All you have to do is ask nicely

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Jeanesco, Nov 3, 2011.

  1. Nov 3, 2011 #1 of 49
    Jeanesco

    Jeanesco akaAlphaWolf Rakeesh

    95
    0
    Dec 29, 2003
    And your cable provider just might stop copy protecting every channel.

    Worked for me on cox anyways.

    http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r26493685-CATV-AZ-Need-help-from-a-cox-employee

    Wouldn't have cared in the past (my tivo hd is hacked to ignore the CCI byte) but I just got an hdhomerun prime a few days ago and that one hasn't yet been cracked, so I needed a little help from cox this time around. :D

    greets from ddb btw.
     
  2. Nov 3, 2011 #2 of 49
    djwilso

    djwilso Member

    598
    2
    Dec 23, 2006
    Phoenix, AZ
    Wow...

    I will check this later (I'm in Phoenix too), but if true, it is awesome.

    Great job for finally finding someone that could get in contact with somebody that knew how to change this.

    Now I wonder how long it will last...
     
  3. Nov 3, 2011 #3 of 49
    djwilso

    djwilso Member

    598
    2
    Dec 23, 2006
    Phoenix, AZ
    Checked and confirmed on both of my TiVos. Awesome.
     
  4. Nov 3, 2011 #4 of 49
    aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    That's interesting. I never understood their motives for protecting the content anyway. Why do they care? They don't own the content. The content owners are not asking them to do it. It's just one more way of them controlling YOU, the consumer.

    I bet someone at Cox either didn't know that it was turned on or they gave someone the ability to turn it off who shouldn't have it.
     
  5. Nov 3, 2011 #5 of 49
    shwru980r

    shwru980r Well-Known Member

    2,969
    290
    Jun 22, 2008
    If the cable company DVR can stream content, then copy protection gives them a competitive advantage over Tivo, because copy protection disables MRV for the copy protected channel.
     
  6. Nov 3, 2011 #6 of 49
    innocentfreak

    innocentfreak Well-Known Member

    9,201
    46
    Aug 25, 2001
    Florida
    It isn't their fault TiVo doesn't stream.
     
  7. Nov 3, 2011 #7 of 49
    aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    I don't think the cable companies care about being an "advantage" over Tivo. Tivo is barely a blip on the radar compared to these gigantic companies.
     
  8. Nov 4, 2011 #8 of 49
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Financially speaking, you are certainly correct. Technologically speaking, however, they are essentially paranoid. I don't really understand it any better than you, and I didn't even when I worked for a CATV company. The only thing I can say is they are practically rabid about people stealing service. For that I don't blame them, but they seem to allow that to engender compulsively obsessive control impulses. Or something. Whatever the source, they are bordering on psychotic when it comes to having 100% control of the system and everything attached to it, even to the extent of costing themselves a considerable amount of revenue by refusing by policy to allow 3rd party devices to deliver VOD and IPPV service.
     
  9. Nov 4, 2011 #9 of 49
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    In some cases, they do. Does the name "Warner" mean anything to you... as in "Warner Brothers"? 'Notice any similarity between that name and "Time Warner Cable", who employs the most aggressive copy protection in the industry? The connection is not direct, but it is there and it is deeply ingrained. Note Verizon, who has the least connections to the content owners also has the least restrictive Copy Protection.

    Actually, they are. The MPAA is lobbying every which way from next Sunday to make it so no one can copy anything. The content providers are not, for the most part, but the content owners are.

    Well, that seems to be true, too.
     
  10. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,887
    702
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    Imagine that. :rolleyes: Just like your posting complaints here is one of your ways of trying to "control" (influence is a more accurate term) them. If they had their way, you would pay $1,000/mo for their service and have no tech support. If you had your way, you would pay $10/mo. and have 24/7 instant-response free service by highly motivated and competent techs. But we live in the real world. They don't get their way because almost nobody would subscribe with their desired terms, and you don't get your way because they would be bankrupt in a week. (This rant dedicated to the memory of bicker.)
    That was my thought. This incident resulted more from accident and inattention than anything else.
     
  11. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    I had not even thought of that. Still though, I believe this kind of thinking influences a lot of people to just pirate content. They are not doing themselves any favors. Granted TWC, is big but they are certainly not the only provider in the world. The content is readily available to steal anyway. Implementing these restrictions is doing nothing to keep it from being stolen.
     
  12. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    I tend to agree with you. That doesn't prevent them from thinking they are controlling the situation. The same folks thought VCRs would bankrupt them.
     
  13. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Someone (Samuel Clemens?) once defined a compromise as an agreement with which no one is happy.

    Whatever happened to him, anyway? There was no notice of his departure, and I don't think he was banned. After 9004 posts, he suddenly quit posting, and we haven't had a peep out of him for over a year. His personal web page is also blank. Maybe someone finally investigated his business practices and Sarbanes–Oxley has him in the hoosegow?

    I hope not, actually, and I hope nothing bad happened to him.

    Yeah, probably. 'Ever hear of the "bedbug" letter?
     
  14. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Yes, but aadam101 isn't trying to be Big Brother - at least I don't think he is.

    Yes, but they have gotten their way, at least in part, when it comes to forcing the owner of 3rd party equipment to allow any software they deem useful, including spyware, on the equipment with no way for the user to stop it or even know it is there.
     
  15. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    I am not sure how my posting on a Tivo website is trying to "control" or "influence" decisions that are made by Cox or any other cable company. As far as I know these companies are not reading my posts and have no vested interest in anything I have to say nor are they under any obligation to listen to me.

    I am not even a customer of a cable company who uses copy protection. I am free to copy programs on every one of my channels, including premium channels.
     
  16. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,887
    702
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    His (bicker's) last activity on the forum was over a year ago. I know he was no youngster so ...... :confused:

    I respected him and the positions he took here, although he was frequently rather abrasive in style and we locked horns sometimes. I have no reason to suspect his business practices -- don't know where you got that from.
     
  17. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,887
    702
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    That was my basic point.
    The key words there are ".. at least in part..". One also could say we (TiVo users) have gotten our way, at least in part, by virtue of them having to provide Tuning Adapters and CableCARDs so we can have stand-alone DVR's, which is adverse to their business interests.
    Sorry. As usual, I didn't choose a good example to make my point, which is that both parties to any agreement (which is a compromise per Mr. Clemens) will try to control (or influence) the terms of the agreement. Although aadam101 apparently is not doing this with his posts here, there are others who do, and in general we try to control/infuence the cable cos via the FCC. I think it would be just as logical for the cable cos to say "CableCARD and Tuning Adapters are just another way that TiVo owners control us". In other words there are two sides to the story and I don't see the justification for saying one side has the moral high ground.
     
  18. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    I don't see it as a question of morality. I see it as a question of consumer friendliness. As a consumer, I want companies to be as consumer friendly as possible. Since I am paying for a product or service, I want the company to cater to me and make me want to purchase more products and services from them.

    With most companies, I have a choice and if I don't like the practices of one company, I can switch to another. Unfortunately, this is not always the case with cable/internet service. While we have gotten more choices over the past decade or so it is still a monopolistic industry.
     
  19. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    CableCards are definitely not adverse to their business interests. They are the ones who proposed and defined the spec, remember? They were also instrumental in developing the entire idea of separable security. They weren't entirely happy with all the compromises made - and in some cases forced upon them - along the way, but that's a little different matter. It's true they want to migrate to a downloadable security solution, but they are the ones who haven't been able to make that work, not consumers and not the CE manufacturers.

    The TA is arguably adverse to what they believe are their business interests, but it is also arguable their perception is incorrect - just as the MPAA's perception of the impact of VCRs was laughably wrong. You are certainly correct, however, they would rather not have to deal with 3rd party devices. OTOH, don't forget they were the ones who proposed the TA. Of course, it wasn't because they really wanted the TA as a solution. It was because they wanted to forestall the FCC from mandating DCR as a solution.

    Well, yeah. I don't think the question here is a matter of morality, per se. It's a matter of what is best for the industry. The thing that many businesses forget is the consumer is every bit as much a part of the industry as the manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retailer. The entire system is a partnership between those who provide the product and those who consume it. In the long term, that which is bad for the consumer is usually not good for the producers, either.

    In addition, it is also unfortunately true that many people in business, from executives on down, don't really care about the business, either. All they care about is their own profit, and if that profit harms the business or even eventually bankrupts the business, they really don't care.
     
  20. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Are you sure about that? Sometimes his posts seemed to be those of a very inexperienced individual. They also were sometimes childish, although admittedly some people never leave adolescence.

    I sometimes did. When he became petty and obtuse I certainly did not. He also was sometimes inconsistent and selectively forgetful. Many times I have seen him accuse others of being argumentative when he was the one who started the argument.

    Well, that too, but I really had little concerns over that. My issue with him was he rarely supported his statements with facts (and even less often verifiable ones), and almost never addressed the factual statements of others in his replies. The moment someone came up with a cold, hard fact that refuted some aspect of his tirade, rather than counter with a valid explanation or contrary facts, he would almost invariably start a personal attack on the individual.

    I certainly have no specific knowledge that he ever indulged in any unethical or illegal practices, so my statement may be unfair, even though it was meant as a bit of a joke. It's just that his attitude reminded me very much of that of the execs at Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, and Hewlett Packard, among others. Arthur Andersen had a large office in the same building as our business office here in San Antonio. Many of them had similar attitudes, and I avoided them for many years prior to the Enron scandal. I was not particularly amused when a number of them came to us looking for a job. I don't think I would care to hire bicker, either, although I would have to meet him personally before I would make such a decision.
     

Share This Page