# FCC AllVid Rule Would 'Ban The Set-Top As We Know It': Analyst



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

Hooray its finally happening, the trash the cable companies give us would be no more.

http://www.multichannel.com/article...uld_Ban_The_Set_Top_As_We_Know_It_Analyst.php



> The Federal Communications Commission's proposed AllVid spec for providing a common way to access cable, satellite and telco TV services would, if enacted as a regulation, "ban the pay-TV set-top box as we currently know it from the U.S. market," according to IMS Research senior analyst Stephen Froehlich.
> 
> "Such a ban would directly affect more than 40 million set-top box shipments and $4.7 billion worth of sales annually," Froehlich wrote in a research report.
> 
> ...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

has anyone read how this gateway would work with a more than one tuner DVR? If I had a TiVo or Moxi or Win7MC and moved to this gateway how would that work with this gateway?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> has anyone read how this gateway would work with a more than one tuner DVR? If I had a TiVo or Moxi or Win7MC and moved to this gateway how would that work with this gateway?


The AllVid specification is for 6 tuners. CableCARD is already for 6 tuners per card.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

Raj said:


> The AllVid specification is for 6 tuners. CableCARD is already for 6 tuners per card.


Thats why i think the consumer should also be allowed to buy the gateway. So a 12 tuner gateway should be available. Really 6 is not enough for me.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Videodrome said:


> Thats why i think the consumer should also be allowed to buy the gateway. So a 12 tuner gateway should be available. Really 6 is not enough for me.


I agree. 6 tuners wouldn't be enough for me either. With 6 tuners I'd have to supplement from OTA as well.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> has anyone read how this gateway would work with a more than one tuner DVR? If I had a TiVo or Moxi or Win7MC and moved to this gateway how would that work with this gateway?


According to some article i read a while back , a software upgrade to Tivo would make it compatible. I could see Tivo doing encrypted quam and ip based.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Raj said:


> The AllVid specification is for 6 tuners. CableCARD is already for 6 tuners per card.


so instead of having the ability to have one or more cable cards at each TV - I need an AllVid gateway for each digital outlet I want in the house?

Don't get me wrong - I realize cable cards are not a good answer and this at least includes DBS in the rule. I am just wanting to see more details fleshed out on how this works and how it owuld effect equipment I have in the house already. anyone with a 3rd party DVR using cable cards or going to get a Ceton PC card that runs off cable card should be curious about how this will work.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Why is this a new thread, when there's already a 550 post thread discussing it? Most of the questions being asked here were already answered there.

First off you don't need an AllVid gateway per TV. Most people would need one per house. People who require more than 6 tuners would need more than one. TV's and devices without an Ethernet or some other networking port or that don't support the AllVid spec, would need an adapter of some kind.

My guess is that only the Premiere (S4) and later TiVo models will ever support this. I don't expect the S3/HD/XL to work for two reasons. One, they don't have to network bandwidth to handle multiple download streams and two by the time gateways come out TiVo most likely will no longer be providing software updates for the Series 3 boxes.

Finally, at this stage the gateway is a proposal. A lot can change in 2 years.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so instead of having the ability to have one or more cable cards at each TV - I need an AllVid gateway for each digital outlet I want in the house?


I don't think so. Think of the AllVid as a combined six tuner box with a cable modem, VOIP box, and DLNA server built in. All the cable theft protection of the cable card happens in the AllVid. You could then connect as many set top boxes via Ethernet or wireless or whatever home network you have as would be able to consume six simultaneous streams. So say one is a 3 stream DVR, one is a two stream TV set, and one is a single stream adapter box for another TV set.

In this setup you could be recording three shows, watching two others (on in PIP) on the second set, and watching a third on the old TV. Now if the TV and converter box for the old TV were DVR clients they could also take streams from the DVR instead of from the AllVid.

A consumer in this situation could oversubscribe the number of tuners if they new they would never be watching and recording that much simultaneously. So this fictional user might buy another TV and be able to watch DVR content while All AllVid tuners were busy or use one of the AllVid streams when the main TV was not using a second stream for PIP.



> Don't get me wrong - I realize cable cards are not a good answer and this at least includes DBS in the rule. I am just wanting to see more details fleshed out on how this works and how it owuld effect equipment I have in the house already. anyone with a 3rd party DVR using cable cards or going to get a Ceton PC card that runs off cable card should be curious about how this will work.


I think this device will be added to all existing boxes, not replace them. So what is there now will be grandfathered and continue to work as it does now. Although Cable companies would likely hasten obsolescence by refusing to provide new cable cards anymore, instead, giving you an AllVid.

The issue I worry about. Is can a typical home network support six simultaneous High definition streams coming out of one box and going to up to six different devices spread throughout the house? Is this going to require Gigabit Ethernet?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

CuriousMark said:


> The issue I worry about. Is can a typical home network support six simultaneous High definition streams coming out of one box and going to up to six different devices spread throughout the house? Is this going to require Gigabit Ethernet?


A typical home wired network has plenty of room for 6 high def streams. At full bitrate that's about 120Mbps aggregate bandwidth at the switch. A typical wireless network probably not.

Gigabit is becoming very common in the average home now as well.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

+1

Thanks Raj


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Some opinions (may be posted in other AllVid threads).


I don't think the FCC is requiring cable and other providers eliminate existing STBs or cablecards, just that providers have to provide an AllVid gateway in their offerings.
 There is no practical reason to own one, except to not be renting it. Remember the gateway will need to have tuners and security specific to that provider, and most providers would like to maintaind ownership of devices thar access/decode their signal. The point of the gateway is that you own the set-top box, or the TV have a gateway "tuner" built in.
 The Series 3/HD could theoretically support at least one stream. Presumably the standard will be AVC1/MPEG4 based.
 At least from cable/IPTV providers the first gateway could provide home internet and phone. I doubt DLNA would be part of the gateway, but the "client" devices may have that, to play content from a home DLNA server.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

morac said:


> Why is this a new thread, when there's already a 550 post thread discussing it? Most of the questions being asked here were already answered there.
> 
> My guess is that only the Premiere (S4) and later TiVo models will ever support this. I don't expect the S3/HD/XL to work for two reasons. One, they don't have to network bandwidth to handle multiple download streams and two by the time gateways come out TiVo most likely will no longer be providing software updates for the Series 3 boxes.
> 
> ...


The gateway would also use encrypted quam. So a Tivo can do this today, it just needs a software update.

http://hd.engadget.com/2009/12/23/tivo-sony-and-others-tell-the-fcc-gateways-should-replace-cab/


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

classicsat said:


> Some opinions (may be posted in other AllVid threads).
> 
> 
> I don't think the FCC is requiring cable and other providers eliminate existing STBs or cablecards, just that providers have to provide an AllVid gateway in their offerings.
> ...


I suspect a mix of AVC1/MPEG4 and MPEG2. Whatever the digital formats coming down the line are now. I don't see the gateway doing any transcoding at all. But that is just a guess.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> The gateway would also use encrypted quam. So a Tivo can do this today, it just needs a software update.
> 
> http://hd.engadget.com/2009/12/23/tivo-sony-and-others-tell-the-fcc-gateways-should-replace-cab/


Which I make in my second point. It'll be at least two years before the gateway is available. I expect TiVo won't be putting out Series 3 software updates at that point. Exactly like how the Series 2 boxes stopped getting updates shortly after the Series 3 box was released.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

So the latest TiVo DVR is the only one on the market possibly ready? Lucky, or thinking ahead? Didn't they submit a gateway proposal or support statement to the FCC a short while back?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicsat said:


> ... I doubt DLNA would be part of the gateway, but the "client" devices may have that, to play content from a home DLNA server.
> [/list]


I could be mistaken- but I'm pretty sure the original thread said that the FCC specifcally inquired if DLNA would be a good idea to designate as the standard for moving content from the gateway to end user devices.

_update: - I searched the original thread and couldn't find that- just a few posts about how it made sense. But i did find these analyst who thinks that's the end game- no idea if he or his firm is qualified to coment:
_
http://www.wirelessdevnet.com/news/2010/apr/28/news2.html

(DUH- that's the same report quoted in the multichannel article- says the same thing- whoops)

also there's this:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A1.pdf



> Encryption and Authentication. Both the MPAA and CableLabs have approved digital
> transmission content protection over Internet protocol ("DTCP-IP") technology as an acceptable method
> of content encryption to prevent content theft, and it is the content protection scheme used in the Digital
> Living Network Alliance ("DLNA") standard. For these reasons, we believe that the DTCP-IP standard
> ...


can someone help me out and explain the relationship between DTCP-IP and DLNA? If hte FCC regulated that DTCP-IP be used would all the DLNA TV sets and blue ray players being sold automatically work with the gateway?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Videodrome said:


> The gateway would also use encrypted quam. So a Tivo can do this today, it just needs a software update.
> 
> http://hd.engadget.com/2009/12/23/tivo-sony-and-others-tell-the-fcc-gateways-should-replace-cab/


that's an article from last year and doesn't necessarily reflect what the fcc proposed. I dont recall encrypted qam being in the fcc's comments. (although it may have been...)


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so instead of having the ability to have one or more cable cards at each TV - I need an AllVid gateway for each digital outlet I want in the house?


It has nothing to do with the number of outlets in the house, the number of gateways you need depends on the total number of devices you would use across your entire house, not how many rooms there are or how they are arranged.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

classicsat said:


> There is no practical reason to own one, except to not be renting it.


Maybe this is the same as what you mean.. but one reason to 'not be renting it' is to save money.

I would buy cablecards if I could (and knew they would be supported). At least at a "reasonable" price. Just like I pay lifetime on my Tivos as a 'gamble' that they will pay for themselves, I would likely do that for cablecards too. (In fact, since my newest cablecard "mostly" worked before being paired properly, I kind of wonder if I could just buy a cablecard off of eBay -- one was $10 not too long ago -- and use it for the 'basic' channels and QAM remapping. I say mostly as in that's what I got -- the equivalent of extended basic with no premiums and not a lot of the 'newer' digital channels, e.g. gameshow network didn't work for me.)


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

MichaelK said:


> that's an article from last year and doesn't necessarily reflect what the fcc proposed. I dont recall encrypted qam being in the fcc's comments. (although it may have been...)


That article is 5 months old. But this article deeply explains it. Although it from sept 2009. Which really isnt that long ago.

http://www.cable360.net/ct/sections/features/37357.html



> There are two options available to encrypt broadcast video services. One option is through an IPTV bulk-encryptor (similar to approach used in SDV architectures). The second option is to use an external key generator (such as ECM-G) interfacing with the edge-QAM modulator. In that case, the edge-QAM modulator itself does the encryption (similar to how VOD handles it today


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

Raj said:


> I agree. 6 tuners wouldn't be enough for me either. With 6 tuners I'd have to supplement from OTA as well.


How much tv do you watch in a day that you need 6 tuners?

it would be neat to have 6 tuner.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

tootal2 said:


> How much tv do you watch in a day that you need 6 tuners?


Since we can't move content between TiVo's the need for more tuners increases since we now have to record the same thing on multiple boxes to be able to view it in different rooms. I have 5 DVR tuners in my house and 4 people using 6 TVs. 5 of the tuners are used on 3 TVs, that leaves one to be spread to the other 3 TVs.


----------



## E94Allen (Oct 16, 2005)

Suppose if 6 Premiere TiVos hooked to 6 tuners (6 streams) and Premiere TiVo is dual tuners. So how do they deal with that? Disable the dual tuner making it single tuner (hate that idea)?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

tootal2 said:


> How much tv do you watch in a day that you need 6 tuners?
> 
> it would be neat to have 6 tuner.


the question for me is - how many kids living in the house do you have to need 6 tuners.

basically a TiVo on 3 TVs (each with its own list of shows to record depending on main users of the TV and then 2 dual tuner boxes on main TV with some shows recorded on both as backup


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Videodrome said:


> That article is 5 months old. But this article deeply explains it. Although it from sept 2009. Which really isnt that long ago.
> 
> http://www.cable360.net/ct/sections/features/37357.html


What a was trying to say is that we can't assume the "gateway would use QAM" as the FCC hasn't yet created the final spec. We need to see what the FCC says the gateway will do. Sorry wasn't more clear.

They could mandate that you connect to it with a string and 2 cans at this point. we just dont know.

Unless you are saying there is no way to do it via IP over Ethernet and it has to be QAM? (sorry I dont understand it all that well.)

Again- it's not my industry so I dont know- but the other thread (and the recently analyst conjecture quoted in multichannel) sure made it sound like they were leaning towards DLNA boxes that get it over ethernet so that blue ray players, video game consoles, and all the new web enabled tv's could just hook right in and away we go.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

E94Allen said:


> Suppose if 6 Premiere TiVos hooked to 6 tuners (6 streams) and Premiere TiVo is dual tuners. So how do they deal with that? Disable the dual tuner making it single tuner (hate that idea)?


probably you would need 2 gateways. (and perhaps 4 as I think someone said the premiere chipset could handle 4IPTV "streams/tuners" at once).


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

daveak said:


> So the latest TiVo DVR is the only one on the market possibly ready? Lucky, or thinking ahead? Didn't they submit a gateway proposal or support statement to the FCC a short while back?


The current Tivo will be old and dusty before this ever becomes a reality.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the question for me is - how many kids living in the house do you have to need 6 tuners.
> 
> basically a TiVo on 3 TVs (each with its own list of shows to record depending on main users of the TV and then 2 dual tuner boxes on main TV with some shows recorded on both as backup


For that setup it would require 2 gateways, as opposed to the 5 cable cards you currently need. You might even need less than that depending on the situation.

First, it is fairly likely that if two sets or DVRs request the same video stream it would only use one tuner. The gateway is advertising the content streams it has available, and the devices ask the gateway for those streams. The STBs/DVRs are not manually reserving a tuner to change it to a specific frequency, they can't since the gateway might not even have tuners per se. That is an implementation detail of the gateway, but there is no reason why a gateway would not be able to stream the content it gets from a single tuner to multiple devices. If the gateways handle it that way then the number of effective tuners you need might drop from 10 down 8 or 9 if you are often recording the same show on multiple sets.

Second, how often are you actually using both tuners on every TiVo in you house at the same time? Obviously with a single device it is easy to use both tuners, but the more devices you have the higher the chance that some device is only using one tuner (or completely dormant). In aggregate that may free up another tuner or two across your house, since the tuners are not bound to a particular device, and are dynamically allocated as needed.

My gut instinct (without knowing what you are doing exactly) is that you probably would occasionally run out of tuners wih a 6 tuner unit, but 8 tuners would probably not be a noticeable change for you (despite being physically less hardware than your current 10 tuners) because the utilization/efficiency gains of having them as a shared resource.

One of the the other consequences of putting tuners in the gateway is that it decouples the number of tuners from the DVR. If a DVR wanted a 3rd tuner it could get one and and use it, provided it had enough internal disk bandwidth to store it. That might actually cause more contention for tuners, but only because all your boxes would be 3-4 stream capable which would cause you to potentially try to record more stuff.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

lgerbarg said:


> One of the the other consequences of putting tuners in the gateway is that it decouples the number of tuners from the DVR. If a DVR wanted a 3rd tuner it could get one and and use it, provided it had enough internal disk bandwidth to store it. That might actually cause more contention for tuners, but only because all your boxes would be 3-4 stream capable which would cause you to potentially try to record more stuff.


This could wreak havoc on DVR scheduling algorithms. One feature a good gateway might need is a tuner reservation system. If a DVR cannot be sure it will have a tuner available when it needs to record something, there could be scheduled recordings that fail at recording time, which would not be good.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

CuriousMark said:


> This could wreak havoc on DVR scheduling algorithms. One feature a good gateway might need is a tuner reservation system. If a DVR cannot be sure it will have a tuner available when it needs to record something, there could be scheduled recordings that fail at recording time, which would not be good.


It would have to be dealt with, but I don't know that it would wreak havoc. DVRs already have to deal with situations like this when someone is watching live TV and and it wants to record two shows, or when it is using SDV/PPV and the headend cannot give it a stream. The exact details of how you handle it aren't that much more complicated than what they already do.

In the longer run it will probably get simpler. If I was a DVR manufacturer looking at the new proposal I would be designing a DVR that that would not just use a gateway, but also could advertise itself as a gateway device. If they do that then you only need a single dvr in the house, and every AllVid device in the house can access it via streaming. Once you have that, the incentive to have multiple DVRs becomes much lower, since you can effectively do a whole house DVR system with a single DVR and the customers existing gear.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

CuriousMark said:


> This could wreak havoc on DVR scheduling algorithms. One feature a good gateway might need is a tuner reservation system. If a DVR cannot be sure it will have a tuner available when it needs to record something, there could be scheduled recordings that fail at recording time, which would not be good.


I think it would work like a reserve option, once it know of the device it set a priority, so a Tivo would request 2 slots. If it over subscribed it notifies the box, that its not allowed at that time. Really the best way to deal with this is make a 12 slot box.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

lgerbarg said:


> In the longer run it will probably get simpler. If I was a DVR manufacturer looking at the new proposal I would be designing a DVR that that would not just use a gateway, but also could advertise itself as a gateway device. If they do that then you only need a single dvr in the house, and every AllVid device in the house can access it via streaming. Once you have that, the incentive to have multiple DVRs becomes much lower, since you can effectively do a whole house DVR system with a single DVR and the customers existing gear.


That probably wouldn't fly given the intent of the proposal.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lgerbarg said:


> ...
> 
> In the longer run it will probably get simpler. If I was a DVR manufacturer looking at the new proposal I would be designing a DVR that that would not just use a gateway, but also could advertise itself as a gateway device. If they do that then you only need a single dvr in the house, and every AllVid device in the house can access it via streaming. Once you have that, the incentive to have multiple DVRs becomes much lower, since you can effectively do a whole house DVR system with a single DVR and the customers existing gear.


I LIKE:up:

sign me up to buy one of those. Sounds like could just use a DLNA bluray player at each tv to stream from that. And viola- I actaully have the single box that does everything at each tv that i've dreamed of for years.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Videodrome said:


> ...Really the best way to deal with this is make a 12 slot box.


I'm thinking we all need to coment that a 2 tuner allvid is a joke and that a 6-tuner seems pretty skimpy.

I'm GUESSING they suggested 2 tuner becasue current chips probably can handle that no prob, and they suggested 6 tuners becasue a single m-card can do 6 streams so they want to give cable the ability to build on what exists already.

If my 6 tuner guess is correct and they want to go that way, then they should at least make the devices module or whatever so we can have 6,12,18 or even maybe 24.

Anyone have knowledge how many boxes Directv, Dish, Tivo, and any various cable providers will allow on one account?

I know that Directv and DIsh used to have at least 8port switches so at a minmum seems they can do 8? I think tivo does 10? I've had up to 7 'boxes' on comcast- 4 s-cards, an sd digital box, and 2 dta's- so they will do at least 7 (but i noticed their systems only list the first 6 I had on most reports i saw at the time).

I'd like to be able to mention those numbers in my comment as I think the allvid should at least support, or be made modular to support the maximum tuners/boxes allowed on a "typical" provider.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Raj said:


> That probably wouldn't fly given the intent of the proposal.


what's the intent of the proposal in your head? I'm pretty sure the law says it's to allow innovation and choice for different third party devices to connect to the system to be purchased at retail.

what isn't a choice or innovative about putting a whole home dvr that mimics and allvid between your allvid and your dlna devices? Not one would require it.

It's like when we used to have routers and they would 'spoof' the mac address of the first pc connected to the cable/dsl 'modem' so that we could share our broadband between multiple devices. Similar thing going on here- spoofing an allvid.

_edit: see links below but the chirman of the house committe looking into the matter saud:



Some of the more capable devices could become the hubs for a home entertainment center, switching information of all kinds throughout the household.

Click to expand...

 _ see link below


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I'd prefer the allvid have tuners 1:1 to the devices in my house. I dont want to be dealing with any SDV -like nonsense of hoping there is a tuner when I want one. All sorts of more compexity get added by that- like the SDV mess. No suggestions on tivo's. The DLNA boxes now have to report back that they are alive and the like.

What's more I think cable would agree with me so that they can charge us the $6 digital outlet fee for each device I want to hook into thier system.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

looks like congress held the hearing on the 28th.

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/04/29/cablecard-or-allvid-software-choice-is-the-key-to-inovation/

anyone know where to find a summary of congressional hearings?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

found it:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/ind...cations-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74



> The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices
> Hearings - Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet
> Thursday, 29 April 2010 08:06
> The Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet will hold a hearing entitled "The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices" on Thursday, April 29, 2010, in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing will examine recommendations contained in the National Broadband Plan to stimulate competition and innovation in set-top boxes and other video navigation devices.
> ...


link has pdf's of the chairmans remarks ass well as each witnes' testimony.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

love this quote from the chairman



> The CableCARD is used by TIVO, the major provider of digital video recorders available at retail for conditional access to cable programs. A workable CableCARD system could bring other providers into the market as well.
> 
> To date, the CableCARD regime has been riddled with complications. First, installation of a CableCARD typically involves several multi-hour visits by sometimes untrained technicians. Second, pricing of the CableCARD has been inconsistent and is often expensive. Third, some cable operators have been moving programming to switched digital platforms to make more efficient use of their bandwidth. But, a CableCARD-enabled device cannot access switched digital video without modifications.
> 
> Revised CableCARD rules are needed for the nearterm as the Commission moves to implement the gateway device proposal by the end of 2012.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ought oh- someones's head might explode if he reads the testimony of the guy from public knowledge/comsumers union/media acces project. He says the FCC hasn't put consumers interests first.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Directv is against the allvid. Usual complaints about cost and the like. But Also they make a valid point that their architecture is different than cable. Baically they explain that since cable is 2-way cable can put functions like network dvr, vod and the like on the headend and so that would all work through a dumb gateway to a 3rd party box. But DBS has to use their STB's as the headend to authorize vod, be the dvr, allow interctive services etc. - so a dumb gatway puts them at a disadvantage. Instead they suggest their efforts with the RVU alliance are teh way to go.


Cisco, pace, moto, and broadcom, verizon, directv, and att are all in the alliance- so maybe there is a way to leverage that into an 'open' solution?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

verizon also balks, says everything is fine and competitive- totally ignores the 3rd party device issue and implies widgets like their news, weather, and facebook widgets solve everything.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Directv is against the allvid. Usual complaints about cost and the like. But Also they make a valid point that their architecture is different than cable. Baically they explain that since cable is 2-way cable can put functions like network dvr, vod and the like on the headend and so that would all work through a dumb gateway to a 3rd party box. But DBS has to use their STB's as the headend to authorize vod, be the dvr, allow interctive services etc. - so a dumb gatway puts them at a disadvantage. Instead they suggest their efforts with the RVU alliance are teh way to go.


I don't buy their arguments about the gateway. All DTV has to do is replace their STB with a gateway and it will work exactly the way it does now, except that consumer devices would be able to interact and receive DTV programming. Yes things like vod won't work like cable does, but they don't work that way now either. The consumer devices would simply request vod from the DTV gateway and DTV can do whatever it is they do today. Plus I don't think there's anything in the gateway specification that it needs to provide every service. So if network DVRs aren't possible with DTV, then their gateway simply wouldn't provide that service.

It basically just sounds like DTV is whining. They shouldn't get a pass this time.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> verizon also balks, says everything is fine and competitive- totally ignores the 3rd party device issue and implies widgets like their news, weather, and facebook widgets solve everything.


I find that odd since out of all the current pay TV implementations, Verizon's would be one of the easiest to convert over to using the gateway. It would also allow them to switch over to pure IPTV which is something I think they've wanted to do for a while.

All the arguments are coming down to "We don't want to pay to do that".


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I'm thinking we all need to coment that a 2 tuner allvid is a joke and that a 6-tuner seems pretty skimpy.


The 2-tuner device is intended as a set-back box used for one channel (and PIP) on a single TV. Control might be via HDMI-CEC, as Panasonic's tru2way SBB does today. Cheap box to act as an STB replacement, in other words - would probably just have RF in and HDMI out.

Remember that the FCC proposes a gateway with a minimum of 6 tuners, so nothing prevents a CE manufacturer from adding more. But I think 6 tuners would be plenty for my family of four. I am curious how they propose getting a 6-tuner gateway to stream 6 HD channels simultaneously across a single 100Mbit Ethernet connection though, since 6 1080i MPEG2 streams would probably saturate the connection.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

morac said:


> I don't buy their arguments about the gateway. All DTV has to do is replace their STB with a gateway and it will work exactly the way it does now, except that consumer devices would be able to interact and receive DTV programming. Yes things like vod won't work like cable does, but they don't work that way now either. *The consumer devices would simply request vod from the DTV gateway and DTV can do whatever it is they do today*. Plus I don't think there's anything in the gateway specification that it needs to provide every service. So if network DVRs aren't possible with DTV, then their gateway simply wouldn't provide that service.
> 
> It basically just sounds like DTV is whining. They shouldn't get a pass this time.


Of course their was whining and they want a pass. But I think they have a technical problem with the current suggestion and I think it's legit. But that's why the fcc asked for input before they create the rules and so if it's legit the FCC should make the rules so it creates a level playing field and doesn't favor or harm anyone more than the rest.

I kind of rushed through reading their comments last night so might not be 100% but i think their beef was the proposal seems to say that the FCC want's the gateway to be super basic. And so a 3rd part device couldn't request vod from the gateway as the gateway wont have the ability to serve vod. The way I understand it - basically seems directly needs to be able to beef up the gateway to be more of a whole home set top box that could serve vod. And they are suggesting the rvu thing to do that. doesnt sound that unreasonable if that was the gist of the thing- they should at least be able to - as an OPTION- make gateways more powerfull if they need to for their delivery model. Since they are supplying the gateway if they need to beef it up to serve their needs I think it's ok.

In a nutshell a tivo could ask a cable gateway for a a vod selection and the gateway will pass that request to the head end and the head end will serve the vod to the tivo.

For directv the tivo could request a void selction from a directv gateway but the gateway under the currently suggested fcc solution wont have the ability to serve anything.Sat being one way- the gateway has no place to pass on the request too. So Directv needs to be able to build a beefed up gateway that can serve up VOD- or at least put a whole home server in that works in conjuction with the gatway to cache content and act as their 'headend' needs to push around.. (and of course vod's not the only thing- just an example)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> The 2-tuner device is intended as a set-back box used for one channel (and PIP) on a single TV. Control might be via HDMI-CEC, as Panasonic's tru2way SBB does today. Cheap box to act as an STB replacement, in other words - would probably just have RF in and HDMI out.


ahh- so INSTEAD of getting a single home gateway you could get a set back box at EACH TV that would feed that locations 2 tuners? (dvr or tv with pip presumably.) THan maybe that's the solution to DBS' issue- they just rejigger their STB's to act via whatever new standard to be controlled by HDMI-CEC or whatever and each box can be the headend they need.



slowbiscuit said:


> Remember that the FCC proposes a gateway with a minimum of 6 tuners, so nothing prevents a CE manufacturer from adding more. But I think 6 tuners would be plenty for my family of four. I am curious how they propose getting a 6-tuner gateway to stream 6 HD channels simultaneously across a single 100Mbit Ethernet connection though, since 6 1080i MPEG2 streams would probably saturate the connection.


If I understand (and since you learned me on the 2 tuner thing- maybe I'm not...)- CE manufacturers arent going to build the gateways. The video provider will buy them and rent them to the customer. So basically comcast (or whoever) would be buying them from moto (or whoever) and renting them to us. So i think the FCC needs to mandate the minimum hardware specs or at least whatever protocol to allow CE to build whatever they want.

Suppose comcast decides they only want to buy 4-tuner gateways and there is no provision to network or interconnect them. It would be impossible to build a 6 tuner DVR or HTPC then. That's my concern. I suppose I need to read a bit more to see if that concern is dealt with someplace.

(and yep- their single 100mbit ethernet connection seems a bit low)


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

MichaelK said:


> I'd prefer the allvid have tuners 1:1 to the devices in my house. I dont want to be dealing with any SDV -like nonsense of hoping there is a tuner when I want one. All sorts of more compexity get added by that- like the SDV mess. No suggestions on tivo's. The DLNA boxes now have to report back that they are alive and the like.
> 
> What's more I think cable would agree with me so that they can charge us the $6 digital outlet fee for each device I want to hook into thier system.


As a transition thing I sort of agree with you, but I still think some amount of tuner float would be a good thing. I definitely want my TV to get a tuner if I am channel browsing, but it would also be nice if my tivo could grab a 3rd or 4th tuner to record suggestions if they are sitting idle in the gateway, even if they might be needed if someone else turns on a tv somewhere in the house. It seems like a reasonably good solution would be for devices to be able to get priority for 1 or 2 streams, but give them the ability to request more if the gateway has capacity. Those extra streams could be terminated by the gateway if needed them to fulfill the priority streams of another device.



morac said:


> I don't buy their arguments about the gateway. All DTV has to do is replace their STB with a gateway and it will work exactly the way it does now, except that consumer devices would be able to interact and receive DTV programming. Yes things like vod won't work like cable does, but they don't work that way now either. The consumer devices would simply request vod from the DTV gateway and DTV can do whatever it is they do today. Plus I don't think there's anything in the gateway specification that it needs to provide every service. So if network DVRs aren't possible with DTV, then their gateway simply wouldn't provide that service.
> 
> It basically just sounds like DTV is whining. They shouldn't get a pass this time.


The DTV argument was straight up factually wrong. I watched the hearing, and he claimed to the chairman that in order for a gateway device to have comparable functionality to their STB it would require every thing in their STB. it is obvious that is not true, a gateway would not require a video decoder, HDMI hardware, a GPU for compositing the UI, and would avoid several sets of IP licenses for things like HDCP and h.264.

They have some legitimate complaints that should be addressed, but rather than actually trying to identify solutions they just sat there claiming that unless the proposals let them keep doing exactly what they are doing now the sky will fall down, hoping to dissuade the committee from doing anything. The risk with that is that if they don't stop the changes then they wasted a lot of time in the early discussions when they could have substantive modifications posturing that it won't work, then do not have the time to actually get changes they could have done if they were on board at the start.



slowbiscuit said:


> Remember that the FCC proposes a gateway with a minimum of 6 tuners, so nothing prevents a CE manufacturer from adding more. But I think 6 tuners would be plenty for my family of four. I am curious how they propose getting a 6-tuner gateway to stream 6 HD channels simultaneously across a single 100Mbit Ethernet connection though, since 6 1080i MPEG2 streams would probably saturate the connection.


100Mb/s is too slow for 6 full bandwidth ATSC MPEG2 transport steams, though it would probably be fine in practice for a number of reasons. It would be more than adequate for any navigation device/STB, with the exception of a whole. house DVR capable of recording multiple streams and acting as a gateway as well. As a practical measure, specifying 100baseT as a baseline interface seems fine, and devices that need more bandwidth can use 1000baseT ports. I fully expect most cable company gateways would also include MOCA just so that legacy installations could continue to use existing cabling with their cable company STBs.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> what's the intent of the proposal in your head? I'm pretty sure the law says it's to allow innovation and choice for different third party devices to connect to the system to be purchased at retail.
> 
> what isn't a choice or innovative about putting a whole home dvr that mimics and allvid between your allvid and your dlna devices? Not one would require it.


The problem is that if the AllVid has the DVR functionality built in, they can pre-provision it and put third party devices at a disadvantage.

To me it seems as though the intent of the proposal is to provide equal footing to both cable company leased equipment and customer owned equipment. They are accomplishing this in steps -

1. Integration ban. All devices have to use CableCARDs. Didn't work. Cable companies simply pre-provisioned their equipment and it even comes from the manufacturer pre-paired. If you ever looked at the back of a cable company DVR, they screw a shield onto the CableCARD slot and the card is more or less permanently installed. Separable security in this case accomplishes nothing because the cable company can still send out a tech who isn't trained as much on CableCARDs. All they have to do is plug in the box and call to activate (if even). No issues with pairing or subscribing the card because it was already done.

2. Ban preinstallation. This puts TiVo and others on the same footing with the cable companies' DVRs, solving #1 meaning that the cable techs are now forced to learn how to activate and pair CableCARDs because all devices will now need them. Seems logical, right? We'll see. I suspect it won't accomplish what was intended.

3. And now there's AllVid. AllVid requires only ONE device to be activated, that is the gateway. Gateway doesn't work? Whole house doesn't have service. CE manufacturers only have to make equipment that conforms to open standards and don't have to have a CableCARD slot or equivalent.

But here's the problem with your proposal. IF a whole house DVR is integrated in the AllVid gateway, Where's the incentive to make the "gateway" function work? As long as the DVR function works, most installations will be done and the few people who want to use their own equipment will still be back to square 1.

At least that's the way I see it.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

Raj said:


> But here's the problem with your proposal. IF a whole house DVR is integrated in the AllVid gateway, Where's the incentive to make the "gateway" function work? As long as the DVR function works, most installations will be done and the few people who want to use their own equipment will still be back to square 1.
> 
> At least that's the way I see it.


That wasn't what I was suggesting at all. I am not talking about building DVR functionality into the AllVid gateway the MPVD provides. I am saying that DVRs could advertise themselves as a SECOND gateway on the same home network, and just list all of their recorded shows as on demand content. The navigation devices would then be able to pull content from either gateway. Companies like NetFlix and Hulu could also provide hardware boxes that present themselves as gateways, or could even run special programs on your computer that presented your computer as a gateway and tunneled content through it.

This sort functionality is clearly the intent of the some members of the congressional committee. If you listen to Markey talk about what they are trying to do now and what they were trying to do in 1994, he envisions the navigation devices being able to grab content for multiple sources and showing them as a single coherent set of programming. They don't just want AllVid there so that any navigation device can access an MPVD, they want it there so that any navigation can integrate the content of multiple MPVDs and online video.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I think your reading the OP's post wrong (or I misunderstood what he meant myself).

He said you would get the allvid gateway from the cable/dbs/phone/iptv company just like anyone else.

BUT THEN tivo could built a "whole home tivo" that plugs into the output of the allvid- the tivo would take all 6 outputs from the allvid. Then the tivo mimics an allvid on it's outputs. So any device that could plug into the industry standard allvid could then be a thin client to the tivo whole home dvr.

So you would have 
allvid->tivo whole home dvr masquerading as an allvid -> industry standard clients (eg any tv built after the gateways actually exist)

seems pretty sweet to me.



Raj said:


> The problem is that if the AllVid has the DVR functionality built in, they can pre-provision it and put third party devices at a disadvantage.
> 
> To me it seems as though the intent of the proposal is to provide equal footing to both cable company leased equipment and customer owned equipment. They are accomplishing this in steps -
> 
> ...


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

MichaelK said:


> I think your reading the OP's post wrong (or I misunderstood what he meant myself).
> 
> He said you would get the allvid gateway from the cable/dbs/phone/iptv company just like anyone else.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that is basically what I am talking about, though I suspect that navigation devices will natively be able to talk to multiple gateways, which changes a lot of the software details of how it would work, but would end up looking pretty much the same to the user.

I expect them to support multiple gateways so they can integrate other things. Imagine if your internet router also had an integrated Hulu or NetFlix gateway that all your TVs automatically saw and integrated with your MPVD and DVR content.

Obviously MPVDs don't like that sort of thing, but according to everyone on the congressional committee that is the goal they are trying to push forward, the debate among the committee members seems to be whether FCC regulation will actually achieve it or if the free market will gravitate there on its own. Personally I don't see it happening without regulation, since almost no amount of consumer demand is worth allowing a major new compeitor access. If you can plugin a TV in your house and it automatically sees both Hulu or NetFlix content in its program guide exactly the same as cable tv channels without having a special box at that TV it is a huge improvement for NetFlix and Hulu, and a huge potential risk for the MPVD.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lgerbarg said:


> ...
> They have some legitimate complaints that should be addressed, but rather than actually trying to identify solutions they just sat there claiming that unless the proposals let them keep doing exactly what they are doing now the sky will fall down, hoping to dissuade the committee from doing anything. *The risk with that is that if they don't stop the changes then they wasted a lot of time in the early discussions when they could have substantive modifications posturing that it won't work, then do not have the time to actually get changes they could have done if they were on board at the start. *


Similar to theh original cable card. First they got a waiver to not participate. But then when the FCC was deciding who would control the point of deployment specifications they complained that it was skewed in cables favor and they would never be able to leverage it. They argued that a neutral third party should create a spec that everyone could use. (they were afraid cable would figure out a way to get every tv built as "cable ready" with a card slot and then DBS would be disadvantaged with still needing to deal with STB's)

So they are going down the exact same road. But it doesn't seem to me that they will get the waiver this time. And by gumming up the works early on they might not get the best standard for themselves.



lgerbarg said:


> 100Mb/s is too slow for 6 full bandwidth ATSC MPEG2 transport steams, though it would probably be fine in practice for a number of reasons. It would be more than adequate for any navigation device/STB, with the exception of a whole. house DVR capable of recording multiple streams and acting as a gateway as well. As a practical measure, specifying 100baseT as a baseline interface seems fine, and devices that need more bandwidth can use 1000baseT ports. I fully expect most cable company gateways would also include MOCA just so that legacy installations could continue to use existing cabling with their cable company STBs.


I was under the impression that there were proposing a single 100 Ethernet port that you would then connect into your home network. So even if you have 3 dual tuner dvr's you would have a problem moving 6 streams around. Seems the best would be just put a single gig Ethernet port on the thing and then just use commodity switches to move it around the house.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

MichaelK said:


> Similar to theh original cable card. First they got a waiver to not participate. But then when the FCC was deciding who would control the point of deployment specifications they complained that it was skewed in cables favor and they would never be able to leverage it. They argued that a neutral third party should create a spec that everyone could use. (they were afraid cable would figure out a way to get every tv built as "cable ready" with a card slot and then DBS would be disadvantaged with still needing to deal with STB's)
> 
> So they are going down the exact same road. But it doesn't seem to me that they will get the waiver this time. And by gumming up the works early on they might not get the best standard for themselves.


Yeah, that is exactly what my impression is.

<offtopic anecdote>
Years ago I worked for a major OS vendor, and we were talking to a major antivirus vendor. Their software worked by patching a lot of undocumented internal functions in the OS, which was bad for us (it meant little changes caused their software to break in ways that crashed the OS), and bad for our customers. Since we didn't provide any supported way to do the things they were trying to do they had no way to avoid doing that, but it was a bad situation.

We told them we wanted to design some new APIs for them (and their competitors, who also did the same thing) so that they would not need to patch the kernel, and asked them what functionality they felt they needed (things like intercepting file opens, etc). Their response was to write a proposal that had us implementing an API to patch the system so they would not need to make any changes except for removing their funky assembly patching function. We told them we were not going to do that, and we wanted a list of the functionality they actually needed. They told us the only way for them to do it was for us to give them carte blanche to patch anything and everything in the system at their whim.

Suffice it to say, we designed the new APIs without their input. A year or two later when we informed them we were going to disable the mechanisms they used for kernel patching as anything they could use for kernel patching could also be used to implement rootkits, they had to scramble to get stuff working with the new API that they had to hope was sufficient for their needs.
</offtopic anecdote>



> I was under the impression that there were proposing a single 100 Ethernet port that you would then connect into your home network. So even if you have 3 dual tuner dvr's you would have a problem moving 6 streams around. Seems the best would be just put a single gig Ethernet port on the thing and then just use commodity switches to move it around the house.


The proposal specifies 100baseT as a minimum, but they specify other interconnects (such as MoCA or wifi) as options as well. In other words, all devices must support 100baseT (which any device that supports 1000baseT does, via the same port), 2 tuner gateways, 6 tuner gateways, navigation devices, etc. Obviously some of those devices might require faster interfaces for full utilization. Fortunately for any of the devices it is pretty simple to figure out what the maximum bandwidth necessary is, so manufacturers should do the right thing, otherwise their product won't work when consumers actually trying to use it and their customers (they MPVDs) will end up fielding support calls, which costs them money.

I imagine most 6 tuner gateways would ship with a gigabit port, and most STBs and 2 tuner gateways would have 100 megabit. So long as you are using a gigabit switch that should all work out fine.

It is also conceivable that you actually can fit 6 streams into 100Mb/s, since theoretical maximum for 6 MPEG2 transport streams is 19.4*6 = 116.4 Mb/s, but transport streams have a lot of redundancy and are design for shared medium with a lot of errors (coax, OTA). If the gateway actually transmuxes out the data and packages it into something a bit denser that depends on the underlying transport (TCP) being reliable then it _might_ drop below 100Mb/s.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> what's the intent of the proposal in your head?


The idea of AllVid, is that the gateway is a device of the provider, not something the customer can choose, unless the provider gives them that choice voluntarily. With that, a gateway will be a device that the providers most likely own, and lease to the subscribers.


> I'm pretty sure the law says it's to allow innovation and choice for different third party devices to connect to the system to be purchased at retail.


The law as currently executed is not providing that innovation and choice for 3rd party device manufacturers. Changing the game may provide that innovation.


> what isn't a choice or innovative about putting a whole home dvr that mimics and allvid between your allvid and your dlna devices? Not one would require it.


A whole home DVR that _works with_ the AllVid gateway is a different story than one that _is_ the AllVid gateway lgerbarg seemed to propose.
In a similar vein, a provider could innovate and have DVR features on their gateway.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> I am curious how they propose getting a 6-tuner gateway to stream 6 HD channels simultaneously across a single 100Mbit Ethernet connection though, since 6 1080i MPEG2 streams would probably saturate the connection.


1. Transcode to MPEG4 (which some providers are doing with their service regardless).

2. Have one Ethernet interface per tuner.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

classicsat said:


> The idea of AllVid, is that the gateway is a device of the provider, not something the customer can choose, unless the provider gives them that choice voluntarily.


It goes beyond that. Someone pointed out to me (in the other thread?) that the specification says that the choice between whether to have a single gateway or a set-back device on each television is in the hands of the service provider.



classicsat said:


> The law as currently executed is not providing that innovation and choice for 3rd party device manufacturers. Changing the game may provide that innovation.


The idea is clearly to take everything that is provider-specific, and everything upstream from something that is provider-specific, out of the television. That includes the (physical) tuner, not because it is provider-specific, but because the tuner needs to be applied before decryption, which is provider-specific.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> The idea is clearly to take everything that is provider-specific, and everything upstream from something that is provider-specific, out of the television. That includes the (physical) tuner, not because it is provider-specific, but because the tuner needs to be applied before decryption, which is provider-specific.


Actually a tuner is provider specific in its own right. A tuner for cable, is different than a tuner for satellite, is different than a tuner for OTA, and that is different from a tunerless IPTV source. So the tuner would belong in the provider's gateway even if there were no encryption to think about at all.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fair enough way to look at it.


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

Can't "AllVid" be implemented as a single "Point of Decryption" device per household? Design a device with a DCAS module that decrypts the signals customers subscribe to. From there, a digital signal can be split to multiple TVs just like we do with analog cable. Leave the actual TV or other CEA device to tune or transcode the signal. With the signal decrypted, consumers can utilize their existing equipment (i.e. internal QAM tuners) to view linear cable TV channels. For MVPDs using MPEG-4, a transcoding device can be inserted to convert the decrypted signal to MPEG-2 for TVs with internal QAM tuners. Similar mechanisms can be applied for DBS. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things. Outside of a money-grab by MVPDs seeking per-set revenues; why can't the system be implemented this way? You can still apply "two-way" over IP, but simply allow the "gateway" to pass upstream data unaltered from DLNA ready devices.

If the current QAM signal is decrypted, almost every DTV sold today will be "digital cable" ready. If all MVPDs insert "PSIP" data, customers will even experience proper channel lineups without additional effort. Such a plan is far from perfect. I do believe most customers would benefit; even appreciate such an effort.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

The AllVid proposal still includes encryption and some sort of device certification, it just won't be controlled through the CableLabs (I imagine it will be something akin to getting an HDCP certification). The proposal suggests using DTCP-IP. I think there is absolutely no chance that a solution that includes opening a huge unecrypted connection that all data has to pass through will be mandated (though there might be a requirement that specific subsets are unencrypted, just like now).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RealityCheck said:


> Can't "AllVid" be implemented as a single "Point of Decryption" device per household?


Anything is possible, but doing so would preclude the ability to charge per digital outlet, and essentially let one person in each building essentially purchase cable and share it with everyone else. That's a non-starter.

That also precludes generic support for On Demand, SDV and similar services. Again, a non-starter.



RealityCheck said:


> I do believe most customers would benefit; even appreciate such an effort.


However, it has fatal flaws from the supplier side of the relationship.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicsat said:


> The idea of AllVid, is that the gateway is a device of the provider, not something the customer can choose, unless the provider gives them that choice voluntarily. With that, a gateway will be a device that the providers most likely own, and lease to the subscribers.
> 
> The law as currently executed is not providing that innovation and choice for 3rd party device manufacturers. Changing the game may provide that innovation.
> 
> ...


his original post seemed clear to me that it would connect to a provider supplied Allvid gateway.



lgerbarg said:


> ...
> In the longer run it will probably get simpler. If I was a DVR manufacturer looking at the new proposal I would be designing a DVR that that *would not just use a gateway,* but also could advertise itself as a gateway device. ....


I suggested and he reiterated that it would in fact stand between the gateway and the clients.

it's a great idea that that is exactly the type of innovation the FCC is trying to enable.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> It goes beyond that. Someone pointed out to me (in the other thread?) that the specification says that the choice between whether to have a single gateway or a set-back device on each television is in the hands of the service provider.....


just to be clear there is NO SPEC yet. There's a request for input on crafting what the final spec will be.And that has a starting point proposal that may or may not be the end game.

If interested parties- legacy providers, ce companies, new providers, consumers- want to pipe in and express their opinions then they should.

so we have no idea if their is going to be a choice of 6-tuner or 2-tuner devices for the provider or how things are going to play out.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

RealityCheck said:


> Can't "AllVid" be implemented as a single "Point of Decryption" device per household? Design a device with a DCAS module that decrypts the signals customers subscribe to. From there, a digital signal can be split to multiple TVs just like we do with analog cable. Leave the actual TV or other CEA device to tune or transcode the signal. With the signal decrypted, consumers can utilize their existing equipment (i.e. internal QAM tuners) to view linear cable TV channels. For MVPDs using MPEG-4, a transcoding device can be inserted to convert the decrypted signal to MPEG-2 for TVs with internal QAM tuners. Similar mechanisms can be applied for DBS. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things. Outside of a money-grab by MVPDs seeking per-set revenues; why can't the system be implemented this way? You can still apply "two-way" over IP, but simply allow the "gateway" to pass upstream data unaltered from DLNA ready devices.
> 
> If the current QAM signal is decrypted, almost every DTV sold today will be "digital cable" ready. If all MVPDs insert "PSIP" data, customers will even experience proper channel lineups without additional effort. Such a plan is far from perfect. I do believe most customers would benefit; even appreciate such an effort.


decrypting only and giving out QAM only works for current cable. Doesn't get you DBS, ATT, or verizon in the fold. Also precludes cable upgrading to MPEG4 at any point. Tuners need to be in the gateway to convert to some generic standard.

Also that's just not going to fly- they get's you right back to the unencrytped analog systems of decades ago where a 3 dollar splitter allows 2 or 3 neighbors in an apartment building or townhouse to share service. Beyond that you can then easily bittorrent anything that is ever on tv. The paytv providers and content owners aren't going to allow that. At least not in my humble opinion.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

RealityCheck said:


> Can't "AllVid" be implemented as a single "Point of Decryption" device per household? Design a device with a DCAS module that decrypts the signals customers subscribe to. From there, a digital signal can be split to multiple TVs just like we do with analog cable. Leave the actual TV or other CEA device to tune or transcode the signal. With the signal decrypted, consumers can utilize their existing equipment (i.e. internal QAM tuners) to view linear cable TV channels. For MVPDs using MPEG-4, a transcoding device can be inserted to convert the decrypted signal to MPEG-2 for TVs with internal QAM tuners.


Nope. The signal must be tuned and demodulated before an encrypted QAM can be fed to the DCAS module. So to implement a device that decrypted "everything" it would need one tuner and one DCAS channel per QAM, or around 50 tuners. Then it would need to re-modulate those signals back to RF to feed to out to QAM tuner equipped TVs. This is just insane. This is just how cable currently works, the encryption is on the inside, not the outside and it takes a tuner and demodulator to get to the inside from the outside.



> Similar mechanisms can be applied for DBS.


Nope, and for the same reason, the transport streams are what is encyrpted and they have to be tuned and demodulated first, to feed them to a decrypter.



> Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things.


Yes, but that is very forgivable, there is no reason you or I should have any reason to know or understand the complexities. One advantage of a gateway is it keeps the complexity out of all the user equipment, so all the user equipment gets cheaper. TVs and DVRs no longer need QAM tuners for example, so they can be built for less.



> Outside of a money-grab by MVPDs seeking per-set revenues; why can't the system be implemented this way? You can still apply "two-way" over IP, but simply allow the "gateway" to pass upstream data unaltered from DLNA ready devices.


Assuming the gateway handles all the messy tuning and decryption, it could work this way. The gateway will get upstream requests over IP and can decide how it wants to propagate that back up to the head end. For sat users, that might mean another Ethernet connector that must be plugged into your broadband router or modem, but so be it.

The user side of the gateway should look the same no matter what method the programs get to it on the back end, whether that method involves tuning or simply a selector being fed by a piece of optical fiber with nothing but a high speed digital stream. A gateway will simply advertise how many streams it can provide simultaneously and that will be it.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

The gateway device only has to present the same face to the inside of the house, right? Couldn't each provider have their own device that does the conversion or one for sat and one for cable. You'd just have to swap them out when switching.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> The gateway device only has to present the same face to the inside of the house, right? Couldn't each provider have their own device that does the conversion or one for sat and one for cable. You'd just have to swap them out when switching.


that's exactly what is being suggested by the FCC. Consumers union, Tivo, CE companies, and even cable agree to the basic concept. It's basically a matter of if the FCC follows though and exactly what the specifics of the end regulation would be- e.g. what will that "same face" look like to your house.

Cable, DBS, ATT, FIOS, new competition, all would have gateway's specific to their systems. But the homeowner side would look the same to all the consumer devices.

Sort of like how your phone can some from a variety of technologies (plain old copper twisted pair, fiber, voip over dsl, voip over cable, etc) yet each provider gives you an rj11/14 jack that you plug your home wiring into. Each might has a different "gateway box" that might be nothing more than a jack and pigtail to physically unhook the legacy twisted pair, could be a fiber to twisted pair converter, could be a cable modem with a phone port, etc. But in the end you have a little modular jack that you can plug your one or 2 line home wiring into.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yes, exactly. In this case the jack will be RJ45 ethernet, or coax MoCA.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yes, exactly. In this case the jack will be RJ45 ethernet, or coax MoCA.


Probably if you can use both, then the 7 HD streaming is possible.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

http://www.multichannel.com/article/452589-Cable_Show_2010_Arris_Tees_Up_IP_Gateway_For_Video.php

The demonstration unit includes six MPEG-2 tuners, a DOCSIS 3.0 modem with eight channels down (for up to 320 Mbps) and four up (for up to 120 Mbps); and a 500-Gigabyte hard drive for DVR recordings and personal media storage. The device is designed to distribute video to relatively inexpensive IPTV set-tops elsewhere in the home.

The Arris gateway can dramatically reduce the cost of the components in the home, since full-blown digital cable set-tops and DVRs aren't required on every TV, said Stan Brovont, Arris's senior vice president of marketing and business development.

"We're convinced the time is right for the industry to move to IP video," Brovont said. "They're the same technical and economic forces that moved us to do voice over IP."


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> Anything is possible, but doing so would preclude the ability to charge per digital outlet, and essentially let one person in each building essentially purchase cable and share it with everyone else. That's a non-starter.


That's how it is now and how it should be. I don't have a problem with this. The beef here is with apartment complexes, not home owners, so configure them differently.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Videodrome said:


> http://www.multichannel.com/article/452589-Cable_Show_2010_Arris_Tees_Up_IP_Gateway_For_Video.php
> 
> The demonstration unit includes six MPEG-2 tuners, a DOCSIS 3.0 modem with eight channels down (for up to 320 Mbps) and four up (for up to 120 Mbps); and a 500-Gigabyte hard drive for DVR recordings and personal media storage. The device is designed to distribute video to relatively inexpensive IPTV set-tops elsewhere in the home.
> 
> ...


pretty cool- sounds like (*under the current proposal) the FCC wouldn't allow such a thing- they seem to want a dumb allvid. (but if directv stops crying and instead works for a compromise- such a box might wind up being allowed- they made a compelling argument that they may need to stuff a hard drive in their allvid)

But you could break it in half- dumb allvid unit with tuners in one box- and smart whole home media center with the rest like lgerbarg suggested above.

would be interesting if cable can get a compromise that they will supply a dumb allvid to anyone that wants OR they can rent the a arris type box too- either would connect to whatever new standard IPTV is to be included in tv's, bluray, etc. The FCC would have to Force shared reliance and shared provisioning on that to work. But if regulated correctly maybe everyone can win with that?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> That's how it is now and how it should be. I don't have a problem with this. The beef here is with apartment complexes, not home owners, so configure them differently.


not sure that's going to fly - 2 standards. I could see an argument that people in multiple dwelling units shouldn't be treated like second class citizens and have to do something (eg BUY different perhaps more expensive hardware) that people in the houses in the suburbs dont need to do.

Also from a logistics point of view- you wind up with 2 national standards that have to be built to for CE. While geographically much smaller, areas with people in apartments aren't going to be some tiny amount of households. Once block in NYC might have as many residents as a whole county in the middle of the country.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

I still dont like the fact that the cable company is supplying the DVR. Its should be totally separate. Matter of fact it should be a choice from the consumer. The cable co, should just give you a box, which works will a single tv set, and this box serves all others thru ip. So you could have 6 channels, used thru ip. The DVR function shouldnt be allowed.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

I still don't see AllVid being popular. We're back to two boxes on the main TV, plus one box now mandatory for each additional TV? People are going to pay the $15/month lease fee for the Allvid box, plus buy a new Tivo, plus perhaps pay Tivo a monthly fee, plus pay a fee for each small box?

The main problem with third-party boxes hasn't been lack of VoD. It's been pricing. The final price tag for the end consumer may actually increase with this proposal. It makes it even less attractive than CableCards, which is difficult to do.

I like the one main DVR concept with a cheap box on each additional TV, connected via MoCA, and have everything streamed to the additional boxes. But Verizon and DirecTV already provide this service. Moxi even provides this (though not "cheap"). 

I think it's a nice idea. I just don't think you can sell it to enough customers to justify its existence.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> That's how it is now and how it should be.


No, that *isn't* how it should be. Rather: Service providers should be able to provide service for more basic customers at a lower price and service for more advanced customers at a higher price.



Stormspace said:


> I don't have a problem with this. The beef here is with apartment complexes, not home owners, so configure them differently.


And charge home owners more for insisting on being configured differently than the standard that would work effectively in both contexts... that's a possibility, but I doubt you'd be any happier. I think you just want what you want and don't really care to factor in what is fair to others, including the service providers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> I think it's a nice idea. I just don't think you can sell it to enough customers to justify its existence.


I think you're right, at least with regard to reliance on consumer support. And picking up on what I said in the message above, the issue here is that consumers are really looking for something to get them out of having to pay for things what they're worth.

However, I believe AllVid can be defined such that it is not dependent on consumers. Impose the requirement for gateways to be phased in by a certain date, and then let the market determine whether consumers would prefer to pay for AllVid STBs and leased AllVid DVRs or for AllVid-compatible HDTVs and their own AllVid DVRs.

Sounds a lot like CableCARD -- true -- but I think the key difference is that it is a single, industry-wide (including satellite) standard, instead of a requirement on just some of the industry, for which the standard was crafted by the industry itself.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> the issue here is that consumers are really looking for something to get them out of having to pay for things what they're worth.


just as business should seek to maximize profits - both are valid behaviors. I still think this is a case though of getting some uniformity in the broadcast market - if you let them continue to supply good deals on proprietary systems then broadcasters will continue behavior that keeps consumers locked in and maximizes broadcaster profits. Allvid will become as little known and second class as cable cards.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> I think you're right, at least with regard to reliance on consumer support. And picking up on what I said in the message above, the issue here is that consumers are really looking for something to get them out of having to pay for things what they're worth.
> 
> However, I believe AllVid can be defined such that it is not dependent on consumers. Impose the requirement for gateways to be phased in by a certain date, and then let the market determine whether consumers would prefer to pay for AllVid STBs and leased AllVid DVRs or for AllVid-compatible HDTVs and their own AllVid DVRs.
> 
> Sounds a lot like CableCARD -- true -- but I think the key difference is that it is a single, industry-wide (including satellite) standard, instead of a requirement on just some of the industry, for which the standard was crafted by the industry itself.


Bicker, i completely agree, marks the date and time


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> No, that *isn't* how it should be. Rather: Service providers should be able to provide service for more basic customers at a lower price and service for more advanced customers at a higher price.
> 
> And charge home owners more for insisting on being configured differently than the standard that would work effectively in both contexts... that's a possibility, but I doubt you'd be any happier. I think you just want what you want and don't really care to factor in what is fair to others, including the service providers.


Charging an outlet fee is just a way for cable operators to do an end run on the FCC's home wiring regulations. Their attitude it seems is that if they can't control where the wires run in your home, they'll require a security device for each outlet.

This is a money grab, plain and simple and is not designed to prevent cable theft, which would be applicable in an apartment complex setting.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> just as business should seek to maximize profits - both are valid behaviors.


Precisely, and business isn't trying to make it illegal for consumers to save money, while the problem is that some consumers are trying to make it illegal for businesses to get full value for what they offer.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Charging an outlet fee is just a way for cable operators to do an end run on the FCC's home wiring regulations. Their attitude it seems is that if they can't control where the wires run in your home, they'll require a security device for each outlet.


That's not an end-run. It is a valid means of pricing services based on value delivered.



Stormspace said:


> This is a money grab, plain and simple


You call anything you don't like a "money grab". Ridiculous.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> I still don't see AllVid being popular. We're back to two boxes on the main TV, plus one box now mandatory for each additional TV? People are going to pay the $15/month lease fee for the Allvid box, plus buy a new Tivo, plus perhaps pay Tivo a monthly fee, plus pay a fee for each small box?
> ...
> 
> I think it's a nice idea. I just don't think you can sell it to enough customers to justify its existence.


you're not following everything.

potentially there will be ZERO boxes at the tv in the future.

One potential outcome (so far it's all just proposals and there will be jockying before anything becomes a regulation)- if a SINGLE 6 tuner whole home gateway- just like Arris currently supplies "MTA's" for comcast that is a internet/voipe 'gateway' that takes the incoming coax from the cable company and allows them to hook into your homes ethernet network and phone lines. So potentially Arris could create a single gateway that connects the cable line to your homes ethernet, telephone, and cable tv wiring.

The proposal basically suggests that all tv's going forward would come with some sort of ability to do IPTV- rather then having a QAM tuner there would be an IPTV chipset- probably using DLNA or something built in. If you have a pre-IPTV standard tv you would need a cheap IPTV box at the tv- but if you have a blueray player, a tivo (at least a premiere), or a gaming console, you could potentially let that act as your box at the tv.

Another potential is that you would have a smaller box (stand off I think it was called?) that can only handle 2 tuners- that would need to be placed at the tv, If your tv wasnt a "new" IPTV tv then you probably would just get a legacy box anyway in this configuration.

For DVR's there are several outcomes- one is a whole home dvr- that has 6 tuners - either built into the gateway or in another 3rd party box connected right to the gateway. Either of whole home dvr's would output 6 of the standard IPTV streams so you could hook an 6 standard tv's to your home wiring to your whole house dvr. Alternatively you would have a tivo at each tv that gets it's 2 IP streams from the 6-tuner gateway. Or you have a tivo at the tv that also has a breakout box - so you have 2 boxes at each tv (like you get with SDV today)- with no whole home gatway.

Or the FCC does something altogether different or nothing at all.

also as cablecard has shown- it really doesn't matter at all if there's consumer interest, the FCC can do what they want as they have been empowered by the law to try and do something. So hopefully all the players involved can act like grown ups and come up with a solution that consumers WILL want- so that all the industries involved can make money keeping us all happy.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I think you're right, at least with regard to reliance on consumer support. And picking up on what I said in the message above, the issue here is that consumers are really looking for something to get them out of having to pay for things what they're worth.
> 
> However, I believe AllVid can be defined such that it is not dependent on consumers. Impose the requirement for gateways to be phased in by a certain date, and then let the market determine whether consumers would prefer to pay for AllVid STBs and leased AllVid DVRs or for AllVid-compatible HDTVs and their own AllVid DVRs.
> 
> Sounds a lot like CableCARD -- true -- but I think the key difference is that it is a single, industry-wide (including satellite) standard, instead of a requirement on just some of the industry, for which the standard was crafted by the industry itself.





Videodrome said:


> Bicker, i completely agree, marks the date and time


I think he's on to something here. :up:


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> Charging an outlet fee is just a way for cable operators to do an end run on the FCC's home wiring regulations. Their attitude it seems is that if they can't control where the wires run in your home, they'll require a security device for each outlet.
> 
> This is a money grab, plain and simple and is not designed to prevent cable theft, which would be applicable in an apartment complex setting.


Sure it's all about money- so what?

it's no end run around anything- it's a direct implementation of the rights that congress give them in the 1996 telecom act.

Cable's lobbysists saw what DBS was doing and decided they too wanted 'miror' fees so they got it included in the law. So why wouldn't cable use it?

Thing is people will only pay so much- so I'm not really sure what the hec it matters what different line items they add to anyone's bills. We look at the bottom line and decide if it's worth it or not. If it's not or we can get a better deal elsewhere then we leave.

If cable makes an average of 5 bucks more a house with the additional outlet fee and tomorrow congress outlawed the fees. I'd bet you a year of fees that your bill would go up an extra 5 bucks as soon as cable had the chance. They make X million and they would still make pretty much exactly X million. So what's it matter what the differnt line items on the bill say?

Do you care that they charge you a separate line item for a remote?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> it's no end run around anything- it's a direct implementation of the rights that congress give them in the 1996 telecom act.


Isn't it also related to the rights that Congress established for service providers in the 1992 Cable Act (i.e., deregulation of the price for upper-tier services)?



MichaelK said:


> Thing is people will only pay so much- so I'm not really sure what the hec it matters what different line items they add to anyone's bills. We look at the bottom line and decide if it's worth it or not. If it's not or we can get a better deal elsewhere then we leave.
> 
> If cable makes an average of 5 bucks more a house with the additional outlet fee and tomorrow congress outlawed the fees. I'd bet you a year of fees that your bill would go up an extra 5 bucks as soon as cable had the chance. They make X million and they would still make pretty much exactly X million. So what's it matter what the differnt line items on the bill say?
> 
> Do you care that they charge you a separate line item for a remote?


Really good points.

However, there actually is some impact, though it is perhaps the opposite impact that the previous poster would like to imply. Specifically, this fee structure means that customers who are more price sensitive than feature/convenience sensitive can get a lower price (resulting in better retention of these more price sensitive customers), while those that value additional capabilities highly pay for the extra value they derive.

The alternative you outlined (having the value of additional outlets reflected in the package price for the entire account) gives an unwarranted bonus to customers who are more feature/convenience sensitive than price sensitive, since the additional value they derive is effectively subsidized by the customers who don't make use of the additional value offered by that pricing approach. That effective subsidy is one reason why I really find advocacy against outlet fees especially offensive.

And that offense is highlighted when the issue is pushed, because those folks could choose to use just one outlet (like the more price sensitive customers, mentioned above, do) or do without the service entirely, but reject that as a viable option because -- in a nutshell -- they want what they want how they want it when they want it for how much they want to pay for it regardless of any other considerations that don't benefit them personally 100%. They don't make the connection between their additional desires being satisfied and having to pay more for that additional value delivered to them, as compared to what is provided to others. I don't know why folks feel that other folks should pay the same as them, even though those folks are taking less; but it seems like a really selfish perspective, which is why I object to it so strongly.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I hope they come up with a standard soon. All this speculation is confusing. Especially in relation to using a Tivo with it.
If this "gateway" includes tuners, how would it send the A/V to the Tivo so you can record your shows, etc.?
Too many unanswered questions. 
As it sounds now, you wouldn't be able to use the Tivo as we now do.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Isn't it also related to the rights that Congress established for service providers in the 1992 Cable Act (i.e., deregulation of the price for upper-tier services)?
> ....


I could be wrong for sure (it's been years)- but my recollection is that an earlier act (the 1992 one?) actually took away their ability to charge addtional outlet fees for analog when the government made the analog 'cable ready' tuner standard. I remember as a kid with analog cable they would come around trying to count how many 'outlets' you had. And that cable got the allowance for digital outlets put back in to the 1996 act.

But your recollection may be correct.

But one thing lost in all the complaints that digital outlets cost cable nothing more- is the potential that with addressable converters that providers pay per outlet for their content and NOT per house like with analog. I recall discussion many years ago that Directv and the rest of DBS specifically DID pay per box and NOT per household for things like HBO and ESPN and all. I'm not certain of that but i have some vague memory of that being the case.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

steve614 said:


> I hope they come up with a standard soon. All this speculation is confusing. Especially in relation to using a Tivo with it.
> If this "gateway" includes tuners, how would it send the A/V to the Tivo so you can record your shows, etc.?
> Too many unanswered questions.
> As it sounds now, you wouldn't be able to use the Tivo as we now do.


read more of the threads (or check the links to the FCC documents and the different testimony of the interested parties)-most of it has been hashed out with current techonology. It would send the content to the tivo's as an IP Stream. Any DLNA ready device could conceivably work now. So any bluray player, current generation game console, pc, or ethernet equiped tv could probably work today.

There's some speculation if the S3/THD could be updated software wise to get dual tuner functionality. But the hardware in the premiere would be ready to go and in fact some suggest it could become a "4 tuner" box with software alone becasue the chipset can handle 4 incoming ip streams.

It would be nice to see what the final regulation is, but i'd really prefer they NOT rush it can make a mess like they did with cablecard. I dont want them to take years - but I can wait a few months more to get it done right this time.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Isn't it also related to the rights that Congress established for service providers in the 1992 Cable Act (i.e., deregulation of the price for upper-tier services)?
> ..
> 
> However, there actually is some impact, though it is perhaps the opposite impact that the previous poster would like to imply. Specifically, this fee structure means that customers who are more price sensitive than feature/convenience sensitive can get a lower price (resulting in better retention of these more price sensitive customers), while those that value additional capabilities highly pay for the extra value they derive.
> ...


Yep it's sort of like the 'unlimited internet' and people going ape about caps. Caps should be published and understandable and you shouldn't just get randomly terminated for exceeding it- you should get charged or throttled or whatever. But I have no problem with caps. By having truly unlimited- most of us subsidize those that use bit torrent as their premium movie channels 24/7 or whatever the top users are doing.

ATT published a paper (the old dead ATT)- years ago basically trying to get the other ISP's NOT to go unlimited right when AOL did unlimited dialup. They argued that in any instance they were involved in 10% of the customers use 90% of the bandwidth. So the pipe provider needs to build their network to to sustain those 10% and the rest of us pay for it.

Truth be told maybe I'm more then the average internet user- I stream netflix at times to my tivo's. Someone's always on the web in my house. I use offsite backup for basically everything I own- gigs and gigs of media. I replicate the data from my office server to my home server as another offsite backup for work. But still I have no beef if they are OPEN about their policies and wanted to charge me something more. I'd have to decide if all my offsite backing up and whatnot was worth it to buy the next tier or whatever. But if they told me I was jamming the whole neighborhood and I'd need to pay an extra 50 bucks a month for the priviledge than so be it.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> Sure it's all about money- so what?
> 
> it's no end run around anything- it's a direct implementation of the rights that congress give them in the 1996 telecom act.
> 
> ...


I agree that cable companies are likely to add the fees elsewhere had they not gotten the additional outlet fees. That goes to the type of companies they are, and the lengths they will go regardless of the intent of laws. 10 years of foot dragging with the digital transition and cable card, SDV to defeat that standard, and now pushing for disabling analog ports for VOD. Wonder if that last one will be supported by cable card and the gateway when it's released or if it too will sneak in under the deadlines in the name of piracy prevention to make the next big thing obsolete before it can be implemented.

The bad thing is, we have people that just stand by and cheer these companies on in the name of the law, with little regard to how some of these laws were passed to the begin with. These companies have the funds to lobby congress directly and don't need your help, its the consumer groups that bring about the balance. It doesn't help when many of us start rolling over and showing our belly simply because somebody threw a couple million at a few congressman to get some monstrosity passed.

If television develops like Bicker would want it we will only be able to record OTA and transfer nothing, unless we pay extra for it per show, extra to transfer to an ipod, extra to watch it more than once, and again if we want to have a copy to put on our shelf. And if you want to make a fair use of that content, point your video camera at the TV and use that.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> I agree that cable companies are likely to add the fees elsewhere had they not gotten the additional outlet fees. That goes to the type of companies they are, and the lengths they will go regardless of the intent of laws.


i agree with what you are saying below about cablecard, and SDV and all that. But I just dont lump this in. They aren't going around the intent of the law. The law was CHANGED to allow them to do it- so they are behaing exacly as the law intends. As far as being manipulated by lobbyists- I'd agree too that often that happens- and I'd almost bet you that it happened here too. But in this case they just asked for the same right that DBS had- they looked over at DBS's balance sheet and saw the money from "mirror" fees sitting there alongside their supposed "cheaper than cable" monthly fees and wanted to be able to respond. So they did. I really dont think that's unfair.

if anything you should be complaining that congress/the fcc allowed DBS to start the whole mess.

But again as bicker pointed out- if they didn't charge the fees the people with only 1 tv would be subsidizing those with 6, 8, or 10.



Stormspace said:


> 10 years of foot dragging with the digital transition and cable card, SDV to defeat that standard, and now pushing for disabling analog ports for VOD. Wonder if that last one will be supported by cable card and the gateway when it's released or if it too will sneak in under the deadlines in the name of piracy prevention to make the next big thing obsolete before it can be implemented.
> 
> The bad thing is, we have people that just stand by and cheer these companies on in the name of the law, with little regard to how some of these laws were passed to the begin with. These companies have the funds to lobby congress directly and don't need your help, its the consumer groups that bring about the balance. It doesn't help when many of us start rolling over and showing our belly simply because somebody threw a couple million at a few congressman to get some monstrosity passed.
> 
> If television develops like Bicker would want it we will only be able to record OTA and transfer nothing, unless we pay extra for it per show, extra to transfer to an ipod, extra to watch it more than once, and again if we want to have a copy to put on our shelf. And if you want to make a fair use of that content, point your video camera at the TV and use that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> But one thing lost in all the complaints that digital outlets cost cable nothing more-


It's not "lost" -- it's irrelevant. What matters is how much value the customer derives, not how much the service costs to provide.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

With all Digital systems ,there is no reason for an outlet fee. Plus what "value" do i get. I already am using an addressable device. Its not like i can add 10 other tivos and expect them to work.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> 10 years of foot dragging with the digital transition and cable card, SDV to defeat that standard, and now pushing for disabling analog ports for VOD. Wonder if that last one will be supported by cable card and the gateway when it's released or if it too will sneak in under the deadlines in the name of piracy prevention to make the next big thing obsolete before it can be implemented.


Most current digital STBs, including ones that use Cablecard, can have the analog turned off for some content. The gateway and client boxes will still support and enforce the copy protection flags which allow the analog hole be plugged.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> pretty cool- sounds like (*under the current proposal) the FCC wouldn't allow such a thing- they seem to want a dumb allvid. (but if directv stops crying and instead works for a compromise- such a box might wind up being allowed- they made a compelling argument that they may need to stuff a hard drive in their allvid)


I don't think they really care. They just want a workable system in place that would allow customer owned STBs. Allowing the gateway to be a DVR and present a UI is a compromise they are likely willing to accept, so long as the customer device may access all the linear programming with its own UI.



> But you could break it in half- dumb allvid unit with tuners in one box- and smart whole home media center with the rest like lgerbarg suggested above.


IMHO, that would be up to the provider, unless the spec at least calls for the provider provide a basic non-DVR gateway with UI-over-IP. You have to remember that the typical customer device will be somewhat inexpensive, so will rely on the gateway for some form of UI.



> would be interesting if cable can get a compromise that they will supply a dumb allvid to anyone that wants OR they can rent the a arris type box too- either would connect to whatever new standard IPTV is to be included in tv's, bluray, etc. The FCC would have to Force shared reliance and shared provisioning on that to work. But if regulated correctly maybe everyone can win with that?


I think the Arris type box will be the norm, just the provider will usually opt for a more basic UI than the Moxi, and likely have a DVR or advanced UI a premium add-on. Advanced cutomer devices, such as a TiVo or PC DVR, could use the gateway in a "simple mode", kind of how they use a cable STB now.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> I still don't see AllVid being popular. We're back to two boxes on the main TV, plus one box now mandatory for each additional TV? People are going to pay the $15/month lease fee for the Allvid box, plus buy a new Tivo, plus perhaps pay Tivo a monthly fee, plus pay a fee for each small box?


People will not have to get a TiVo.
The set top box will be customer owned, or even built into the TV or other device they get. The sale price of a basic IP-STB will likely sell for under $100 to start, and maybe sell for $50 or so, or add that to the cost of a TV.



> The main problem with third-party boxes hasn't been lack of VoD. It's been pricing. The final price tag for the end consumer may actually increase with this proposal. It makes it even less attractive than CableCards, which is difficult to do.


Not if there is only one device to rent from the cable provider.
The customer costs will go down. Or at least will be seen after the first year of owning their STBs rather than renting one for each TV.


> I like the one main DVR concept with a cheap box on each additional TV, connected via MoCA, and have everything streamed to the additional boxes. But Verizon and DirecTV already provide this service. Moxi even provides this (though not "cheap").


No provider provides a proper gateway system with customer owned STBs.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

I still dont know why they didnt use encrypted qam as a bridge. This way some tv's could get a software update to handle it. So a Tv could do encrypted quam and ip. This would lessen the need for MOCA, and home network. As time progresses it could become all ip. This just obsoletes all current hardware.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> With all Digital systems ,there is no reason for an outlet fee.


Yes there is. I already explained the reason: value.


Videodrome said:


> Plus what "value" do i get.


If you aren't getting any additional value, then what do you care that they charge extra for it. Just do without it.


Videodrome said:


> I already am using an addressable device. Its not like i can add 10 other tivos and expect them to work.


Incorrect. They are charging per addressable device. So yes, if they _didn't_ charge by digital outlet with identity per addressable device, then you *could *add 10 more and expect them to work. That's why it makes sense to charge per digital outlet.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Videodrome said:


> I still dont know why they didnt use encrypted qam as a bridge. This way some tv's could get a software update to handle it. So a Tv could do encrypted quam and ip. This would lessen the need for MOCA, and home network. As time progresses it could become all ip. This just obsoletes all current hardware.


That was what CableCARD was supposed to do, no?

Why make it encrypted at all. If it's inside your home network there is zero need for it to be encrypted. Just regular QAM with the PSIP data will be just fine for most people.

However I don't see see such a gateway being cheap or feasible because the cost to decrypt all of those streams at once is going to be expensive.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> But again as bicker pointed out- if they didn't charge the fees the people with only 1 tv would be subsidizing those with 6, 8, or 10.


Sorry but that's a specious argument. It costs the cable company nothing extra to provide a signal to 1 tv or to 8. By that same argument we should be charged more for Internet if we have more than 1 PC. Any addition expenses would be those the cable co imposed on themselves.

It's a money grab to profit from all the homes that currently have more than 1 tv. The cable companies hope that by converting these tv's they can realize a windfall at the expense of those that paid nothing extra in the past.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> It costs the cable company nothing extra to provide a signal to 1 tv or to 8.


Sorry but that's a specious argument. Consumer services should be priced based on value delivered, not based on cost. Are you going to pay *more *for a service *than it is worth to you*, just because it *costs *a lot to give it to you? ​Of course not.



Stormspace said:


> By that same argument we should be charged more for Internet if we have more than 1 PC.


Actually, the fairest pricing structure for HSI would be metered volume. And we could structure something similar for video -- the number of bits of video you pull from the gateway, perhaps.



Stormspace said:


> It's a money grab to profit from all the homes that currently have more than 1 tv.


No it isn't. It's responsible consumer service management.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> No it isn't. It's responsible consumer service management.


It's a money grab when people haven't had to pay for it in the past. I'd support a Windfall tax on cable companies as a result of them going for the publics pockets in this manner for nothing extra than they were getting before.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> Yes there is. I already explained the reason: value. If you aren't getting any additional value, then what do you care that they charge extra for it. Just do without it. Incorrect. They are charging per addressable device. So yes, if they _didn't_ charge by digital outlet with identity per addressable device, then you *could *add 10 more and expect them to work. That's why it makes sense to charge per digital outlet.


*Then why not call it an Addressable device fee *?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> It's a money grab when people haven't had to pay for it in the past.


Not even then. First, value changes over time, and so something can build to sufficient value to justify a separate charge, after a period of time. Second, it becomes practical to charge for something perhaps due to technology changes.



Stormspace said:


> I'd support a Windfall tax on cable companies as a result of them going for the publics pockets in this manner for nothing extra than they were getting before.


There would be no rational justification for that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> Then why not call it an Addressable device fee ?


I bet you'd be complaining about that if they had done so.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> I bet you'd be complaining about that if they had done so.


But see basicaly your charging for an outlet, but meaning device, and connection. Which is totally stupid, because you cant use the device without a connection.


----------



## cartouchbea (Jan 14, 2009)

bicker said:


> It's not "lost" -- it's irrelevant. What matters is how much value the customer derives, not how much the service costs to provide.


Yea, and all those darn hybrid drivers on the roads need to be paying more for each gallon of gas too since they get more value from it.

Oops, can't forget my obligatory smiley lest I break the bicker rule of "No smiley, No sarcasm!"


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> There would be no rational justification for that.


If economic conditions change where a company realizes a significant increase in revenue as a result a Windfall tax is justified. Adding additional outlet fees to millions of homes with no reason or cost other than "we can" would certainly create a windfall.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Videodrome said:


> But see basicaly your charging for an outlet, but meaning device, and connection. Which is totally stupid, because you cant use the device without a connection.


Try to convince your Cable company that the four Cable Cards you have for the two TiVo's in the den connected to one TV should be a single outlet. <Obligatory smiley>


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

cartouchbea said:


> Yea, and all those darn hybrid drivers on the roads need to be paying more for each gallon of gas too since they get more value from it.
> 
> Oops, can't forget my obligatory smiley lest I break the bicker rule of "No smiley, No sarcasm!"


You know some states want to install mileage trackers and GPS units in electric cars so they can tax the owners for road use since they aren't paying a road tax?


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

Stormspace said:


> You know some states want to install mileage trackers and GPS units in electric cars so they can tax the owners for road use since they aren't paying a road tax?


Those people proposing this will be out of office soon anyway.


----------



## cartouchbea (Jan 14, 2009)

Videodrome said:


> Those people proposing this will be out of office soon anyway.


Maybe, ..., but it sounds like they've probably got "the right stuff" to make it in the cable industry.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> But see basicaly your charging for an outlet, but meaning device, and connection. Which is totally stupid, because you cant use the device without a connection.


No matter how you try to obfuscate, what you're paying for is the value being provided.

If you don't perceive the extra value, then don't select the additional outlet option, and do without being able to use that capability.

What's so hard to understand?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> If economic conditions change where a company realizes a significant increase in revenue as a result a Windfall tax is justified.


If economic conditions change, I'll let you know.



Stormspace said:


> Adding additional outlet fees to millions of homes with no reason or cost other than "we can" would certainly create a windfall.


Incorrect.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> No matter how you try to obfuscate, what you're paying for is the value being provided.
> 
> If you don't perceive the extra value, then don't select the additional outlet option, and do without being able to use that capability.
> 
> What's so hard to understand?


This is no 'obfuscatation', plus the burden of explanation is on you, not me for your thoughts. I think you are projecting, and not noticing your obfuscaton in the fact that we have asked several clear questions, and your remarks are only there are of 'value'. So answer me this if i dont recieve the value i expect will the cable company compensate me properly. nope... When internet video becomes more popular and i have no need for cable, will the perceived value be higher or lower ? Noting i canceled stars because i can get it from netflix . Really 5 devices should be standard for a household, and there should be no fee to connect a device. Does the phone company charge you for the value of multiple phones in a house ? Part of the spec should be that cable cant charge per stream. Otherwise we are back where we started.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> This is no 'obfuscatation', plus the burden of explanation is on you


Yes, you are obfuscating. And I've fully and clearly explained what you needed to understand.



Videodrome said:


> your remarks are only there are of 'value'. So answer me this if i dont recieve the value i expect


You are supposed to receive the value you're promised, i.e., the ability to receive services on additional outlets.



Videodrome said:


> When internet video becomes more popular and i have no need for cable, will the perceived value be higher or lower ?


Let's focus on one thing at a time, since you appear to be having trouble understanding just that.



Videodrome said:


> Really 5 devices should be standard for a household


No. One device should be standard for a household, to account for the folks who have just one device and don't want to subsidize you.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Videodrome said:


> .......Does the phone company charge you for the value of multiple phones in a house ? ...........


They must be.  It costs me $27/mo for just basic local service, no caller ID, call waiting or long distance service. I hate to think what it would be without cell phones and VOIP competing.

There's no fundamental moral or technical basis for saying what pricing model is best in general. The supplier decides and the customer buys it or not, with government regulation entering as politics dictate.

So quit squabbling, you guys!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> It's not "lost" -- it's irrelevant. What matters is how much value the customer derives, not how much the service costs to provide.


totally true- but still the argument that 'it costs them nothing' is apparently factually incorrect and to some people that might make a difference. Since it seems to be such a big part of the indignation that it's "free" for cable- at least maybe we can take that off the table.

I'm in your camp that price has nothing to do with cost to produce but apparently many people are clueless and think things are priced related to cost to produce. Maybe it makes them feel better if they realize there is an actual cost?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

another thread in the crapper with an argument unrelated to the subject....


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 1, 2007)

Stormspace said:


> Sorry but that's a specious argument. It costs the cable company nothing extra to provide a signal to 1 tv or to 8. By that same argument we should be charged more for Internet if we have more than 1 PC.


And, in fact, that used to be the norm, and still is the situation in many cases. Read the "terms and conditions" you get from your ISP, and you may find that using more than one PC is technically a violation of your contract.

Some ISPs allow a small home network (although even then they often want to charge you extra for the privilege, and have you use only a router that they control).


----------



## meowth (Nov 12, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Try to convince your Cable company that the four Cable Cards you have for the two TiVo's in the den connected to one TV should be a single outlet. <Obligatory smiley>


 Did that X4. I actually have 4 tivo boxes connected via 1 tv and only pay for cable card rentals of $1.70 a month for 3 of the boxes. The first box's cable cards is included with the digital service. I actually thought I was going to have to pay the additional outlet fees for the 2 new premiere boxes I got but the techs who came to install the cards saw they were all on the single outlet and had the billing coded such that I only get the rental fees for the cards not the additional outlet fees. I guess one side benefit for me of the cable company requiring a truck roll for the install.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> another thread in the crapper with an argument unrelated to the subject....


Perhaps this *should *have been a discussion *only *about the technology, how it would work, from a technical perspective, and as a result, helping us understand how we should change our HDTV and DVR purchasing decisions for the next few years as a result of -- not a thread about whether people *liked *the idea of it or not. I wonder how many people really care to discuss the fact that some people don't like the way the industry is going, or how technology and product offering changes makes them frustrated. Perhaps we should have a separate whining thread for each actual thread. Maybe we could get Dr. Phil to help out with such threads.

There should be a way to have a discussion *about *the actual changes coming down the pike without people turning every such thread into a whiny/*****y "bash the industry" thread.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> ............ Perhaps we should have a separate whining thread for each actual thread. Maybe we could get Dr. Phil to help out with such threads.
> ..........


 Excellent idea. And perhaps Oprah could help too! And for the cases that require precise rational thinking: "The View" !


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Please, not Oprah and Dr. Phil together. That would really be too much afaic.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> Please, not Oprah and Dr. Phil together. That would really be too much afaic.


But i get some much 'value' from them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Indeed, perhaps "too much" value... given your demonstrated tendency, you wouldn't recognize the value of what you are wanting to take, and would complain about the price for it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Videodrome said:


> But i get some much 'value' from them.


I hope you just forgot to add the  to that!


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

dlfl said:


> I hope you just forgot to add the  to that!


I did, will you forgive me ?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> ... Perhaps we should have a separate whining thread for each actual thread. Maybe we could get Dr. Phil to help out with such threads.
> 
> There should be a way to have a discussion *about *the actual changes coming down the pike without people turning every such thread into a whiny/*****y "bash the industry" thread.


I like the Dr. Phil idea- 

but one alternative would be to just ignored the whining when it flares then it would stop that much faster if they had no one to argue with...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

No, my idea is much better. It very clearly segregates and labels baseless misinformation as such, so that casual readers aren't misled.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Raj said:


> That was what CableCARD was supposed to do, no?
> 
> Why make it encrypted at all. If it's inside your home network there is zero need for it to be encrypted. Just regular QAM with the PSIP data will be just fine for most people.


You need content security. Or rather the studios and providers will demand it.


> However I don't see see such a gateway being cheap or feasible because the cost to decrypt all of those streams at once is going to be expensive.


One gateway will decrypt up to 6 streams at once, well within reason.



> I still dont know why they didnt use encrypted qam as a bridge. This way some tv's could get a software update to handle it.


At the very least an encryption scheme needs kept up with to prevent content piracy. You cannot easily do that with a fixed firmware device. At the most a TV manufacturer will need to dig up the support tools for the older TVs and write firmware for them.


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

classicsat said:


> You need content security. Or rather the studios and providers will demand it.


"CableByte" already does this. Content can be secured with a cable "broadcast flag" already present in all digital streams. What happens when the "Gateway" is compromised?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

classicsat said:


> At the very least an encryption scheme needs kept up with to prevent content piracy. You cannot easily do that with a fixed firmware device. At the most a TV manufacturer will need to dig up the support tools for the older TVs and write firmware for them.


What? You mean that in the future I can brick my $2000 TV with a botched firmware update? Now TVs will need tech. support similar to home PCs. There will be different versions of TV firmware which will support different features, and now TVs themselves can be incompatible with cable systems. That is way too complicated for a TV.

Plus, Tivo had trouble performing a simple DST fix for the 7 year old Series 1 DVRs. I highly doubt TV manufacturers are going to dig up anything more than 3 years old. They'll make you buy a new $2000 TV instead.

I'd rather the encryption be done using a separate box.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

BobCamp1 said:


> What? You mean that in the future I can brick my $2000 TV with a botched firmware update? Now TVs will need tech. support similar to home PCs. There will be different versions of TV firmware which will support different features, and now TVs themselves can be incompatible with cable systems. That is way too complicated for a TV.
> 
> Plus, Tivo had trouble performing a simple DST fix for the 7 year old Series 1 DVRs. I highly doubt TV manufacturers are going to dig up anything more than 3 years old. They'll make you buy a new $2000 TV instead.
> 
> I'd rather the encryption be done using a separate box.


That is a completely moot point. In order to put the encryption in a separate box another encryption standard (HDCP, 5C, or DTCP-IP) has to be used to talk to that box, which introduces all the same potential issues that the TV could be obsoleted via an exploit. At a practical level I doubt manufacturers and providers would disable widely deployed standards (CSS has been broken for years), so I think it is also a completely irrelevant risk as well.

Putting the encryption hardware in a separate device (CableCard, STB, or Gateway) just means the cable companies don't have to settle on a common industry wide standard for encryption hardware in their headends.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

BobCamp1 said:


> What? You mean that in the future I can brick my $2000 TV with a botched firmware update? Now TVs will need tech. support similar to home PCs. There will be different versions of TV firmware which will support different features, and now TVs themselves can be incompatible with cable systems. That is way too complicated for a TV.
> 
> Plus, Tivo had trouble performing a simple DST fix for the 7 year old Series 1 DVRs. I highly doubt TV manufacturers are going to dig up anything more than 3 years old. They'll make you buy a new $2000 TV instead.
> 
> I'd rather the encryption be done using a separate box.


Nice FUD, , my power went out during an upgrade of my sony. The TV did a recovery mode, and was back in 10mins. Please you live in cable land, where 90s tech is still king.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Videodrome said:


> Nice FUD, , my power went out during an upgrade of my sony. The TV did a recovery mode, and was back in 10mins. Please you live in cable land, where 90s tech is still king.


Nope, I live in satellite land. You know what they say about the word "assume"....

My dad just had a BIOS update on his notebook PC go bad. The emergency backup BIOS also failed. Doorstop. I'm sure if I search the Internet, no one else except me has had a BIOS update go wrong. 

It doesn't have to brick either, it can just not work right anymore. One of my friends did a firmware update for his TV, and all the buttons and the remote stopped working. He couldn't tell the TV to go back to the previous version, because he had to select that from a menu. Which was now impossible to do. Three weeks later, he had a refurbished TV.

I understand that HDTVs already support firmware updates, but companies are being reactive with them instead of proactive. They only suggest them if a user calls in with a specific problem, instead of aggressively pushing them out. They are probably nervous about them. Because even in the year 2010, a firmware upgrade still isn't 100% reliable.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

BobCamp1 said:


> Nope, I live in satellite land. You know what they say about the word "assume"....
> 
> My dad just had a BIOS update on his notebook PC go bad. The emergency backup BIOS also failed. Doorstop. I'm sure if I search the Internet, no one else except me has had a BIOS update go wrong.
> 
> ...


Most people dont have a choice if an upgrade happens, if you are familar with updatetv. These updates to tv happens sometimes without user knowledge, without an internet connection. Even if you are a satelitte it still happens.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Videodrome said:


> Most people dont have a choice if an upgrade happens, if you are familar with updatetv. These updates to tv happens sometimes without user knowledge, without an internet connection. Even if you are a satelitte it still happens.


I'm familiar with it, though my PBS station doesn't carry it.

How would it work using satellite? The TV can't autotune to the PBS station. If I never watch PBS, I'll never get the update.

Finally, this web site: http://www.updatelogic.com/network.html

has a typo in it in the very first heading. That exactly doesn't inspire confidence.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

I would have to guess the number of TVs that can update firmware with "updatetv" are the exception, not the norm. Still they have to develop and test the upgrade.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

I wish there were mods here, so this thread could be cleaned up.


----------



## StuffOfInterest (Jul 18, 2007)

I know, old thread, but still an interesting topic.

_Regarding cost shifting and outlet fees.._. I would imagine the outlet fee will go away and you will pay for just a gateway. The gateway only supports six streams at once so if you need more than six streams (say three TVs and a 4-channel DVR) then you will pay for a second gateway. If someone only has one TV in their house then they will likely opt for the two-channel adapter for a lower cost than a six channel gateway. In the end the cost should balance out.

_Regarding security..._ The AllVid NOI mentions key storage and escrow issues as needing to be addressed. It is apparent that the goal is to avoid having a hardware key involved. The biggest issue I see here will be for HTPC systems where no special adapter is needed so another way of dealing with the key will be necessary. Perhaps DLNA's DTCP(sic?) will cover that.

_Regarding TiVo as a whole home DVR acting as its own gateway..._ This is one of the first things that jumped out at me when I read the AllVid NOI (sadly only this week). Having the TiVo act as an AllVid client for the purposes of recording and as a gateway (looking like VOD content) for playback greatly simplifies the entire DVR architecture as the device is no longer slaved to a single television. It can be a box in a rack in the basement if you choose. This even deals with the copy attribute people have been fighting with for years now. If a program is broadcast flagged as copy-freely then the DVR can play it back with the same flag. If a program is broadcast flagged as copy-once then the DVR can record it and play it back as copy-never. If a program is broadcast flagged as copy-never then by mandate the DVR would need to refuse to record it. Still, for content that is recorded it can be played back on any AllVid receiving device.

_Regarding AllVid settop boxes for televisions..._ As was stated by someone else, the boxes will likely only be needed for older televisions. If AllVid is a standard it is a safe bet that TV manufacturers will include AllVid receving capability down the road. The only device besides a television which will be required in a home will be the AllVid gateway from the content provider or an ATSC gateway hooked up to an antenna on the home. My TV (a Sony XBR9) already receives IP Video. Very likely it would only take a software update (if Sony chose to produce one) to enable it to work with AllVid content.

(grumble) I know there was one more topic I meant to include but I just drew a blank.


----------

