# TiVo's Crafting a Whole-Home DVR



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

Now we're talking! Looks like TiVo is working on a whole home DVR concept using MoCA. Not only would it allow you to put TiVo into more rooms of your house for less money, a streaming solution could finally get around the copy protection bit fiasco that's crippling MRV right now...

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=194168&site=lr_cable

I could definitely see myself getting into something like this.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Good!
I use MoCA now, and absolutely think it's an improvement over wireless, and a more convenient solution to running new wire (CAT5/6) throughout a house. But it does say MoCA is only being considered. I hope they commit and make it their (preferred) delivery choice.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Interesting.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I wouldn't mind Moca integration as long as they keep ethernet also. I would definitely take either over wireless.

Of course this is the key phrase


> TiVo Inc. (Nasdaq: TIVO) has confirmed it's developing a new client box for a whole-home DVR for MSOs, with Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) being one of the high-speed home networking technologies it's considering.


They do mention they might make a retail version also but then mention wireless instead of MoCA.



> TiVo hasn't announced plans to make a similar whole-home client to support its retail DVR products, though Chopra acknowledges it would be a "logical" thing to do. Such a product would likely involve wireless home networking.


I don't see a reason they couldn't offer MoCA and wireless versions at retail or give the consumer a choice.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I personally want a hard wired connection for the retail box.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I definitely agree. I don't have anything wireless in my house.

I started to write out my dream whole home dvr by TiVo but it depressed me since I know I will never see it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

> .......developing both the software and the hardware for a whole-home product that would feed off an [*MSO-customized*] version of TiVo's Premiere box.


"MSO-customized" is a key qualifier here. It should eliminate the flakiness caused by current TiVo's having to interact with separate CableCARD and Tuning Adapter devices. These functions will be integrated, or at least pre-installed and configured (CableCARD), as they are now for cable co STB's and DVR's. The MSO will have the incentive to support them as well as great difficulty escaping taking ownership for problems. (Who owns interoperability problems between TiVos, CableCARDs and Tuning Adapters now? Answer: the TiVo owner.)


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 1, 2007)

innocentfreak said:


> I definitely agree. I don't have anything wireless in my house.


I do. In fact wireless has made life a whole lot easier for me; one of the TiVos is set up in a room where it's hard to get access to the rest of the house; the floor in that half of the house is built on a concrete slab, and the only way to get access into the ceiling space is by removing sheetrock and plaster; there's also six feet or so of horizontal space to be covered above a passageway and the stairs before I can drop cable down into the crawlspace under the other half of the house.
The only straightforward way to get cable to that room is to run it externally around the outside of the house (which is what Comcast did). But that TiVo just hooks into the wireless network I have set up for the computers (the other TiVo is wired directly to the router). Now that I've gone to a Wireless-G network I can even transfer HD content between the TiVos at real time speed (on a good day).

I also don't really want to run cable (coax or network) to all the other rooms in the house where we might occasionally want to set up a TV for a few days; a TiVo with a wireless adapter, and a small flat-panel TV with a single HDMI cable, is about as simple a setup as you can get.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Expect to see this in 2012 if the past development cycle is any indication of the future.

As for MoCA, it doesnt matter to me since my whole house is wired with Cat6. I hope they leave a real ethernet jack on it as well.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

dlfl said:


> "MSO-customized" is a key qualifier here. It should eliminate the flakiness caused by current TiVo's having to interact with separate CableCARD and Tuning Adapter devices. These functions will be integrated, or at least pre-installed and configured (CableCARD), as they are now for cable co STB's and DVR's.


Umm, what?

Cable companies are required to use CableCards also... are you claiming that you don't have to call up a cable company to get the cable box "hit" with a signal the first time, just like you do for a (non-cable) CableCard device?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

My only .02 would be they need to get cooking on this. If it takes 18-24 months to see actual products, they will get left in the dust by <something>. Look at how quick all the I'net based video delivery websites are progressing. A year is a generational lifetime to these sites.

I have no dog in this hunt. Don't use MRV (even though I have multiple TiVos) and don't watch video/or/TV online. I just don't want to see TiVo get left behind.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mattack said:


> Umm, what?
> 
> Cable companies are required to use CableCards also... are you claiming that you don't have to call up a cable company to get the cable box "hit" with a signal the first time, just like you do for a (non-cable) CableCard device?


Yes I'm aware of the integration ban that requires Cable Co devices to use CableCARDs, but my understanding was the CableCARDs are pre-installed, already configured and ready to go. If you know different, just say so. Are you claiming that cable co STB or DVR installations have just as much hassle regarding CableCARDs as TiVo's do?

And there certainly is no concern about Tuning Adapters with Cable co STB's or DVR's.

Regardless, there is still the point that with a totally integrated MSO-specific box, there can be no question who has responsibility for its proper operation, in contrast to the Cable Co and TiVo pointing the finger at each other as now happens.


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

astrohip said:


> My only .02 would be they need to get cooking on this. If it takes 18-24 months to see actual products, they will get left in the dust by <something>. Look at how quick all the I'net based video delivery websites are progressing. A year is a generational lifetime to these sites.
> 
> I have no dog in this hunt. Don't use MRV (even though I have multiple TiVos) and don't watch video/or/TV online. I just don't want to see TiVo get left behind.


Totally agreed. NetFlix is a freight train right now, porting their platform to anything and everything. Hulu may catch on, but they need to add more content to really be a player. For TiVo to spin their wheels for 1-2 years would likely put them far behind the rest of the pack.

I think a device like this would be idea for putting TiVo in places in my home where there isn't the *need* to do so, but would be nice. Think kitchen, bedroom, etc...

I don't care what the networking options would be (wired, wireless, MoCA), just as long as it works.


----------



## csm10495 (Nov 15, 2008)

PaulS said:


> For TiVo to spin their wheels for 1-2 years would likely put them far behind the rest of the pack.


Is it possible that this new TiVo is to THD as Premiere is to S3, maybe this new one is closer than we could imagine? I hope it's not so far away because it sounds great now but, may sound bad in 1 - 2 years.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Folks - the article indicates this is about a client box to a premiere. The likely problem they are looking to solve is how to view flagged for no copy content on another box in another room. Thus some primary DVR becomes watchable in the whole house


PS - TiVo already has Netflix and would have Hulu if Hulu was interested in being easily accessed on big TV screen. I am not sure what problem Netflix presents other than people not needing a DVR to record content broadcast at some specific time.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

mattack said:


> Umm, what?
> 
> Cable companies are required to use CableCards also... are you claiming that you don't have to call up a cable company to get the cable box "hit" with a signal the first time, just like you do for a (non-cable) CableCard device?


Under the way cable providers currently operate, yes for a provider provided box, as the TiVo in question would be.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I don't see myself getting this in the next 5 years and if I have to switch all of my devices out for something like this there had better be some cost savings, otherwise I'll be looking hard at competing products. 

This thing will likely be outrageously expensive. Currently Tivo gets 300-500 dollars per room plus monthly fees. A whole house solution will probably be about the same, but with a larger initial outlay. 

If TiVo got it down to 100.00 per room I'd be interested, even if the initial purchase included a two room bundle.


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

oh boy, you are all going to get your hopes up for nothing.

1. this box they are working on will likely be just for MSO's not current hardware.

2. this thing will probably come out in 2016 (just like how fast the new directivo came out, oh wait).

3. correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt something in the Moca network has to be able to route the traffic? will the existing hardware do that?

4. i presume most of us (me anyway) have 1 premiere and multiple S3's. do you honestly thing they are going to make the older hardware work? thats if the S4 can handle such a thing with a software upgrade.

5. i cant think of anything else except that if it is released to retail, i hope it doesnt intefere with Fios current MOCA setup.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> I don't see myself getting this in the next 5 years and if I have to switch all of my devices out for something like this there had better be some cost savings, otherwise I'll be looking hard at competing products.
> 
> This thing will likely be outrageously expensive. Currently Tivo gets 300-500 dollars per room plus monthly fees. A whole house solution will probably be about the same, but with a larger initial outlay.
> 
> If TiVo got it down to 100.00 per room I'd be interested, even if the initial purchase included a two room bundle.


Note that TiVo is working this for MSO's now. They can absorb the upfront cost and do a monthly fee/lease. The retail version if any seems in doubt to me as well and for the very reason you note - upfront cost. Just add a way to watch flagged content on another TiVo DVR I already have and all is good.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> This thing will likely be outrageously expensive. Currently Tivo gets 300-500 dollars per room plus monthly fees. A whole house solution will probably be about the same, but with a larger initial outlay.


"outrageously expensive" is in the eyes of the beholder. Many people would not find $300-500 per room outrageous at all, certainly not if you compare it to the cost of a quality media PC solution, which will easily run into the $1000s.



Stormspace said:


> If TiVo got it down to 100.00 per room I'd be interested, even if the initial purchase included a two room bundle.


 This is an unrealistic expectation. You may think there are "cheap" solutions out there because of the way cable & Satellite companies market their DVRs but they build much of the price of their equipment into your cable/sat subscription. I have read that Motorola and SA are getting over $400 per unit for their DVRs from the cable companies - that cost is being passed on to the consumer just not directly, like with a TiVo. Heck it costs over $100 to buy a single tuner dish HD STB (No DVR).

Thanks,


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Note that TiVo is working this for MSO's now. They can absorb the upfront cost and do a monthly fee/lease. The retail version if any seems in doubt to me as well and for the very reason you note - upfront cost. Just add a way to watch flagged content on another TiVo DVR I already have and all is good.


There is something to be said about having your own equipment. There was a time when money was tight and the cable co turned off my service. Sure they should have, but by having your own equipment you still have content when the service is down. Using MSO supplied devices that can be turned off by the head end or disabled when the service is unavailable isn't appealing to me.

Diversifying your bills can be a great benefit and its the reason I never accepted AT&T's offer to combine my phone, DSL, and cellular bill. It's all changed now, but I didn't want to be on the hook for all three if I got behind on one of them.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> "outrageously expensive" is in the eyes of the beholder. Many people would not find $300-500 per room outrageous at all, certainly not if you compare it to the cost of a quality media PC solution, which will easily run into the $1000s.
> 
> This is an unrealistic expectation. You may think there are "cheap" solutions out there because of the way cable & Satellite companies market their DVRs but they build much of the price of their equipment into your cable/sat subscription. I have read that Motorola and SA are getting over $400 per unit for their DVRs from the cable companies - that cost is being passed on to the consumer just not directly, like with a TiVo. Heck it costs over $100 to buy a single tuner dish HD STB (No DVR).
> 
> Thanks,


Not an early adopter.

It sounds like it's going to be an MSO solution, but if it were an end user solution it would have to be less than 100 per room for me to be interested, or not require a large outlay to get started with it. As it is replacing three TiVos is going to be a piecemeal process for me, same as it was acquiring them.

PS: Just wanted to add. A TiVo could hardly be put in the same class as a media PC and thus the reason it's less expensive than one. TiVo could offer a media PC option, but how big is that market anyway? Just guessing here, but I think that most TiVo owners aren't going the media PC route that haven't already done so or found a solution that doesn't include TiVo. I'm a big TiVo fan, but it's gotta fit my budget. I'm not getting it just because it has the TiVo guy printed on it.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

It's an MSO solution which I assume that means you would have to lease it from your cable provider similar to the situation with DirecTiVo. 

Looks like they are trying to accompish two things there, break into the MSO supplier market and pave a way for themselves to the AllVid standard that is expected to materialize soon.

MoCA is simply an alternative to CAT6 and WiFi. I would imagine the consideration is whether to include an adapter in the unit similar to the way current units have a built-in RJ-45 ethernet port. I don't think they're talking about precluding other mediums. It's a good wired alternative since the cable is already there. I have to use WiFi in my apartment because I can't do wired runs. I was thinking of using MoCA myself.

I don't really understand why TiVo has never tried harder to compete with suppliers like Scientific Atlanta and Motorola for MSO DVR equipment. My feeling is it's always been a matter of money. They just want too much for their products and licenses. Giant companies like Motorola can afford to take losses on contracts for the sake of market entry where TiVo can not.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

if the premiere gets no speed updates and such and they just develop for this new idea and make them obselete in two years, i'm going to be pissed. I just put $1200 into two boxes w/lifetime.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CraigHB said:


> It's an MSO solution which I assume that means you would have to lease it from your cable provider similar to the situation with DirecTiVo.


TiVo has MSO deals in place already here in US and overseas.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

atmuscarella said:


> "outrageously expensive" is in the eyes of the beholder. Many people would not find $300-500 per room outrageous at all, certainly not if you compare it to the cost of a quality media PC solution, which will easily run into the $1000s.


Actually most would. People already complain about paying $300 for a TiVo before you even add in the TiVo lifetime or subscription fees.

Now if TiVo could deliver a whole home DVR where it runs $100-$200 a room which included the TiVo fees, I think you would have more people interested.

For me to look at a whole home TiVo, it would need most if not all of the following.

4+ tuners
Universal My Shows
Streaming and MRV
1TB per every 2 tuners
$699 price before service or $1000 with lifetime assuming a 4 tuner, 2tb version.

For every additional tuner you could add $50-100 so a 6 tuner 3TB version would run $1200 with lifetime max.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo has MSO deals in place already here in US and overseas.


I understand that, but in comparison to the volume that Motorola and SA do, you can't really say, "they've broken into the market." Well, maybe you can, but until they get market share in double digits, I wouldn't consider it a success.



b_scott said:


> if the premiere gets no speed updates and such and they just develop for this new idea and make them obselete in two years, i'm going to be pissed. I just put $1200 into two boxes w/lifetime.


I hear ya, my S3 is getting pretty old now, but I was hoping to get at least 5 years out of it. However, I think any new standard will emphasize the ability to grandfather in previous devices like the S3 and Premier. At least that's the impression I get from reading the FCC's notice of inquiry. There's no guarantee, but the idea of an IP based solution makes it entirely possible with only a software update.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think a Server/Thin Client solution would work best for most people. The server could basically be a Premiere with 4-6 tuners. The thin client could be a simple, and inexpensive, box with nothing but the playback and control hardware. I think if such a system cost $500-$600 + service for the server and ~$100 each, no service required, for the clients then people would be all over it.

Unfortunately TiVo's bread and butter is the service, so I can almost guarantee that they will either charge more for service on the server and/or require service for the extenders. Although if the service was reasonable (i.e. less then the cost of 2-3 dual tuner TiVos) then people might still go for it.

Dan


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

I think they made a mistake in conception from the start. TiVo should have always had an extender that simply streams content from a primary box. They either wanted a complete unit on every TV to garnish the subscription revenue or got stuck in some kind of pre-network paradigm.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think it's a little bit of both. The MRV system was created during a time when the only way to get Ethernet to a TiVo was via a USB 1.1 adapter, which was too slow to support realtime streaming. I think over the years TiVo has stuck to this system because it encourages users to buy multiple TiVos and pay for multiple subscriptions.

Dan


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I think a Server/Thin Client solution would work best for most people. The server could basically be a Premiere with 4-6 tuners. The thin client could be a simple, and inexpensive, box with nothing but the playback and control hardware. I think if such a system cost $500-$600 + service for the server and ~$100 each, no service required, for the clients then people would be all over it.
> 
> Unfortunately TiVo's bread and butter is the service, so I can almost guarantee that they will either charge more for service on the server and/or require service for the extenders. Although if the service was reasonable (i.e. less then the cost of 2-3 dual tuner TiVos) then people might still go for it.
> 
> Dan


Yep, I believe TiVo Service would be a requirement for extender boxs, if only to get the account's MAK to allow decryption...


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

The linked article says:

_Suddenlink Communications , the first MSO TiVo has signed for the multi-room DVR, expects to start deployments *sometime next year* as part of a distribution *deal* the companies announced today._​
When TiVo announces *"deals",* it's always for *next year.*

When TiVo announces *"deals",* it's always for *next year.*

When TiVo announces *"deals",* it's always for *next year.*

I think TiVo has no credibility, zero, less than zero, right now. We should file all these announcements in the garbage can, where they belong. We need to say to TiVo:

*SHOW ME!!!*​
Which I'm sure won't be any problem for them. Just as soon as they show us how well the *"Comcast deal"* is working out and how well the *"DirecTV deal"* is working out.


----------



## EVizzle (Feb 13, 2005)

I am a Tivo guy through and through, but whole home DVR from comcast and directv is revolutionary enough to pull Tivo subscribers away, and will prevent new users for sure. Who wants to pay a lot more up front, more each month for a few benefits? The Tivo interface is great, recording is great, it is smart, but for less money and the ability to watch a recording in any room I want while someone else does the same thing is pretty compelling.

For the first time, I think Tivo is doomed.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

My desire for a whole home DVR is less about multiroom viewing and more about more tuners in one box. The Comcast box from what I have read is still only dual tuners and runs you $240 a year. 

While I desperately want TiVo to offer a universal My Shows list, the ability to remotely delete shows, and pooled tuners and to do list, I would rather have one super TiVo that does it all. I would love to see an option where you could access and play shows remotely instead of transferring. 

This is also why part of me wishes TiVo would develop a real TiVo Desktop, not the pos product known as liquid tv, that let you build your own TiVo using PC parts. This way I wouldn't have to wait for them to offer more than 2 tuners.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Suddenlink is the worst cable company EVER.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Frankly the "Whole home DVR" that people seem to be asking for just sounds like another name for a media center or media PC or HTPC. We want lots of tuners, lots of storage, the ability to view any (and all) web services, and the the ability to watch it all on many different TVs throughout our homes. And of course somehow this is supposed to be cheap. I have thought TiVo should build a high end media solution for sometime (and posted such back in the 2006-2007 era) and still wish they would.

But frankly anyone can have the above now - get a high end media PC and as many what ever brand media streamers that you want. It however isn't going to be cheap and I am guessing TiVo doesn't see a big enough market. 

What TiVo could do is make it so their existing equipment does much of the above with software changes - by interlinking TiVos on the same network and allowing easy storage to NAS. Again many people have been asking for these features for years. It will be interesting to see what if anything TiVo actually does. 

Thanks,


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

I haven't been to this site in a while. The reason I came on tonight after reviewing my account is I am determining my viewing needs and whether to keep 1 or both Tivos.

My older box is an S2DT for cable & sat. The newer box is Tivo HD and it has cable & OTA. I have been pondering the choices & long story short this technology to whole house stream is just what I need like yesterday, except even if it was here today it still wouldn't cover all for me (no DBS) and sounds like an additional monthly bill.

My money is super tight and the cheapest way to go is dump Tivo HD and wire up the house with the S2DT connected and that remote upgrade that goes through walls. Still, the Tivo HD has advantages but is not so distribution-friendly as I understand it. I can run coax all over but Tivo HD just doesn't have the outputs I need.

How odd that halfway through 2010 the best Tivo solution is an older box with older technology instead of what I, the consumer, really need and it may be years before this new thing ever sees the light of day.

And before you mention the new Direct-Tivo, again money is super tight and I'm trying to shed bills not make new ones. I would really hate to part with my Tivo HD but I'm leaning heavily towards going with just the S2DT for the best bang for the buck to save money. If I do though I'm sure the silly thing would probably up & croak on me within a year.  It's been that kind of year so far for me.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

While I like paying as little as possible for stuff, I really thinking way to many people want Cadillac solutions and are only able or willing to pay for a Yugo. Frankly if someone is having tight/hard financial times they should not be paying for a DVR or perhaps even cable/Satellite TV. This may sound harsh but DVRs are a luxury and if someone gets decent OTA reception so is cable/Satellite. 

That said if we are going to pay TiVo a premium price we should get a premium product. Right now I am not sure that is the case. 

Thanks,


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> Yep, I believe TiVo Service would be a requirement for extender boxs, if only to get the account's MAK to allow decryption...


Been thinking about extenders boxes and was looking at Roku. Roku allows you to develop channels for the box, so perhaps a combination of kmttg and a roku channel to use the roku as the extender? As long as mrv doesn't change it might be doable. I'm looking into it, but time being limited it's going to take me awhile.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

restart88 said:


> ...How odd that halfway through 2010 the best Tivo solution is an older box with older technology instead of what I, the consumer, really need and it may be years before this new thing ever sees the light of day.


This is why TiVo's Board needs to fire it's CEO for ignoring the basics that have always proven lawyers only get rich in lawsuits and for driving a tech company in the dirt by forgetting it's a tech company and not a law firm!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> This is why TiVo's Board needs to fire it's CEO for ignoring the basics that have always proven lawyers only get rich in lawsuits and for driving a tech company in the dirt by forgetting it's a tech company and not a law firm!


yeah those multiple hundreds of millions of dollars already awarded to TiVo just pile up in the hallway and get in the way of the tech people


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Joe3 said:


> This is why TiVo's Board needs to fire it's CEO for ignoring the basics that have always proven lawyers only get rich in lawsuits and for driving a tech company in the dirt by forgetting it's a tech company and not a law firm!


TiVo has actually spent a lot of money on R&D over the last couple of years. In fact, the Analysts seem to be getting a little restless because of the amount of money being spent on R&D with no apparent pay-off in products and revenue.


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> While I like paying as little as possible for stuff, I really thinking way to many people want Cadillac solutions and are only able or willing to pay for a Yugo. Frankly if someone is having tight/hard financial times they should not be paying for a DVR or perhaps even cable/Satellite TV. This may sound harsh but DVRs are a luxury and if someone gets decent OTA reception so is cable/Satellite.
> 
> That said if we are going to pay TiVo a premium price we should get a premium product. Right now I am not sure that is the case.
> 
> Thanks,


Believe me I am indeed weighing everything. You just fail to grasp that I've had all these services, including Tivo, for years now. It's not like I went out on a spending spree after times got tough.

You never know what tomorrow will bring. Times may get better or may get worse. But if I do go down to 1 Tivo I will lose the grandfathered-in $6.95 rate, for example. Killing either the local cable or DBS or both also has a downside if I ever want to resume. I'm not starving. Not yet anyway. I'm just not waiting until I get there before taking action.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> What TiVo could do is make it so their existing equipment does much of the above with software changes - by interlinking TiVos on the same network and allowing easy storage to NAS. Again many people have been asking for these features for years. It will be interesting to see what if anything TiVo actually does.


This is the crying shame about the whole situation. TiVo could be so much better with software changes, no new hardware needed. Unfortunately, in answer to "what if anything TiVo actually does", I predict they do "nothing". Which pretty much sums up what they have done for about the last three years.

And no, the Premiere doesn't count as an accomplishment. It's somewhere around Alpha or Beta quality right now; it's certainly not a product that should have been brought to market in March.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> What TiVo could do is make it so their existing equipment does much of the above with software changes - by interlinking TiVos on the same network and allowing easy storage to NAS. Again many people have been asking for these features for years. It will be interesting to see what if anything TiVo actually does.
> 
> Thanks,


the problem with cooperative scheduling or NAS storage is that this is thwarted by the cable company use of copy protection on everything. If you can not freely move stuff around then TiVo scheduling a show on another TiVo could actually be NOT the thing I want. Might have scheduled a different show on the other TiVo, for instance.

since copy protected shows can not move then NAs of course is just plain unusable.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the problem with cooperative scheduling or NAS storage is that this is thwarted by the cable company use of copy protection on everything. If you can not freely move stuff around then TiVo scheduling a show on another TiVo could actually be NOT the thing I want. Might have scheduled a different show on the other TiVo, for instance.
> 
> since copy protected shows can not move then NAs of course is just plain unusable.


I will admit that sometimes I forget about what DRM has done to cable and Satellite users as I am primarily OTA. However I still think TiVo could do more than they are if they wanted to. After all currently they are storing copyrighted material on a mechanic device (a hard drive) connected to a distribution device (the TiVo unit) by wires. Well what is a NAS system? Wait for it -- a mechanical device (hard drives again) connected to a distribution device by wires. Even if TiVo can not make copies of certain programs they sure should be able to move them from protected mechanical device to another (dish network does it all the time with there external hard drive storage). Sure this means the NAS device would have to be controlled by TiVo software but that shouldn't be such a hard thing to do and it really shouldn't take that long to move a show from one protected device to another as no security processing should be needed. Then of course they could also just store everything to the NAS and stream from it and be in compliance. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

TiVo had to jump through some DRM hoops to get MRV working at all. Then service providers came along and set the flag on most broadcasts which disabled MRV for those recordings. It's just ridiculous. You have to add provisions to detect copy protection so it can be used to disable what you were tyring to accomplish by observing it. 

I agree with you 100&#37;, there should be no restrictions when copying from one protected device to another. The whole DRM system is ridiculous in many ways for most forms of media and it boils down to the lack of consideration for fair use. We definitely need some legislation out of congress to address this issue. The software and entertainment industries pretty much walk all over us consumers right now.


----------



## AStar617 (Feb 13, 2003)

My perfect "whole-house" TiVo setup would feature a master/slave model for MRV TiVos, support for shared SAN storage, and cooperative scheduling... Performance over wireless aside, I still can't see why this isn't possible on my existing ethernet-hardwired standalone S2 240s via software updates. Does this really require a complete architecture change?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Even if TiVo can not make copies of certain programs they sure should be able to move them from protected mechanical device to another (dish network does it all the time with there external hard drive storage). Sure this means the NAS device would have to be controlled by TiVo software


well I am reasonably certain that DISH did not have to get cablelabs approval so that cable companies would have to honor supporting cable cards for the DISH DVRs. So that is a bad example.

I am fine with moving such files versus copying and likely TiVo is OK with it to some degree as well. Now if you can just get cbalelabs to add an addendum to TiVo certification saying they are fine with it as well then TiVo can get started.
Please let us know when you have cablelabs on board with your designs.


----------



## porschefan (May 29, 2003)

Given the buggy shipping version of the Premiere (not to mention the ongoing issues their updates haven't fixed) who long before there's a USABLE version of this?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> well I am reasonably certain that DISH did not have to get cablelabs approval so that cable companies would have to honor supporting cable cards for the DISH DVRs. So that is a bad example.
> 
> I am fine with moving such files versus copying and likely TiVo is OK with it to some degree as well. Now if you can just get cbalelabs to add an addendum to TiVo certification saying they are fine with it as well then TiVo can get started.
> Please let us know when you have cablelabs on board with your designs.


Who made cablelabs God? If it doesn't violate copyrights laws when dish does it then it shouldn't be an issue for content coming from a cable feed. If cablelabs is imposing restrictions not granted by copyright law they should be forced to stop.

Even though I don't have cable as a consumer I am apposed to anything that tries to infringes on "fair use" and frankly restricting what media player I can use in my own house to watch digital media that I have purchased or rented is bullsh**. Would anyone put up with buying or renting DVDs that were precoded to only work in one specific DVD player?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Who made cablelabs God? If it doesn't violate copyrights laws when dish does it then it shouldn't be an issue for content coming from a cable feed. If cablelabs is imposing restrictions not granted by copyright law they should be forced to stop.


Well, the same could be said for iTunes. And yet there it is. Who made Steve Jobs God? The millions of people that subscribe to his service and products.

It's the same people that made cable companies God. And CableLabs is just an extension of Him (part of the Holy Trinity?)

From Wikipedia: "The CableLabs Board of Directors is composed of the Chief Executive Officers of member companies, thus affording business and strategic insight into the technology development process."


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Who made cablelabs God? If it doesn't violate copyrights laws when dish does it then it shouldn't be an issue for content coming from a cable feed. If cablelabs is imposing restrictions not granted by copyright law they should be forced to stop.


Unfortunately the FCC made them God when they let the cable industry design and administer the mandated "separable security."

However, you're right that they can't just refuse anything on a whim - there is a procedure for appealing to the FCC if a company applies for approval from CableLabs and is refused or if CableLabs simply doesn't answer within a certain period of time. However, my impression is that TiVo is pretty timid about such things and might consider appealing to the FCC to be a "nuclear option" that they don't want to use for fear of upsetting the cable industry.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Who made cablelabs God? If it doesn't violate copyrights laws when dish does it then it shouldn't be an issue for content coming from a cable feed. If cablelabs is imposing restrictions not granted by copyright law they should be forced to stop.


The FCC did. without a cablelabs certification cable companies do NOT have to supply or support cable cards for the device. Thus having the cbalelabs certification is mandatory for TiVo S3 and beyond models. If you want to rant at something then the FCC and the way they set this up is the place to rant. Otherwise you are just appearing uninformed at best. 
PS - the FCC has a proposal open for comment on restricting cablelabs from certifying software components as outside its mission scope of making sure the hardware will not harm the cable plant. Providing a favorable comment on that to the FCC would be the best thing you could do.



Brainiac 5 said:


> Unfortunately the FCC made them God when they let the cable industry design and administer the mandated "separable security."
> 
> However, you're right that they can't just refuse anything on a whim - there is a procedure for appealing to the FCC if a company applies for approval from CableLabs and is refused or if CableLabs simply doesn't answer within a certain period of time. However, my impression is that TiVo is pretty timid about such things and might consider appealing to the FCC to be a "nuclear option" that they don't want to use for fear of upsetting the cable industry.


 not nuclear but more like the plain old take all winter approach. Cablelabs best tactic is to simply stall and not make any certification one way or the other. That is exactly why MRV was late coming to the S3 as just plain old MRV. I think the FCC had to push on cablelabs just for that. If move a file had been on the table TiVo might still be waiting for cablelabs to go yeah or nay.
PS - TiVo has thrown its full support behind the proposal to limit cablelabs to hardware only certification, that is hardly being timid.

Copy protection sucks and TiVo should be getting a streaming option out there, no doubt at all and *their* product has a serious gap in it until copy protection is dealt with...but... it is not just a simple matter of adding the feature and testing it, the legal and business climate has to be dealt with as well and that climate is in turmoil with daily storm fronts and no safe havens.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

AStar617 said:


> My perfect "whole-house" TiVo setup would feature a master/slave model for MRV TiVos, support for shared SAN storage, and cooperative scheduling... Performance over wireless aside, I still can't see why this isn't possible on my existing ethernet-hardwired standalone S2 240s via software updates. Does this really require a complete architecture change?


Not necessarily an architecture change, but missing decoders. I have yet to see a streaming implementation that didn't use a better compression algorithm than MPEG2 (which is the only video type the S2 can handle in hardware). MPEG2 is not nearly as efficient as newer compression schemes, especially for lower bit rates. I know you want them to continue on for your S2, but at some point there will be no new features for it. It just doesn't make monetary sense for Tivo to add them (It won't generate much, if any additional revenue). To be honest I think the days of the S2 getting new features have passed already. Personally, I am wondering if they will even bother to make the HD a viewer. However, when I purchased mine, it didn't have the feature and I wasn't expecting it to have it either, so I can't complain too much. Of course, now that I have it, I hope I do get the feature.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The FCC did. without a cablelabs certification cable companies do NOT have to supply or support cable cards for the device. Thus having the cbalelabs certification is mandatory for TiVo S3 and beyond models. If you want to rant at something then the FCC and the way they set this up is the place to rant. Otherwise you are just appearing uninformed at best.
> PS - the FCC has a proposal open for comment on restricting cablelabs from certifying software components as outside its mission scope of making sure the hardware will not harm the cable plant. Providing a favorable comment on that to the FCC would be the best thing you could do.


Actually I am fairly uniformed when it comes to cable cards - once it was clear that satellite was exempt I pretty much didn't pay any attention to it and that was a few years ago (I live in a "cable free" zone and do not expect that to change).

My question is why did/would the FCC allow/require cablelabs to require restrictions that exceed restrictions being place on other digital media? Digital media being broadcast over the air has the same copyright protection as digital media coming down a cable line. Cablelabs does not own any of this media and should not be able to impose usage restrictions that exceed the minimum provided through copyright law. It would be interesting to see what restrictions PCs with cable cards in them place on the recorded media.

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> My question is why did/would the FCC allow/require cablelabs to require restrictions that exceed restrictions being place on other digital media?


yes, that is the heart of the issue. Another way to ask it - why did the FCC allow cablelabs to do more than simply certify the hardware would work correctly with a cable card.

PS - Microsoft has placed the DRM right in the kernel of windows and to keep its cable lab certifications it will indeed honor recording and copy restrictions. Media Center can stream to an Xbox so most people will simply do that and not be concerned about copy restrictions.

Hobbyists who want to to do more with the files will have to find other means.

PPS - cablelabs is not imposing the specific restrictions for some specific content but simply adding in compliance with the flags as part of their certification. Sounded OK on the face of it until cable companies used those flags to, some feel, improperly set everything as copy never.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> PS - Microsoft has placed the DRM right in the kernel of windows and to keep its cable lab certifications it will indeed honor recording and copy restrictions. Media Center can stream to an Xbox so most people will simply do that and not be concerned about copy restrictions.
> 
> Hobbyists who want to to do more with the files will have to find other means.
> 
> PPS - cablelabs is not imposing the specific restrictions for some specific content but simply adding in compliance with the flags as part of their certification. Sounded OK on the face of it until cable companies used those flags to, some feel, improperly set everything as copy never.


What company makes Microsoft quake and tremble enough to put DRM right in their kernel? Cablelabs! Odd, because we think of Microsoft as a big bully.

What companies makes Cablelabs/cable companies quake and tremble enough to embed DRM right into THEIR technology and use it? The handful of media content owners. And even the FCC was too scared to stop them. This is odd, because everyone thinks that cable companies are big bullies. And you'd think that the FCC would step in. But no, these handful of media companies are the ones who are really in charge.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> What company makes Microsoft quake and tremble enough to put DRM right in their kernel? Cablelabs! Odd, because we think of Microsoft as a big bully.
> 
> What companies makes Cablelabs/cable companies quake and tremble enough to embed DRM right into THEIR technology and use it? The handful of media content owners. And even the FCC was too scared to stop them. This is odd, because everyone thinks that cable companies are big bullies. And you'd think that the FCC would step in. But no, these handful of media companies are the ones who are really in charge.


That's kind of hard to accept when FiOS (currently) doesn't apply CCI limitations to the content when using their CableCARD devices. If the handful of media companies are the ones who are really in charge, wouldn't have FiOS been protecting that content from the get-go?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> That's kind of hard to accept when FiOS (currently) doesn't apply CCI limitations to the content when using their CableCARD devices. If the handful of media companies are the ones who are really in charge, wouldn't have FiOS been protecting that content from the get-go?


It appears to me that it's about the cable companies relationship with the content owners and plans they have to sell the content more than once. Once broadcast, once on pay per view, once on mobile devices, and once on computing platforms. Basically by implementing CCI 0x02 like they do they've insulated themselves from the millions of people that would come down on them if they restricted recording altogether. In their minds, I'm sure, people that move programing around are considered early adopters that have little or no influence and are safe to push around. Also given that the cable companies seem to be implementing the controls piecemeal they are taking the steam out of the issue since those people not affected by it are either oblivious, or unconcerned because it isn't them.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> It appears to me that it's about the cable companies relationship with the content owners and plans they have to sell the content more than once. Once broadcast, once on pay per view, once on mobile devices, and once on computing platforms. Basically by implementing CCI 0x02 like they do they've insulated themselves from the millions of people that would come down on them if they restricted recording altogether. In their minds, I'm sure, people that move programing around are considered early adopters that have little or no influence and are safe to push around. Also given that the cable companies seem to be implementing the controls piecemeal they are taking the steam out of the issue since those people not affected by it are either oblivious, or unconcerned because it isn't them.


Unless I'm missing the point, if content owners stated "thou shalt set CCI byte = 0x02 to continue doing business with us", and FiOS didn't/hasn't comply/complied, that relationship would be jeopardized. That doesn't appear to be the case.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> Unless I'm missing the point, if content owners stated "thou shalt set CCI byte = 0x02 to continue doing business with us", and FiOS didn't/hasn't comply/complied, that relationship would be jeopardized. That doesn't appear to be the case.


I don't think it's anything formal. I just think it's a back room understanding from companies like Time Warner who have interests in content creation as well as distribution. Also, what if some of those distribution contracts had sweeteners for companies that implemented CCI? So while maybe not a requirement, it might be something to give them breaks on broadcast fees. It's something we would never see, but if implemented by hollywood as an optional thing with a monetary value attached to it most cable companies would join up.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

BobCamp1 said:


> But no, these handful of media companies are the ones who are really in charge.


Perhaps they are in charge because they own the content? Perhaps they don't want you to copy content they own from one DVR to another? They do allow you to stream content if your DVR is capable of doing so. You need to replace the DVR if you need MRV and your DVR does not stream. Just like you need to replace DVD player if you want to play blu-ray.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

samo said:


> Perhaps they are in charge because they own the content? Perhaps they don't want you to copy content they own from one DVR to another?


In this case, they are perfectly within their rights. But I'd just like to remind everyone that while they are, as you say, in charge because they own the content, that doesn't mean that anything they don't want you to do is illegal. Even in this case, copying from one DVR to another isn't illegal because of copyright per se, but because they encrypt the content and so copying it in a way they haven't sanctioned would be circumvention of copy protection and illegal under the DMCA.

You can legally do a lot of things they don't want you to do, like sell used DVDs, record from TV at all, and so on.



> They do allow you to stream content if your DVR is capable of doing so.


This is the frustrating part of this issue; it's clearly legal for you to watch something in a room different from the one in which you recorded it. However, the copy protection has no way to express "allow copies to DVRs within the same household, and not to computers." That's why we're stuck with the technicalities mattering quite a bit. Assuming TiVo could disallow TiVo to Go, current MRV wouldn't let you do anything you couldn't do with streaming; so the issue here isn't an action that they want to prevent, it's that the rules are written at a lower level that disallows certain ways of doing things, which don't map as straightforwardly to specific actions as the people writing the rules might have thought.


----------

