Danno100:

My point on Internet TV is that MS should remove the icon if I can not use it.  As mentioned earlier, MS knows my country, so only icons I can use should be shown.  Similar to removing the Sports strip that is already done in other countries.  I'm still getting fried at MS, over what should be a non-issue.

The icon showing up on Canadian installations is actually a glitch related to your local regional settings.  I have two Vista Media Center PCs and only one of them shows the Internet TV icon.  It doesn't work of course, popping up an error that there is no Internet TV for my location.

Per John Elsbree at Microsoft:

To uninstall Internet TV from your system:

1. Go to Control Panel -> Clock, Language, and Region -> Regional and Language Options, and change "Current format" to "English (Canada)".
2. Delete the C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome\Packages\NetTV directory and all its contents.

---

STB w/R5000HD USB I/O, Gigabyte GA-P35-DS4, Quad Q6600, 4.0 GB RAM, ATI HD 3870 512MB, Ultra XVS 600W PSU, 3x SATA 500GB, 2x SATA 300GB, LG GGC-H20L, PVR-250, Toshiba 51H83 (51" HDTV), Yamaha RX-V2400 Amp, 5x Energy Speakers, SVS Sub, Harmony 880 Remote

Matt Olsen:

Tikker:

TimSchreck-MS:

I want to point out again that Media Center is not setting the CGMS-A flags in the broadcasts.  Media Center does respect the CGMS-A standard, including the CGMS-A flags that content providers set.  It is not appropriate for Media Center to make a judgment on whether the flag is appropriately set or not.

Hey Matt, look

Turns out MS is incapable of understanding that CGMS-A doesn't apply in Canada

No.  I think you're willfully misunderstanding.  He's not countering some hypothetical argument that it really is MS that's adding CGMS-A, as kingwr wants to argue.  He's saying, while trying to be kind of diplomatic, that the ones who really do include CGMS-A (e.g. the content providers) are the ones who you should be angry at because they shouldn't be doing it.  It's an opinion.  I don't agree but it's not exactly crazy, either, because those content providers are the root of this problem you're having.  Again, I see no misunderstanding of your favorite factoid.

you're missing the point, and just hanging on 1 person's incorrect assumption

CGMS-A doesn't exist in Canada
MCE in Canada should ignore the flag if it sees it
simple as that

you don't get it either

doesn't matter if it's the content owner, the cableco, or whoever

in Canada, CGMS-A doesn't exist, so MS even doing anything with it makes zero sense

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I will greatly welcome this fix.  I can't record anything on AMC, A&E, and WE.  I use analog tuners w/o a cable box.  I use GBPVR to record on those stations, but it will be nice to do all my recording in Media Center again.

Clint
Minnesota

Tikker:

you're missing the point, and just hanging on 1 person's incorrect assumption

CGMS-A doesn't exist in Canada
MCE in Canada should ignore the flag if it sees it
simple as that

you don't get it either

doesn't matter if it's the content owner, the cableco, or whoever

in Canada, CGMS-A doesn't exist, so MS even doing anything with it makes zero sense

Let's try it again, but with the facts.  I might very well be mistaken on a point or two, in which case I'll happily accept correction.

CGMS-A does, in fact, exist in Canada.  It's actually in the signal reaching Canadian homes.  It exists needlessly because it enforcement is not a direct legal requirement of any kind in Canada.  But it's there.

However, the practice of inserting (or leaving) CGMS-A in those signals is unlikely to change given the number of entities that would need to change their practices and their lack of incentive to do so.  Therefore, it's objectively much more practical for Microsoft to address the problem.  The matter of "fault", however, remains subjective.  One party created a problem for consumers, while another party failed to address the issue created by the first party when it seemingly has an easy way to do so.  Both could rightfully be deemed improper business practices.  I can see why consumers would be upset with both.

But there's a barrier.  Microsoft has decided that it can't alter the content protection behavior by region "for business reasons".  That's the heart of the problem.  That objective claim of fact is either the truth or it's a lie.  If it's a lie, then the accusation is not that they don't get it, but that they're liars.  If it's the truth, then they will not implement the behavior you desire in the way you desire it even if they completely understand in every way imaginable that, as you state, "CGMS-A does not apply in Canada". 

So I think it makes a great deal of sense to apply pressure on Microsoft to change that barrier-creating business decision.  They may have to revisit contracts or whatever, but that's what the Canadian market needs.  On the other hand, it makes little sense to keep asserting that they don't understand the situation with CGMS-A and Canada.  I haven't seen any evidence in recent MS posts that they don't understand that issue but, more to the point, that factoid of yours simply doesn't matter if they've made the decision not to make regional differences in content enforcement.  You're chasing the wrong issue, and attributing it to personal stupidity because your anger makes you want to villify the other side.

That's your right, but it's also mine to call you on it.

CAnder2424:

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I will greatly welcome this fix.  I can't record anything on AMC, A&E, and WE.  I use analog tuners w/o a cable box.  I use GBPVR to record on those stations, but it will be nice to do all my recording in Media Center again.

Me too!  I can finally welcome AMC back into the fold.  I guess I'm lucky that I haven't had any problems with A&E.

kingwr:

wayner9: "But are there not rules from the FCC that govern when CGMS-A can be turned on and off?"

I guess that is my question as well.  There are FCC mandates around the use of the Broadcast Flag, i..e the digital equivalent of CGMS-A, but are there indeed FCC mandates around the use or non-use of CGMS-A for broadcasters?  Or is this simply something that broadcasters and consumer electronic companies got together and did on their own?

WRK

For the USA, the FCC Code of Federal Regulations was on page 5 (lol)  LINK

RandyG:

There ** ARE ** laws, in the USA, for CGMS
The MOST prohibitive copy protection (that can be applied <edit> on any content in the USA) is:
OTA broadcast - Copy Freely (EMI=00)
PPV / VOD - Copy Never (EMI=11)
Anything Else - Copy Once (EMI=10)

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr76.1904.htm
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/pdf/47cfr76.1904.pdf

( all the rules are in http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html )

In Canada, the CRTC could care less what CGMS-A is.  It's not recognised at all.
You can search the CRTC database - see how many hits there are on CGMS-A:
LINK search.crtc.gc.ca/engsimple/query.html?tx0=CGMS-A

Matt Olsen: "He's not countering some hypothetical argument that it really is MS that's adding CGMS-A, as kingwr wants to argue".

I see Matt is no more capable of reading this thread than Tim is.  No where have I stated, or suggested, or hinted, or argued that Microsoft adds the CGMS-A flag.  In fact, I stated quite clearly the opposite, that the flag is added by the content creator, and often broadcast by the cable or satellite company directly off the media provided to them.  What I have argued, and what is 100% factually correct, is that Microsoft, on their own volition, has chosen to recognize and enforce the flag.  They were not compelled to do so by any government regulation, either in Canada or in the U.S. 

WRK

Not that it matters at in the slightest....
link: Shaw Communications Activates Macrovision's VOD Content Protection ...

Who cares who adds it.... does it make any difference?  

Still can't tape 10 year old reruns, or Winnie the Poo with CGMS-A "copy never" on it.

If this was the US, then that would get somebody's fingers slapped by the FCC for that.

Since this is Canada, Microsoft will take our set top boxes away to fix it.

This is all too dumb for words.    Dunno why you guys even still want to talk about it.

kingwr:

Matt Olsen: "He's not countering some hypothetical argument that it really is MS that's adding CGMS-A, as kingwr wants to argue".

I see Matt is no more capable of reading this thread than Tim is.  No where have I stated, or suggested, or hinted, or argued that Microsoft adds the CGMS-A flag.  In fact, I stated quite clearly the opposite, that the flag is added by the content creator, and often broadcast by the cable or satellite company directly off the media provided to them.

Heh.  I can clear this up.  Probably bad wording on my part, although in context I think it holds up.  Let's rewind the tape.

Tim: "I want to point out again that Media Center is not setting the CGMS-A flags in the broadcasts."

Which roughly translates to "How about you be pissed off at the people who actually created this problem?" for anybody who's ever heard a "I wasn't the one who started this..." line.  Which is all of us. It's textbook blame game code. 

But, taking his statement oddly literally as if he were saying "Some of you must believe that Microsoft is inserting the CGMS-A flag and I'm here to say you're wrong!", you countered with:  "I have scanned every post that comes into my email box, and I have never seen anyone who has suggested that Microsoft is setting the CGMS-A flag."

That struck me as a strange misreading.  So let me turn the sentence from my last post around for clarity:

"kingwr wants to argue that ([Tim] [is] countering some hypothetical argument that it really is MS that's adding CGMS-A.)"

That's what I was getting at.

kingwr:

What I have argued, and what is 100% factually correct, is that Microsoft, on their own volition, has chosen to recognize and enforce the flag.  They were not compelled to do so by any government regulation, either in Canada or in the U.S.

And you're right there, at least in Canada.  I think that's perfectly fair game for complaints.  That isn't the same as saying, as I'm sure you know, that they're just as free to reverse that decision at this point.  That simply might not be the case.

Matt

Why does MCE even react to the CGMS-A flag in canadian programming?

that's the whole point

it's MS's fault that it's reacting to a flag that shouldn't be reacted to


it's as simple as that

can you honestly say otherwise?

Matt Olsen:

CGMS-A does, in fact, exist in Canada.  It's actually in the signal reaching Canadian homes.  It exists needlessly because it enforcement is not a direct legal requirement of any kind in Canada.  But it's there.

However, the practice of inserting (or leaving) CGMS-A in those signals is unlikely to change given the number of entities that would need to change their practices and their lack of incentive to do so.  Therefore, it's objectively much more practical for Microsoft to address the problem.  The matter of "fault", however, remains subjective.  One party created a problem for consumers, while another party failed to address the issue created by the first party when it seemingly has an easy way to do so.  Both could rightfully be deemed improper business practices.  I can see why consumers would be upset with both.

But there's a barrier.  Microsoft has decided that it can't alter the content protection behavior by region "for business reasons".  That's the heart of the problem.  That objective claim of fact is either the truth or it's a lie.  If it's a lie, then the accusation is not that they don't get it, but that they're liars.  If it's the truth, then they will not implement the behavior you desire in the way you desire it even if they completely understand in every way imaginable that, as you state, "CGMS-A does not apply in Canada". 

So I think it makes a great deal of sense to apply pressure on Microsoft to change that barrier-creating business decision.  They may have to revisit contracts or whatever, but that's what the Canadian market needs.  On the other hand, it makes little sense to keep asserting that they don't understand the situation with CGMS-A and Canada.  I haven't seen any evidence in recent MS posts that they don't understand that issue but, more to the point, that factoid of yours simply doesn't matter if they've made the decision not to make regional differences in content enforcement.  You're chasing the wrong issue, and attributing it to personal stupidity because your anger makes you want to villify the other side.

That's your right, but it's also mine to call you on it.

Matt, do you live in Canada?

Are you affected by this issue in Canada?

Personally after researching this way too much, including talking to the CRTC and our content provider, it has been made very clear to me that the fault for this issue is 100% on Microsoft for attempting to interpret a signal that is not supposed to be interpreted in Canada.  The CRTC made it very clear that any PVR that attempts to interpret CGMS-A in Canada is just looking for trouble since CGMS-A is completely and absolutely not controlled in any way and signal noise, some programming and some commercials can and do contain random and uncontrolled CGMS-A flags.

If you put yourself in either the CRTC's or provider's position and consider that CGMS-A isn't even detected by any PVR, VCR, DVR, etc. sold in Canada, and you don't internally discuss or even think about what CGMS-A is and then all of a sudden one PVR manufacturer, with an extremely small market share, starts to have issues with their product not working properly because they are looking for this unused CGMS-A signal, that randomly does actually exist here and there in Canada (totally uncontrolled).  Would you, as the CRTC or the provider feel responsible for "causing" these PVRs to fail?

Once you look at the facts, the reason Media Center fails to reliably record is 100% the fault of Microsoft in this case.  There is no reason for Media Center to be looking for this unused signal in Canada and by not only looking for it, but also attempting to interpret and respect it, Microsoft has caused Media Center to be unable to work reliably here in Canada.

As far as this being a business decision that is difficult to change, I simply don't buy that.  Microsoft has not stated that they are contractually obligated to monitor for CGMS-A signals in Canada and it would be ridiculous for there to be a contract that requires this.  The only issue is that Microsoft may need to ensure that CGMS-A compliance does in-fact continue to work in the US. 

For this Microsoft needs to detect the location of the Media Center PC with a fairly high level of accuracy and then have the ability to turn off CGMS-A compliance when a PC is located in Canada.  The issue is they don't want to invest the man hours to make this happen.  Ultimately this demonstrates that Microsoft has little interest in the Canadian market.

Currently to some extent I can understand that without any official HD support in Canada, that there really isn't much of a market for Media Center in Canada.  The market is now looking for HD-PVRs, not SD.  The problem I see with this is even though the market may currently be small, Media Center is still marketed and sold in Canada as a fully functional PVR.  Today the only ways to get Media Center working as an HD-PVR in Canada are through unsupported Firewire inputs (FireSTB) and unsupported USB inputs (R5000HD combined with FireSTB).  In the future, with Hauppage's HD-PVR card, the market could finally open up and Media Center could become a viable HD-PVR for a much larger market in Canada.  In order for this to happen, Microsoft needs to first fix this CGMS-A issue and stop looking for it here.  If they don't, as far as I'm concerned they are making the decision to essentially dump the Canadian market.  I think this is a very poor and unreasonable decision, especially since Media Center is still marketed and sold in Canada, but it is the decision Microsoft has taken up to this point.

Hopefully through pressure from us and communication with the CRTC, Microsoft will finally make an effort to make Media Center once again work properly in Canada and comply with our local regulations and requirements (including parental controls).  At this point I'm not holding my breath, but I do wonder if a lawsuit might be what is needed to make it happen.

---

STB w/R5000HD USB I/O, Gigabyte GA-P35-DS4, Quad Q6600, 4.0 GB RAM, ATI HD 3870 512MB, Ultra XVS 600W PSU, 3x SATA 500GB, 2x SATA 300GB, LG GGC-H20L, PVR-250, Toshiba 51H83 (51" HDTV), Yamaha RX-V2400 Amp, 5x Energy Speakers, SVS Sub, Harmony 880 Remote

Tikker:

Matt

Why does MCE even react to the CGMS-A flag in canadian programming?

that's the whole point

That's been asked, answered, and the answer has largely gone ignored by people who want to turn this into a conspiracy. It is because, for whatever reason, they've made a deliberate decision not to vary content protection by region.  It is NOT because they don't understand the laws in Canada.  That's the point I've been making from the beginning.  I mean, it's possible that they don't but I've seen zero evidence of it.  It's even possible that they locked themselves into that decision in the past when they didn't understand the laws in Canada.  But their inability (or unwillingness) to change that decision likely has nothing to do with their comprehension of the law at this point, all yelling and flailing aside.

I'm not even saying that it's a good reason.  I'm saying, based on having pretty good horsey sense of how the business world works, that there's a different reason than the one you're asserting over and over.

Tikker:

it's MS's fault that it's reacting to a flag that shouldn't be reacted to

it's as simple as that

can you honestly say otherwise?

It is, indeed, Microsoft's decisions that cause its software to respond as it does.

matt, are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you simply ignoring what people are trying to say (because maybe it's fun to call people conspiracy theorists, yellers and flailers)?

it's simple:

there is a problem with media center in canada.
the problem is due to microsoft's actions (and now inaction).
it is up to microsoft to solve that problem.

end of story. what part of "we bought highly priced systems falsely advertised as functioning pvrs" don't you understand?

I don't care - and I doubt anyone else here cares - about WHY they decided to interpret the flags up here. not my problem. just like it's not my problem how much it will cost them to fix it, who will implement it, how they will staff the programming, how their quarterly revenue may or may not be affected, how they will explain the issue to their partners or board members. because their "business issues" are just that - their business issues. totally not my problem. I just want the functionality I paid for.

HT Slider:

Matt, do you live in Canada?

Are you affected by this issue in Canada?

I've been perfectly clear that I don't live in Canada, as well as on a number of these other points.  You seem to be wanting to argue with the "Micrsoft is blameless" guy.  I'm just the "Many of you are completely  misconstruing what the MS reps are saying and making baseless personal attacks on them" guy.

HT Slider:

If you put yourself in either the CRTC's or provider's position...

I already did.  I said "However, the practice of inserting (or leaving) CGMS-A in those signals is unlikely to change given the number of entities that would need to change their practices and their lack of incentive to do so.  Therefore, it's objectively much more practical for Microsoft to address the problem."

I know that nobody else is going to solve this problem.  Of course, I don't think that absolves everyone else of their "guilt", but that's more of a subjective issue.

HT Slider:

Once you look at the facts, the reason Media Center fails to reliably record is 100% the fault of Microsoft in this case. There is no reason for Media Center to be looking for this unused signal in Canada and by not only looking for it, but also attempting to interpret and respect it, Microsoft has caused Media Center to be unable to work reliably here in Canada.

There is a reason.  It's not happening by accident.  We don't know the root reason.  I'm simply challenging the assumption that the reason is ignorance of the law. 

HT Slider:

As far as this being a business decision that is difficult to change, I simply don't buy that.  Microsoft has not stated that they are contractually obligated to monitor for CGMS-A signals in Canada and it would be ridiculous for there to be a contract that requires this.  The only issue is that Microsoft may need to ensure that CGMS-A compliance does in-fact continue to work in the US.

They haven't explicitly stated the rationale behind the decision not to implement region-specific enforcement. More than a few people are perfectly happy to assume that the root reason is simply ignorance of Canadian regulations.  I'm considering reasons that go beyond "I'm angry and I have the emotional need to make the other guy look stupid".  That behavior is specifically what I'm concerned with.

HT Slider:

For this Microsoft needs to detect the location of the Media Center PC with a fairly high level of accuracy and then have the ability to turn off CGMS-A compliance when a PC is located in Canada.  The issue is they don't want to invest the man hours to make this happen.  Ultimately this demonstrates that Microsoft has little interest in the Canadian market.

I'm not going to begrudge you that theory.  I don't think it holds up given that they've demonstrated the technological capacity to address these things left and right and that Canada is an important market. But, it's certainly much more likely than some of these other ideas.

HT Slider:

Currently to some extent I can understand that without any official HD support in Canada, that there really isn't much of a market for Media Center in Canada.  The market is now looking for HD-PVRs, not SD.  The problem I see with this is even though the market may currently be small, Media Center is still marketed and sold in Canada as a fully functional PVR.  Today the only ways to get Media Center working as an HD-PVR in Canada are through unsupported Firewire inputs (FireSTB) and unsupported USB inputs (R5000HD combined with FireSTB).  In the future, with Hauppage's HD-PVR card, the market could finally open up and Media Center could become a viable HD-PVR for a much larger market in Canada.  In order for this to happen, Microsoft needs to first fix this CGMS-A issue and stop looking for it here.  If they don't, as far as I'm concerned they are making the decision to essentially dump the Canadian market.  I think this is a very poor and unreasonable decision, especially since Media Center is still marketed and sold in Canada, but it is the decision Microsoft has taken up to this point.

Hopefully through pressure from us and communication with the CRTC, Microsoft will finally make an effort to make Media Center once again work properly in Canada and comply with our local regulations and requirements (including parental controls).  At this point I'm not holding my breath, but I do wonder if a lawsuit might be what is needed to make it happen.

And I think those are also perfectly reasonable positions to hold.  Microsoft is the only hope of fixing this issue and pressure on them to do so is what it's going to take.  I'm not sure a lawsuit has much of a chance of success, but 1) I'm not a lawyer and 2) that's a whole other discussion.

But, ultimately, that's my point.  Put pressure on Microsoft, just not in baseless, counterproductive, personal attacks.  I hope that's starting to come across. 

frickinmuck:

matt, are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you simply ignoring what people are trying to say (because maybe it's fun to call people conspiracy theorists, yellers and flailers)?

You're arguing with someone else, as well.  It makes perfect sense to me that you guys would be angry.  There are specific, reoccurring accusations and misconstruals of what MS reps have said that are baseless, needlessly personal, and counterproductive to your goals.  But I appear to be speaking in some kind of code.