# Switched Digital Video (SDV) an S3 killer?



## subspace100 (Oct 31, 2003)

I've been excited about the release of the new TiVo Series 3 HD-DVR for a long time but I'm concerned that the potential implimentation of SDV by cable companies is going to render the S3 severley gimped... Am I being overly concerned or do folks agree that this is a major issue?

By the way, Comcast is my local cable company.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Comcast won't be doing SDV for current channels anytime soon, if ever. Verizon FiOS has no plans to do it at all. Time Warner and Brighthouse are the only ones that seem to be looking at that right now.


----------



## Dssturbo1 (Feb 23, 2005)

been discussed a couple other threads do some searching to find more helpful info.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

You might want to ask Comcast..."Can you garantee me that you will not start using or testing SDV in the next three years?"


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> You might want to ask Comcast..."Can you garantee me that you will not start using or testing SDV in the next three years?"


I wouldn't bother, since Comcast would likely answer, "No, we cannot guarantee any such thing." Three years out...I mean, c'mon.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I know. That was my point.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

I think SDV would work, but of course you would need their STB and Tivo would have to be able to IR control it.

SDV should be transparent, because in that situation as well as the situation you have now, one tuner looks at one signal at a time. The difference is that the channel changing happens at the headend instead of the local STB. It's not really that different than using a garden-variety analog STB connected to a PVR, at least from the point of view of the PVR.

You would have to purchase 2nd outlets separately and splitters would not be allowed if you wanted to feed multiple tuners, however. This would also probably flummox any PVR that has a single RF input and dual tuners, so we might have to do the RFDA bypass to make that work (IOW, open the box and connect the authorized cable feeds directly to the tuners instead of passing them into the RFDA on a single cable).


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

TyroneShoes said:


> I think SDV would work, but of course you would need their STB and Tivo would have to be able to IR control it.


Did you read the title of the thread?


----------



## subspace100 (Oct 31, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> I think SDV would work, but of course you would need their STB and Tivo would have to be able to IR control it.
> 
> SDV should be transparent, because in that situation as well as the situation you have now, one tuner looks at one signal at a time. The difference is that the channel changing happens at the headend instead of the local STB. It's not really that different than using a garden-variety analog STB connected to a PVR, at least from the point of view of the PVR.
> 
> You would have to purchase 2nd outlets separately and splitters would not be allowed if you wanted to feed multiple tuners, however. This would also probably flummox any PVR that has a single RF input and dual tuners, so we might have to do the RFDA bypass to make that work (IOW, open the box and connect the authorized cable feeds directly to the tuners instead of passing them into the RFDA on a single cable).


Huh?


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> You might want to ask Comcast..."Can you garantee me that you will not start using or testing SDV in the next three years?"


Well ...


> Comcast chief technology officer David Fellows notes that Cox and Time Warner have made inroads into switched broadcast and that his company is planning a similar move.
> 
> "Comcast will do it," he says. "We just haven't said when."
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/television/feature_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002313556


I think a response would violate their 'not saying when' policy.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

Can someone explain clearly what SDV is? I've heard about it all over this forum, but don't understand why this would be a bad thing for the DVRs?


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Short version - Once a channel is put on SDV (Switched Digital Video), it is only sent where people are watching it. In order for this to work - the receiving STB (Set Top Box) needs to be able to transmit a signal out indicating an intent to watch a specific channel. ie, until the STB sends a message up that says "I want to view ESPN-HD", no ESPN-HD enters your home.

The CableCard 1.0 spec does not provide means of doing this, so no Cable Card 1.0 device can realistically tune channels put on SDV. The S3 is a CC 1.0 device, thus all the fuss over the issue. TWC is aggressively moving channels to SDV, causing a great deal of worry among TWC customers. Other companies may, or may not, follow suit.

CableCard 2.0, which doesn't really exist yet, addresses these problems. Additionally, depending on how you look at it, SDV is a direct violation (or not) of FCC/FTC regulations. So there are some legal options to get the cable companies to delay SDV. All in all, it's become a unpredictable technical, legal, and regulatory mess. 

-Ken


----------



## subspace100 (Oct 31, 2003)

Nice summary Ken! Thank you!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

SDV is definitely a Series 3 killer for me. My wife is not so concerned, and so she's thinking of buying a Series 3 anyway, but without some guarantee that it won't be rendered useless by SDV, I think it's too big of a risk given how well we're getting on with our Comcast HD DVR.


----------



## davsherm (Feb 23, 2003)

This is the problem with third party products. You never know when a technology shift will create issues. Since Tivo doesn't own the infrastructure, they cannot control it, they can only develop to existing standards. If you buy/lease Dtv, Comcast, etc equipment you know it will be supported or you can trade it in for supported equipment. Unfortunately, most of these companies do not care about feature upgrades, and that is where a company like Tivo shines. They are constantly rolling out new features, not to mention most people feel their interface is the best. I don't think SDV will be here on a wide scale that quickly. Although there is supposedly ~8 million customers in the US right now, I don't think the major operators will switch that quickly. So you should be OK with the S3 for a few years, and by then "the next best thing" will be out from Tivo. There is a good white paper from Cisco on SDV.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

Ken, thanks for the summary! Now I understand the issue well enough. S3 should be compliant with CC 2.0, or if it's not out of the box, there's always firmware/software updates, correct?


----------



## subspace100 (Oct 31, 2003)

davsherm said:


> ...So you should be OK with the S3 for a few years, and by then "the next best thing" will be out from Tivo...


If I can get 3 years of full usability (no problems from SDV), I'd be happy to buy the S3. If it works beyond 3 years, that would be a bonus to me. As you say, the next best thing will be out by then and I'm one of those people who will want to get the new unit.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> Ken, thanks for the summary! Now I understand the issue well enough. S3 should be compliant with CC 2.0, or if it's not out of the box, there's always firmware/software updates, correct?


No, CC2.0 doesn't exist yet (standard still in the works) and it will almost certainly require new hardware.

I wouldn't expect to see any CC2.0 hardware before 2008.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

_ S3 should be compliant with CC 2.0, or if it's not out of the box, there's always firmware/software updates, correct?_

And therein lies the sticky wicket. The CC 2.0 spec doesn't actually exist yet, hasn't been nailed down (though at least it's close now). And when the S3 was designed, it was little more than a twinkle in someone's eye - and there was nothing at all concrete to design the hardware to.

CC 2.0 support unfortunately requires more than just firmware - it requires additional hardware, specifically the hardware to modulate and transmit commands out the Cable In port. To the best of our collective knowledge, the S3 will have no such thing, and this worries folks.

Thus, all the endless discussion on the subject...

-Ken


----------



## Jazhuis (Aug 30, 2006)

kdmorse said:


> Short version - Once a channel is put on SDV (Switched Digital Video), it is only sent where people are watching it. In order for this to work - the receiving STB (Set Top Box) needs to be able to transmit a signal out indicating an intent to watch a specific channel. ie, until the STB sends a message up that says "I want to view ESPN-HD", no ESPN-HD enters your home.


...and I would support SDV and their venture _*as soon as they use it to support a la carte channel ordering*_.

Of course, they won't, so it seems like even more of an FCC sidestep.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

davsherm said:


> This is the problem with third party products. You never know when a technology shift will create issues. Since Tivo doesn't own the infrastructure, they cannot control it, they can only develop to existing standards. If you buy/lease Dtv, Comcast, etc equipment you know it will be supported or you can trade it in for supported equipment.


Even if you have first party equipment, you don't know it'll still be supported in future. Just ask HR10-250 owners, they can be swapped out for equipment that'll work, but it won't be a TiVo.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

rminsk said:


> Did you read the title of the thread?


No, as usual, I just logged on and let my pet chimp jump up and down on the keyboard.

What part of what he typed are you having trouble understanding?


----------



## CCourtney (Mar 28, 2006)

> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by rminsk
> > Did you read the title of the thread?
> >
> ...


Here's what you wrote.



TyroneShoes said:


> I think SDV would work, but of course you would need their STB and Tivo would have to be able to IR control it.
> 
> SDV should be transparent, because in that situation as well as the situation you have now, one tuner looks at one signal at a time. The difference is that the channel changing happens at the headend instead of the local STB. It's not really that different than using a garden-variety analog STB connected to a PVR, at least from the point of view of the PVR.
> 
> You would have to purchase 2nd outlets separately and splitters would not be allowed if you wanted to feed multiple tuners, however. This would also probably flummox any PVR that has a single RF input and dual tuners, so we might have to do the RFDA bypass to make that work (IOW, open the box and connect the authorized cable feeds directly to the tuners instead of passing them into the RFDA on a single cable).


The thread is about S3 and SDV. The S3 doesn't use IR to control a STB for recording like S1/S2 Boxes. Instead it has the tuners built in. For that matter you cannot hook a STB up to the S3 (The S3 is the STB.)

Since the S3 has to tune into the channel, and it can't because it doesn't know what 'physical channel.subchannel' to tune into (even if it were switched on), it will not work with any channel that's part of the SDV lineup of channels.

CCourtney


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

In my very humble opinion, anyone who asks a precise question should occasionally expect some precise answers in a forum thread, if they are lucky. But they also open a topic for discussion that is slightly broader. Subsequent posts are not always completely relevant to the precise question on occasion, but that is also not technically a hijack, which would be bad form, as long as they are relevant to the broader topic.

I thought the S3 had baseband inputs, but maybe not. That does not change anything about my answer, however. I think we are allowed to respond to a general topic, even if it does not precisely target an exact question. Not exactly a felony offense. You are allowed to disagree with that POV, as long as you don't disagree so loudly that the rest of us are prevented from moving on with the broader discussion.

Usually the best way to handle responses that aren't relevant to you in particular is to ignore them. That would be my suggestion. Of course you are also allowed to instead, beat the sh!t out of anyone who answers in a way you aren't totally on board with. Your decision.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Its a good thing Tivo doesnt release products on the Cell Phone / Camera / IPOD schedule.
You guys would be going nuts watching your product be superceeded.

Just like cars or any other product you need to consider a usable life on your product. That usable life may be because its obsoleted because of Mpeg4 or SDV or because you want the latest widget.

The question is what is a reasonable expection for usable life in this market. I would say probably 3 years. After about 3 years stuff just changes too much. Look at TVs 3 years ago. $2500 plasmas were $10K and large LCDs were not really in the picture. Now people are starting say I am not touching the plasma and I am going straight for the LCD.

3 Years ago there wasnt an HD DVR. 3 years ago there wasnt high speed data on cell phones.
3 years ago 6MB internet was rare and really expensive.

So 3 years from now, I can see most of our equipment being easily superceeded and lot of it obsoleted. IE analog TV, wired connections, land lines, ...

The bottom line is your fancy equipment lifespan is getting shorter and shorter. Its not like our parents TV that lasted 25 years. Sorry.

So just say to yourself $800 over 3 years plus all the other fees and figure a monthly rate from that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Precisely, and at that rate, it's a bit too expensive for me. If we could really be assured of three years, then at a lower price, it would come more in line with my needs. I think the real problem here is that we don't have those three years, because this product should have been available about a year ago or so. That was the right point in the curve for this product, IMHO. That's what I think... that this product simply missed that window, and is a bit too costly for me.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

zalusky said:


> .....The question is what is a reasonable expection for usable life in this market. I would say probably 3 years. After about 3 years stuff just changes too much. Look at TVs 3 years ago. $2500 plasmas were $10K and large LCDs were not really in the picture. Now people are starting say I am not touching the plasma and I am going straight for the LCD....So 3 years from now, I can see most of our equipment being easily superceeded and lot of it obsoleted....


That's just plain faulty reasoning. Nearly four years ago, I purchased a Hitachi 51UWX20B. It's 51-inch widescreen RPTV --- "obsolete" by your reasoning. It's doing just fine, thank you, and will continue for many years down the road. The S3 will be the same...it all depends on how you intend to use the technology.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I am not saying its a good thing but if you buy cutting edge thats the way it is. Expensive and risky. I have a new denon 4306 that I love but its get superceeded with new models and large price drops in a matter of months.

I bought a mistubishi big screen before I bought my plasma and it turned out that it could not support 16x9 screen compression in 480P mode meaning I couldnt use the new progressive players at the time.

We can go on and on with stories.

These products are all in cutting edge areas where the standards are never quite flushed out and the safe thing as a consumer is think and budget short term.

3 years from now we may have central server Tivo boxes or perhaps we can download whatever we want from an IP server stream style. Perhaps your Tivo will be more like susbcribing to internet radio.

I am not saying to skip the series 3, I am saying to consider it cutting edge, not mainstream and that it will evolve very fast.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And SDV makes this cutting-edge product even more cutting-edge, because there is a technology, which we already know about, which we already know would render this product obsolete. Contrast that with that Hitachi television: When purchased, there was no known technology coming down the pike that would render it obsolete, and now, four years later, there is still no such technology. That makes a big difference.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Well that wasnt the case with my Mitsubishi 4x3 widescreen RPTV with 1080i Compression.
480P DVD players would cause it to display in full 4x3 mode where as 1080i HD would. This effectively prevented me from using any 480P anamorphic DVDs.

And that happened one year after I bought the unit. There was a lot of moaning.

That asside many of the displays could be rendered partially mute when and if the HDMI broadcast flag starts flying and you want to use component or your display is not new enough to work with the broadcast flag if they decide to use it.

Beyond that, displays are pretty simple as compared to set top boxes which are basically the brains and need to work with changing encoding formats MP2 -> MP4 or HDMI 1.3 when it comes or ...

All of this stuff is known now, they just havent decided on a final standard in many cases.

The goal is not to piss off too many people but they are going to piss off some.

Look at the poor Mitsubishi people that bought 01 models and thought they were future proofed and boom the cable company decides on a firewire standard and they couldnt hook up in digital. Mitsubishi says they will sell the owners a promise module to support firewire for almost a grand. Those people were pretty pissed.

And on it goes. Thats why I say just look at the next few years for useful model life.


----------



## CCourtney (Mar 28, 2006)

TyroneShoes said:


> In my very humble opinion, anyone who asks a precise question should occasionally expect some precise answers in a forum thread, if they are lucky. But they also open a topic for discussion that is slightly broader. Subsequent posts are not always completely relevant to the precise question on occasion, but that is also not technically a hijack, which would be bad form, as long as they are relevant to the broader topic.
> 
> I thought the S3 had baseband inputs, but maybe not. That does not change anything about my answer, however. I think we are allowed to respond to a general topic, even if it does not precisely target an exact question. Not exactly a felony offense. You are allowed to disagree with that POV, as long as you don't disagree so loudly that the rest of us are prevented from moving on with the broader discussion.
> 
> Usually the best way to handle responses that aren't relevant to you in particular is to ignore them. That would be my suggestion. Of course you are also allowed to instead, beat the sh!t out of anyone who answers in a way you aren't totally on board with. Your decision.


Dude, get a grip. Nobody's kicking you in the balls so stop crying foul.

Rminsk and Subspace100, attempted to subtly point out that what you wrote didn't make sinces for the S3 which was the title.

After that you start throwing a tantrum and apparently you did not comprehend why your post didn't make sense. So, I politely described why your post didn't seem to make sense.

Nobody suggested you were trying to Hijack a thread. Nobody was jumping your arse for not knowing what the S3 capabilities are.

A major function of the forum is to provide knowledge, and correcting faulty knowledge is something that should be done. If you can't handle that then maybe you should refrain from posting.

CCourtney


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

zalusky said:


> 3 years ago 6MB internet was rare and really expensive.


I had 5Mbs down and 1mbs up in 1998 for only $16 a month!
Of course now I have 3mbs down and 768kbs up from Verizon for $30 a month. Progress sometimes sucks considering I had 1mbs down in 1997, and now I'm going backwards and paying more money.


----------



## CCourtney (Mar 28, 2006)

Aaron,

Out of curiousity was that 5Mbps link at College/University? 

CCourtney


----------



## bilbo (Dec 7, 2004)

kdmorse said:


> Short version - Once a channel is put on SDV (Switched Digital Video), it is only sent where people are watching it. In order for this to work - the receiving STB (Set Top Box) needs to be able to transmit a signal out indicating an intent to watch a specific channel. ie, until the STB sends a message up that says "I want to view ESPN-HD", no ESPN-HD enters your home.
> 
> The CableCard 1.0 spec does not provide means of doing this, so no Cable Card 1.0 device can realistically tune channels put on SDV. The S3 is a CC 1.0 device, thus all the fuss over the issue. TWC is aggressively moving channels to SDV, causing a great deal of worry among TWC customers. Other companies may, or may not, follow suit.
> 
> ...


"Time Warner Cable is leading the switched digital charge most aggressively. So far, the nation's second largest MSO has rolled out the technology fully in two markets (Columbia, Ga. and Austin, Tex.), switching more than 70 programming networks in each system. Plans call for extending switched digital's reach to several more undisclosed cable systems by the end of this year and most of its other markets in 2007.

Despite 'a few hiccups,' Time Warner Cable CTO Mike LaJoie said the company is pleased with the results so far. He noted that Time Warner is realizing 'about 60% (gains in bandwidth) efficiencies' with the deployments.

'It's going quite well,' LaJoie said. 'As time goes by, we'll add more channels.'"

http://www.cabledigitalnews.com/weekly_analysis/06222006_02.html

quote from bkdtv:

Comcast won't be doing SDV for current channels anytime soon, if ever. Verizon FiOS has no plans to do it at all. Time Warner and Brighthouse are the only ones that seem to be looking at that right now.

end quote

"LaJoie's counterparts at Comcast, Cox Communications and Charter Communications also expressed support for switched digital video. But, as they have in the past, they remained cagey about when they will launch the technology across their cable systems because of more pressing corporate priorities.

'We're on board with switched digital video,' said David Fellows, executive vice president and CTO of Comcast, which is concentrating first on digital simulcasting rollouts. 'But we'll do it in conjunction with the Next Generation Network architecture.'"

http://www.cabledigitalnews.com/weekly_analysis/06222006_02.html

That doesn't sound like an "if ever" statement to me.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

Comcast seem to be agressively going for all digital, and eliminating the analog channels. On my system that'll free up about 300 SD or 60 HD channels worth of bandwidth. That about doubles the available channel space.

At that rate, they may not need to do SDV for a while.


----------



## bilbo (Dec 7, 2004)

Comcast took away ESPN Classic and CMT from SD in my area about two months ago. Both those channels are now on the Digital Tier. That's just one more reason for me to switch to FIOS TV once Verizon can reach an agreements with the local franchise (my township).


----------



## subspace100 (Oct 31, 2003)

Well, I got a Series3 HD TiVo yesterday so I hope Comcast doesn't impliment SDV in the Seattle market any time soon. The technician is scheduled to install the my cable and CableCards next Friday, Sep. 29.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

subspace100: What will you do/how will you feel if they do?


----------



## subspace100 (Oct 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> subspace100: What will you do/how will you feel if they do?


I guess it will depend on how many channels are affected by the SDV. 
*Best Case:*  
If it is only local public service type cable channels, then there really no significant impact on me (because I don't watch those channels anyway).

*"Medium" Case:*  
If it impacts HiDef premium channels (like HBO), I would probably start using the Comcast HD DVR in order to watch the premium channels in HD. The Comcast DVR would be secondary to the TiVo. This would be unfortunate, but I don't think it would cause me to regret buying the Series3 TiVo.

*Worst Case:*  
If it impacts HiDef local network channels (Seattle's ABC, NBC, CBS), then I would be forced to usa a Comcast HD DVR as my primary DVR... In that case, the Series3 TiVo will be relegated to being a secondary DVR. If this scenario occurs in 2007 or 2008, I will probably regret having bought the Series3 TiVo. If it happens in 2009 or later, I think I will have had enough enjoyment of the Series3 to accept it's demise without regrets...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

That's a good case-scenario definition. The "medium case" I'm expecting has the following channels off-loaded onto the SDV portion of the bandwidth:

Encore, National Geographic, style, Turner Classic Movies, IFC, TV1, WE, Oxygen, Sprout, G4, NickToons, Discovery Kids, Toon Disney, Noggin, GAS, Discovery Health, Science Channel, FitTV, Discovery Home, Fine Living, DIY, BBC America, Biography, SoapNet, Bloomburg, Speed, Discovery Times, Outdoor, NFL Network, NBA.com, Fox Soccer, MTV Hits, MTV2, BET, VH-1 Soul, VH-1 Classic, FXM, fuse, Lifetime Movies, GAC, Logo, CMT.

Also, all the foreign-language channels currently on the separate tier (7xx channels on Comcast).


----------



## subspace100 (Oct 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> That's a good case-scenario definition. The "medium case" I'm expecting has the following channels off-loaded onto the SDV portion of the bandwidth:
> 
> Encore, National Geographic, style, Turner Classic Movies, IFC, TV1, WE, Oxygen, Sprout, G4, NickToons, Discovery Kids, Toon Disney, Noggin, GAS, Discovery Health, Science Channel, FitTV, Discovery Home, Fine Living, DIY, BBC America, Biography, SoapNet, Bloomburg, Speed, Discovery Times, Outdoor, NFL Network, NBA.com, Fox Soccer, MTV Hits, MTV2, BET, VH-1 Soul, VH-1 Classic, FXM, fuse, Lifetime Movies, GAC, Logo, CMT.
> 
> Also, all the foreign-language channels currently on the separate tier (7xx channels on Comcast).


There are several in your list that I watch (Nat. Geo., G4, Disc. Health, Science Channel, FitTV, DIY), so that would be unfortunate for me also but, like you, I would still classify as "medium" case impact (no regret buying the Series3).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

My wife is making a strong point in that regard. (She's in favor of us buying the S3.) Those channels are specifically non-HD, so she feels that a S2 and a S3 is a good combination: The S2 to catch the SDV channels, and the S3 to catch the HD channels. (Of course, if Comcast puts HD channels on SDV, which would free-up the most of amount bandwidth per channel, then she'd be -- well -- wrong.) I think she's winning out. My S2 with lifetime has the kazoo problem, so it may make a lot of sense transferring lifetime now, while we still can.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

I see little benefit to the cable company putting popular channels in SDV if 95% of the time some subscriber in the switch group is tuned to that channel. SDV should be used for the 200 junk channels that no one watches and broadening PPV to a virtual video store with several hundred titles available for purchase.


----------



## lemketron (Jun 24, 2002)

kdmorse said:


> CC 2.0 support unfortunately requires more than just firmware - it requires additional hardware, specifically the hardware to modulate and transmit commands out the Cable In port. To the best of our collective knowledge, the S3 will have no such thing, and this worries folks.


Given that the S3 box has both a USB port and a Ethernet connection, I have to wonder why they can't solve the SDV (as well as PPV) problem by either using Ethernet as the "upstream" channel, or (if there's enough demand) just creating an external upstream add-on box that plugs into USB (and your cable). If the people designing the CC 2.0 spec think about this (since the spec is not yet nailed down) then perhaps there COULD be a way to design it in such a way that it WOULD work in devices with CC 1.0 slots...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

vman41 said:


> I see little benefit to the cable company putting popular channels in SDV if 95% of the time some subscriber in the switch group is tuned to that channel. SDV should be used for the 200 junk channels that no one watches and broadening PPV to a virtual video store with several hundred titles available for purchase.


Yes, that does make sense. However, remember that the 74 "junk" channels plus 20 foreign language channels (there aren't 200 "junk" channels) only represents about 14 HD channels, so that tends to reduce the benefit from moving those channels onto SDV (especially since you'll have to reserve a good amount (half?) of that bandwidth for the SDV channels themselves.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lemketron said:


> Given that the S3 box has both a USB port and a Ethernet connection, I have to wonder why they can't solve the SDV (as well as PPV) problem by either using Ethernet as the "upstream" channel, or (if there's enough demand) just creating an external upstream add-on box that plugs into USB (and your cable). If the people designing the CC 2.0 spec think about this (since the spec is not yet nailed down) then perhaps there COULD be a way to design it in such a way that it WOULD work in devices with CC 1.0 slots...


That would almost surely and very substantially sub-optimize the efficiency and peformance of any CC 2.0 implementation. A fully integrated solution using a single technology would work far far better. There is little incentive to worry about backwards compatibility in the hardware realm, it seems.


----------



## lemketron (Jun 24, 2002)

bicker said:


> That would almost surely and very substantially sub-optimize the efficiency and peformance of any CC 2.0 implementation. A fully integrated solution using a single technology would work far far better. There is little incentive to worry about backwards compatibility in the hardware realm, it seems.


Change the topic to MPEG-4 and re-evaluate your response... What we have today is clearly sub-optimal. If it weren't for backwards compatibility in the hardware realm, all digital channels would already be MPEG-4 for better PQ and/or more channels in a given chunk of bandwidth -- something that would clearly help on older 550 MHz bw-limited systems.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The MPEG-4 issue would require changes that go beyond consumer electronics.


----------

