Cox Cable-Lawsuit Pending

[masterp2]

I have had the the Toshiba 50HMX96 for 6 months now. I can say this has been the worst entertainment experience of my life. I have had about 300 cablecard resets, 10 cablecard replacements, 20 hard crashes and reboots, a firmware update, and nothing has fixed my lockup issues. Cox suggests that they are not to blame, and that renting a set top box will cure my blues.

Toshiba has been very attentive to my issue, but they can't get cox to update their batch of cablecards, Toshiba is convinced that cablecard firmware update will fix the issue, and will not service my TV any longer, including replacing it.

Now the meat of my issue.

Cox cable, My local provider, refuses to provision the DVR that I own (a Cox DVR), instead insisting that I rent one and use this one as a doorstop. I did some research and determined that they are breaking FCC regulations with this position. So I have decided to bring file against Cox in small claims.

If there are others that fall into this category, I would encourage them to do the same. As a group, perhaps we can get there attention. I also plan to followup with BBB and the registrar of contractors.

[RustyC]

Can you quote the regulation you think Cox is breaking? I have a Time Warner box I'd like to use but didn't think they were required to activate it. My box was disabled by one of their bullets quite awhile ago. But I thought these boxes were different than third-party boxes mentioned in the FCC regs.

[Ratman]

Research a little more... they do not have to provide service to a privately owned STB/DVR.
Good luck with that lawsuit.

Your best option is to be persistent with getting Cox, the CableCard manufacturer and Toshiba to work together to resolve the "bug".

[masterp2]

6 months is persistent enough


"§ 76.1202 Availability of navigation devices.
No multichannel video programming
distributor (cable provider) shall by contract, agreement,
patent right, intellectual property
right or otherwise prevent navigation
devices that do not perform conditional
access or security functions
from being made available to subscribers
from retailers, manufacturers,
or other vendors that are unaffiliated
with such owner or operator, subject to
§ 76.1209.

[masterp2]

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...7cfr76_06.html

[masterp2]

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/New.../nrcb9009.html

[masterp2]

http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Kennard/.../stwek845.html

[walford]

If I understand you correctly your TV does not support CableCard but you have a separte PVR box that supports Cable Card that you purchased from your local COX service and they want you to replace it with a PVR leased from them instead, is this correct?
Or did you purchase the PVR from another COX location that may be using different broadcast equipment and/or firmware release on the headend then the PVR you purchased supports.

[HDTVFanAtic]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post8205190

"As far as the box not being recognized by Cox, if you were to purchase one on the open market and it came from another MSO (i.e. another Power Key encryption key) Cox would have to get the key from SA. Chances are if you purchase one on Ebay it is owned by an MSO (in other words, you bought stolen equipment) -- SA would tell Cox this, and Cox would not authorize it.

If you purchase the box from Cox or someone who purchased the box outright, you would be good to go. Contact Cox customer support center and they would be able to get the key and authorize your box."


And where did you purchase your "Cox DVR". I have a very hard time believing that if you purchased it from them and have a receipt, they would not authorize it. For some reason I believe there is more to this story than what you have posted - or that it in fact a stolen DVR that won't get you very far in a lawsuit - and you might need that lawyer for something else.

[Ratman]

masterp2,
Provide all of the links you like and interpret as you wish. My suggestion would be:
Can you provide any links or info to retailers that sell digital cable boxes/DVR's for U.S. consumers? Even the manufacturers will not sell directly to the consumer.

Only one that I know of that is a Motorola HTiB system. There is a LEGAL reason for that...

[bfoster]

Originally Posted by masterp2

6 months is persistent enough


"§ 76.1202 Availability of navigation devices.
No multichannel video programming
distributor (cable provider) shall by contract, agreement,
patent right, intellectual property
right or otherwise prevent navigation
devices that do not perform conditional
access or security functions
from being made available to subscribers
from retailers, manufacturers,
or other vendors that are unaffiliated
with such owner or operator, subject to
§ 76.1209.

Emphasiss mine.

Does this DVR have cablecard ability?

Of course this is in addition to all the other responses you have received.

Basically, ain't gonna happen.

[HDTVFanAtic]

And on the original post, the fact that cable cards are working for other customers of Cox and other MSO, its clear they do work.

That means the problem is within the TV set and really is a Toshiba issue. You would be better suited to sue them - as you might then have a case.

[Tower Guy]

Originally Posted by masterp2

Cox cable, My local provider, refuses to provision the DVR that I own (a Cox DVR), instead insisting that I rent one and use this one as a doorstop. I did some research and determined that they are breaking FCC regulations with this position. So I have decided to bring file against Cox in small claims.

Your situation is very timely. On Thursday the FCC issued a number of rulings that support your claim. Look on the bottom of this page for the specifics.

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Da.../dd070111.html

It looks like you may want to wait until July 1, 2007 to file your claim.

Quote from FCC ruling:

3. To carry out the directives of Section 629, the Commission in 1998 required MVPDs to make available by July 1, 2000 a security element separate from the basic navigation device (the “host device”). The separation of the security element from the host device required by this rule (referred to as the “integration ban”) was designed to enable unaffiliated manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors to commercially market host devices while allowing MVPDs to retain control over their system security. MVPDs were permitted to continue providing equipment with integrated security until January 1, 2005, so long as modular security components, known as point-of-deployment modules (“PODs”), were also made available for use with host devices obtained through retail outlets. In April 2003, in response to a request from cable operators, the Commission extended the effective date of the integration ban until July 1, 2006. Then, in 2005, again at the urging of cable operators, the Commission further extended that date until July 1, 2007. In that decision, the Commission also stated that it would “entertain certain requests for waiver of the prohibition on integrated devices for limited capability integrated digital cable boxes.”

Three cable companies asked the FCC for extensions or waivers of the rules. In most cases the FCC denied the request.

[bfoster]

Originally Posted by Tower Guy

Your situation is very timely. On Thursday the FCC issued a number of rulings that support your claim. Look on the bottom of this page for the specifics.

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Da.../dd070111.html

It looks like you may want to wait until July 1, 2007 to file your claim.

Quote from FCC ruling:

3. To carry out the directives of Section 629, the Commission in 1998 required MVPDs to make available by July 1, 2000 a security element separate from the basic navigation device (the “host device”). The separation of the security element from the host device required by this rule (referred to as the “integration ban”) was designed to enable unaffiliated manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors to commercially market host devices while allowing MVPDs to retain control over their system security. MVPDs were permitted to continue providing equipment with integrated security until January 1, 2005, so long as modular security components, known as point-of-deployment modules (“PODs”), were also made available for use with host devices obtained through retail outlets. In April 2003, in response to a request from cable operators, the Commission extended the effective date of the integration ban until July 1, 2006. Then, in 2005, again at the urging of cable operators, the Commission further extended that date until July 1, 2007. In that decision, the Commission also stated that it would “entertain certain requests for waiver of the prohibition on integrated devices for limited capability integrated digital cable boxes.”

Three cable companies asked the FCC for extensions or waivers of the rules. In most cases the FCC denied the request.

None of this will allow the OP to get a Cox DVR that he somehow acquired activated.

[masterp2]

Some of you guys are making some invalid assumptions. The DVR is aquired legally, and is not stolen or "activated", whatever that means. Cox was seliing DVR's is some markets. I don't know if they still do, I think not. It is irrelevant however, Cox has run the numbers on the DVR, it has not come back stolen. Nonetheless, an individual who purchases one of these is doing nothing wrong, and should expect full support from the law. I have no sympathy for someone who obtains one that is stolen, as unfortunate as this is in an unscrupulous world.

In my case, I feel it is just plain wrong. They have allowed these DVR's into the marketplace, and now they are forcing consumers to trip over themselves. The same thing happened with cable modems a few years back.

I am reasonably sure that the DVR (8000HD) has the same compatabilty, but Cox has said nothing about this, only that their policy is to NOT enable 3rd party obtained STB's. By itself, I think it is an illegal position, but I stand to be shown the door.

The real insult, is that they will not do anything to help fix the cablecard issue, although I have been telling them that SA has had the solution for months. "not our problem". And of course, if i were able to obtain the correct cable card from SA, Cox would not provision that either This is simply bad faith, and in my opinion, a contract issue.

I'll have my day, for better or worse. $31 is all I will lose. If anyone has any suggestions to strengthen my case, I would like to know.

[Ratman]

Well then, if Cox sold you the DVR and Cox is your provider, why not show them the reciept and that should prove it's not a 3rd party DVR. IMO... if they "sold" it to you, they should support what they "sell". Sounds reasonable to me.

[Tower Guy]

It seems to me that you hace two separate cases.

1. The inability to suport a DVR that you bought from them. You should demand your money back. That case could be heard today. That has nothing to do with the cable card.

2. The lack of competance with the cable card may have to wait until July 1, 2007.

Sometimes the best course of action is to suggest to a supervisor at the cable company that you are prepared to take your story to a TV station or newspaper with a consumer "ripoff" segment. They may give in because the damage done to them by the negative publicity is far more harmful than paying a small claim.

[masterp2]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. i bought the DVR through legal means from a 3rd party, not Cox. It was originally purchased legally from Cox to the best of my knowledge. If I become aware that it wasn't, I will have no legs obviously. But I don't have to prove that it was, Cox will surely be happy to prove that it was stolen (they haven't been able to) If it wasn't, then I engaged in a legal transaction with transferred rights that every american has the right to expect. No, I didn't check with the cable company first (nor do they advertise this issue), and the money does not really matter to me FWIW.

Ratman, opinions aside, I am without a case unless a judge decides I have one. What I can prove, what Cox can prove. I will probably lose, just because they have an entire legal department dedicated to spite lil ol me. But I'm on a terror now, and I am so PO'd that I will probably dedicate more time to this, despite better advice. That comes from someone who usually advises against getting wrapped up in bureaucratic messes (like this) and spend that extra energy making a bookcase with your son instead. I will make time for both. I may center my argument on contract, I just am not sure yet.

I have made my intentions clear to Cox. They spit me to the side.

I have a legally owned DVR that says "COX" all over it. Purchased by an account holder of Cox, it became a resellable commodity that found its way to me in our free trade economy. If Cox will not provision it for the person who inherits it, then it becomes a lump of coal at the hands of Cox. I believe that act of denying the transfer of rights would be highly illegal, but I have more research to do.

When it is sitting on the judges bench, Cox emblematic, the reaction should be an educational conclusion. My expectations are low.

[walford]

Assuming your PVR is totally legal The problem I thnk you are having is that not all COX locations use the same make and model PVRS so a speccific COX location can not support all PVRs sold by other COX locations. Just like all GM car dealers can not support all GM cars sold in other parts of the world.
In any case can you explain how you have verythng connected since it appears that if your cable service is connected to the PVR you are referring that you cannot getout to output decoded programs to your TV usinf RF, S-Video, component or DVI/HDMI. Or if instead you connect the cable service directly to your TVs QAM tuner that you can not get it to work either but all of the unencrypted analog cable channels(1-99) work using the analog tuner. Is this a correct understanding?

[masterp2]

There is no connectivity challenge, it is simply not activated. Cox willfully has decided I need to rent one. I suppose I can get 1-99 with a direct connection, but I cannot say if the DVR will pass through 1-99, I have never hooked it up to try.

Since my neighbor up the street rents the exact make model, I have made a few assumptions. So far Cox has not dispelled my assumptions. Just won't do it per policy.

Right now, I watch encryption via cable card, built into the TV, nearly worthless as described in my first post. That would be the contract issue. I paid for something I cannot use with any competent reliability because Cox won't update the cable card firmware apparently.

My options are

1. rent a dvr
2. rent a decoder (STB)
3. stop watching digital
4. keep using cable card with the harrassing lockup issues.

hope I haven't left anything out. I hope to elect option 5: use the dvr I own, with all the freedoms and rights attached by law.

[bfoster]

Originally Posted by masterp2

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. i bought the DVR through legal means from a 3rd party, not Cox. It was originally purchased legally from Cox to the best of my knowledge. If I become aware that it wasn't, I will have no legs obviously. But I don't have to prove that it was, Cox will surely be happy to prove that it was stolen (they haven't been able to) If it wasn't, then I engaged in a legal transaction with transferred rights that every american has the right to expect. No, I didn't check with the cable company first (nor do they advertise this issue), and the money does not really matter to me FWIW.

You were had. The only way that DVR could be "sold" in the US would be for someone to not have had it when they disconnected and paid the $200-300 lost box fee. That fee bought a door stop. The only recourse would be that the one that paid the fee return the box to the system office it came from for a refund of the fee. Cox can not magically look up the box number in their local data base to see where it came from, unless from their local system.

Your best bet is to rise through management with your cable card issue....

[HDTVFanAtic]

Originally Posted by masterp2

There is no connectivity challenge, it is simply not activated. Cox willfully has decided I need to rent one. I suppose I can get 1-99 with a direct connection, but I cannot say if the DVR will pass through 1-99, I have never hooked it up to try.

Since my neighbor up the street rents the exact make model, I have made a few assumptions. So far Cox has not dispelled my assumptions. Just won't do it per policy.

Right now, I watch encryption via cable card, built into the TV, nearly worthless as described in my first post. That would be the contract issue. I paid for something I cannot use with any competent reliability because Cox won't update the cable card firmware apparently.

My options are

1. rent a dvr
2. rent a decoder (STB)
3. stop watching digital
4. keep using cable card with the harrassing lockup issues.

hope I haven't left anything out. I hope to elect option 5: use the dvr I own, with all the freedoms and rights attached by law.

As VideoGuy noted in the previous thread, if it was purchased from Cox, they will activate it. If not, it would have a different encryption key that they would not have access to.

As previously stated, Cox Cable Cards work fine with other TVs. Your real effort should be to file against Toshiba for selling a TV that clearly is not up to cablecards specs - which I wonder if they did "selfcertification" on your set instead of really testing it. That's where you have your lawsuit on the cablecard.

[walford]

Well unless your cable card system in your Toshiba is incompatible with the digital equipment that your local COX service has at its head end ( and therfore makes them exempt from having to support it) as of 1 July 2007 they should provide adequate cable card support. Just because the boxes are of the same make and model does not mean that there internals are all the same since different cable company installations use different internal components and firmware in order to insure that the boxes being supported by them are all ones supplied by them under terms of their government franchise agreement. I understand that in Canada users can purchase PVR boxes from cable companies since Canadian allow requires this option but I am not award of this happening in the US.

[HDTVFanAtic]

As I suspected, you might have spent 5 minutes as I did - to find out that Toshiba DID NOT SUBMIT YOUR TV TO CABLELABS FOR TESTING. They did a self-verfication that it was compliant with CableCards specs. OBVIOUSLY IT IS NOT.






If it was tested in their labs AND VERIFIED OR CERTIFIED AS WORKING, then most likely the problem would be with SA Equipment/Software that Cox is using, but since everything S/A and Cox is using HAS BEEN TESTED IN THE CABLELABS LABS and CERTIFIED OR VERIFIED and the Toshiba has not - its pretty clear where the problem probably is.

I'd go after the Retailer and Toshiba with a lawsuit for a refund of the TV if I were you.

[bfoster]

^

Ouch Fan, that is gonna hurt!

[HDTVFanAtic]

Originally Posted by bfoster

^

Ouch Fan, that is gonna hurt!

Do you disagree? I'd sure think that is where I would start

[bfoster]

Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic

Do you disagree? I'd sure think that is where I would start

Oh I certainly agree, especially since he has been a member here since 2002?

Things are starting to make a lot of sense:

I have had the the Toshiba 50HMX96 for 6 months now. I can say this has been the worst entertainment experience of my life. I have had about 300 cablecard resets, 10 cablecard replacements, 20 hard crashes and reboots, a firmware update, and nothing has fixed my lockup issues. Cox suggests that they are not to blame, and that renting a set top box will cure my blues.

Cox has gone through 10 cards, all with a TV that is probably buggy, if not non-compliant. Yep must be Cox's fault.

Toshiba has been very attentive to my issue, but they can't get cox to update their batch of cablecards, Toshiba is convinced that cablecard firmware update will fix the issue, and will not service my TV any longer, including replacing it.

Toshiba on the other hand wants Cox to update firmware that cuurently works with other compliant devices, but they are being attentive... I wonder why? Maybe they know their set is buggy and/or non-compliant and passing the buck costs them nothing?

[masterp2]

Thank you for some very insightful replies. I am learning more all the time. Maybe a little more confused than before, but that's the way it goes.

As we speak, I am experiencing an outage. Cable modem works fine, so i am at a loss, but this seems like a common occurence. I broke out the old OTA antenna that I used with satellite in years past. Finally, the least harrassing of all avenues, simply requires rabbit ears: how ironic I flashback to the network peacock in all its color and splendor. (yes I am that old)

[masterp2]

Originally Posted by bfoster

You were had. The only way that DVR could be "sold" in the US would be for someone to not have had it when they disconnected and paid the $200-300 lost box fee.

I would appreciate knowing how you come to this conclusion. The best information I have is that Cox sold these units to its customers in some markets.

I am by no stretch arguing, just collecting information.

[bfoster]

A little birdie told me.