV on Tivo HD

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by convergent, Jul 14, 2009.

  1. Jul 15, 2009 #21 of 142
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    55,588
    8,106
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada

    Advertisements

    The ONLY reason TWC is allowing him to use a TiVo, instead of forcing him to use a provided DVR like Dish and DirecTV do, is because the government forced them to so. If the CableCARD law had not been passed a few years back then cable would be no different then DSS with regard to DVR options.

    Personally I think the government should step up an impose a similar law on the DSS providers. DirecTV and Dish combined make up 30% of the pay TV market in the US. That is more then enough that they should be held to the same standards and practices that the cable companies are.

    Obviously, due to technology differences, they couldn't actually use CableCARDs. But they could come up with some sort of unified standard that would work similar to CableCARD. That would allow 3rd parties like TiVo to offer their service to everyone regardless of who their TV provider was.

    Dan
     
  2. Jul 15, 2009 #22 of 142
    lafos

    lafos Well-Known Member

    1,428
    33
    Nov 7, 2004
    Sioux Falls, SD
    I don't know what convergent has, but I have a pair of Samsung T220HD ToC TV's and they lack composite or s-video inputs.
     
  3. Jul 15, 2009 #23 of 142
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    This part seems to have been missed in the discussion so far. It sounds like they have set the "copy never" flag on this channel. I gather that it's a premium channel, but NOT pay per view or video on demand, is that right? If so, it is absolutely against FCC regulations to set the channel to "copy never." Legally, they can set "copy once," which is what blocks you from using MRV, but they cannot set "copy never" except for pay per view or video on demand.
     
  4. Jul 15, 2009 #24 of 142
    Phantom Gremlin

    Phantom Gremlin Active Member

    1,581
    5
    Jun 20, 2002
    Tualatin,...
    The DirecTV box has already slipped from 2009 to 2010. Even if ships in January 2010, that's not IMO "soon".

    Based on TiVo's utter incompetence at delivering these products (just how many years has the Comcast box slipped?) I'll wager $100 that the box will ship closer to January 2011 than to January 2010.
     
  5. Jul 15, 2009 #25 of 142
    Enrique

    Enrique Well-Known Member

    5,123
    32
    May 15, 2006

    Advertisements

    "Soon" to me is up to five years out. The original HD Tivo was released on May 7, 2004 so whats another 2 years waiting in getting one that works with DirecTV current HD channels (At least we're getting one after all).
     
  6. Jul 15, 2009 #26 of 142
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    The solution (for the TiVo Sereis II class machines) has been out there for, oh, about 2 years.
     
  7. Jul 15, 2009 #27 of 142
    mattack

    mattack Well-Known Member

    25,795
    698
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    Does that "extra innings" count as PPV?

    someone please give the actual details, but I thought that *that* level of restriction was enforced by the FCC to be only for PPV.
     
  8. Jul 15, 2009 #28 of 142
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    What you have there is a nail whose head has been squarely hit.

    There are myriad things the government should do. What it will do is protect its income, mostly in the form of bribes.

    Well, yeah, they could. The two technologies could be merged without too much trouble. There would have to be legacy support, of course, for older models, but there's nothing fundamentally preventing a move to a single separable security device standard for all pay TV services.
     
  9. Jul 15, 2009 #29 of 142
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    'Not impatient, are we?

    To me it seems barely the blink of an eye since I purchased my first personal computer. That was 1979. I could have been angst ridden over the delay in providing a 32 bit computing platform, but instead I simply enjoyed the computer I had, and then in 1985 bought a 386. I could have rushed out to buy a Series II when it came out, but instead I waited until a more fully featured system - the S3 - came out, and then purchased one (and then another, and another...).

    I don't see that I was greatly deprived or suffered in any significant way using a 16 bit computer or a Series I TiVo all those years. In fact, I had a blast.

    Since you find them so incompetent, obviously you must have the answer to how they should have handled the situation. Would you care to share this wisdom with the rest of us?
     
  10. Jul 15, 2009 #30 of 142
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Or it is a local OTA broadcast channel. The point is, however, they LIE about it. Whether the CSR is just stupid, misinformed, or just plain lazy, it is still a public misrepresentation of fact by an authorized agent of the CATV company.

    It's very likely the CSR simply hasn't a clue. The fact the CATV company often hires minimum wage high school dropouts to man their support lines aside, corporate TWC often deliberately prevents its employees from learning too much about the business side of the house. Two of the most evil, slimy, utterly dishonest people I have ever known personally were a VP of public relations and a VP of human resources with TWC. One was jailed for perjury and fraud, and the other finally was forced to resign for reasons unknown to me. I suspect, to paraphrase "The Duke" from Man of LaMancha, she probably suffered, "A lapse of judgement. She told the truth." Either way, whetehr through deliberate misrepresentation to its employees or failing to see to it they are properly informed, it's a lie.

    A friend of mine, still a manager at TWC, once complained to the local President and GM of the San Antonio system in a large meeting, "All you want is mushrooms. Just mushrooms."

    Puzzled, the GM asked, "Mushrooms?"

    "That's right," he said. "All you want to do is keep us in the dark and feed us $#!t."

    It's just one of many reasons I was so happy to leave the company. From what my friends tell me, they haven't improved much in the intervening years.
     
  11. Jul 16, 2009 #31 of 142
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Where the shoe fits...


    The next part of the discussion presumes that they're applying the protection flags deliberately, which is one of two reasonable assumptions (the other being that they're doing so by mistake, which is also a reasonable assumption).
    Gosh... a for-profit company that wants to foster profits. Shocker!

    Yup, there isn't 100% agreement about whether doing this helps more than hurts profit. Both decisions (applying the protection and not applying the protection) are reasonable.

    That they offer you the service at a price you're willing to pay, and still willing to pay, despite them blocking your DVRing it. That's what it tells me.

    And that's also a reasonable decision on your part.

    My point was that you didn't rant about them, and their transgressions were far far far worse with regard to provision of service to you.

    If you had worded your original message as just looking for a solution to your problem, that would make sense. However, you worded your original message as a rant, so replies to your ranting are appropriate here, not just solutions to your problem.

    I was drawing a distinction between the relatively minor foibles of TWC you were complaining about as compared to the relatively humongous offenses of Dish Network and DirecTV, for which you failed to devote a proportional amount of your rant towards condemning. I was pointing out how little perspective you were demonstrating in your rant, focusing so much attention on the small problem, and relatively little attention on the big problems.

    Business is a two-way street: Suppliers offer what they're willing to offer, and buyers purchase what, of that offered, they're willing to buy. By fixating only on what you're "willing to buy" and acting all indignant when a company makes decisions about what they're willing to offer, and how they're willing to offer it, you're not being reasonable.

    There is real competition. You already mentioned that there was, and that the two competitors are worse (for you). With three competitors, and you dissatisfied with the best of them, I question whether the problem is your holding unfounded expectations, rather than what the suppliers are offering. I'm not saying that they're perfect and you're a mutant. I'm saying that things are the way they are, and you're working really hard to be unhappy, setting yourself up for disappointment, by fostering a lot of unfounded expectations.

    As I said before, it's a two-way street. You presented a very one-sided, biased perspective, and I provided the balance that was missing from your side of things. I believe reality is something in the middle, so your comments plus mine equal equals reality.

    As I already said, it is "perfectly legal" for them to be blocking it.

    If it would foster profits, surely. If they didn't, then I would check my stock portfolio, and if I found that I was a TWC stockholder, or had some other standing as an owner in a fund that owns TWC stock, I would look into suing them for dereliction of their fiduciary duty to me, if they deliberately avoided doing things that fostered profit, like that.

    I don't specifically disagree, but I will point out that that whole model is substantially less efficient, from a resources standpoint, than the cable television distribution model. It simply uses up more bandwidth since each viewer needs their own stream.

    I'm sure, when the time comes, if you continue to wallow in unfounded expectations, you'll rant about the ramifications of this inefficiency, too, such as bandwidth caps, and such.

    In other words, you think that suppliers should be focused more on you than on their owners. In other words, entitled.
     
  12. Jul 16, 2009 #32 of 142
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Exactly: Now ask yourself why the government doesn't require them to let him DVR MLB, and why the government explicitly allows them to apply CCI flags. Hmmmmmmmm..... maybe it is because that the government, as representatives of our society, need to balance the needs of consumers and business.

    I agree completely, and that was really a good part of my point, earlier. People make all these silly little rants about the cable companies, when the real transgressors are circling the planet at 22,000 miles. Until we get the satellite services to comply with all the same laws that the cable companies are subject to, I think it is myopic to omit complaints against the satellite services whenever one could be applicable in the context of a complaint against a cable company.

    The law doesn't require CableCARD: It doesn't even require every cable company to use the same separable security technology -- heck the law would even allow a different separable security solution for different areas within the same cable company. So surely the law can be extended to satellite services, as is, without any changes.
     
  13. Jul 16, 2009 #33 of 142
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    What did you think "non-broadcast" meant? :confused:

    First, you evidently have no idea what the term "authorized agent" means. Employees, even front-line CSRs, are not automatically "authorized agents" of their employer. That to which they can obligate the enterprise is strictly limited, by law. You can choose to wallow in an unreasonable perspective of what a CSR should and shouldn't know, say or do, but I'll choose to remain on Earth and stick with reasonable perspectives, thankyouverymuch.

    And the fact that you actually knew that makes your transgression in this regard even worse.
     
  14. Jul 16, 2009 #34 of 142
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    Is MLB Extra Innings pay per view or video on demand? If it isn't, I'd like to point out again that the government DOES NOT let them apply the CCI flags that they are applying.
     
  15. Jul 16, 2009 #35 of 142
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    What's frustrating is that I get the impression that in many cases, they aren't doing it to foster profits. They're doing it either by mistake or on a whim. Someone doesn't know what settings to use, so they set "copy once" because they figure they won't get in trouble for setting it more strictly than necessary.

    And what profits would they be trying to foster, anyway? It's not like they offer an option to record/use MRV for an additional fee. Unless they have their own multi-room DVR (I think Verizon has one?), I don't see how setting the flags enables them to collect more money.
     
  16. Jul 16, 2009 #36 of 142
    jwagner010

    jwagner010 Member

    74
    6
    Dec 8, 2007
    Bicker works for TWC and he is just feeding the same BS to this forum that you get from the TWC service Reps. But then again after we vote wiith our wallets he will be caught in their latest round of downsizing and will not be able to afford his ISP and he will go away. Please Bicker go away no one wants your BS here.
     
  17. Jul 16, 2009 #37 of 142
    MickeS

    MickeS Well-Known Member

    25,986
    25
    Dec 26, 2002
    That's not true. As much as I often disagree with him, I enjoy his writings. You just need to take them with a cup of salt due to the built in bias. ;)
     
  18. Jul 16, 2009 #38 of 142
    jwagner010

    jwagner010 Member

    74
    6
    Dec 8, 2007
    Then who does he work for if thats not true !!!!!!
     
  19. Jul 16, 2009 #39 of 142
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    By that theory Bicker must work for a lot of different companies - I'm surprised he'd have any time to post on the net. :)

    But seriously, what would be the fun if we only talked to people who agreed with us about everything? It would just be a bunch of people standing around congratulating each other about how right they are.
     
  20. Jul 16, 2009 #40 of 142
    jwagner010

    jwagner010 Member

    74
    6
    Dec 8, 2007
    Perhaps something would get done !!!!! Think about that for a minute.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements