# Feasibility of an AT&T U-Verse TiVo?



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

How feasible is the possibility of a TiVo that would work with AT&T U-Verse?

I realize that there are any number of problems, probably the biggest being the limit of 4 incoming feeds (that's a limit for the house, not per set-top box), but even a non-recording box with the TiVo interface (well, it would be recording, but only what was currently being watched on that particular STB) would be better than what exists now - there's no provision for frame-by-frame or slow motion. Even a one-tuner box (that mimics the STB - and only what was being watched could be recorded) would be better than nothing.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

I'm oversimplifying, but it's similar to the issue that TiVo has with cable systems that use SDV, and that requires a separate tuning adapter and the FCC forcing cable companies to do it. I'm sure AT&T probably could build some kind of U-verse tuning adapter/gateway device to work with TiVo if they really wanted to, but without the FCC forcing them to, they never will.


----------



## LI-SVT (Sep 28, 2006)

Can a Series 2 be used to control a UVerse box?


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Since UVerse delivers video over IP, theoretically recording UVerse streams is no different than downloading a program or movie from Amazon. All it takes is the required code, running as an app on the TiVo. AT&T would have to write such an app, since it would have to authenticate with their systems and they likely hold that information closely.

So, it is technically very feasible, but very unlikely to ever happen, for a variety of business reasons.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Since UVerse delivers video over IP, theoretically recording UVerse streams is no different than downloading a program or movie from Amazon. All it takes is the required code, running as an app on the TiVo. AT&T would have to write such an app, since it would have to authenticate with their systems and they likely hold that information closely.
> 
> So, it is technically very feasible, but very unlikely to ever happen, for a variety of business reasons.


Exactly. Easy technically, 99.99% impossible from a business standpoint. AT&T could even publish an API of sorts to their service and let TiVo write the code, but they aren't going to be doing either.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

LI-SVT said:


> Can a Series 2 be used to control a UVerse box?


Integration / "glue" hardware can be made to interface a Series 2 or 3 to a UVerse box, control and signal-wise.
If there's no guide data though from Tivo, that would be a sticky point.

Using a DIY system, like MythTV, it would be easy(er) to make something that integrates and get the data.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

telemark said:


> Integration / "glue" hardware can be made to interface a Series 2 or 3 to a UVerse box, control and signal-wise.
> If there's no guide data though from Tivo, that would be a pain.
> 
> Using a DIY system, like MythTV, it would be easy(er) to make something that integrates and get the data.


Series 3 is CableCard and it cannot. Series 2 can, and AFAIK, there is guide data, but since it's SD only, there's really no point...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I'm oversimplifying, but it's similar to the issue that TiVo has with cable systems that use SDV, and that requires a separate tuning adapter and the FCC forcing cable companies to do it. I'm sure AT&T probably could build some kind of U-verse tuning adapter/gateway device to work with TiVo if they really wanted to, but without the FCC forcing them to, they never will.


That's why the satellite companies and UVerse should have their "separate encryption" mandate _waivers_ removed. The FCC requirement was exactly what got us cablecards now, so you can use a single Tivo on any cable company in the US.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mattack said:


> That's why the satellite companies and UVerse should have their "separate encryption" mandate _waivers_ removed. The FCC requirement was exactly what got us cablecards now, so you can use a single Tivo on any cable company in the US.


Yes, an AllVid gateway type device would certainly be technologically feasible. But just like so many other good ideas in this country, it might not be politically feasible.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Series 3 is CableCard and it cannot. Series 2 can, and AFAIK, there is guide data, but since it's SD only, there's really no point...


Can't the Series3 tune RF modulated NTSC? That's enough to get a signal into them.
Most of what's left is software that could be run from a hacked S3.

Single tuner Series2 is probably the easiest still.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

telemark said:


> Can't the Series3 tune RF modulated NTSC? That's enough to get a signal into them.
> Most of what's left is software that could be run from a hacked S3.
> 
> Single tuner Series2 is probably the easiest still.


I don't think the software in the Series3 supports that and IR blasting. In fact, I'm 90% sure that's the case. The Series3 can support analog cable, so you could get the video to go through it from channel 3/4, and record it manually, but I don't think the guide/control aspect of TiVo that makes TiVo what TiVo is, is supported at all.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

I was answering the question, how feasible it is to integrate an unsupported ATT/Uverse box and a Tivo box. 
Highlighting it's unsupported feels a little redundant. Everything is unsupported, and is best described as hackish.

Getting the two boxes to interact properly, there's three milestones.

1) One part is video signal.
On S2, there's Composite/AV, limited to SD.
On some later series, there's RF NTSC, also limited to SD.
Until someone adds an ATSC or QAM modulator (~$1,000), then they'll have access to HD, in theory.

2) Another part is control.
On S2, there's IR blasters and Serial built in.
On later series, there is USB built in for SDV.

But anything that intercepts the tuning events from the Tivo and passes it to the external tuner is sufficent. Tuning events are triggered over USB to a Tuning Adapter, to a CableCard, and a couple other places. On the Tuner Box side, it will accept tuning commands over IR and IP. Some other boxes might accept commands over Serial and RF.

3) The last part is Guide Data.
If ATT Uverse is even a line-up option, then it might have to be tweaked a little depending on how the boxes were integrated on the prior two.

Sorry this is obvious to some, but it didn't seem clear enough.
If only part of the list is done, then you get partial functionality.

If only #1 was done, then you get the live buffer.
If 1+2 was done, then you get live buffer and synchronized channel changing.
If 1+2+3 was done, you get Season Passes and Tivo Suggestions.

I don't know enough about manual recordings to describe how well it would work or not work.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The S2 is already set up for controlling a U-Verse box, just like cable or DirecTV with IR blasters and composite video.

AFAIK, the Series 3 boxes do not support controlling another box. They would need a significantly different software setup to do so.

USB doesn't work for control. It's serial (for some cable boxes and RCA DirecTV boxes) or IR (for anything).

TAs for SDV and an external cable box are two totally different things, and have no relation to each other in any way.

A Series 2 should work just fine with a U-Verse box in SD only, but of course there's no point. If you want their crappy U-Verse service, you have to put up with their crappy U-Verse box. Or get cable and a TiVo.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

So the S2's do have the IR codes for the AT&T boxes?
Nm, found it, code 10088

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=426365

That means it just works, out of the box, so to speak.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

mattack said:


> That's why the satellite companies and UVerse should have their "separate encryption" mandate _waivers_ removed. The FCC requirement was exactly what got us cablecards now, so you can use a single Tivo on any cable company in the US.


It's not the encryption, it's that all the MOS's use the CableLabs specification, hence one can use a TiVo on any MSO in the country. In order to received satellite, it would require dealing with Dish and DircTV's differing platforms and encoding and modulation schemes and coding or Turbo coding. That would just be too expensive or at least not a good business move financially for a small company like TiVo. The efficiency of producing ONE box to deal with ONE spec and not have to produce 2 different flavors of external devices for the Dish and DirecTV and KEEP UP with the changes to some of the spec that each implement, just doesn't make economic sense.

The real challenge for TiVo is that cable and sat are giving away boxes, and TiVo is an expensive alternative for the affluent, not the unwashed masses who are NEVER going to (however much they may really want a TiVo) part with the cash outlay for TiVo's and Mini's and Streams to replicate the whole home systems of the MSO', and certainly not the superior Genie and Hopper (compared to the weak cable co tech) they subscriber gets all for FREE no money down. TiVo's model is broken, not TiVo.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Series3Sub said:


> The real challenge for TiVo is that cable and sat are giving away boxes, and TiVo is an expensive alternative for the affluent, not the unwashed masses who are NEVER going to (however much they may really want a TiVo) part with the cash outlay for TiVo's and Mini's and Streams to replicate the whole home systems of the MSO', and certainly not the superior Genie and Hopper (compared to the weak cable co tech) they subscriber gets all for FREE no money down. TiVo's model is broken, not TiVo.


You should add *on site service *for anything that is a cable problem, no trying to find out if your TiVo is the problem or cable system/cable card is the problem. But to me TiVo is worth the extra money, I don't know what Comcast would charge for three DVRs and two equivalent Minis for two other HDTV, but I get the first cable card free and I pay $1/month for each of the other cable cards, but I have about $2400 invested in three Roamios plus TiVos and two Minis. I know in three to five years or so they will have some resale value.


----------



## TiVoMonkey (Jan 12, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> Since UVerse delivers video over IP, theoretically recording UVerse streams is no different than downloading a program or movie from Amazon.


It is quite different from downloading or streaming a program from Amazon.

It is Video over IP, yes, but it is also Video over Multicast IP. Multicast IP, for those not aware, is an Internet protocol that saves bandwidth by pruning streams that are not relevant (joined) to you. So if you are watching HBO on U-verse, that is the only stream going to you. The channel you just tuned away from sits there for roughly 3 minutes, and times out, freeing the bandwidth. Unlike OTA or broadcast cable in which all channels are sent to you at all times. Unless the channels are SDV, which is also using IP Multicast to the QAM that broadcasts the channel to you.

The streams are also all real time, just like broadcast OTA or cable.

When downloading from Amazon, you are doing it on demand. It's not a continuous live stream going to you or anyone else. You are getting your own copy of the show or movie. With IP Multicast, you are seeing the same exact stream that everyone else is.

I would be surprised if the Ethernet driver for TiVo supports Multicast at this point, or IGMPv3 multicast which is required for U-verse's IPTV implementation. It's something they can of course add if they don't have it. But if they have no reason for it to be present, they likely didn't compile it in.

Having agreements with Cable providers will probably have them add it eventually, as cable providers move to IPTV delivery over cable modems to save bandwidth in the future. Especially as cable modems come around that can do 1gig and higher in the next couple of years.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Series3Sub said:


> The real challenge for TiVo is that cable and sat are giving away boxes, and TiVo is an expensive alternative for the affluent, not the unwashed masses who are NEVER going to (however much they may really want a TiVo) part with the cash outlay for TiVo's and Mini's and Streams to replicate the whole home systems of the MSO', and certainly not the superior Genie and Hopper (compared to the weak cable co tech) they subscriber gets all for FREE no money down. TiVo's model is broken, not TiVo.


The problem is stupid users. TiVo is cheaper than Comcast's X1 or CableVision's RS-DVR, or Verizon's DVR platform over the course of 3 to 4 years, but,

1. People are clueless and don't know that TiVo even exists.
2. People are clueless as to what TiVo can do and why it's better than the other DVR options.
3. People are clueless about how to install something like TiVo (even though it's drop-dead easy, and MoCA makes things super smooth).

So basically, TiVo has problems selling retail because people are clueless. That's why they have more subs on Suddenlink and RCN, where the MSO hands the user the box and tells them what to plug into what (or even worse, comes out and actually installs it).



TiVoMonkey said:


> Having agreements with Cable providers will probably have them add it eventually, as cable providers move to IPTV delivery over cable modems to save bandwidth in the future. Especially as cable modems come around that can do 1gig and higher in the next couple of years.


QAM isn't going anywhere for a long, long time. Comcast can't seem to roll out MPEG-4, which is a simple, proven upgrade to QAM. What makes you think they're going to do IPTV?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Diana Collins said:


> Since UVerse delivers video over IP, theoretically recording UVerse streams is no different than downloading a program or movie from Amazon. All it takes is the required code, running as an app on the TiVo. AT&T would have to write such an app, since it would have to authenticate with their systems and they likely hold that information closely.
> 
> So, it is technically very feasible, but very unlikely to ever happen, for a variety of business reasons.





Bigg said:


> Exactly. Easy technically, 99.99% impossible from a business standpoint. AT&T could even publish an API of sorts to their service and let TiVo write the code, but they aren't going to be doing either.


Actually, AT&T uses the Mediaroom platform, that was originally designed by Microsoft but sold off to Ericsson. The platform is closed, but it's not a tightly guarded secret. It would be more likely that TiVo would need to work with Ericsson, not AT&T, although AT&T would most certainly have to approve what set tops are activated on their network.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Series3Sub said:


> It's not the encryption, it's that all the MOS's use the CableLabs specification, hence one can use a TiVo on any MSO in the country. In order to received satellite, it would require dealing with Dish and DircTV's differing platforms and encoding and modulation schemes and coding or Turbo coding. That would just be too expensive or at least not a good business move financially for a small company like TiVo.


Tivo already did/does DirecTV boxes.. Are you claiming DirecTV itself paid for all of that?

Also, the base Roamio (and previous S3/TivoHD Tivos) did OTA & cable (though the latter two did both at the same time), thus showing that a Tivo _could_ deal with multiple different signal types.

Yes, U-Verse would be completely different, but at least at a high level, most of the guts of the Tivo software could be talking to the "tuner", and that section only care about cable/OTA/DirecTV/Dish.. in theory.. I'm not saying it'll ever be done.. but the reason we can't do it AT ALL now is the encryption _waiver_ they have.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

TiVoMonkey said:


> I would be surprised if the Ethernet driver for TiVo supports Multicast at this point, or IGMPv3 multicast which is required for U-verse's IPTV implementation. It's something they can of course add if they don't have it. But if they have no reason for it to be present, they likely didn't compile it in.


It's just code, it's not a big deal. Multicast has been part of the Linux networking stack for years, just like in every modern OS.

The problem here isn't the implementation, it's that AT&T doesn't want it. This is basically a useless thread for that reason.

AllVid was the answer to this nonsense, but the FCC gave up on the proposal when cable told them to pound sand.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

mattack said:


> Tivo already did/does DirecTV boxes.. Are you claiming DirecTV itself paid for all of that?


Actually, yes. I don't know if DirecTV paid *all* of that or if TiVo threw in some of the costs (though, you could argue they did either way since it's based on TiVo's existing platform only with modifications), however part of the agreement between DirecTV and TiVo is that DirecTV financed the development of the system. It's mostly to keep from getting sued by TiVo like Dish and AT&T were.


----------



## TiVoMonkey (Jan 12, 2002)

Bigg said:


> QAM isn't going anywhere for a long, long time. Comcast can't seem to roll out MPEG-4, which is a simple, proven upgrade to QAM. What makes you think they're going to do IPTV?


Because they *already* do it. All broadcast video in a cable headend is transported by IP multicast to encoders and QAMs. And they also transport it around the country over their IP backbones to other local headends and hub sites.

QAMs join existing IP multicast streams and put it on a broadcast frequency.

If they have a cable set top capable of joining multicast streams directly, such as the Cisco boxes that are out there already, then there is no reason they can't do it. In fact, if they want MPEG-4 out there, that is the best way to do it, to new settops made for it, which would be IPTV set tops. Which are already a proven technology on several providers.

Most of the video they receive from satellite sources is MPEG-4 already, and they reencode it to MPEG-2 so that it can be used on most of their set tops.

It wouldn't make any sense for them *not* to do IPTV in order to save bandwidth for DOCSIS 3.1 and future applications. They need a lot of RF spectrum to deliver 10gig DOCSIS 3.1 speeds and they can't do that while still having 2 or 3 HD QAMs per frequency.


----------



## TiVoMonkey (Jan 12, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> It's just code, it's not a big deal. Multicast has been part of the Linux networking stack for years, just like in every modern OS.


Why did this need to be said? I thought it was pretty obvious I implied this in my post with the "not compiled in" thing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> It would be more likely that TiVo would need to work with Ericsson, not AT&T, although AT&T would most certainly have to approve what set tops are activated on their network.


Ok then, Ericsson. If AT&T asked for them to publish an API for TiVo, I'm sure they would do it. But AT&T doesn't want that...



mattack said:


> Yes, U-Verse would be completely different, but at least at a high level, most of the guts of the Tivo software could be talking to the "tuner", and that section only care about cable/OTA/DirecTV/Dish.. in theory.. I'm not saying it'll ever be done.. but the reason we can't do it AT ALL now is the encryption _waiver_ they have.


*There is no tuner with U-Verse*. The video streams are IP all the way. There is no QAM or satellite or ATSC-8VSB signal to tune into. With the right software, TiVo could plug right into the RG using Ethernet and take the IP stream directly, just like a U-Verse box. Realistically, they would need HPNA adapters to run over coax from RG, since HPNA and MoCA are not compatible.



TiVoMonkey said:


> Because they *already* do it. All broadcast video in a cable headend is transported by IP multicast to encoders and QAMs.


Not to the last mile. That's all QAM.



> It wouldn't make any sense for them *not* to do IPTV in order to save bandwidth for DOCSIS 3.1 and future applications. They need a lot of RF spectrum to deliver 10gig DOCSIS 3.1 speeds and they can't do that while still having 2 or 3 HD QAMs per frequency.


That's an argument for SDV, not IPTV. SDV, if anyone can actually get it to work properly, delivers all the bandwidth saving benefits of IPTV without the massive conversion cost and overhead. However, today's 860mhz plants, if upgraded to MPEG-4 and managed carefully, could handle 200 HD's, 300mbps internet, and maybe even squish a couple of 4K channels in there. Going beyond that would require SDV. If 4K really takes off, that will be the driver of the need for more bandwidth on the cable system, not DOCSIS. The DOCSIS upgrades have been happening at a rapid pace over the past few years, I think we're about at the end of the line for those, at least for a few years. Why upgrade from 100mbps to 500mbps or more when most of your customers can't use 50mbps today, and you're not competing with anyone anyways? In the few areas that have gig fiber, they can just drop rates and offer cheap bundles to get subs, not compete directly on bandwidth.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> That's an argument for SDV, not IPTV. SDV, if anyone can actually get it to work properly, delivers all the bandwidth saving benefits of IPTV without the massive conversion cost and overhead. However, today's 860mhz plants, if upgraded to MPEG-4 and managed carefully, could handle 200 HD's, 300mbps internet, and maybe even squish a couple of 4K channels in there. Going beyond that would require SDV. If 4K really takes off, that will be the driver of the need for more bandwidth on the cable system, not DOCSIS. The DOCSIS upgrades have been happening at a rapid pace over the past few years, I think we're about at the end of the line for those, at least for a few years. Why upgrade from 100mbps to 500mbps or more when most of your customers can't use 50mbps today, and you're not competing with anyone anyways? In the few areas that have gig fiber, they can just drop rates and offer cheap bundles to get subs, not compete directly on bandwidth.


Having a capacity for 200 HD channels just isn't enough anymore. Including all of the premium and regional sports channels, there are now well over 200 U.S. English language channels, and people shouldn't have to settle for watching them in SD when they could be getting them in HD with SDV. And some customers will want Spanish or other international language channels in HD.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

LI-SVT said:


> Can a Series 2 be used to control a UVerse box?


Yes.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

TiVoMonkey said:


> Why did this need to be said? I thought it was pretty obvious I implied this in my post with the "not compiled in" thing.


Because this is a forum, and we're all free to comment? The post wasn't just about your statement.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

TiVoMonkey said:


> Because they *already* do it. All broadcast video in a cable headend is transported by IP multicast to encoders and QAMs. And they also transport it around the country over their IP backbones to other local headends and hub sites.
> 
> QAMs join existing IP multicast streams and put it on a broadcast frequency.
> 
> ...


Other than AT&T (who already deliver their service via IP) the MSO most able to make a move to IP delivery is Verizon - they are the only ones that have the bandwidth to do both QAM and IP during the transition. This is the big obstacle for Comcast, Cablevision, etc. - they will be hard pressed to multicast 200 or more HD and SD channels AND deliver them all via QAM on their existing coax (it is possible, but would require a fairly massive investment to upgrade their local distribution network). That said, Verizon is currently going to the trouble to upgrade their customers to STBs that are MPEG-4 compatible (the 6000 series boxes only support MPEG-2). If Verizon, the company that has stated they plan to move to IP, and who has the capacity to do it, and who recently acquired a company that had been developing IP delivery, is still deploying new QAM STBs, that indicates to me that an IP transition is not imminent.

Personally, I think the whole paradigm of linear broadcasting will collapse before the MSOs move to IP transmission. It is only a matter of time before companies like Apple and Roku become the STB vendors and viewers will subscribe to content independently. This won't mean al a carte pricing, however. You can expect Disney, for example, to bundle ESPN, the Disney Channel, ABC and all their other cable channels together.

But, as has been pointed out by me and others, while recording a channel from UVerse is possible (and yes, multistream is a different protocol than that used by Amazon, but conceptually, no more difficult) the real obstacle is that AT&T doesn't want TiVos recording their content, they would much rather rent the customer one of their DVRs. Lacking a government directive to make their systems open, they would never cooperate in such a project. I would suspect that the only reason Comcast is cooperating on a software replacement for Cablecard is to help smooth approval of the TWC merger.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Having a capacity for 200 HD channels just isn't enough anymore. Including all of the premium and regional sports channels, there are now well over 200 U.S. English language channels, and people shouldn't have to settle for watching them in SD when they could be getting them in HD with SDV. And some customers will want Spanish or other international language channels in HD.


Considering that my Comcast system is around 70 now, rebuilt systems are around 120, FIOS is around 200, and U-Verse is a few channels above that, 200 would be pretty darn good. I suppose there's only going to be more channels, so they may be forced to put some on SDV. Although with good management of the capacity, it should be set up so that only the top-tier, non-english, and sports package channels are SDV'ed, so that most users wouldn't need SDV...

Comcast, however, is wasting large amounts of bandwidth with their stupid X1 Cloud DVR service, which must guzzle large amounts of VOD capacity for people playing back DVR recordings, when that could be done locally...



Diana Collins said:


> Other than AT&T (who already deliver their service via IP) the MSO most able to make a move to IP delivery is Verizon - they are the only ones that have the bandwidth to do both QAM and IP during the transition. This is the big obstacle for Comcast, Cablevision, etc. - they will be hard pressed to multicast 200 or more HD and SD channels AND deliver them all via QAM on their existing coax (it is possible, but would require a fairly massive investment to upgrade their local distribution network). That said, Verizon is currently going to the trouble to upgrade their customers to STBs that are MPEG-4 compatible (the 6000 series boxes only support MPEG-2). If Verizon, the company that has stated they plan to move to IP, and who has the capacity to do it, and who recently acquired a company that had been developing IP delivery, is still deploying new QAM STBs, that indicates to me that an IP transition is not imminent.


Verizon's boxes are ready to go to IP, since their VOD system runs over IP today, and they are connected via MoCA. They could start rolling out channels in MPEG-2 over IP tomorrow, and all of their end users who are using Verizon STBs could receive them, although it raises some issues about CableCard users, since they would be left out in the dark on those channels.

There is no need to simulcast. They would get IP-capable boxes out there first, that could ALSO do QAM, like Verizon is already using, and then cut over. Likely, they would cut over slowly. However, that's all sort of irrelevant, as there's no reason to go to IP multicast. If they want the capacity of IP only sending the channels that are needed, they could much easier get that same capacity through SDV. And aggressive SDV may even be able to push off the MPEG-4 upgrade, as it should be able to work with the ancient DCT and DCH series boxes. I think they should upgrade to MPEG-4 before going to SDV though, and the boxes that aren't MPEG-4 capable are LONG overdue to be retired anyways.



> Personally, I think the whole paradigm of linear broadcasting will collapse before the MSOs move to IP transmission. It is only a matter of time before companies like Apple and Roku become the STB vendors and viewers will subscribe to content independently. This won't mean al a carte pricing, however. You can expect Disney, for example, to bundle ESPN, the Disney Channel, ABC and all their other cable channels together.
> 
> But, as has been pointed out by me and others, while recording a channel from UVerse is possible (and yes, multistream is a different protocol than that used by Amazon, but conceptually, no more difficult) the real obstacle is that AT&T doesn't want TiVos recording their content, they would much rather rent the customer one of their DVRs. Lacking a government directive to make their systems open, they would never cooperate in such a project. I would suspect that the only reason Comcast is cooperating on a software replacement for Cablecard is to help smooth approval of the TWC merger.


The internet as we know it today couldn't support that kind of bandwidth. Maybe in 10 or 20 years. But not for the foreseeable future. I also don't foresee the collapse of linear broadcasting, it's a very efficient way to distribute popular content.

Comcast also has an incentive to improve the experience for CableCard users and make CableCard more efficient, since they are required by law to support it. And XoD support for TiVo was a business decision, since they have a lot of TiVo users anyways, they may as well rent them crappy quality movies, since they have nice fat margins on those.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Considering that my Comcast system is around 70 now, rebuilt systems are around 120, FIOS is around 200, and U-Verse is a few channels above that, 200 would be pretty darn good. I suppose there's only going to be more channels, so they may be forced to put some on SDV. Although with good management of the capacity, it should be set up so that only the top-tier, non-english, and sports package channels are SDV'ed, so that most users wouldn't need SDV...


I completely agree with you that SDV should be primarily used for the more niche channels and that the most watched channels should be linear so that any SDV issues will only adversely affect the smallest number of viewers. But SDV is probably going to be around for the foreseeable future unless cable companies ever decide to replace all their coax cables with fiber.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I completely agree with you that SDV should be primarily used for the more niche channels and that the most watched channels should be linear so that any SDV issues will only adversely affect the smallest number of viewers. But SDV is probably going to be around for the foreseeable future unless cable companies ever decide to replace all their coax cables with fiber.


That's not going to happen. Coax has plenty of bandwidth. Comcast doesn't use SDV, and AFAIK, doesn't plan to, although if they want to significantly increase their channel count, they may have to. I suppose I'd support SDV if they stopped tri-muxing channels and used 19mbps slots for the SDV system, and all the linear channels, and could get the TAs to work reliably... Coax has over 5gbps of bandwidth, so no need for fiber. Plus, with fiber, you still have to break out to QAM, like FIOS does, unless you go all-IP, so you are still limited by the QAM system, albeit without VOD, internet, phone, and security using capacity on the QAM system...


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ...Verizon's boxes are ready to go to IP, since their VOD system runs over IP today, and they are connected via MoCA. They could start rolling out channels in MPEG-2 over IP tomorrow, and all of their end users who are using Verizon STBs could receive them, although it raises some issues about CableCard users, since they would be left out in the dark on those channels...


True, but VOD is not delivered as a multicast stream, nor is any other aspect of the FiOS service, AFAIK. So a software update is very likely required (at a minimum) to add the required additional software to join and leave a given multicast session. One has to also wonder about joining multiple multicast broadcasts and recording them all simultaneously. Imagine a VMS1100 recording 5 multicast streams, while a 6th stream is being used on an IP client and another client is watching a recording. That would likely exceed the capacity of the MOCA network.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> True, but VOD is not delivered as a multicast stream, nor is any other aspect of the FiOS service, AFAIK. So a software update is very likely required (at a minimum) to add the required additional software to join and leave a given multicast session. One has to also wonder about joining multiple multicast broadcasts and recording them all simultaneously. Imagine a VMS1100 recording 5 multicast streams, while a 6th stream is being used on an IP client and another client is watching a recording. That would likely exceed the capacity of the MOCA network.


They don't need multicast. They could deliver it via multicast to the CO and then via unicast from there. With only a 32:1 split and a crapload of bandwidth (at least on GPON systems), I doubt multicast would significantly help capacity. Yes, the MoCA network capacity could be an issue, although they would likely do MPEG-4 over IP, not MPEG-2, which is about 8-9mbps per channel, so it likely wouldn't be that big of a deal.

I hope they don't, because TiVo, but they certainly could with minimal effort.


----------

