Help correct the FCC record re: Tuning Adapters

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by dlfl, Jun 23, 2010.

  1. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,142
    827
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH

    Advertisements

    Do you agree with these statements filed with the FCC in comments by the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and Time Warner Corporation (TWC) on or about 15 June 2010:

    NCTA:
    TWC:

    If you don't agree with these statements (or if you do agree), you can file a comment very easily at this link:

    http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=97-80

    This is in the overall context of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the FCC's NPRM of 26 April 2010, "Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
    Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices,
    Compatibility Between Cable Systems and
    Consumer Electronics Equipment" (Proceedings 97-80)

    On the linked page are links to view all the associated FCC documents and to file a comment. I suggest the "ECFS Express" method at this link:

    http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=brxhu

    If you file a comment, it along with your name and address will be published on the 97-80 page linked above. (No anonymous smears allowed!)

    There's a lot of easily reachable information in the various public and FCC filings linked on the 97-80 page.
     
  2. CraigHB

    CraigHB __________

    809
    0
    Dec 24, 2003
    Reno, NV
    The filing TiVo made pretty much says it all.

    http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020505199

    I'd actually like to second that particular filing, but I think you have to create a new filing to do that. Not a very friendly system to show support one way or the other.

    The suggestion TiVo has made about IP based communications with the head end sounds like a really efficient and inexpensive way to go. Leave it to cable companies to come up with the most proprietary and convoluted solution possible. Those cable companies are determined to do the exact same thing AT&T did back in the 70's with their telephone equipment. The government put a stop to that behavior in a big way. They should be doing the same now.

    I believe the current situation violates the intent of the original legistaltion and there has been a total failure in providing real-world 3rd party access. The tuning adapter requirement has all but removed any shred of compliance. Those filings made by the cable operators are simply a knee-jerk response as if there was no problem before SDV, which isn't true.

    I don't really know what to say in a filing, it looks very formal. It would be nice if I could just add concurrance to an existing statement somwhere.
     
  3. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,142
    827
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    If you use that **express link** I provided, a "filing" (of a comment) is not much more complicated than composing an email. You just put in "97-80" for the proceedings #. Why not just say what you said in your post? You can reference the TiVo filing, put in a link to it, or copy and quote parts of it in your comments.

    As you can see, most comments are filed by the vested special interests. If individuals don't file comments, they are relying on the diligence of the FCC staff to somehow ferret out what customers really think. Are you comfortable with that?
     
  4. nrc

    nrc Cracker Soul

    2,491
    35
    Nov 17, 1999
    Living in a...
    I think it's very important for consumers to weigh in this topic. While TiVo's filing may reflect reality in the field, the FCC has no obligation to give their filing more weight than the cable industry filings. It's only through feedback from consumers that they can see the truth of the situation.

    Filing doesn't have to be as formal as what TiVo has produced. In fact, if you've posted a cable card or tuning adapter horror story here or elsewhere I'd urge you to file and quote liberally from your own account.
     
  5. cwoody222

    cwoody222 Well-Known Member

    12,007
    482
    Nov 13, 1999
    Buffalo, NY

    Advertisements

    It says 87-90 is "closed"?

    My comment:
    I strongly disagree with Time Warner's comments about Switched Digital Video Adapters. As a recent consumer that had CableCARDs and a tuning adapter installed the process was far from easy. I needed 2 service appointments and spent over 5 hours with customer service on the phone. TW employees are NOT familiar with the purpose of the tuning adapter or how to troubleshoot or install them. Even the best tech I had help from (who finally got everything working) knew less about TiVo than I did. If I did not press them, call them, tweet them, complain to them, do my own research and just overall was persistent, I have zero faith TW would have got my TiVo working properly. The system is a mess for the average consumer, no doubt.
     
  6. wesmills

    wesmills New Member

    56
    0
    Mar 8, 2006
    That's because it's 97-80. :)

    I uploaded my comments, including on the integration ban waiver and the other points for which the FCC sought comment. This is trivially easy; people should definitely get involved.
     
  7. cwoody222

    cwoody222 Well-Known Member

    12,007
    482
    Nov 13, 1999
    Buffalo, NY
    Done, I submitted.
     
  8. Bort13

    Bort13 TiVo Junkie

    41
    0
    May 28, 2002
    Chicago, IL USA
    I filed.
     
  9. ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    I think the integration ban was aimed at letting companies go digital more easily as they could provide simple free DTA box for folks being moved off analog. Also I think it wasa carrot to get the cable companies playing ball on the gateway idea.
     
  10. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,142
    827
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    The 97-80 Proceedings "home" page I referenced in the first post of this thread only lists the 40 most recent comments "filings". Thus, for example the Time Warner filing I quoted from has fallen off the bottom of the list. However, this page also has a link near the top called "Search for Comments in 97-80" that will allow you to find all the comments filings.

    Just FYI, the NCTA filing I quoted from is:

    http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6015649948

    and the Time Warner filing I quoted from is:

    http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6015649845

    The Time Warner quotes are blatant examples of lack of good faith on their part. The management responsible for these statements has either (1) isolated themselves from the reality of company operations (which is inexcusable misfeasance) or (2) just plain lied. (malfeasance).
     
  11. nrc

    nrc Cracker Soul

    2,491
    35
    Nov 17, 1999
    Living in a...
    Good job guys. Some really good comments so far. Still trying to collect thoughts for my contribution.

    This is a really great opportunity. Think of it as your chance to tell the FCC, and your cable company, exactly what you think about how they operate with regard to set-top boxes, cableCARD, tuning adapters, etc.
     
  12. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,142
    827
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    Come on folks, keep those cards and letters, err... comments filings coming!

    TWC and NCTA file ridiculous statements like those quoted in the first post because they believe they will get away with it, i.e., their customers will not get involved and call them on it. It takes only a small effort on your part to prove them wrong!
     
  13. orangeboy

    orangeboy yes, I AM orangeboy!

    4,089
    0
    Apr 19, 2004
    East Moline, IL
    Is 97-80 the appropriate filing to support taking application of the CCI byte out of the hands of the cable operators, and solely in the hands of the content providers?
     
  14. shaown

    shaown Member

    296
    0
    Jun 30, 2002
    I made a comment to, stole some of the above text and added my own points.
     
  15. CraigHB

    CraigHB __________

    809
    0
    Dec 24, 2003
    Reno, NV
    Okay, comment submitted.
     
  16. innocentfreak

    innocentfreak Well-Known Member

    9,232
    54
    Aug 25, 2001
    Florida
    I don't think it would hurt to mention it, but I don't think it is so I wouldn't use it for the only reason for my submission.

    Since it is a cable labs decision, I don't think it would hurt to have the opinions also on file towards the potential Allvid solution and what rules may apply.
     
  17. Dr_Zoidberg

    Dr_Zoidberg Member

    283
    15
    Jan 4, 2004
    I've submitted. Thanks for the link!
     
  18. orangeboy

    orangeboy yes, I AM orangeboy!

    4,089
    0
    Apr 19, 2004
    East Moline, IL
    Thanks. I did some digging around, and I believe the appropriate Filing is 03-255, "Plug and Play", based on the following text:

    It is my opinion that the liberal application of CCI byte x02 by the operator contrary to the content owner's original CCI byte setting is a clear violation of Section 629:

    Application of CCI byte x02 by the operator denies the use of the MRV service to navigation devices NOT offered by the MVPD service provider, when the content owner has this byte set to x00. If the content owner's intention is to allow "copy freely", the operator should not change the byte. Please correct me or explain why the operator has any right to change the CCI byte to something other than the content owner's intended setting. I just don't see how changing the CCI byte prevents theft of service...
     
  19. CountRugen

    CountRugen New Member

    1
    0
    Jun 26, 2010
    Comment Submitted
     
  20. Macros_1

    Macros_1 New Member

    18
    0
    Apr 22, 2010
    Comment Submitted
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements