Tuning Adapter: YES! ...Now onto the CCI flag

Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by skaggs, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. Oct 3, 2009 #201 of 238
    djwilso

    djwilso Member

    598
    2
    Dec 23, 2006
    Phoenix, AZ

    Advertisements

    That makes me want FIOS even more. But, in Phoenix, it'll probably be years before it ever comes here.

    I'm certainly not into piracy as I pay monthly subscriptions for both HBO and Showtime, but I would like to watch transferred shows on the device of my choice.

    With Cox cable, none of that is possible.
     
  2. Oct 3, 2009 #202 of 238
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    'Sorry for the very delayed reply, but I just spotted this. In this case, the MPAA cannot be pitted against the CATV companies, because the CATV companies themselves have only a peripheral interest in the issue. It is the MPAA which wants the CCI byte set, not really the CATV companies per se. Note the MPAA has a huge influence in the CATV industry. Who is the most agressive CATV company in this respect? Time Warner. It is not a coincidence that Time Warner Cable used to be a minor holding of the company whose major holding is Warner Brothers. The various members of the MPAA still hold large amounts of stock in various CATV companies, or else their parent companies do. The impact to the CATV companies themselves independently for leaving all the CCI bytes unset is not large at all, but the impact to the MPAA is, or at least is perceived to be by them.
     
  3. Oct 3, 2009 #203 of 238
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    That is until Verizon decides to start setting the CCI byte. There's nothing preventing them from doing so, and I imagine the MPAA is pressuring Verizon to do so, but for the time being at least, Verizon wants to distinguish themselves from the CATV systems, and this is one more way to accomplish it.

    Sure it is. Note means of defeating the CCI byte itself are not illegal, and do not constitute piracy unless it is part of a scheme to distribute the content. The FCC does not specifically require anyone to set the CCI byte, nor do they require any device to honor it. CableLabs will not issue a certification to any DVR which does not honor the CCI byte, but a CableLabs certification is not required by law to build a DVR - even a CableCard compatible one. Copying video content - even premium channel content - to a consumer device such as a DVR is not illegal, regardless of the status of the CCI byte. It's not physically possible with an unaltered CableLabs approved device if the CCI byte is set, but that's another matter.
     
  4. Oct 3, 2009 #204 of 238
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Their stated position, which I find credible, is they do not mostly wish to incur the additional costs of bidirectional equipment, especially on low end devices. They would like to be able to deliver a UDCP without the need for a modulator. While not hideously expensive, modulators and the associated hardware and software do cost money. Implementation costs might be as high as $10 per unit, and most customers would not be interested in paying the additional $15 - $20 per unit for the feature.
     
  5. Oct 3, 2009 #205 of 238
    MichaelK

    MichaelK Active Member

    7,308
    1
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ

    Advertisements

    lrhorer-

    you seem to know much more than the average bear. It would make sene that the MPAA and other content owners would want the CCI bit's set. But can you explain why they dont just force HBO, SHO, etc to insert the bits at the uplink thereby effectively setting the bits for every cable provider?

    It's been some time but there was once somone who worked in/with a head end in texas someplace and he said that the head end hardware of any recent vintage all would at least pass forward any bits it found in the incoming stream.

    So why not just have HBO set the bits on their end of things? It just doesn't make any sense to me that they wouldn't...
     
  6. Oct 3, 2009 #206 of 238
    MichaelK

    MichaelK Active Member

    7,308
    1
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ

    I'm afraid it's most likely never.

    For whatever reason Fios only typically to lay fiber where they already have local phone service.

    Makes no sense to me that they wouldn't also want to poach other areas- the cost wouldn't be more in any significant way that I can figure- but they dont seem to bother.
     
  7. Oct 3, 2009 #207 of 238
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    The CATV provider has control of the byte, which is why TWC and others have it set for every non-broadcast channel regardless of how the content provide has the byte set. If the CATV provider wants not to set the byte, then they both legally and physically can unset it, regardless of the content provider's settings.

    No, it can be set to do so, but the equipment can also be set to provide a specific value.

    For all I know, they might. It doesn't prevent FIOS from resetting it.
     
  8. Oct 3, 2009 #208 of 238
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    I could have a faulty memory, here, but as I recall they are only allowed by law to build where they have local service. AT&T (or whoever the LEC may be) builds wherever Verizon is not the LEC.
     
  9. Oct 3, 2009 #209 of 238
    MichaelK

    MichaelK Active Member

    7,308
    1
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ
    but wouldn't it all be subject to where they could get a franchise agreement? (I dont know that's why I'm asking)

    and if it's about getting a franchise agreement then wouldn't it cost the same (roughly) to get a franchise agreement in Phoenix as it would in NYC or Boston or anyplace else?

    edit to add:
    from what I gather from http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/PL06/83_.PDF the NJ statewide franchise law doesn't REQUIRE verizon to offer service outside their current footprint in the state but it also doesn't preclude it.

    then goes on to state they are only required to serve where they currently provide phone


    It could be that in NJ Verizon concentrated on wiring where they were required (they basically are required to provide service to all towns they provide phone to (with certain limits) within 3 years of getting the franchise. The franchise was issued in December 2006 so presumably they will have completed the required build out before December of this year.

    So far they have made no noise about covering anything in the rest of the state. Will be interesting to see if next year they start picking off some more dense/wealthy towns that they dont currently provide phone service in. They have the statewide franchise so there's nothing in the way.
     
  10. Oct 4, 2009 #210 of 238
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Not if federal law prevents it. Again, I could easily be mis-remembering, but I am vaguely recalling something - perhaps the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Perhaps it was something concerning the notion that if Verizon (or whoever) runs fiber all the way to the house then they must make those facilities available to the LEC, should the LEC choose to make use of them. In places where Verizon *IS*the LEC, they have little or no exposure to this sort of issue.

    No, definitely not, but nonetheless, I don't think this is the issue. If I am indeed not mistaken, then I am pretty sure it had to do with a federal regulation, not local franchise agreements.

    That's a very different matter. The LEC cannot refuse to deliver service to anyone in their delivery area. Requiring the same level of service from a company who is not a LEC in a particular area would be exceedingly onerous.


    Having a franchise and being a public utility are very different matters.
     
  11. Oct 7, 2009 #211 of 238
    skaggs

    skaggs AlbanyHDTV

    271
    27
    Feb 13, 2003
    Albany, NY
  12. Jan 4, 2010 #212 of 238
    anotherlab

    anotherlab New Member

    32
    0
    Jun 22, 2005
    Albany, NY
    Fast forward to January, 2010: Albany TWC has been told by their corporate headquarters to make no changes to the CCI byte. Basically the OTA channels are set to copy freely, everything else is Copy Once or Copy Never. I was given this information this morning from the same Albany TWC engineer that was mentioned in the link below.

    Can anyone confirm what FiOS sets the CCI byte to? I would like to pursue this with TWC and if FiOS is setting the channels to copy freely, that would help.

     
  13. Jan 4, 2010 #213 of 238
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,098
    810
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    There have been many posts here stating that Verizon FIOS doe not copy protect any channels other than PPV, VOD, I believe.

    Not sure what you're planning but be sure to take a look at **this recent thread**.

    Some facts:
    1. TWC is legally entitled to set copy protection, unless a content provider specifies otherwise in their agreement with TWC.

    2. All indications are this is national TWC policy, although they won't explicitly say that for the record.

    I think trying to get TWC to change things is a lost cause, although I wish you luck since I am a fellow sufferer.
     
  14. Jan 4, 2010 #214 of 238
    anotherlab

    anotherlab New Member

    32
    0
    Jun 22, 2005
    Albany, NY
    I saw that thread and did reference the CIC points when I contacted TWC. I agree that TWC is probably a lost cause, but I'm still willing to make noise about it.

    Jeff Simmermon, the TWC Corporate Director of Digital Communications, has been saying that they obligated to set the CCI flag as part of their contracts with the providers. That is on record, via his public Twitter postings.

    I just think that it's odd that TWC has to set the flag to copy once and FiOS doesn't.
     
  15. Jan 4, 2010 #215 of 238
    tralfaz

    tralfaz New Member

    25
    0
    Jan 9, 2004
    Austin, TX
    I live in Austin. I bought my first Tivo just over 6 years ago. Since then I've had 4 cable providers (in the following order):

    (1) Cox Communications
    (2) Suddenlink Communications (which I understand bought the local business from Cox)
    (3) Grande Communications
    (4) Time Warner

    When I got Time Warner cable, I saw for the first time those little red circles with the line through them indicating I cannot transfer a show from one Tivo to another. I was so confused by them I called Tivo to find out what they were. Obviously none of my previous cable providers had ever turned on the CCI bits.

    So, if the cable provider is legally obligated to turn those bits on when requested by the networks, and that's what Time Warner is doing, then we have plenty of cable providers operating illegally.

    (Or perhaps Time Warner is full of it.)

    And yes, it pisses me off. I am heavily invested in Tivo, and just had the rug pulled out from under me regarding MRV. It is one of our favorite features, and now all of the money I've spent to have it is wasted.
     
  16. Jan 4, 2010 #216 of 238
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    Time-Warner could have a different agreement with the providers, that requires the flags even though the other companies' agreements with the providers do not.

    However, I suspect the real answer is that they are full of it.
     
  17. Jan 4, 2010 #217 of 238
    convergent

    convergent Active Member

    453
    25
    Jan 3, 2007
    Raleigh, NC
    I have been pretty frustrated by this with TWC also, since I got my Tivo HD a year ago. It is the main reason I've not bought more HD units. My two Series 2 units are ending contract in this week, and I'm still up in the air on a next move. I lived in Albany and then moved to North Carolina with Time Warner, and adding to the frustration of this, I'm paying about 40% more in NC too. I even bought the MLB Extra Innings last year from TWC and they had the CCI flags set so that I couldn't even record the games once. What in the world is the reason for that? A baseball game really has no real value after you watch it once. I wish the OP well with trying to lobby TWC to change their policy, but I doubt it will do any good.

    I'm probably going to vote with my pocket book and move to another provider... primarily because of the copy protect bits and their much higher rates they are charging me here in NC. Together with the Tuning Adapters and cable cards fiasco.... its just so frustrating that a company goes out of its way to do things like this that are so unneccessary. When you continue to treat your customers like this, they are actively going to look for alternatives. I can say without hesitation that if they were not doing these two things, I'd not even be considering switching at this point.

    So I've just got an HD antenna to start experimenting more with OTA together with Boxee, MLB.tv, and some other things. I'm also waiting to see what the DirectTV Tivo looks like. Unfortunately my only other option for high speed internet is DSL, which speedwise isn't going to be the same as TWC, but I think I can live with the slower speeds if it will get me a better solution for these other things. I want MRV and I want to be able to record baseball games to watch them later.
     
  18. Jan 4, 2010 #218 of 238
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    And there is some evidence that if the content provider wants a less restrictive setting, they get dropped (HDNet).
     
  19. Jan 4, 2010 #219 of 238
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    The law really doesn't say who gets to decide what the setting is just that it has to be 00 for OTA channels and what it could be for everything else. If the contracts don't specify a setting then TWC is within their rights to set it to anything they want with in those limits. Also they are not lying when they say that the settings are "in compliance with agreements and law". If that means they are "Full of it" sure but they are also within their agreements and the law.
     
  20. Jan 4, 2010 #220 of 238
    jeshaffer

    jeshaffer New Member

    41
    0
    Feb 15, 2004
    personally I am finding more and more channels set this way with Comcast Nashville. I am also invested in TIVO hardware and considering getting out when my contract ends. MRV was a huge selling feature for me. I have two tivo HD boxes and 2 expanders.

    I wonder if there is any effort in this trying to push you away from cable card and third party hardware and into using their's.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements