# SDV -- The elephant in the room



## HiKent (Nov 2, 2006)

It's approaching a year since the S3 has been released. In the beginning there were the issues with getting cablecards, missing features (TTG, eSATA, HD search), and a slightly out-of-date software version. And SDV.

Since then, the cablecard issues have all settled down (cable companys generally provide the cards even though they make it hard and overcharge). The software version is the same as Series 2, the HD search is there, and eSATA works great (even if it's unsupported).

TTG and Multi-room are locked up in disputes with cablelabs. 

The next generation of Tivo HD is on the horizion.

But what about SDV? To me, that has been the big question from day 1.

I don't get many of my channels. And the situation is getting worse. My new HD channels don't work, and even some of the ones that I did receive have been move to SDV, and so were lost to me.

I can't believe that Tivo would create the S3-lite if they did not have a solution in hand. 

"We're working on it" no longer seems appropriate posture.

Is it a licensing issue? If SA and/or Motorola are being unreasonable, how long do you wait before taking your issues public? If it's the cable co's being unreasonable, wouldn't that be good to say? How would that be different from the TTG issue?

Is new hardware in the S3-Lite required?

Or does Tivo not have a clue how to solve SDV. That's not credible either.

To me it's the elephant in the room. Why not address it?


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

SDV is being discussed here, no need for yet another thread:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=357703


----------



## HiKent (Nov 2, 2006)

Maybe you missed my point. I'm not talking about SDV sightings. 

I know what SDV is. I think it's well established it's widely deployed. 

My point is it's time for a clear, concise statement from Tivo that: 

1) A Series 3 solution is forthcoming if we can get our licensing issues solved, 

2) A series 3 solution is not forthcoming because hardware is missing, or 

3) We have no clue & are hoping you don't notice. 

This is not a discussion of what's happening in Austin or Chicago. It's about what's happening at Tivo.

But thanks for your excellent description of SDV in the referenced thread. It explains why SDV is a *big deal*. And it's getting bigger. With the next generation of S3 on the way, Tivo must have clear knowledge of a solution. That's exactly why Tivo owes us some guidance instead of just sitting silent.

Kent


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Legally, Cable Companies are obligated to allow third party devices to access their networks in all ways that their own boxes can. For 10 years, the cable industry has evaded compliance with the 1996 Telecom law.

This thread may be of interest: Will Cablecard 2.0 and beyond make S3 obsolete?

Tom Rogers testified in May about the SDV question to Congress. It was discussed here.

The issue is larger than SDV, and the same questions could be asked of Windows Vista MCE products- eg: are they hoping we don't notice they don't do SDV either? Do they have a plan? Do they have to work out the licensing? Really, they want SDV functionality every bit as much as Tivo. But everyone is blocked, and the entire CE industry is pissed off about it.

Cable companies will not allow any third party device to connect to a Cable or FIOS system that does anything more than listen to whatever is sent down the coaxial cable. It is not legal to attach a third party device to a cable network that can change channels to SDV, PPV or VOD. This affects not just Tivo, but Micosoft, Intel, and every other CE company that wants to build a device with the fancy feature of being able to "change channels".

The problem has political dimensions because the FCC has tolerated a near 7 year deadlock on a a standard for ANY bi-directional communication. There is speculation that the current administration is ideologically disinclined to enforce the 10 year old 1996 Telecom Act that states that third party devices shall have full access to video distribution networks such as those of the Cable companies.

The NCTA has stated that it is working closely with Tivo for a solution to the problem, and Tom Rogers testified that he hopes the effort will bear fruit. Rogers is in no position to antagonize Comcast or Cox, and many observers here are skeptical that cable companies have any intention of doing anything except block access to their networks until they are threatened with FCC action.

For this reason, I proposed that the FCC block all new introduction of SDV VOD or PPV channels if a basic bi directional agreement is not reached by a deadline set by the FCC. The rational for and discussion of that proposal may be found here.

Lot's of possibilities on how to do basic Bidirectional. Last November, Sony, Intel, Microsoft and 5C proposed to the FCC that they create a standard as a solution to the deadlock. A recent FCC meeting was to discuss rulemaking regarding bi directional, but it was pulled from the agenda barely 24 hours before the meeting took place. Is Intel and Microsoft and Sony and Hitachi and Toshiba and Philips etc etc etc. willing to sit on their hands? Probably not.

It is possible that upstream communication will happen via a USB dongle provided by the cable company. Various schemes have been discussed here dating back to one by ClassicSat that a USB dongle do the old style rf out of band signalling. More likely in my opinion is that a system capable of doing SDV would also be upgrading to Docsis signalling, because that is the standard they are all working towards. On Cable Company systems, such a usb dongle might sent Docsis packets to a DSG (docsis gateway- name for the new fancy routers/cable modems) that communicates with the Head end to request SDV/VOD/PPV channels. In the FIOS case, a dongle would send the request via Moca to the Moca enabled router that communicates via the FIOS ONT to request channels. The most complicated case is PPV- Tivo Corp knows the channels and fees, does the UI for confirmation for PPV, then authorizes the channel request via the dongle to the Docsis (or Moca) gateway.

The term "elephant in the room" suggests that there is some sort of conspiracy of silence on a massive issue. It is much bigger than Tivo, and my estimation is that Cable companies are going to stonewall and make empty unfulfilled promises until the FCC leadership changes.

Anyway, that is an encapsulation of the various discussions on the board, probably leaving out some gaping holes here or there and not attributing everyone properly, but there you are.


----------



## HiKent (Nov 2, 2006)

Justin, 

Thank you for clarifying the issues and situation. I have been following these discussions, the one on the Rogers testimony to Congress in particular. It is that testimony juxtaposed with the release of a second generation Tivo HD box that seems paradoxical: 

Everyone says the new HD programming is going to be SDV. That's what I'm seeing on my TWC system. 

So why would Tivo develop a second generation "Tivo HD" which can't receive HD programming (because it's SDV)? Wouldn't that be a show-stopper? 

The only conclusion I can draw is that Tivo has a SDV solution & is waiting on paperwork. To build a second generation w/o a solution seems too foolish to contemplate. 

Doesn't it seem odd to everyone else? 

Kent


----------



## bbock727 (Feb 28, 2004)

How do you know SDV is causing you not to receive channels? I get a black screen on one of them, no audio or video. Does that mean theres an SDV problem w/ it?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

HiKent said:


> So why would Tivo develop a second generation "Tivo HD" which can't receive HD programming (because it's SDV)? Wouldn't that be a show-stopper?


Your premise is wrong. The world doesn't change to all SDV overnight. Look at what your local company is doing. That is all that matters, and I doubt that everything will be SDV. If there is always a viewer of a channel in a service group, then that is a bad candidate for SDV.

In any case, regarding SDV solutions, maybe the cableco's promised Tivo a dongle- maybe the so called S3 lite (increasingly seems like a misnomer) has some circuitry integrated on the mother board. Who knows. But whatever the story is, it isn't public yet so it's pointless to speculate. What we know is that Cable doesn't have to really do anything. We also know that Tivo cannot allow cable company intransigence to dictate their delivery of new product. Recall that Cableco's also solemnly promised MCards by this time last year.

Surprize. They didn't deliver, and to this day, few cable systems support MCards, so had they made their plans dependent on the cable companies they either would have delivered a box in 9/2006 that wouldn't work on any system until very recently, or 2) they would not have shipped the S3 until the integration ban.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> Your premise is wrong


Indeed.


Justin Thyme said:


> The world doesn't change to all SDV overnight


It is far from certain that much of the world will change to SDV at all, ever.

For most of us, in terms of what impact it will have on us any time soon, what we have is a technique that local cable operators can use to gang channels that nobody is watching anyway, to save a little bandwidith for the channels they are watching, which will stay where they are. A non-event.

By the time anybody gets more creative beyond that, SDV technology will have been replaced with something else anyway.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

HiKent said:


> Maybe you missed my point. I'm not talking about SDV sightings.
> 
> I know what SDV is. I think it's well established it's widely deployed.
> 
> ...


Maybe you missed my point. There is discussion of that in that thread.

You're not going to get a statement from Tivo past "We're working on it". If they had a solution, they would test it and roll it out. If they didn't, there is no point in saying "We're still working on it".

Your statement that you believe that SDV is "widely deployed" illustrates your ignorance of the matter.


----------



## LCD1080 (Dec 13, 2006)

As long as I continue to receive Discovery HD on my S3 I'm satisfied. There's about as much chance that a popular network like Discovery will switch over to SDV as there is that snowball production is going into high gear in Brazilian jungle.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

HiKent said:


> So why would Tivo develop a second generation "Tivo HD" which can't receive HD programming (because it's SDV)? Wouldn't that be a show-stopper?


Also, TiVo has to have _something _ to sell. This is what they _can _ do. Sure SDV slows down the show, but TiVo has to keep on keepin' on.



> But what about SDV? To me, that has been the big question from day 1.


I have changed my mind so many times on how I would factor this in to my own decisions about purchasing one-way cable devices that I have no idea what I think.



> "We're working on it" no longer seems appropriate posture.


That's what they've done with TTG/MRV. And Mac support for... "_We are working hard on working towards_..."

Justin:

What you wrote in your first post was really good. I especially liked the USB dongle ideas.


----------



## mike_camden (Dec 11, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> Maybe you missed my point. There is discussion of that in that thread.
> 
> You're not going to get a statement from Tivo past "We're working on it". If they had a solution, they would test it and roll it out. If they didn't, there is no point in saying "We're still working on it".
> 
> Your statement that you believe that SDV is "widely deployed" illustrates your ignorance of the matter.


I think that your statement is unfair to the OP. Over the past couple of months, I too have followed all of the posts on this board regarding SDV very closely. While the thread you previously referenced does provide a good description of SDV and much follow-up, the discussion is too scattered to succinctly address the questions posited by the OP (the same ones that I also have).

Justin's follow- up post was very helpful; however, I would caution anyone to get their hopes up too much about how a possible change to a Democrat administration would help the situation. Unfortunately the other side of the political aisle is every bit as much susceptible to special interest influence, and the cable companies wield a pretty big hammer here (just look at campaign donations). I think the only thing that is going to level the playing field is if other companies such as MS, Sony, Intel, etc that also have a lot of cash and can play the political game at the same level as the cable companies (which Tivo cannot do on its own, especially with such a minuscule number of subscribers compared to the overall pool) get involved.

How do we really know the channels "that nobody is going to watch" are the only ones which will end up on SDV? Sometimes I think wishful thinking seems to supercede an understanding of economics on this board. How many Tivo Series 3 subscribers are there as compared to the entire pool of cable subscribers? Maybe a fraction of a percent? If it isn't already apparent with the debacle over cable card installs over the past year, the major cable companies don't care about your wishes or needs if you're a Tivo user; they are too large and too entrenched to worry about individual needs. It seems that cable TV entertainment is becoming an inelastic good in America (as price increases and/or quality of service/customer service diminishes, the demand for cable TV generally remains the same). Cable companies know this and given the lack of real competition will continue to act in a way that doesn't take into account the wishes or needs of their customers unless an outside influencer requires them to act differently (real competition, true regulatory enforcement, etc).

From all that I have read on this board, we only have a few points of data to consider when speculating over which channels will be moved to SDV. We have TWC putting all new HD channels and moving current ones to SDV in certain markets (including popular channels like ESPN2 and National Geographic). We have Comcast claiming to have 800 channels of HD in a couple of years. Even with their VOD trickery with that number, it still seems unlikely unless they clear up A LOT of bandwidth. How are they going to do so without moving a lot of HD channels to SDV? I think someone's point in the other thread that the cable companies moving the major networks to SDV will be too flagrant for the FCC and the networks to ignore is valid, so I don't see that happening. Outside of that, I think just about anything else is in play.

Much like the OP, this worries me. I love Tivo (I had 2 DirecTivos and an HD DirecTvo iwhen we had DTV and I currently have a Series 2 and a series 2 DT), but the SDV issue IS the proverbial elephant in the room for me also. It's why I didn't purchase a Series 3 during the rebate period, and it's probably why I won't purchase a Series 3 Lite until more on how/if Tivo is able to address the SDV issue becomes known. I don't know how many more there are just like me, but reading the polls posted here recently, there seems to be several that are just sitting it out to wait until Tivo is able to announce a resolution.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Mike, thank you for taking time to compose your note. 


mike_camden said:


> I think that your statement is unfair to the OP. Over the past couple of months, I too have followed all of the posts on this board regarding SDV very closely. While the thread you previously referenced does provide a good description of SDV and much follow-up, the discussion is too scattered to succinctly address the questions posited by the OP (the same ones that I also have).


Where else on the Web is the subject treated as deeply, with the breadth of aspects covered, with laymans as well as accurate technical explanations provided, with multiple points of view described? It's a little intimidating for new folks to post, and it is best to be offer welcoming responses or none at all. Naturally many new posters are unaware if an issue such as this one has been discussed backwards and forwards for the last few years. It is also common for folks not to use search effectively or get frustrated by the dispersed nature of the information. But it is also easy to understand the frustration of some regulars to read yet another note that suggests no one has been paying attention to this issue, and that in particular Tivo management either stupid or trying to pull a fast one on consumers. It's like blaming the rape victim. There's considerable emotion there, and it is also proper to understand that many feel that consumers and Tivo are being victimized by cable companies.



mike_camden said:


> I would caution anyone to get their hopes up too much about how a possible change to a Democrat administration would help the situation. ...I think the only thing that is going to level the playing field is if other companies such as MS, Sony, Intel, etc that also have a lot of cash and can play the political game at the same level as the cable companies...


I'm not sure what portion of the formula you feel is inadequate. At the rawest level, there are four parts. 1) political players that can achieve political advantage by playing to consumer issues 2) a deep level of consumer disgust over being chiselled by "walled garden" (including cell phones) approaches that the politician can tap into. 3) commercial interests that are mobilized and highly motivated to see an outcome that would be produced by an activist policy to redress the injustices. 4) likeliness of the political players coming to power.

Motive and opportunity. All the pieces are in place so I regard it as inevitable that MSO will be facing a significantly alterred regulatory environment if they don't settle things on their own terms while they still have the initiative. Internal institutional politics being what they are- they will likely just wait and see what materializes rather than attempt to anticipate and pre-empt.

You yourself mentioned 3. The November 2006 letter reveals a formidable array of companies. Actually, the current adminstration could still tap into this force as well. Possibly Chairman Martin is interested in taking real action. His words at CES were encoraging, but considering the sluggish pace towards a ruling on basic bidirectional, I don't see it. It's been 6 months since he made those remarks and what we are seeing is that discussion of the issue is being removed from meeting agendas, not added- and that is just the preliminary discussion phase they won't even enter into. My guess is that Martin will continue to decline to enforce the 1996 Telecom law. Still, extreme pessimists were proven wrong. The integration ban was not delayed yet another year, and waivers to major cable companies could have been but weren't issued.



mike_camden said:


> How do we really know the channels "that nobody is going to watch" are the only ones which will end up on SDV? Sometimes I think wishful thinking seems to supercede an understanding of economics on this board.


Actually, it is precisely economics that drives this estimation. SDV rollout can be performed on a per channel basis, and channels can be reassigned in and out of SDV at the provider's discretion. Certainly, if the SDV node switches were free, they would make all channels switchable. But if getting a near instantaneous switch to a channel were an inexpensive proposition it would have been done long ago. In a city with a high number of users per node, you will have many channels that are always being watched. So, the SDV switch and head end support for it is wasted. Even in areas where there are low numbers of users, there is often a correlation between geographic location, socio-economic group and viewing patterns, so you still will have channels being watched continuously. And really, "coninuously" is really the wrong question. The key to look at is not the low load times, but what happens during prime time when you are trying to optimize the greatest number of revenue opportunities with the same size pipe. And look at what is happening on the network- the common channels at that time are being watched. Using an SDV switch on one of them delivers no benefit whatsoever. So why waste the money.

Since the percentage of analog cable households remains near 50%, the channels devoted to this segmnet cannot go to SDV until there is a significant outlay for digital boxes. Even for digital customers with boxes, while some SDV systems support the ability of legacy set top boxes to change channels via proprietary RF switching, other schemes require new set top boxes. So there is significant latency (as with most CableLabs plans) in the ramp up to SDV.

This is the cost side of the rationale for the phased implementation of SDV. They can add more as need requires, but there is a point of diminishing returns. It is anyone's guess where that point is, but even if the number is 50%, then it represents a significant number of channels that owners of third party boxes cannot access.

So it has nothing to do with wishful thinking. They aren't going to go to high percentages soon, but it is irrelevant anyway. The conclusion is the same- even if consumers are prevented from changing channels to one quarter or one half of the channels they used to recieve, they are going to be pissed off.

The ire needs to be focussed where the problem lays- the FCC.

Folks may wish to express their opinions to members of the Senate Commerce committee and/or their congressional representatives. It's time for the FCC to complete implementation of the 1996 Telecom law. More than enough time has been given to the cable industry. It's time to bust some heads.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

So where does INTC building OCAP support into their (CE?) processors next year leave us?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

HiKent said:


> Justin,
> So why would Tivo develop a second generation "Tivo HD" which can't receive HD programming (because it's SDV)?


This new TiVo doesn't have SDV because they don't have the means to include two-way in any product now, for reasons Justin gave, and discussed in other threads.

The reason for the new TiVo, is to bring down prices to get more Series 3 TiVos in the field as soon as possible, because the original Series 3 cost too much.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> So where does INTC building OCAP support into their (CE?) processors next year leave us?


Nothing directly, since TiVos currently don't use Intel hardware.

Now it could see, by Cablelabs, the FCC, and Congress, as a beginning acceptance of OCAP, and therefore no need for a non OCAP-two-way solution.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

I find it hard to see how the cablecos can get a good spin on their dragging of their feet on this two-way business. After all, the cablecards, and thus the cable companies, control what channels you are authorized to receive, no matter how your device happens to chose a particular channel. You are not going to be able to receive any channel unless you have paid your cable company for it somehow (subscription, PPV, VOD, whatever), and the head end has sent the relevant authentication codes to your cablecard. And equipment like TiVo is certified to enforce copy protection restrictions and such. So how exactly are the cablecos "disintermediated" by third party software which controls what program you want to see?  Or are they concerned about third-party devices getting video content from sources other than through them (e.g., Unbox)?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> So where does INTC building OCAP support into their (CE?) processors next year leave us?


Read that announcement. They licensed it for a narrow product. As usual, cable reality benders are trying to convince everyone that Intel has endorsed OCAP, which Intel most certainly has not, and the Intel folks seem a little peaved about the NCTA's disinformation campaign.


----------



## TiVotion (Dec 6, 2002)

You know what I find to be the ultimate irony where SDV is concerned?

I've got hundreds of channels, and there are times when I can't find a thing to watch. I mean, seriously, we have to find a way to have 500 channels, so we have to look for ways in the industry to "time share" them because we're out of bandwidth.

Remember that old Bruce Springsteen song, "57 Channels and Nothing On"? Ha! 57 channels. Those were the days.


----------



## mmohler123 (Dec 3, 2006)

our tivo HD has a problem where it pixilates on certain channels. It affects the picture as well as the sound. Its onle 6 months old and is extremely aggravating


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> So where does INTC building OCAP support into their (CE?) processors next year leave us?


internal support makes some things cheaper to build but it does not adress the UI requirement for displaying cable co PPV/VOD or whatever they choose to show.

Until a standard approach that doesn ot involve sending down new software and the ability to directly control display hardware is worked out that is doable by CE companies having it all on one chip completely will noy help.

I think SDV shows an area though that compromise can be had.
table the UI part of cable card 2.0 for now.
Work out a simple protocol for simple two way interaction that takes care of SDV and lets the thrid party device display channels for PPV/VOd and switch to the correct channel if something is ordered.

the new cable card boxes from the cbale companies clearly shows this can all be done without the need for OCAP


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> Read that announcement. They licensed it for a narrow product. As usual, cable reality benders are trying to convince everyone that Intel has endorsed OCAP, which Intel most certainly has not, and the Intel folks seem a little peaved about the NCTA's disinformation campaign.


And will the public ever see anything more than that Press Release?

But INTC likes to sell expensive processors to poor innocent box makers. 

So this CableSOFT stuff from TiVo works with On Ramp, a slimmed precursor to OCAP, which those existing STBs have the power to run. Presumably it would run on full OCAP systems and be transportable to other cable operators' systems - to the extent anything like this (ie. JAVA Apps) is portable without modification/testing.

So what's the big deal - technically - if a very miniaturized, upwardly compatible with full OCAP, ocap  were used to change channels?

As long as proposals are being thrown out, why not a channel change ocap?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Multichannel (mouthpiece of the cable industry) News's spin was that Intel had done a 180 degree turn in policy. 

The fact is that Intel has not withdrawn its support an OCAP less solution for basic bi-directional services on cablecard devices. Intel sells a lot of processors to the PC industry, and the requirement of OCAP on PCs is onerous to say the least. Intel made the OCAPless proposal to the FCC in November along with Sony, Microsoft, and all of the major CE companies. 

Intel would be delighted to sell you their integrated Systems on a Chip that include HTTP servers, IPTV players, whatever you want on there. The number of STB sales dwarfs PC sales, and so if the Cable companies commit to buy OCAP systems on a chip, guess what. Intel will be happy to sell them OCAP on a SoC chip. 

But it is hardly a 180 degree turn for them. No retraction of the INTEL demand for an OCAPless solution for cable channel changing. 

Period.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

So you think Intel will do both, develop the OCAP chip to try to sell to cable (and CE if they get stuck with OCAP), and continue along the CE favored path.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

They will both put OCAP on a SoC chip and see if it sells. They will continue to lobby for openness on the high end- they got the DTCP-IP thing through, and will continue to push that vigorously with their ViiV initiative. They aren't going to be bought off by CableLabs.

Intel sells to linux, apple, and windows. They'll put WindowsMobile on a chip, or a Toaster on a chip. They don't care what it is or means or about religious battles. They care about things that block penetration of their chips, regardless which segment it is in. 

By the way, there is no reason to assume that CableLabs didn't in fact commission Intel to put OCAP on a chip / guarantee a volume of chip sales. They don't have to announce why they are making a move. Undoubtedly because they are making money, but how. Maybe Cablelabs just paid them 30 million. As you know, that's what the cableguys call "chump change".


----------



## Bill McNeal (May 31, 2002)

I've read numerous threads on the impact of SDV and it's somewhat confusing and am hoping someone has answers to some questions I have.

I understand basically that CableCards currently one-way devices will not be able to request digital channels on SDV. Does this mean that, if a channel I want to record is on SDV, my TiVo HD or S3 can't record at all and I will get essentially a blank recording? Would the TiVo only be able to record unswitched channels and whatever switched channels someone in my node is requesting?

From what I've read here, it appears that non-OCAP compliance is the reason CableLabs does not allow CableCards to be two-way devices. It seems to me the easiest way to solve the problem of cable company's desires for SDV and usefulness of CableCards is to either 1) Get CableCards OCAP certified or 2) Waive the OCAP requirement. How likely is either to happen? Why can't CableCards be certified as easily as cable boxes are to become two-way devices?

What is the best-case scenario for TiVo HD/S3 users that have CableCards if SDV is fully implemented? Perhaps something like CableCards becoming two-way, or TiVo using an alternate method of requesting switched channels through the cable box.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Bill McNeal said:


> I understand basically that CableCards currently one-way devices will not be able to request digital channels on SDV.


No. Rather, CableLabs-certified devices, like the TiVo Series 3 and the TiVo HD, are currently one-way devices with respect to the cable systems they connect to: The _CableCards_ support two-way communications.



Bill McNeal said:


> IDoes this mean that, if a channel I want to record is on SDV, my TiVo HD or S3 can't record at all and I will get essentially a blank recording?


Indeed. That's essentially the issue.



Bill McNeal said:


> Would the TiVo only be able to record unswitched channels and whatever switched channels someone in my node is requesting?


The former... only unswitched channels.



Bill McNeal said:


> IIt seems to me the easiest way to solve the problem of cable company's desires for SDV and usefulness of CableCards is to either 1) Get CableCards OCAP certified or 2) Waive the OCAP requirement.


I'll leave it to the folks who remember the details better than I to explain what those aren't practical. In a nutshell, though, OCAP would make a TiVo effectively no longer a TiVo.



Bill McNeal said:


> What is the best-case scenario for TiVo HD/S3 users that have CableCards if SDV is fully implemented?


The aforementioned USB dongle issued by the cable company would be the best case scenario, IMHO. I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

The battle is to waive the OCAP requirement for 2 way comms. Part of being OCAP certified is you have to run whatever software the cable company shoves down your throat. Imagine your excitement about getting home with your new Tivo S4 that supports 2 way communications, only to have it look and act exactly like your current cable company DVR when you hooked it up.

At present, the cable companies are not willing to allow non-OCAP devices to use 2 way comms, effectively doing an end run around the intent of the 1996 telecom law. The FCC isn't inclined to enforce the law, and the congressional oversight of the FCC is somewhere short of "sorely lacking".


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Part of being OCAP certified is you have to run whatever software the cable company shoves down your throat.


well, i guess tivo decided to go the route of just putting their software on the cable co's hardware. The burning question is how is it going to perform on that hardware.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

bicker said:


> The _CableCards_ support two-way communications.


This is true in a sense, with emphasis on the work "support". The CableCARDs do not physically perform any communication--all transmission and reception is done by hardware built into the host (i.e., TiVo or other cable STB or television). Some of the communication on the wire, particularly chatter back to the network, is done via (probably) proprietary protocols encapsulated in software running in the CableCARD.

This is a big part of the problem. If the host has no physical transmitter, nothing in the CableCARD can turn it into a two-way device. I'm wondering if the TiVo HD has the hardware to talk back to the network.


----------



## Bill McNeal (May 31, 2002)

bicker said:


> The aforementioned USB dongle issued by the cable company would be the best case scenario, IMHO. I'm not holding my breath.


Thanks bicker for your kind responses. It makes things a lot clearer.

If SDV were fully implemented, would S1 and S2 boxes be similarly affected? Could the S3/TiVo HD use an alternate method to CableCards, such as an IR-blaster setup that goes through the cable box?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

CharlesH said:


> So how exactly are the cablecos "disintermediated" by third party software which controls what program you want to see?  Or are they concerned about third-party devices getting video content from sources other than through them (e.g., Unbox)?


They want a UI they can approve and control, likely because of sales of their product in favor of outside content (such as Unbox), and promotion of their content and paid advertising on the UI.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Bill McNeal said:


> If SDV were fully implemented, would S1 and S2 boxes be similarly affected?


No. Just the STB you connect to it could be, if it is a 3rd party UDCP cablecard box. Chances are, you will be using a full SDV compliant cable provided STB.



> Could the S3/TiVo HD use an alternate method to CableCards, such as an IR-blaster setup that goes through the cable box?


No. That is what the Series2s are for.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> So what's the big deal - technically - if a very miniaturized, upwardly compatible with full OCAP, ocap  were used to change channels?


There is little technical reason a Mini-OCAP could not work.

It is purely in the business interest of the Cable providers they want only full OCAP.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

classicsat said:


> There is little technical reason a Mini-OCAP could not work.
> 
> It is purely in the business interest of the Cable providers they want only full OCAP.


So let me put that on the table. A teeny weenie little  subset of ocap just for "changing channels" which is compatible with any full implementation of OCAP by a cable MSO.

While I'm at it, other teeny weenie little ocap pieces that anyone thinks of for some device they come up with. Add pieces as desired.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mikeyts said:


> This is true in a sense, with emphasis on the work "support". The CableCARDs do not physically perform any communication


Yes, I deliberately inserted the word "support" into the essence of what the previous poster said, to make the statement accurate.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Bill McNeal said:


> If SDV were fully implemented, would S1 and S2 boxes be similarly affected?


"Similarly" affected? Definitely not. S2 boxes don't have any digital tuners, so SDV or no-SDV wouldn't matter -- it cannot handle *either*. The only way S2s handle digital channels now is as the recipient of a video signal (composite, S-video, or component) from another box, which serves as tuner. How well _that_ box handles SDV is what would matter.



Bill McNeal said:


> Could the S3/TiVo HD use an alternate method to CableCards, such as an IR-blaster setup that goes through the cable box?


The S3 doesn't have video inputs -- it only has coaxial inputs.


----------



## skylab (Jul 26, 2007)

I'm surprised noone has mentioned this here, but the CEA, in its proposal with the FCC has requested that the FCC ban the adoption of SDV until a standard is agreed upon for 2-way access.

"The issue of switched digital service deserves particular attention. First, for the sake of simplicity only, the Proposal classifies switched digital content as interactive, even though consumers observe no interaction with the cable network when accessing it. Indeed, to clarify, switched digital content might properly be classified as bi-directional, but it is plainly not interactive.

Further, as the record shows, cable operators are migrating channels of video programming to a switched digital delivery scheme. See Letter from Steven N. Teplitz, Time Warner Cable, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, (May 11, 2006). If cable had not implemented switched digital in a manner that disenfranchised consumers from the programming they had reasonably expected to receive with their UDCPs, we would, of course, support this and all such efforts by cable to increase the efficiency of their networks.

Present unidirectional digital cable ready (UDCR) devices, however, cannot receive services with an interactive component, like switched digital, and consumers cannot know upon purchase of a UDCR that some linear programming may become unavailable in the future. If cable operators continue to migrate channels to switched digital, UDCR customers will continue to lose programming or be forced to switch to a leased set-top box, which ultimately will discourage consumers from purchasing devices at retail, as they can no longer expect to receive all the programming that they receive on the day they bring the device home. Switched digital thus directly undermines CE efforts and Commission action. *We recognize that it is not possible to fix UDCRs that are already in consumer homes and that it may not be an effective allocation of cable or CE resources to spend significant time addressing the UDCR/switched digital issue. Instead, the Commission should limit MSOs ability to migrate programming to switched digital until CE manufacturers have the capability to build and sell devices that can handle switched digital. This is the only fair result for consumers*, and will encourage cable to move quickly on two-way."

its on fcc dot gov under 6/29 (sorry can't link yet)

Comments on this proposal are due now!


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

classicsat said:


> They want a UI they can approve and control, likely because of sales of their product in favor of outside content (such as Unbox), and promotion of their content and paid advertising on the UI.


This I think hits it on the head. Providers want total control over what you see on the UI and they will fight very hard for this.

You can bet your bottom dollar that when the Tivo software for Moto boxes rolls out that it will have the same large banner ads and "messages" (advertisements) that you get currently on the Moto boxes with the current software.

Also as previously indicated, while cable companies act like they are doing their best to act in faith with the law, they really aren't moving in the spirit of the law which is to provide the same capabilities to other devices that their own boxes provide.

This is a 50 billion dollar industry and Tivo is an iddy biddy player in it.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

mikeyts said:


> This is true in a sense, with emphasis on the work "support". The CableCARDs do not physically perform any communication--all transmission and reception is done by hardware built into the host (i.e., TiVo or other cable STB or television). Some of the communication on the wire, particularly chatter back to the network, is done via (probably) proprietary protocols encapsulated in software running in the CableCARD.
> 
> This is a big part of the problem. If the host has no physical transmitter, nothing in the CableCARD can turn it into a two-way device. I'm wondering if the TiVo HD has the hardware to talk back to the network.


The part about the physical RF transmitter is correct as is the ramifications of the host not having one.

However in OOB/QPSK mode, the communication responsibility is split between the host and the CableCARD so you are slightly understating (it isn't just limited to chatter) how much responsibility the CableCARD has in the communication process. In DSG (as opposed to OOB) mode, the host is responsible for all the communications.

This is straight from the spec:


> The Host-POD Interface will operate in one of two modes, a mode using SCTE 55-1
> or SCTE 55-2 OOB channels (the OOB mode), or a mode that uses the DOCSIS Settop
> Gateway (DSG) for the forward OOB messaging and the normal DOCSIS IP
> channel for return traffic (the DSG mode).
> ...


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

That makes enough sense--DOCSIS is a public standard and CableCARD host developing OEMs can produce the comm stack from that standard; the OOB stuff is most probably couched in proprietary protocols on the wire which can be nicely encapsulated in the CableCARD with the proprietary on-wire security protocols. I'm thinkin' that SDV as it exists at this time is probably going OOB. I could be wrong .


----------



## zackangelo (Sep 14, 2006)

It seems that quite a few people are falsely assuming that their interests are aligned with a few of the other big industry players, namely Microsoft and Intel. From what I can gather, none of them give a rat's ass about current generation cable networks, they're just playing the digital cable game as a stopgap measure until IPTV reaches maturity. And from their perspective, it seems to make total sense. Why would they want to get caught up in this regulatory nightmare when they'll be able to deliver whatever content the want to any endpoint they want over IP and with none of these problems? They'll have another fight on their hands soon because all of the last-mile bandwidth is controlled by the same cable companies they're trying to squeeze out, but if there were ever a use for a multi-billion dollar warchest, that'd probably be it.


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

Thank you all for the informed and thoughtful posts.


> There's considerable emotion there, and it is also proper to understand that many feel that consumers and Tivo are being victimized by cable companies.


Count me among the emotional with respect to this issue. Moving to a location without D* line-of-sight has "forced" me to my local TWC franchise. After owning a SAT-T60 and HR10-250, I do feel victimized by TWC. I don't want to be a TWC customer, but I want ESPN. Without line-of-sight, TWC is the *only* game in town. No one likes bowing to a monopoly (he types in to his FireFox browser).

I feel so "victimized" by this SA8300HD they dropped in my house that I have a TiVo HD sitting on hold at a local BB. Of course, I go to my favorite TiVo information resource to learn more about it and find a lot of very legitimate FUD regarding SDV. TWC here in Cincinnati does have multi-stream cards (I have one in my SA8300HD). I can't get a straight story on their SDV plans, and doubt I'll be able to.

I the spirit of the OP - what about this elephant? I know no one has definitive answers and I know the answer will vary by cable franchise across the nation, but let's speculate. This has been the most well-informed and well-articulated summary of the issue, so this seems like a qualified group to present an opinion for the less-informed (without warranty, of course).

My experience has indicated that I flip STB's about every 3 years. So if I go to BB and pick up this box today, I'm looking at $300 for the box and $300 in service. How realistic is it that SDV may make any of the popular national HD channels (Discovery, TNT, ESPN(2), HBO) and/or HD locals disappear from that box?


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

Here in Tampa I was unable to watch Versus/Golf HD via Bright House Networks because of SDV, so I filed a complaint with the FCC. As a result BHN gave me a free STB for one year so I could watch the channel, sure this isn't the same but maybe TiVo will find a work around within a year. Ironically I went through all of that, then this week found out FIOS was finally available in my neighborhood so I switched, which works great cause they don't use SDV.

Personally I think everyone who is affected by SDV should file a complaint, otherwise the FCC won't understand how big the problem is. You can file online, using this link. Also, cable takes this serious, the VP of customer service dealt with me directly as a result of my complaint.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints_general.html


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Ben, that's awesome - I've put a link in my .sig to your post, hopefully it'll encourage folks to tell the FCC that their ignorance of the intent of the '96 telecom law is unacceptable.

You should think about adding this into the first post in your SDV FAQ thread, too.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

GoHokies! said:


> You should think about adding this into the first post in your SDV FAQ thread, too.


I already did, it is in in the "Is this likely to change anytime soon?" section.


----------



## VinceA (May 13, 2002)

As soon as I get a TiVo HD I'll be filing a complaint against Cablevision regarding their increasing use of SDV.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

VinceA said:


> As soon as I get a TiVo HD I'll be filing a complaint against Cablevision regarding their increasing use of SDV.


Heres a better idea, get a cable box and enjoy all of the new HD content they are rolling out.


----------



## VinceA (May 13, 2002)

Nope, that would be giving CV the easy way out....


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

davecramer74 said:


> Heres a better idea, get a cable box and enjoy all of the new HD content they are rolling out.


Why would they want to *enjoy *the services being offered?


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

It _MAY_ be possible to use TCPIP for signaling. SA's SDV docs on the Intenet talk about be IP based. This would be a great solution for Tivos, but not for all cabelcard TVs.


----------



## jsmiley125 (Jul 27, 2007)

JoeSchueller said:


> Count me among the emotional with respect to this issue.


Count me in too.

I'm new to the whole SDV thing, and granted I'm not running a cable company, so I could care less what the _majority_ of people want from their cable companies, but here's the sticking point about this whole SDV and TiVo thing with me (as I understand it):

I just bought a TiVo HD. I bought it because I currently have HD cable, but I HATE TWC's DVR. Now, I don't just want to be able to record NBC HD or FOX HD, I want to be able to record Discovery HD and HDNet, etc. So an OTA connection to my TiVo HD won't cut it. The solution? Get CableCARDs for my new TiVo. Then I should be able to watch everything I want. Other than VOD or PPV. _Or so I thought, until I read everything in these threads... _ So now, what will happen is slowly HD channels and analog channels will start to become unavailable to me. Eventually, there will be nothing left, but what I can get via OTA already. Which means I won't have much need for the capabilities of the TiVo HD, and I'll have to get the TWC DVR again since I'll want to watch all the channels I'm missing, minus the ease of use and enjoyment of a TiVo. So, like the OP stated, what's the point in TiVo releasing this box? In probably a year, it will be ponitless. It will not have any functionality. That is, except for the absolutely incredible ability to record HD OTA (sarcasm). Big whoop. It seems like I might as well return my TiVo HD now, while I'm still within my first 30 days. Someone mentioned that TiVo was doing this so they could get boxes out there and make money. What happens when people like me return them? Or when people stop buying them after realizing they'll be useless?

Am I missing something here?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

I hadn't seen this article before claiming Cox goal is to have capacity for up to 50 HD channels by end of 2007 and 100 by end of 2009:
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6453819.html

The bad news is one of the major means of obtaining that goal will be the deployment of Switched Digital Video. So looks like Cox is planning on getting into SDV in a big way sometime this year. Judging by past execution problems on things such as digital simulcast I am sure they will miss the mark and it will be delayed by several months or a year, but looks like it's coming...


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

jsmiley125 said:


> ... It seems like I might as well return my TiVo HD now, while I'm still within my first 30 days. Someone mentioned that TiVo was doing this so they could get boxes out there and make money. What happens when people like me return them? Or when people stop buying them after realizing they'll be useless?
> 
> Am I missing something here?


Eeeeeaaaasssssyyyy big fella. I was in the exact same place in between the time I plunked down my AMEX on BestBuy.com for an in-store pickup and when I got it home yesterday. I started reading, got all hot over the SDV issue and started freaking out about whether or not I should just let my TiVo HD sit a the store for 6 days and cancel the order.

I'm so glad I didn't. I did a bunch more reading and I came to the conclusion that while SDV is not something I like, it isn't enough to keep me from enjoying the $600 I just spent on this box and 3 yrs of service:

1) CableCo's are pretty damn slow in general. I don't think many of them can do large-scale SDV implementations in a short period of time. Any SDV implementation will be managed carefully. You won't see popular channels go quickly.

2) The SDV architecture doesn't favor putting popular HD channels on to SDV. I think it will be limited to smaller, more fringe stations. The majority of my viewing is on HD locals, ESPN HD, Discovery HD and HBO HD. These are unlikely to ever go. The variable nature of the bandwidth for live sporting events makes it a challenge to use SDV.

3) I can complain to the FCC every time a channel I want goes to SDV and point out that TWC is excluding me from their network while on my UDCP device. While I doubt this will be very productive, it is well worth doing because of the principle of the matter. They can't continue to stifle choice & innovation.

4) If I'm a cable co, I can keep the FCC off my back by working on shutting down analog and moving all my PPV/VOD to SDV and have more than enough bandwidth to the home to keep my core programming offerings off of SDV.

I freaked out over SDV too - concerned I'd have a $600 brick in my cabinet in less than 12 months. As someone who lived through the HR10-250 introduction/"obsolescence" at D*, I've been here before. The reality is that these sorts of things take time. I'd encourage you to stop thinking about returning it and start enjoying how much better it is than the crud your cableco gave you before.

Just my $0.02... YMMV


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

jsmiley125 said:


> So, like the OP stated, what's the point in TiVo releasing this box? In probably a year, it will be ponitless. It will not have any functionality.


The point is what is available now, sure this might happen or that, but the bottom line is that right now it is the best solution so why not go with it. Personally I don't believe it will be useless in a year and waited long enough to get my HD TiVo, I'm not willing to wait any longer. I'll put my money on what works now, rather than worry about what might happen.


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

Amen Ben!


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bdraw said:


> The point is what is available now, sure this might happen or that, but the bottom line is that right now it is the best solution so why not go with it. Personally I don't believe it will be useless in a year and waited long enough to get my HD TiVo, I'm not willing to wait any longer. I'll put my money on what works now, rather than worry about what might happen.


Right on.

People said that a year about about the S3 when it came out. I don't think that you can find ANYONE that says their S3 has "no functionality" because of SDV.


----------



## jsmiley125 (Jul 27, 2007)

Ok, Ok, I'm convinced, I'm not returning it. I Just got a little hot under the collar when it seemed like JUST when CableCARD was becoming a reality for us, TWC comes along and says, "Oh, sorry, we use SDV now. You lose."

You know?


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

JoeSchueller said:


> ...
> 1) CableCo's are pretty damn slow in general. I don't think many of them can do large-scale SDV implementations in a short period of time. Any SDV implementation will be managed carefully. You won't see popular channels go quickly.


No, but you may not see popular new channels like National Geo. HD, etc.



JoeSchueller said:


> 2) The SDV architecture doesn't favor putting popular HD channels on to SDV. I think it will be limited to smaller, more fringe stations. The majority of my viewing is on HD locals, ESPN HD, Discovery HD and HBO HD. These are unlikely to ever go. The variable nature of the bandwidth for live sporting events makes it a challenge to use SDV.


No, but you may be deprived of some less than really popular channel like Food Channel HD and you may lose CNN (I know, big deal) when they start HD broadcasts and the anlog version is droppped.


JoeSchueller said:


> ...
> 3) I can complain to the FCC every time a channel I want goes to SDV and point out that TWC is excluding me from their network while on my UDCP device. While I doubt this will be very productive, it is well worth doing because of the principle of the matter. They can't continue to stifle choice & innovation.


I'm with you, brother, but I don't have much confidence that the FCC will step up to the plate.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

jsmiley125 said:


> Ok, Ok, I'm convinced, I'm not returning it. I Just got a little hot under the collar when it seemed like JUST when CableCARD was becoming a reality for us, TWC comes along and says, "Oh, sorry, we use SDV now. You lose."
> 
> You know?


I can't be the only one who is ditching cable and just settling for the OTA HD and buying or renting other stuff on DVD or Unbox?

I'm done playing games with the little popes that run the local cable monopolies.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

And if you read some of the other SDV threads, SDV may come to the S3 and TiVo HD anyway. Both TiVo and the cable industry have stated that they are working together on a solution to support SDV on unidirectional CableCARD devices such as the S3 and TiVo HD.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Talk is cheap.


----------



## jsmiley125 (Jul 27, 2007)

Well, here's the result of my visit from the CableCARD gods: I get all the channels I got with the TWC DVR, minus PPV and VOD, obviously.

So for now, I was jumping the gun on SDV ruining my TiVo HD experience. However, I now have a different problem. As I've seen many times on other threads, many upper tier digital channels through CableCARD number 2 are severely pixelated; to the point of being pretty much unviewable.

I do tech support for a living, so instead of pissing me off, the pixelated channel thing gives me a challenge!


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

vstone said:


> No, but you may not see popular new channels like National Geo. HD, etc.
> 
> No, but you may be deprived of some less than really popular channel like Food Channel HD and you may lose CNN (I know, big deal) when they start HD broadcasts and the anlog version is droppped.
> 
> I'm with you, brother, but I don't have much confidence that the FCC will step up to the plate.


Just to clarify... I could not have been more wrong about the pace of SDV deployment. TWC here in Cincinnati is on an SDV rampage and has already locked away no less than 5 new HD channels and has explicitly stated that EVERY new HD intro will be on SDV and unavailable to UDCP devices. My TiVo HD feels like a $600 brick. Sorry if my advice/perspective led ANYONE to think this would work out fine. I was completely wrong and regret it.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

JoeSchueller said:


> Just to clarify... I could not have been more wrong about the pace of SDV deployment. TWC here in Cincinnati is on an SDV rampage and has already locked away no less than 5 new HD channels and has explicitly stated that EVERY new HD intro will be on SDV and unavailable to UDCP devices. My TiVo HD feels like a $600 brick. Sorry if my advice/perspective led ANYONE to think this would work out fine. I was completely wrong and regret it.


Have you lost any of the channels that you already had? If not, how is your TiVo a brick?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

mikeyts said:


> Have you lost any of the channels that you already had? If not, how is your TiVo a brick?


if i had paid $600 for an HD dvr and it couldn't record all my HD channels I would consider mine to be a expensive doorstop.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

mikeyts said:


> It's stupid to buy something with the anticipation that you'll be able to do things with it in the future that you couldn't when you bought it. The way that I see it, if you lose channels then you've got just cause to piss and moan; if not, you're no worse off than you were before. They're not "your" HD channels if you never had equipment that could access them before.


Would it be ok to be upset if a single existing HD channel had been removed? Because that is frequently happening as well. But it seems reasonable to be upset when a brand new DVR that is currently still being sold today can't do what it was advertised to do only months\weeks\days after buying it.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> if i had paid $600 for an HD dvr and it couldn't record all my HD channels I would consider mine to be a expensive doorstop.


It's stupid to buy something with the anticipation that you'll be able to do things with it in the future that you couldn't when you bought it, unless the manufacturer gave firm guarantees that you could. The way that I see it, if you lose channels then you've got just cause to piss and moan; if not, you're no worse off than you were before, and if it was worth $600 before it's still worth it now. They're not "your" HD channels if you never had equipment that could access them before.

When I bought my TiVo I knew that SDV was coming and what it meant, but there wasn't much choice--if I had to use the DVR offered by my cable company, I'd probably just stop watching television and save the money. As it is, I've actually gained a couple of channels since buying my TiVo (National Geo HD and TBS HD). I expect though that I'll end up not being able to access some new channels added in the future if they don't introduce the proposed "tuning resolver" in time. If they take existing channels that I use and start presenting them as SDV, I'm going on a rampage.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> Would it be ok to be upset if a single existing HD channel had been removed? Because that is frequently happening as well. But it seems reasonable to be upset when a brand new DVR that is currently still being sold today can't do what it was advertised to do only months\weeks\days after buying it.


It was never advertised to be able to record channels that cable companies were presenting as SDV because no one was doing it. And yes, you have my permission to be upset if a single one of the channels that you use is removed .


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

mikeyts said:


> It was never advertised to be able to record channels that cable companies were presenting as SDV because no one was doing it. And yes, you have my permission to be upset if a single one of the channels that you use is removed .


I don't believe I have seen a single asterik on the box or in any Tivo ads that says, "This DVR will not support any channels that are supplied using switched digital video. You should contact your cable company before purchasing." Without such warning it seems reasonable to assume the general public would expect it to record ESPN2 if they get ESPN2 on their cable company DVR just fine.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> if i had paid $600 for an HD dvr and it couldn't record all my HD channels I would consider mine to be a expensive doorstop.


I think, though, that that's a pretty draconian perspective. It is like saying that if you had a computer that didn't have enough CPU power for some of the more advanced video games that it was a "doorstop", even though the computer can still very effectively do word processing, play DVDs, etc. I think this is a critical point -- the distinction between the catastrophic incapability being implied and the marginal incapability that is the reality.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> I don't believe I have seen a single asterik on the box or in any Tivo ads that says, "This DVR will not support any channels that are supplied using switched digital video. You should contact your cable company before purchasing." Without such warning it seems reasonable to assume the general public would expect it to record ESPN2 if they get ESPN2 on their cable company DVR just fine.


This renders me (nearly ) speechless. Do you really think that it's reasonable to expect your TiVo to be able to handle any arbitrary new technology that the cable providers should decide to throw at it? Are they supposed to anticipate every possible new technology and put an asterisked list of them on the box? If your cable provider starts using QAM 1024 and some funky new wavelet-based encoding scheme tomorrow are you going to be pissed off at TiVo if your S3 or THD can't handle it? It's a unidirectional CableCARD device which complies to a thick stack of standards that the FCC requires for "Digital Cable Ready" labelling. SDV is something new that goes beyond those requirements, which doesn't even work the same from cable system to cable system. It's a non-standardized system and neither TiVo or any other general purpose OEM device can be expected to work without standards.

Does TiVo have a warning on the box that it doesn't work with IPPV or VOD on your cable system? Did you expect it to?

Nothing ever was or ever will be future proof. If your cable company starts using SDV blame them (and the FCC for letting them do it), not TiVo. In the end, if you buy TiVo and bring it home and it doesn't work with all of the capabilities of your cable system, then you're free to take it back and get a refund. If, at the time of purchase, it worked with everything that your cable system offered that you were interested in and they subquently make changes that it can't deal with then its not TiVo's fault.


----------



## Canoehead (Sep 12, 2006)

I know that the Resolver has been described as a USB dongle, but I don't understand why tivos with access to high-speed would need any new hardware at all. Why can't they just communicate upstream over the net?


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

The Tivo could communicate upstream over the net. The problem is that the cable providers wouldn't be listening. 

The dongle, to be useful, must use a commuinications method that the cable companies have agreed to listen to.

Al


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

bicker said:


> I think, though, that that's a pretty draconian perspective. It is like saying that if you had a computer that didn't have enough CPU power for some of the more advanced video games that it was a "doorstop", even though the computer can still very effectively do word processing, play DVDs, etc. I think this is a critical point -- the distinction between the catastrophic incapability being implied and the marginal incapability that is the reality.


It might sound draconian. But after $2000 for the TV and $600 for the S3 just so I can record the Gators playing in HiDef, if I can't even view the Gators in HiDef then I still need another HD DVR. So why would I keep paying for the S3? Do you really expect me to sit there and constantly swap between inputs when I'm channel surfing just so I can keep using the S3 for the analog channels? Other than selling it to someone else it wouldn't serve a purpose in my house. If my computer could no longer surf the internet and that is what I bought it to do, it would also be a doorstop. Because I would have to buy a new computer.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

mikeyts said:


> This renders me (nearly ) speechless. Do you really think that it's reasonable to expect your TiVo to be able to handle any arbitrary new technology that the cable providers should decide to throw at it? Are they supposed to anticipate every possible new technology and put an asterisked list of them on the box? If your cable provider starts using QAM 1024 and some funky new wavelet-based encoding scheme tomorrow are you going to be pissed off at TiVo if your S3 or THD can't handle it? It's a unidirectional CableCARD device which complies to a thick stack of standards that the FCC requires for "Digital Cable Ready" labelling. SDV is something new that goes beyond those requirements, which doesn't even work the same from cable system to cable system. It's a non-standardized system and neither TiVo or any other general purpose OEM device can be expected to work without standards.
> 
> Does TiVo have a warning on the box that it doesn't work with IPPV or VOD on your cable system? Did you expect it to?
> 
> Nothing ever was or ever will be future proof. If your cable company starts using SDV blame them (and the FCC for letting them do it), not TiVo. In the end, if you buy TiVo and bring it home and it doesn't work with all of the capabilities of your cable system, then you're free to take it back and get a refund. If, at the time of purchase, it worked with everything that your cable system offered that you were interested in and they subquently make changes that it can't deal with then its not TiVo's fault.


Tivo knew SDV was coming when they started selling the S3. It's not like it was invented after they started selling them. They have known about the problem for quite some time now. Clearly today they know about the problem and they are still selling HD Tivos as if the problem doesn't exist with no warning to the consumer. If they don't come up with a tuning resolver soon expect some scumbag lawyer to start the class action process.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The $2000 for the television is utterly irrelevant with regard to the TiVo.... it's like someone yelling at the theme park employee about how much they spent to fly to the city where the theme park is. Beyond that, my point was the distinction between the catastrophic incapability being implied and the marginal incapability that is the reality. I think people wouldn't respond negatively to expressions of disappointment if they were kept in reasonable perspective.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

bicker said:


> Beyond that, my point was the distinction between the catastrophic incapability being implied and the marginal incapability that is the reality. I think people wouldn't respond negatively to expressions of disappointment if they were kept in reasonable perspective.


What about the folks in Hawaii who are losing ALL non-broadcast HD channels to SDV? That seems pretty catastrophic to me.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

CharlesH said:


> What about the folks in Hawaii who are losing ALL non-broadcast HD channels to SDV? That seems pretty catastrophic to me.


For what it's worth, they won't be losing the local HD affiliates.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CharlesH said:


> What about the folks in Hawaii who are losing ALL non-broadcast HD channels to SDV? That seems pretty catastrophic to me.





cableguy763 said:


> For what it's worth, they won't be losing the local HD affiliates.


Which is the majority of what most folks watch, these days, so again, the device is therefore *still* not "a brick" or a "doorstop". Again, it comes down to projecting a reasonable perspective, rather than resorting to hyperbole.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

bicker said:


> Which is the majority of what most folks watch, these days, so again, the device is therefore *still* not "a brick" or a "doorstop". Again, it comes down to projecting a reasonable perspective, rather than resorting to hyperbole.


Exactly. With Raleigh set to lose several HD channels in a couple weeks, the impact to me will be that I have to move recording duties for ONE show from the Tivo to the 8300.


----------



## Ralph Wiggum (Jul 30, 2007)

bicker said:


> Again, it comes down to projecting a reasonable perspective, rather than resorting to hyperbole.


If I were losing all of my non-affiliate HD channels because the $600 I sunk into piece of electronics no longer received them, and all I had to be comforted by was the following sentence on the Tivo website, I'd be pretty ticked off:

"We expect the adapter to be available to consumers before switched digital becomes widely deployed. "

Tivo needs to build a solution to this, ASAP. The incremental advantages of their system over the cable co. DVRs are quickly negated if you can't watch the channels you otherwise could.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

The cable companies agreed to a standard, OpenCable, which includes one way devices. That standard is being broken with SDV for those one way devices.

Traditionally standards in the TV industry are not broken without remedy. Consumers purchase equipment relying on those standards to protect their ability to use the product. 

If cable subscribers are going to be limited in the number of channels they can get with these devices, they should receive a lower price or a device capable of tuning the full range of channels others get.

As this gets more widespread, I would think complaints would get the FCC involved to work out a compromise during the interim before the dongle thingy becomes available.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Ralph Wiggum said:


> If I were losing all of my non-affiliate HD channels because the $600 I sunk into piece of electronics no longer received them, and all I had to be comforted by was the following sentence on the Tivo website, I'd be pretty ticked off


So would I. Disappointment definitely makes sense. *No one* has said that it wouldn't or shouldn't be disappointing.



Ralph Wiggum said:


> Tivo needs to build a solution to this, ASAP.


It isn't necessarily up to them. We have no reason to believe that they aren't applying all appropriate resources to this venture, but even if they have/are, it still comes down to the service providers being willing to take actions that specifically will be to their own detriment. Don't expect *them *to do *that *"ASAP".


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

bicker said:


> Which is the majority of what most folks watch, these days, so again, the device is therefore *still* not "a brick" or a "doorstop". Again, it comes down to projecting a reasonable perspective, rather than resorting to hyperbole.


I suppose you're right about most folks watching broadcast channels. I sometimes forget that our family, with only one broadcast program on our Season Pass list, is not very typical.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

bicker said:


> it still comes down to the service providers being willing to take actions that specifically will be to their own detriment. Don't expect *them *to do *that *"ASAP".


I suppose, but I still haven't figured out why the cable companies are so adamant that their PayPerView and OnDemand services be available only on devices where they control the entire user interface (OCAP), preferably their own box. When you buy Unbox content on your TiVo, Amazon gets their cut. Why couldn't the cable companies sell their interactive content the same way? Is set-top box rental itself, apart from the additional services, really that lucrative?


----------



## YZFdave (Aug 23, 2004)

What's SDV?

Just kidding !!

SDV sounds like some disease the way everyone is talking on the forums.  I was all set to order my Tivo HD tonight and take advantage of the lifetime xfer and then I came across these three little letters: SDV. I have learned so much in the past 4 hours (which it's now 4am btw).

*Anyway, my question is this.* How do you find out exactly what channels are on SDV and what are broadcast all the time? If I simply call Comcast will they tell me? Is there a website somewhere (I couldn't find any when I google'd it).

It sounds like the local channels are still always going to be broadcast. If I simply watch ESPNs, Discovery, TNT, and my local channels, should I be okay? I can deal without the _cooking channel_ if that goes SDV.  I think it would clarify a lot of questions if Comcast put out a list for each local area of what is SDV and not (of course then they would have to admit there is an issue with this and that would open another can of worms....)

Thanks for everyone's info on the subject!

P.S. - I don't have HD yet, TivoHD was my first step on the road to HiDef. 
I live in the SF Bay Area (Nor. California)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

There is no way to know the answer to your question before "it" happens. In some areas, it could be that everything will be SDV. There are no hard-and-fast limits that prevent that.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

YZFdave said:


> What's SDV?
> 
> Just kidding !!
> 
> ...


If you were here in Raleigh, the only channel on your list to be effected by SDV would be ESPN2HD. Discovery, TNT and locals are all available to cablecard and per the letter from TWC, that will remain the case.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

SCSIRAID said:


> If you were here in Raleigh, the only channel on your list to be effected by SDV would be ESPN2HD. Discovery, TNT and locals are all available to cablecard and per the letter from TWC, that will remain the case.


They also added TBSHD, AEHD and VERSUS to SDV...


----------



## bt-rtp (Feb 6, 2007)

In Raleigh, so far we have ESPN2-HD, TBS-HD, AE-HD and VERSUS on SDV.

Has TWC announced what the end result of the SDV roll out will be for the channels and when the roll out of SDV will be complete ? 

I'm willing to give the USB Dongle a try when it's available.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

crazywater said:


> They also added TBSHD, AEHD and VERSUS to SDV...


Right... but I was referring to his list which didnt include those. You left off MTV-HD also.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

bt-rtp said:


> In Raleigh, so far we have ESPN2-HD, TBS-HD, AE-HD and VERSUS on SDV.
> 
> Has TWC announced what the end result of the SDV roll out will be for the channels and when the roll out of SDV will be complete ?
> 
> I'm willing to give the USB Dongle a try when it's available.


My ASSUMPTION has been that the letter indicates the impact to the currently available content in Raleigh... and that any new content will not be available to us via cablecard.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Anyway, my question is this. How do you find out exactly what channels are on SDV and what are broadcast all the time? If I simply call Comcast will they tell me? Is there a website somewhere (I couldn't find any when I google'd it).


If you live in an area where it is deployed, ya they will tell you. Comcast is only testing in Denver and New england i believe right now. But they are already dumping analogue channels in some area's and have signed deals with SDV equipment makers. Their timetable for deployment is 2008. Probably sooner rather than later with directv and dish network having double the HD channels that comcast offers right now. IF your on time warner its another story. They are deploying SDV all over and started beginning of this year. They werent taking any chances on losing subscribers to satelite id imagine. More hd channels is a hell of alot more important to me than what dvr im using to watch them. Bring on the SDV. With the tivoHD being cheap now, buy it, ebay it when sdv hits your area. S3 guys who were early adopters and sdv rolled out in their area, that sucks. I wouldnt call it a doorstop, u can get some money for it off ebay.


----------



## Buylow (Nov 6, 2007)

Not sure if this has been posted previously or not but I just spoke to a Tivo representative and was given a link with some information about the SDV work around. The representative mentioned that the cable companies were going to be providing the so called dongle (not sure if this is accurate or not).

To access the link go to the tivo website, click "Setup and Support", type in "251142" the search box and click search.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Buylow said:


> Not sure if this has been posted previously or not but I just spoke to a Tivo representative and was given a link with some information about the SDV work around. The representative mentioned that the cable companies were going to be providing the so called dongle (not sure if this is accurate or not).
> 
> To access the link go to the tivo website, click "Setup and Support", type in "251142" the search box and click search.


Its not been said but I will bet we have to rent the dongle for a few bucks a month each.


----------



## Georgia Guy (Feb 21, 2003)

zalusky said:


> Its not been said but I will bet we have to rent the dongle for a few bucks a month each.


Well, I won't like that, but I'll do it if needed.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

zalusky said:


> Its not been said but I will bet we have to rent the dongle for a few bucks a month each.


Ill take 2......


----------



## Frankenstien (Feb 8, 2006)

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but I spotted this on the Time Warner page.

http://www.timewarnercable.com/charlotte/products/cable/cablecard.html

"There are two types of equipment that utilize CableCARDs today:

* Unidirectional Digital Cable Products (UDCP) are one-way only devices. That is, they are only capable of receiving our linear broadcast programming such as analog cable, Digital Cable, certain HDTV and premium cable channels like HBO, Cinemax and more. There is, however, no access to any two-way services such as OnDemand programming, the Interactive Programming Guide, Seasonal Sports Packages, Pay-Per-View or Interactive enhanced TV services, such as Games as well as future technologies that may be introduced. All equipment currently available at retail with a CableCARD option falls into this category.

*Open Cable Products are two-way capable* just like Time Warner Cables leased set top boxes and allow access to ALL of Time Warner Cables one-way and two-way services. We expect Open Cable Products to be *available at retail in the 4Q 07 / 1Q 08. *

We recommend that you refer to the Users Manual that was supplied with your specific equipment to determine if it is UDCP or Open Cable compatible.

CableCARDs for both types of equipment can be activated, serviced and leased for 
a monthly fee of about $1.75 per month from Time Warner Cable."

*Note*
I am in the Charlotte, NC market.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Frankenstien said:


> *Open Cable Products are two-way capable* just like Time Warner Cables leased set top boxes and allow access to ALL of Time Warner Cables one-way and two-way services. We expect Open Cable Products to be *available at retail in the 4Q 07 / 1Q 08. *


 What they neglect to tell you is these OCAP boxes are basically just "dumb clients" over which the cable company can have full control over, meaning it's at their discretion to upload crappy software to your box even if you don't want it. So in worst case scenario the only "advantage" a consumer has is over hardware selection and not paying monthly box rental fees to cable company. Don't know about you, but I for one don't want software on my box to be dictated by what my cable company wants me to have...
NOTE: I oversimplified things a little (OCAP boxes can also run their own software for certain functions), but I think you get the gist.


----------



## bizzy (Jan 20, 2004)

what is the net value difference between crappy software from your cable company versus crappy software from tivo?


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

moyekj said:


> What they neglect to tell you is these OCAP boxes are basically just "dumb clients" over which the cable company can have full control over, meaning it's at their discretion to upload crappy software to your box even if you don't want it. So in worst case scenario the only "advantage" a consumer has is over hardware selection and not paying monthly box rental fees to cable company. Don't know about you, but I for one don't want software on my box to be dictated by what my cable company wants me to have...
> NOTE: I oversimplified things a little, but I think you get the gist.


But I think you WAY oversimplified it and added doom and gloom. I believe the only software that will be uploaded will be things like a 'ppv handler' or 'vod handler' or otherwise system specific things to manage the difference between cable systems. When you tune to a ppv channel, info in the stream would tell OCAP to invoke this uploaded program to interface with the user and allow them to select what they want to do. Tivo running on OCAP shouldnt be vastly different than what we have today. I believe that the biggest concern would be whether OCAP is currently stable enough to build a platform on.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

SCSIRAID said:


> But I think you WAY oversimplified it and added doom and gloom. I believe the only software that will be uploaded will be things like a 'ppv handler' or 'vod handler' or otherwise system specific things to manage the difference between cable systems. When you tune to a ppv channel, info in the stream would tell OCAP to invoke this uploaded program to interface with the user and allow them to select what they want to do. Tivo running on OCAP shouldnt be vastly different than what we have today. I believe that the biggest concern would be whether OCAP is currently stable enough to build a platform on.


 The problem as I understand it is even the fundamental software for guide & DVR type functions *can* be controlled by the cable company too. Witness the Comcast/Tivo OCAP solution - the software is pushed onto the box by Comcast, not by Tivo. Comcast dictates the software you are getting - they can also push Iguide software to the same box. I emphasize *can* because it doesn't necessarily mean they *will* as you state, but the possibility is there and personally I'd rather not be subject to whims of cable company overrides. Note that Tivo and other CE companies have been fighting OCAP tooth and nail in many FCC filings, so they have problems with the way it is currently defined as well...

EDIT: For all the gory details about OCAP and the fight between cable and Tivo this thread has excellent information:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=366222&highlight=OCAP


----------



## Joybob (Oct 2, 2007)

What happens if the dongle never materializes?


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

Joybob said:


> What happens if the dongle never materializes?


Hopefully the Tuning Resolver dongle doesnt become a hostage to OCAP.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Joybob said:


> What happens if the dongle never materializes?


That's a very loaded question. A year from now I would imagine Tivo would have a very hard time selling any S3 or TivoHD boxes. I suppose they might come out with an OCAP S4. Without the ability to record or even view most HD channels there would be limited appeal.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

CharlesH said:


> I suppose, but I still haven't figured out why the cable companies are so adamant that their PayPerView and OnDemand services be available only on devices where they control the entire user interface (OCAP), preferably their own box. When you buy Unbox content on your TiVo, Amazon gets their cut. Why couldn't the cable companies sell their interactive content the same way? Is set-top box rental itself, apart from the additional services, really that lucrative?


STB rental for regulated company's is supposed to be about a break even venture and I believe looking at the WHOLE objectively it basically is. They've been renting HD dvr's for 5 or 10 bucks for years when untill recently they were costing well upwards of several hundred dollars to make. Even plain HD boxes cost alot just a year or 2 ago- so they havne't been making money hand over fist or anything on their HD stuff. THey have to carry inventory, repair and refurbish, eat technology changes, etc. So I dont think it's a major profit center or anything compared to their tv rates.


----------



## BrianAZ (Aug 13, 2007)

Frankenstien said:


> Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but I spotted this on the Time Warner page.
> 
> http://www.timewarnercable.com/charlotte/products/cable/cablecard.html
> 
> ...


I don't get this. I'm in Phoenix and watched the free preview of the NHL Center Ice sports package just fine for 2 weeks on channels 671-68something. I purchased the package and it works on my STB but since the free preview I get just grey screens on those channels on the Tivo. My understanding has been that they simply need to activate those channels on my cablecards and it should work just like it did during the free preview. My cable company (Cox) however, is insisting that I cannot receive any PPV with cablecards. We are flagged to start SDV at some point in the future, but to my knowledge it's not begun yet. So I think this should work.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

They're right about PPV. I'm not sure why you can't get the sports package, but if it involves your box sending them a signal (like a PPV order), then they're right.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

BrianAZ said:


> I don't get this. I'm in Phoenix and watched the free preview of the NHL Center Ice sports package just fine for 2 weeks on channels 671-68something. I purchased the package and it works on my STB but since the free preview I get just grey screens on those channels on the Tivo. My understanding has been that they simply need to activate those channels on my cablecards and it should work just like it did during the free preview. My cable company (Cox) however, is insisting that I cannot receive any PPV with cablecards. We are flagged to start SDV at some point in the future, but to my knowledge it's not begun yet. So I think this should work.


It would seem that they have chosen to reserve those channels (sports packages) for transition to SDV even though they are linear today (and COULD be authorized for your cablecard). This seems to be typical in the cable industry. Our TWC has added new channels but not authorized cablecards to view them to avoid taking them away in the near future.


----------



## BrianAZ (Aug 13, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They're right about PPV. I'm not sure why you can't get the sports package, but if it involves your box sending them a signal (like a PPV order), then they're right.


Order was complete weeks ago. I'm receiving it fine on my cableco boxes. I don't think there's any need for my box to send them a signal back.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Some cable providers still support pre-ordered PPV for CableCARDs. All the system does is hit your CableCARDs with an order to enable decryption of the scheduled PPV channel (just like it would had you ordered a new subscription channel) and hit it again to disable it after your viewing period is up. Mine (Cox San Diego) has a web page where you can order. It's Impulse PPV, where you tune a channel and use a menu that appears to select the show time that you want and confirm your order with a remote button press that require terminal interaction with the system.


----------



## BrianAZ (Aug 13, 2007)

mikeyts said:


> Some cable providers still support pre-ordered PPV for CableCARDs. All the system does is hit your CableCARDs with an order to enable decryption of the scheduled PPV channel (just like it would had you ordered a new subscription channel) and hit it again to disable it after your viewing period is up. Mine (Cox San Diego) has a web page where you can order. It's Impulse PPV, where you tune a channel and use a menu that appears to select the show time that you want and confirm your order with a remote button press that require terminal interaction with the system.


That's exactly how my provider (Cox Phoenix) does it. You call in (they do allow you to purchase from your box as well) and order it and they say "ok, turn on channel ___ at ____ time". The channels they give you are constantly running movies throughout the day (like each channel will run a single movie or maybe 2 24x7), no VOD here.


----------



## s2krazy (Oct 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> "Similarly" affected? Definitely not. S2 boxes don't have any digital tuners, so SDV or no-SDV wouldn't matter -- it cannot handle *either*. The only way S2s handle digital channels now is as the recipient of a video signal (composite, S-video, or component) from another box, which serves as tuner. How well _that_ box handles SDV is what would matter.
> 
> The S3 doesn't have video inputs -- it only has coaxial inputs.


I'm jumping in this very late and have spent a good deal of time trying to catch up on the whole SDV issue (since I'm in Hawaii). Is it an oversimplification to say that this would be less of an issue if the S3 had video inputs (HDMI or component)?

Wouldn't you be able to catch the SDV signal from the box and send it to the Tivo for recording? This would mean going back to IR blasters etc. and I guess you'll loose dual tuners but wouldn't this work in theory?


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

s2krazy said:


> I'm jumping in this very late and have spent a good deal of time trying to catch up on the whole SDV issue (since I'm in Hawaii). Is it an oversimplification to say that this would be less of an issue if the S3 had video inputs (HDMI or component)?
> 
> Wouldn't you be able to catch the SDV signal from the box and send it to the Tivo for recording? This would mean going back to IR blasters etc. and I guess you'll loose dual tuners but wouldn't this work in theory?


The Tivo would require different (and very expensive) hardware to be able to record HD from component or HDMI input.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

s2krazy said:


> Wouldn't you be able to catch the SDV signal from the box and send it to the Tivo for recording? This would mean going back to IR blasters etc. and I guess you'll loose dual tuners but wouldn't this work in theory?


 Firewire would have been better option as via firewire you can change channels (i.e. no need for IR blaster) as well as record the output mpeg2 transport stream.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

From what I have read, Firewire support is spotty at best, and the recorder may not be able to record flagged programs.

Yes, If Tivo made and HD input DVR with IR or serial control of an HD cable or satellite box, SDV would be a lesser concern, but as said, it is basically impossible to make such a DVR at the consumer level. The only real way to make a consumer DVR for HD, is to have one that directly records the already compressed transport stream, and that comes with some compromises.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

classicsat said:


> From what I have read, Firewire support is spotty at best, and the recorder may not be able to record flagged programs.


Sure it could record "flagged" programs. Recording "Copy One Generation" marked content isn't the problem--making a further copy of such a recording is what's disallowed, which screws up MRV and TTG.

It wouldn't be able to record "Copy Never", but the use of that's limited to PPV and VOD and it could make an up-to-90-minute trick-play buffer of it.

Proper implementations of 1394/DTCP outputs on leased cable boxes is rare, though as I read them FCC regulations have required them since 2005.


----------

