Originally Posted by P Smith
(From my experience with courts) I'm strongly advise you DO NOT DISCUSS with ROVI or station engineer ANYTHING behind solid facts with THEIR signal/packets/data !
They're SPECIFICALLY dragged you into very mud point (SW, licensing,etc) where you LOST.
Please, do not give them the leverage/handle.
Just stand with stream ERRORs, prove it by capturing whole mux (that will have all timestamps from different PIDs), point to obvious and simple errors with ROVI timestamps.
Don't allow them to distract you - don't mention Pal/Sony/etc - say your TV clock is out and you missed your appointments because the TV is set as alarm clock.
Don't buy their argument - 'studio display shows proper time': 1st - you don't know/can't check where is the timestamps taken; 2nd - you have your stream's error - OTA , not that ideal studio packets with minimum delays and routing.
I've had some experience with legal matters as well. IMHO the most important part of the decision of whether to initiate something is being able to foresee likely outcomes, ie "the end game" (see Viet-Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.)
IMHO the likelyhood that the FCC would intervene in this issue on our behalf is below 1%. Even if they did, here are the "end game responses" from the relevant parties:
ROVI: Despite being under no contractual obligation and receiving no compensation to support user issues arising out of use of unlicensed products that make use of our proprietary TVGOS datastream, we voluntarily invested engineering resources at our own expense to investigate it as a goodwill gesture. As a result of this engineering work, we have identified the root cause of this technical issue. We have also developed, documented, and published a corrective action plan that, if implemented, will completely resolve this issue. We have no control whatsoever over whether the broadcaster in question chooses to implement our corrective action plan.
KEYE: Several years ago, we entered into an agreement with ROVI to host a piece of their equipment as part of our broadcast infrastructure. The installation configuration that was identified for this ROVI hardware at that time was (and still is) compatible with our other infrastructure. Recently ROVI has proposed an alternate installation configuration for this ROVI hardware in order to resolve a technical issue that is unrelated to our broadcast programming and is only observed by a small number of our viewers. This alternate installation configuration is likely not compatible with our other infrastructure because it requires additional ATSC bandwidth to be dedicated to the ROVI hardware. At the very least, significant KEYE resources would be required to re-configure and re-certify our infrastructure. We are not obligated by the terms of our agreement with ROVI to implement any infrastrucure changes that they may recommend, and we have made the business decision not to implement the proposed alternate hardware configuration from ROVI. If ROVI concludes that our infrastructure environment is no longer compatible with their hardware, there are several other broadcasters in the Austin area with whom they are welcome to discuss their needs.
I've taken a LITTLE artistic license here, but both of these position statements are essentially what I got directly from the horses' mouths. So doing a little math: 1% chance of FCC taking any interest in this issue in the first place multiplied by 1% chance that either of the above two positions would be found legally unsupportable works out to 0.1% chance of any positive outcome from my forwarding this issue to the FCC. I don't like those odds...