# SDV solution for S3, TiVo HD



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

http://ibc.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=175784

Looks like those here that envisioned a USB dongle get the cookie.

Can we put the SDV FUD to bed now?


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

> ... Instead, the CEA wants cable to provide a way for devices to support "basic" interactive services, including VOD, SDV, EPGs and pay-per-view, in the way that low-end digital cable set-top boxes do today.
> 
> In its comments to the FCC Friday, the NCTA opposed the CEA's proposal, saying it would "strip away the most exciting interactive services and features that distinguishes [sic] cable from its competitors."


So NTCA is admitting that OCAP's purpose is to lock out services that would compete with those the cable company wants to sell through the device. If there is an OCAP alternative, then the consumer could only be enticed to an OCAP device by offering the best value for those services (which would no longer be exclusive).


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

20TIL6 said:


> http://ibc.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=175784
> 
> Looks like those here that envisioned a USB dongle get the cookie.
> 
> Can we put the SDV FUD to bed now?


 Wow, great find! Thanks for posting. I will post a pointer in the SDV FAQ thread over to here.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

This is huge isn't it????


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

dolfer said:


> This is huge isn't it????


All it talks about is 'offer to develop' some a 'tuner resolver' for SDV, sounds kind of nebulous at this point.

If you're using the cable companies broadband service, you have an upstream communication path already and shouldn't need additional hardware (just support for a new protocol).


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Yes, but...

>>>Cable Offers to Develop 'Tuning Resolver' for CE Devices to Receive Switched Linear Channels

How long did it take for cable to develop CableCards? Wasn't it something like 8 years?

How much are they going to rent it for? Is the sky the limit?

Al


----------



## 1003 (Jul 14, 2000)

20TIL6 said:


> http://ibc.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=175784
> Can we put the SDV FUD to bed now?


*When*
checklist is complete...

[/]Announce concept of it
[ ]Developer designs it
[ ]TiVo approves it
[ ]Somebody manufacturers it
[ ]Cable Labs approves it
[ ]Comcast supports it
[ ]Braver than I, forum members test it
[ ]I can easily get it 

Hmmmmm, not a single check below announce concept, this has a way to go before it arrives at my house.

So far, no checked boxes. FUD is certainly keeping me from buying a TiVoHD despite this report there is no official annoncement by TiVo to support this technology. Right now a way to map unencrypted QAM channels to the OTA broadcast data might get me to switch a bit faster without a SDV commitment...


----------



## slimoli (Jul 30, 2005)

An easy solution would be cable companies offering TIVO as an alternative, like Directv did for years. We would be able to rent the boxes , pay a lower fee to Tivo since the volume would be much higher and no longer deal with the crappy Motorola or SA boxes. 

I also have a strong feeling that after November, when Directv changes ownership again, some kind of agreement will be announced between Tivo and D*. Why is this important to S3 users ? Because we are very picky and love HD . D* will have MUCH more HD than any cable very soon and chances are many S3 users will be D* customers. 

Sergio


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

acvthree said:


> Yes, but...
> 
> >>>Cable Offers to Develop 'Tuning Resolver' for CE Devices to Receive Switched Linear Channels
> 
> ...


Considering the rate at which Time Warner is rolling out new HD channels, I probably won't need to worry about it for 8 years!  I just rec'd the new channel lineup announcement and was greeted with 2 spanking new HD channels - ESPN2HD and a new local channel.

There's no point in using SDV if you don't have the HD channels to begin with. Right?


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

slimoli said:


> An easy solution would be cable companies offering TIVO as an alternative, like Directv did for years. We would be able to rent the boxes , pay a lower fee to Tivo since the volume would be much higher and no longer deal with the crappy Motorola or SA boxes.
> 
> I also have a strong feeling that after November, when Directv changes ownership again, some kind of agreement will be announced between Tivo and D*. Why is this important to S3 users ? Because we are very picky and love HD . D* will have MUCH more HD than any cable very soon and chances are many S3 users will be D* customers.
> 
> Sergio


Cox and comcast are already working with Tivo for a software update to the dvrs to add tivo software.

ajwees41


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

Cool, so is this another $1.79 fee we'll need to pay in addition to the additional outlet fees and HiDef equipment fees some areas are forcing on people? Do we need to upgrade to "Digital Cable" to get the dongle?


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

sfhub said:


> Cool, so is this another $1.79 fee we'll need to pay in addition to the additional outlet fees and HiDef equipment fees some areas are forcing on people? Do we need to upgrade to "Digital Cable" to get the dongle?


It could be.

It could just as easily be considered a premium service and priced at $10.79.

Al


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

sfhub said:


> Cool, so is this another $1.79 fee we'll need to pay in addition to the additional outlet fees and HiDef equipment fees some areas are forcing on people? Do we need to upgrade to "Digital Cable" to get the dongle?


I think it would be included with the tivo (CE) cardboard box and not not from the cable companies just my opinion.

ajwees41


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

I think it _should_ (vs would) be included also but I guess the devil is in the details. If they do it standardized and generic like cablemodems, then it would be better for consumers, but if how SDV is implemented requires different implementations of this dongle for different vendors we'll just have another piece of equipment we need to get from the cable company.

Personally I would hope this is just a low level QPSK or DOCSIS modem and everything else can be handled in software on the TiVo so we can get this thing on our own, plug it in, and expect it to work.

If we have to get the equipment from the cable company, schedule a truck roll, activate the thing, etc., that would compound the existing problems with CableCARD.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

Well, it's baby steps at least. Now we can start harassing TiVo about when it will be ready.  I think I'll go and check to make sure my beta application is up to date.

Here's my favorite part though:



> Besides OpenCable and the switched-channel resolver, the NCTA had a third suggestion: a standard for interactive services that would work across all multichannel video providers -- not just cable, but also on satellite and telephone companies' networks. "The cable industry could work on such a solution should the commission bring those networks into meaningful regulation," the association said.


Nice gentle reminder that the satellite folks have been exempt from the telcom law to date. I would actually love to see just such a device someday. I'd love to be able to buy my TiVo and then decide one which carrier (satellite or cable) I want to get content. And it would be easy to switch back and forth then as well. Maybe before I die. Maybe.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

> Besides OpenCable and the switched-channel resolver, the NCTA had a third suggestion: a standard for interactive services that would work across all multichannel video providers -- not just cable, but also on satellite and telephone companies' networks. "*The cable industry could work on such a solution* should the commission bring those networks into meaningful regulation," the association said.


Isn't that a variation of the fox guarding the chicken coop? Maybe they should involve the satellite and telephone industries?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

This is great news. At least it's an official start to this. I know nothing about this area, but it doesn't seem like it should be that complex a task to develop something like this. Could we hope for before 2009?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

acvthree said:


> How long did it take for cable to develop CableCards? Wasn't it something like 8 years?


'More like 20 years. The CATV and consumer electronics industries have been trying to come to agreements on a security device since the early 1980s. It literally took congressional legislation to get them off their butts, and they are all still dragging their feet.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dolfer said:


> This is huge isn't it????


No, not really.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MickeS said:


> This is great news. At least it's an official start to this. I know nothing about this area, but it doesn't seem like it should be that complex a task to develop something like this. Could we hope for before 2009?


While a USB dongle is certainly possible, a software solution using the Ethernet port is a much better solution. Replacing the CATV receiver in the TiVo with a transciever is even better.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> While a USB dongle is certainly possible, a software solution using the Ethernet port is a much better solution. Replacing the CATV receiver in the TiVo with a transciever is even better.


From a user's perspective, maybe. Allowing the back channel communications to come in over the network opens up the cable modes to try and be hacked into via the internet. Using the existing cable for upstream comms is much more secure. Any replacement of internal parts is a non starter for those of us that already own a THD/S3 - it stands to reason that once this device is developed it can be incorporated into future designs.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

It sounds to me like TiVo desiigners are working with cable on how this works. It will come with the TiVo. This is what TiVo exec was talking about when he said in the Congressional hearing that cable companies were showing good faith in wroking to resolve SDV issue. Cable company actions are starting to show they think someone buying a 3 year contract on a cable only device is really a good thing.

ETA - oops smeeked PKscout but a big +1 on the idea of SAT finally getting on board
what really caught my eye in the article is where they want to go next after SDV issue and how the cable companies dangled a carrot out there if the FCC would finally end the stupid waiver the Sat companies got. Emphasis mine



from article linked in first post said:


> Besides OpenCable and the switched-channel resolver, the NCTA had a third suggestion: a standard for interactive services that would work across all multichannel video providers -- _not just cable, but also on satellite and telephone companies' networks_. "*The cable industry could work on such a solution should the commission bring those networks into meaningful regulation*," the association said.


question? could this be used to easily resolve QAM mapping as well?


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> what really caught my eye in the article is where they want to go next after SDV issue and how the cable companies dangled a carrot out there if the FCC would finally end the stupid waiver the Sat companies got.


Really. That seems familiar to me.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

GoHokies! said:


> Allowing the back channel communications to come in over the network opens up the cable modes to try and be hacked into via the internet. Using the existing cable for upstream comms is much more secure.


Having an Internet-based SDV gateway allows for different types of attacks but how do you know that is less secure than the existing upstream? Are there any studies or white papers on attacks of the internal upstream system? It really depends on the design and implementation of the systems whether something is more or less secure and you can have a good or bad implementation with either. From experience if you don't have 3rd party white/black hats attacking the system, it is harder to design a secure system. There is almost always something you don't anticipate when you need to design something secure but also relatively easy to install.


----------



## LCD1080 (Dec 13, 2006)

acvthree said:


> Yes, but...How much are they going to rent it for? Is the sky the limit?


Who cares? This is TIVO we're talking about!


----------



## dig_duggler (Sep 18, 2002)

Is it sad that I'm so happy that they've finally admitted that there needs to a solution?


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

sfhub said:


> Having an Internet-based SDV gateway allows for different types of attacks but how do you know that is less secure than the existing upstream? Are there any studies or white papers on attacks of the internal upstream system? It really depends on the design and implementation of the systems whether something is more or less secure and you can have a good or bad implementation with either. From experience if you don't have 3rd party white/black hats attacking the system, it is harder to design a secure system. There is almost always something you don't anticipate when you need to design something secure but also relatively easy to install.


Any piece of equipment that is connected to the internet is going to be significantly less secure than then a piece of equipment that can only be connected to by connecting to cable TV wiring from one of the houses served by that node, as the piece of equipment that is internet connected will be exposed to any joker in the world with an internet connection (as opposed to only the handful of people that are connected to the same node as you are).


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> Any piece of equipment that is connected to the internet is going to be significantly less secure than then a piece of equipment that can only be connected to by connecting to cable TV wiring from one of the houses served by that node, as the piece of equipment that is internet connected will be exposed to any joker in the world with an internet connection (as opposed to only the handful of people that are connected to the same node as you are).


How secure does this device really need to be? Basically it will say I want to be able to tune to channel X which is not currently being broadcast so it will send channel X on whatever frequency it chooses and tell the dongle. Even if someone hacked the request, they would still need a CableCARD tied to your account to decode the channel.

Basically the cableCARD would handle the security and this dongle would just handle the 2-way communication. If it used SSH or HTTPS encryption then it wouldn't be any less secure than making an online banking transaction.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Should I presume that encrypted IP packets, with each Tivo provided with a unique key delievered via an ecrypted video stream, are not considered secure, even though we use similar technology to buy stuff over the Internet?


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

GoHokies! said:


> Any piece of equipment that is connected to the internet is going to be significantly less secure than then a piece of equipment that can only be connected to by connecting to cable TV wiring from one of the houses served by that node, as the piece of equipment that is internet connected will be exposed to any joker in the world with an internet connection (as opposed to only the handful of people that are connected to the same node as you are).


You are talking about exposure to potential people poking at it, which is quite a different thing than being secure.

The exposure for the QPSK or DOCSIS modem is any person connected to the cable line, not just a node.

Further once you connect the USB device to TiVo which has an ethernet port and is always on, TiVo can then serve as a gateway to the Internet with sufficient buffer overflow exploitation.

Really, how different is a server running linux with one end connected to the Internet and the other end connected to a QPSK or DOCSIS modem vs 10,000 TiVos running linux with one end connected to the Internet and the other end connected to a QPSK or DOCSIS modem.

You may claim then that TiVo introduces a level of complexity and therefore it is more secure but really that is no different than the SDV Internet gateway which presumably would be set up by someone who knows how to plug the holes.

Getting the RF channel associated with a channel # is a very well defined operation and the designers can concentrate on making that airtight. It becomes harder to secure something when you have lots of legacy apps that you need to support, each with their own exploits, but if you keep it simple it isn't that difficult. This is mainly a directory lookup read operation, like DNS. No need to delete or write. Again, keep it simple. Further this data is not even very valuable to anybody besides the folks who want to watch TV so the incentive to hack is not high.

If TiVo et al can build Amazon unbox, I'm confident TiVo+Cable can build an SDV gateway if they had a desire to do so.

The reason I think they are doing it this way is because it is probably the least amount of work for the cable company. I don't know if it is more or less work for TiVo either way. Clearly for the customer an Internet solution would be most painless.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

morac said:


> How secure does this device really need to be? Basically it will say I want to be able to tune to channel X which is not currently being broadcast so it will send channel X on whatever frequency it chooses and tell the dongle. Even if someone hacked the request, they would still need a CableCARD tied to your account to decode the channel.
> 
> Basically the cableCARD would handle the security and this dongle would just handle the 2-way communication. If it used SSH or HTTPS encryption then it wouldn't be any less secure than making an online banking transaction.


I was thinking less of the theft of service angle and more along the lines of the mischievous turn off the node/fake a request and tune everyone's TV to porn type attacks.

Whatever you want to call it sfhub, if I were designing this, I would prefer to limit my connections to outside networks if I can run the entire thing over the cable plant that I own. Your Tivo/Linux server examply is flawed too - find me a published case of a Tivo that's been hacked into for ANY purpose and I'll be able to find a dozen cases of web servers being hacked into.

From a cable companies perspective, it makes no sense to spend the time and money to develop a robust system that can be safely run over the internet when you have a perfectly good network that isn't accessible to anyone around the world that you can use instead.


----------



## skylab (Jul 26, 2007)

How much is this going to cost? Who is going to pay for it?


I highly doubt this will ever see the light of day, but it would be good if it does. All the effort is now focused on finding a solution for the next generation of cablecards or dcas. There is absolutely no incentive to support legacy hardware like the Tivo S3 or cablecard equipped tvs.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

GoHokies! said:


> Your Tivo/Linux server examply is flawed too - find me a published case of a Tivo that's been hacked into for ANY purpose and I'll be able to find a dozen cases of web servers being hacked into.


Can you find me a dozen cases of an SDV Internet Gateway being hacked into?


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

dolfer said:


> This is huge isn't it????


Yes, I think it is. Note the past tense in this line: "The NCTA said cable has worked with individual consumer-electronics makers ' it cited TiVo ' to develop a solution that can provide two-way switched digital video channels to unidirectional digital cable products."

Why not develop a software-only fix that uses an internet connection? Somebody already mentioned the vulnerability that opens the cableco to, but another reason is it would exclude anyone that doesn't have their TiVoHD or S3 on a broadband connection. Hard to imagine, but I'm sure those people are out there.

I'm impressed NCTA was willing to do an end-run around opencable, but I'm still skeptical that anything will be delivered soon. As for cost, as long as it's less than the cablebox rental and the monthly TiVo service fee I'm paying to get the few SDV channels I care about, it will be worth it to me. To say nothing of the vastly increased WAF of consolidating to just one TiVo instead of two.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

GoHokies! said:


> you have a perfectly good network that isn't accessible to anyone around the world that you can use instead.


I remember reading about JTAG cables for SB5100 when I purchased my JTAG cable to debrick my Belkin 7130. I figured at the time it must have been for some hacking purpose but didn't look into it further. Anyway, I found the following a good read. I don't believe the internal coax network is as secure as people think and there are hackers spending their time playing with it as well.

The article is from a while back. It seems since then, they have completely replaced the vxworks OS in the SB5100 and replaced with linux core with complete control of DOCSIS stack and SDK availability for your addon development. Search tcniso if you want to know more.

Cable modem hackers conquer the co-ax
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7977


> Indeed, the accumulated talent of the group's members has begun to dwarf their raison d'être, and the coders seem to know it. DerEngel is barely interested in discussing uncapping, and speaks instead of the possibilities of writing plug-ins for Sigma -- extensible by design -- that would transform the capabilities of the Surfboard, turning it into a NAT box and a firewall. *Isabella thinks they can program the modem to tune to the channels used by the cable companies' digital music feeds, which -- like TV programming -- share the co-ax with the cable modem service. The hack might let the modem send music to the user's PC, where it could be streamed in real time.*


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

vman41 said:


> If you're using the cable companies broadband service, you have an upstream communication path already and shouldn't need additional hardware (just support for a new protocol).


But there are a couple of us S3 owners who use DSL for broadband ($34.99/mo for 6Mbs)


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

sfhub said:


> Can you find me a dozen cases of an SDV Internet Gateway being hacked into?


I don't think that I could come up with a list of a dozen SDV internet gateways! 

On your second comment, I agree that there are possibilities for a coax based scheme to be hacked and abused, but it reduces the pool of folks that can hack my node from the millions to the hundreds.


----------



## Jazhuis (Aug 30, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> I was thinking less of the theft of service angle and more along the lines of the mischievous turn off the node/fake a request and tune everyone's TV to porn type attacks.


Eh...the concept of SDV isn't that you'd be using it to tune your TV, but just to signal the headend as to what your TV was tuning to. You wouldn't be switching other people's TV's, you'd just be flooding the cable network with channels that people aren't actually watching. Of course, I almost guarantee that channel surfers are going to do the exact same thing...


> Whatever you want to call it sfhub, if I were designing this, I would prefer to limit my connections to outside networks if I can run the entire thing over the cable plant that I own.


Bingo. Remember that "going through the internet" at this point doesn't mean going out through Bavaria or anything, it just means from your cable modem to the cable company's headend. You still have to deal with your neighbors within the CO's network, but you have to do that anyway.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

Jazhuis said:


> Eh...the concept of SDV isn't that you'd be using it to tune your TV, but just to signal the headend as to what your TV was tuning to. You wouldn't be switching other people's TV's, you'd just be flooding the cable network with channels that people aren't actually watching. Of course, I almost guarantee that channel surfers are going to do the exact same thing...


Nobody that has changed to a SDV channel will be surfing for very long. Even with TW's SA box it takes a few seconds to tune in an SDV channel. On occasion it even throws up a message that the channel is unavailable for a couple seconds before it finally relents to my apparently unusual request to watch SPEED channel.


----------



## kmill14 (Dec 11, 2006)

pmiranda said:


> .
> 
> I'm impressed NCTA was willing to do an end-run around opencable, but I'm still skeptical that anything will be delivered soon. As for cost, as long as it's less than the cablebox rental and the monthly TiVo service fee I'm paying to get the few SDV channels I care about, it will be worth it to me. To say nothing of the vastly increased WAF of consolidating to just one TiVo instead of two.


Here is the latest from megazone on tivolovers. He goes into more detail about how the NCTA has been working with Tivo to get this done. What does this mean to me?

That Tivo and the NCTA "could" already be very close to rolling this out. At the very least, its not just a "concept" as some have labeled it, but at least in development. Its in all these companies' best interest to get something done sooner rather than later.

http://www.tivolovers.com/2007/08/27/more-hope-for-sdv-on-tivo-series3-and-tivo-hd/


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

kmill14 said:


> Here is the latest from megazone on tivolovers. He goes into more detail about how the NCTA has been working with Tivo to get this done. What does this mean to me?
> 
> That Tivo and the NCTA "could" already be very close to rolling this out. At the very least, its not just a "concept" as some have labeled it, but at least in development. Its in all these companies' best interest to get something done sooner rather than later.
> 
> http://www.tivolovers.com/2007/08/27/more-hope-for-sdv-on-tivo-series3-and-tivo-hd/


Anyone else bothered by this footnote on p.34 of the FCC pdf document referenced in mega's post:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519612942


> Some verification testing is required, but it is likely to be minimal. For SDV to operate properly, the host must operate correctly with the cable headend when an end user has tuned away from a switched channel, or when the channel has remained unchanged with no evidence of user involvement or interaction (i.e., the user leaves the TV on and tuned to the switched channel, but then walks away from the TV for some extended period of time). Here, the host should act in sync with the headend to notify the end user of the pending switch (for example, display are you still watching?) before the reclamation of the channel.


That sure seems to complicate things for Tivo since they have to be sure that if there is a recording on a switched channel that it won't be negotiated away during the recording. Not sure what the timeout period is but it better at least be longer that the 30 minute Tivo buffer.


----------



## bdlucas (Feb 15, 2004)

skylab said:


> There is absolutely no incentive to support legacy hardware like the Tivo S3 or cablecard equipped tvs.


I dunno, how about the incentive retaining customers with such "legacy" hardware who would switch to FiOS because they don't need to use SDV? Given the high-pressure marketing push companies like CableVision are making for their VOIP phone service, it seems clear to me that they're pretty scared of FiOS.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

moyekj said:


> Anyone else bothered by this footnote on p.34 of the FCC pdf document referenced in mega's post:
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519612942
> 
> That sure seems to complicate things for Tivo since they have to be sure that if there is a recording on a switched channel that it won't be negotiated away during the recording. Not sure what the timeout period is but it better at least be longer that the 30 minute Tivo buffer.


It's not very different for the UI than the current screen that pops up to tell you when it needs to change the channel for a scheduled recording. I don't actually know what happens to the 30-minute buffer in that case, but I vaguely remember the buffer being kept as long as you don't hit the 'live' button or go to another program.

If this thing works, I say bring it (and SDV) on, along with a few more HD channels!


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

bdlucas said:


> skylab said:
> 
> 
> > There is absolutely no incentive to support legacy hardware like the Tivo S3 or cablecard equipped tvs.
> ...


 Also both Comcast and Cox have a relationship with Tivo to provide Tivo software on their DVRs so if nothing else you would think those 2 cable providers would have some obligation to work with Tivo on this issue.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

moyekj said:


> That sure seems to complicate things for Tivo since they have to be sure that if there is a recording on a switched channel that it won't be negotiated away during the recording. Not sure what the timeout period is but it better at least be longer that the 30 minute Tivo buffer.


I don't think it is terribly complicated to implement given there is already an event queue that can interrupt LiveTV, but depending on the timeout it could get annoying for end-users that watch the same channel for long periods in the background like news and CNBC junkies, assuming of course those channels are moved to SDV. If it is too short, it'll be like the dialup Internet connection timeout people used to hate about dialup Internet, before always-on broadband became popular.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

sfhub said:


> I don't think it is terribly complicated to implement given there is already an event queue that can interrupt LiveTV, but depending on the timeout it could get annoying for end-users that watch the same channel for long periods in the background like news and CNBC junkies, assuming of course those channels are moved to SDV. If it is too short, it'll be like the dialup Internet connection timeout people used to hate about dialup Internet, before always-on broadband became popular.


Supposedly the SDV timeout on Time Warner boxes is currently up around 4 hours, and _any_ activity (ie volume up/down, whatever on the IR) is enough to tell the box you're still watching. If this is an acceptable implementation, any TV that has somebody actually watching it should be fine. I wouldn't recommend this for a sports bar, but every one I've been to lately is on satellite anyway.


----------



## nathanziarek (Sep 1, 2006)

...I would think you'd want it for longer than 4 hours (a movie like LotR or Gladiator could run that on cable with commercials), but I'd think the odds of you running into this problem too often are pretty slim. If it became a big issue, couldn't TiVo just add a "Always say yes on this channel" option? The "Always say yes" choice would have to be narrow (by channel or time slot) to not nullify the raison dêtre for SDV, though...

My big issue with this solution is that cable makes it seem like this is a surprise: once we were told that SDV wouldn't work with cablecard + TiVo, we jumped to action. Action should have been taken, tested and rolled out before SDV was ever put into place.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

moyekj said:


> That sure seems to complicate things for Tivo since they have to be sure that if there is a recording on a switched channel that it won't be negotiated away during the recording. Not sure what the timeout period is but it better at least be longer that the 30 minute Tivo buffer.


For the purposes of Tivo, "recording"=watching. When a recording is complete, it will go into "not-watched" mode, unless the user is actually watching the LiveTV buffer.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

classicsat said:


> For the purposes of Tivo, "recording"=watching. When a recording is complete, it will go into "not-watched" mode, unless the user is actually watching the LiveTV buffer.


Yeah, I can't imagine sitting and watching a 4 hour movie without recording it or pausing it at least once. I guess the worst-case scenario is a house guest so unfamiliar with technology and uncomfortable with your TV that they're scared to push a button so they can keep watching something.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

skylab said:


> How much is this going to cost? Who is going to pay for it?
> 
> I highly doubt this will ever see the light of day, but it would be good if it does. All the effort is now focused on finding a solution for the next generation of cablecards or dcas. There is absolutely no incentive to support legacy hardware like the Tivo S3 or cablecard equipped tvs.


I am thinking it would be an accessory you get along with your cablecards.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

classicsat said:


> I am thinking it would be an accessory you get along with your cablecards.


Unlikely. It has no authentication in it, so you'd still need cablecards from the cableco, but the widget would be sold by TiVo or a 3rd party. It's just a cable transmitter, perhaps with a built in splitter that goes between the widget and the cable-in RF connector on your TiVo. The fun of this is that if you have a marginal signal now, expect it to be at least 2dB more marginal after installing it. It might even have trouble operating through some cable amps or splitters you might have. Still, it beats having a separate cableco box just to watch one or two SDV channels I care about.


----------



## gwar9999 (Jan 16, 2007)

Let's face it, if it wasn't for satellite, there would be no HD cable channels and probably not even digital cable channels. The only thing that motivates cable companies to enhance anything is competition. The only reason SDV even exists is because DirecTV has been launching tons of new HD channels. If it weren't for this and FiOS breathing down their necks cable would still be stuck in the 1980's technology wise. 

It's completely ridiculous that cable can't offer PPV, On Demand and SDV via a software solution. If I can securely order movies from my Amazon account I should be able to do the same (ie. order PPV) from my cable company. It should be easy enough to link a TiVo with a cable provider for PPV, SDV and anything else that requires 2-way communication. Specifically, this solution would only be available to broadband users (as is Amazon Unbox, etc) but it has no limitation on broadband service provider since TCP/IP is provider independent. 

I laugh everytime I see one of those Cable Labs commercials about how they are so innovative. They just makes me want FiOS even more.


----------



## mattn2 (Mar 23, 2001)

gwar9999 said:


> It's completely ridiculous that cable can't offer PPV, On Demand and SDV via a software solution. If I can securely order movies from my Amazon account I should be able to do the same (ie. order PPV) from my cable company. It should be easy enough to link a TiVo with a cable provider for PPV, SDV and anything else that requires 2-way communication. Specifically, this solution would only be available to broadband users (as is Amazon Unbox, etc) but it has no limitation on broadband service provider since TCP/IP is provider independent.


The funny thing about this whole thread is that the solution is already there ... the dongle (USB or E-NET) *IS* a CABLEMODEM that is already avaliable.

Just a splitter on the cable end, a registerd CABLEMODEM, either USB or E-NET and viola. They can verify that the request comes from THAT registered CABLEMODEM if the concern is w/ security.

This way every system is common (since DOCSIS from CableLabs sets CABLEMODEM standards) and all needed is the s/w on the TiVo/CE device to send the channel request and corresponding piece on the HEADEND.

Problem solved ... why can't it be this easy????

# Matt


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

mattn2 said:


> This way every system is common (since DOCSIS from CableLabs sets CABLEMODEM standards) and all needed is the s/w on the TiVo/CE device to send the channel request and corresponding piece on the HEADEND.
> 
> Problem solved ... why can't it be this easy????
> 
> # Matt


Not to nit-pick but the channel request is processed at the hub level, not headend.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

cableguy763 said:


> Not to nit-pick but the channel request is processed at the hub level, not headend.


I think it is actually propogated up to the headend and processed in the headend then switched at the hub. They will not be putting SDV management servers in each hub.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

The system that I am pretty familiar with is done at the HUB level.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

cableguy763 said:


> The system that I am pretty familiar with is done at the HUB level.


You're familiar with SA I guess?


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

We are using bigband for sdv.


----------



## Revolutionary (Dec 1, 2004)

MegaZone has posted about this.

He found the FCC filing. Relevant language: 


NCTA Filing to FCC said:


> It is in everyones interest for cable operators to use their networks more efficiently, and SDV technology allows the cable operators to do so. Unfortunately, as designed, one-way UDCPs are not capable of accessing SDV channels: SDV channels require two-way device functionality. In order to address this issue, the cable industry has worked with CE companies such as TiVo to arrive at a solution that can provide two-way SDV channels to one-way digital cable products through an external device attachment to the UDCP.


Makes it sound like this is well under way already.


----------



## nathanziarek (Sep 1, 2006)

Informal poll: # of months before we see this device in the wild?

I'm going in for 20. I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy.


----------



## 1003 (Jul 14, 2000)

*18months*
a nice round number that puts it a few months behind analogue/digital conversion, cable is always playing catch up anyway...


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Jazhuis said:


> Remember that "going through the internet" at this point doesn't mean going out through Bavaria or anything, it just means from your cable modem to the cable company's headend. You still have to deal with your neighbors within the CO's network, but you have to do that anyway.


Ummm.. *I* don't have a cable modem. I have a DSL modem. So any Internet connection would be out through the wild Internet.

Am I the only S3 user getting their broadband through DSL? So many of these posts begin with "use the TiVo ethernet connection to your cable modem" that I am wondering if I am in the miniscule minority.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

1st quarter 2008.


----------



## nathanziarek (Sep 1, 2006)

I'll go with that JJ...

Depending on how many channels I am missing out on due to SDV in the next few months (already can't get ESPN2HD as college basketball is about to heat up), 18 months is way too long. I don't mind paying for the enhanced user experience of TiVo, but in the end, I can learn another way and TiVo loses. They've got a rough deal, that's for sure.


----------



## nathanziarek (Sep 1, 2006)

jrm01 said:


> 1st quarter 2008.


Whoa. Your glass overfloweth.


----------



## myosh_tino (Dec 7, 2004)

CharlesH said:


> Ummm.. *I* don't have a cable modem. I have a DSL modem. So any Internet connection would be out through the wild Internet.
> 
> Am I the only S3 user getting their broadband through DSL? So many of these posts begin with "use the TiVo ethernet connection to your cable modem" that I am wondering if I am in the miniscule minority.


You don't need to be a cable modem subscriber because the cable systems are inherently 2-way. The two-way commuication hardware for VOD, PPV, etc is built-in to the digital set-top boxes. I suspect any dongle to enable two-way communication would use the existing cable infrastructure. In otherwords, connect the dongle to your coax and away you go.


----------



## mbarcus (Sep 12, 2006)

dolfer said:


> Considering the rate at which Time Warner is rolling out new HD channels, I probably won't need to worry about it for 8 years!  I just rec'd the new channel lineup announcement and was greeted with 2 spanking new HD channels - ESPN2HD and a new local channel.
> 
> There's no point in using SDV if you don't have the HD channels to begin with. Right?


Dolfer,

I also received the new channel lineup/announcement in the mail (I am in Cincinnati as well). Take a closer look at the announcement...there is an asterisk by ESPN2HD....says that it is NOT available to cablecard customers!!


----------



## cramer (Aug 14, 2000)

sfhub said:


> Personally I would hope this is just a low level QPSK or DOCSIS modem and everything else can be handled in software on the TiVo so we can get this thing on our own, *plug it in, and expect it to work.*


I haven't laughed that hard all month. Have you seen the cluster f*** they've made out of cablecard installs? What in God's green earth makes you think they won't _royally_ screw up that DOCSIS modem integration as well? The people selling you TV aren't the people selling you internet access. The internet side of the house knows what they're doing because they've been doing it for a decade, and their business depends on it. The TV side of the house cannot accurately plug in a card and key in two numbers; the cablemodem MAC is just one more number for them to screw up.



lrhorer said:


> While a USB dongle is certainly possible, a software solution using the Ethernet port is a much better solution. Replacing the CATV receiver in the TiVo with a transciever is even better.


It's always been technically possible. However, it's a violation of the CableLabs license -- it'd have to inside the case and then the whole device would count as bi-directional; round and round we go. I've always wondered why Tivo, Inc. didn't designed the S3's with an RF modulator, even if they never were allowed to use the transmitter.

An IP backchannel is simply too unstable to be worth the effort. There are lots of people who have cable TV but don't have (cable) broadband. I have a cablemodem, but it's not run by TW -- my channel change request would travel half way across the country to reach the headend a few miles away. An IP backchannel would necessitate an even more expensive broadband connection _just to tune cable TV._ And "internet channel changing" would be about as annoying as an IR blaster. No thanks.

Either do away with SDV -- I'm still unconvinced as to it's need -- or fix it properly with a native SDV client and direct OOB cable upstream channel.



nathanziarek said:


> ... but I'd think the odds of you running into this problem too often are pretty slim.


Actually, you'll run into everyday -- maybe more than once a day -- in the form of no live buffer. You'll walk in, turn on the TV and *poof* have no live buffer. That's a) f'ing annoying, and b) completely counter to what Tivo does. If the tivo is in "standby", then I can forgive the lack of a live buffer. But honestly, how many people actually put their tivo to sleep? (Tivo, Inc. can easily answer that, btw.)


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

bdlucas said:


> I dunno, how about the incentive retaining customers with such "legacy" hardware who would switch to FiOS because they don't need to use SDV? Given the high-pressure marketing push companies like CableVision are making for their VOIP phone service, it seems clear to me that they're pretty scared of FiOS.


Competition is a beautiful thing


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

mattn2 said:


> The funny thing about this whole thread is that the solution is already there ... the dongle (USB or E-NET) *IS* a CABLEMODEM that is already avaliable. ... why can't it be this easy????


The problem I see with this solution is that it leaves DSL and dial-up users without a _solution_.

Edit: Someone else addressed this before I did


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

gwar9999 said:


> Let's face it, if it wasn't for satellite, there would be no HD cable channels and probably not even digital cable channels.


That's silly. 



gwar9999 said:


> The only thing that motivates cable companies to enhance anything is competition.


That's true of most commercial enterprises.



gwar9999 said:


> If it weren't for this and FiOS breathing down their necks cable would still be stuck in the 1980's technology wise.


That's just another silly throwaway assertion.



gwar9999 said:


> It should be easy enough


Since you know the secret, you could make a mint offering it. 



gwar9999 said:


> They just makes me want FiOS even more.


FIOS refuses to offer service to the less affluent neighborhoods in our town. Nice company. :down:


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

bicker said:


> FIOS refuses to offer service to the less affluent neighborhoods in our town. Nice company. :down:


AND FIOS will not be available to a vast majority of the country. I don't think Comcast has much to fear from Uverse around here.


----------



## nathanziarek (Sep 1, 2006)

cramer said:


> Actually, you'll run into everyday -- maybe more than once a day -- in the form of no live buffer. You'll walk in, turn on the TV and *poof* have no live buffer. That's a) f'ing annoying, and b) completely counter to what Tivo does. If the tivo is in "standby", then I can forgive the lack of a live buffer. But honestly, how many people actually put their tivo to sleep? (Tivo, Inc. can easily answer that, btw.)


I don't use the buffer like that, but I never took it to be guarantee either, I guess. I mean, accidentally hitting the channel button will eliminate it immediately, so I've never come to rely on it...and I'd much rather have more HD.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

cramer said:


> The TV side of the house cannot accurately plug in a card and key in two numbers; the cablemodem MAC is just one more number for them to screw up.


Yep, far easier for them to use a $2 transmitter and a $2 microcontroller in the dongle that use the existing cablecard MAC assignment than to try and make it work with an external cablemodem or any random internet connection.

Technically the dongle is a violation of the CableLabs license, but if the cablecos are willing to look the other way I'm good with it 



cramer said:


> Actually, you'll run into everyday -- maybe more than once a day -- in the form of no live buffer. You'll walk in, turn on the TV and *poof* have no live buffer. That's a) f'ing annoying, and b) completely counter to what Tivo does.


I think walking in and watching whatever happens to be on is completely counter to what TiVo does. 90% of the time when I walk in and turn on the TV, it's on a channel that TiVo was recording something on, but almost never something I actually want to watch. Unless you disable TiVo suggestions (again, counter to what TiVo does) and only record off a limited set of channels, you can't expect the TV to be tuned to something you want to watch.

Note that this is a fundamental property of SDV to not transmit channels you're not watching. When I had a cableco DVR, it would turn itself off all the time, even before SDV.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

pmiranda said:


> Yep, far easier for them to use a $2 transmitter and a $2 microcontroller in the dongle that use the existing cablecard MAC assignment than to try and make it work with an external cablemodem or any random internet connection.
> 
> Technically the dongle is a violation of the CableLabs license, but if the cablecos are willing to look the other way I'm good with it


They can't use a cable modem solution. You mean to get SDV you also have to use their high-speed Internet service at $45/month? Where are all the usual whiners screaming "MONOPOLY"?

This solution is extremely hackable. I'm surprised the cable companies are allowing it. I'd force Tivo to update the S3 to hardwire the module inside the Tivo. Making the connection using the easily-accessible USB is just begging someone to hack it.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> They can't use a cable modem solution. You mean to get SDV you also have to use their high-speed Internet service at $45/month? Where are all the usual whiners screaming "MONOPOLY"?
> 
> This solution is extremely hackable. I'm surprised the cable companies are allowing it. I'd force Tivo to update the S3 to hardwire the module inside the Tivo. Making the connection using the easily-accessible USB is just begging someone to hack it.


We're agreeing that a cable modem is not a good solution. I'm saying they stick the transmit modulator that should have been in the S3 box to begin with in a dongle with a simple microcontroller for the USB interface. There's nothing going out on the USB that you couldn't observe by putting a hacked cablemodem on the cable, so there's no real extra risk of hacking. Any information going out that needs to be protected/authenticated would be using an end-to-end encryption originating at the cablecard and terminated at the hub/headend.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> They can't use a cable modem solution. You mean to get SDV you also have to use their high-speed Internet service at $45/month? Where are all the usual whiners screaming "MONOPOLY"?


You assume that you would have to have their high speed internet service to make use of the modem. AFAIK there would be nothing preventing them from using the adapter in a limited fashion only for SDV.


----------



## Revolutionary (Dec 1, 2004)

pmiranda said:


> Yep, far easier for them to use a $2 transmitter and a $2 microcontroller in the dongle that use the existing cablecard MAC assignment than to try and make it work with an external cablemodem or any random internet connection.
> 
> Technically the dongle is a violation of the CableLabs license, but if the cablecos are willing to look the other way I'm good with it
> 
> ...


Read the FCC filing.

1. The dongle technology will be licensed by NCTA under existing agreements, so it doesn't violate anything; this should also speed development.

2. The second footnote (69) says that the UDCP will send a "transmit channel" signal when it is ready to tune, and the head-end will send a "are you still watching this channel" message (or equivalent) when there has been no user interaction on the other end. The Tivo will just automatically send a request when it is time to record from a switched channel (suggestions or scheduled recordings). Any subsequent "keep alive" activity (such as a duplicate "transmit channel" request, or maybe even a programmed navigate away/navigate back behavior, would suffice to keep the transmission going for a subsequent recording on the same channel. At worst you would turn on your TV to find Tivo sitting on a blank channel because it recorded from a switched channel and then failed to (ie, didn't need to) keep the transmission alive.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

sfhub said:


> I don't think it is terribly complicated to implement given there is already an event queue that can interrupt LiveTV, but depending on the timeout it could get annoying for end-users that watch the same channel for long periods in the background like news and CNBC junkies, assuming of course those channels are moved to SDV. If it is too short, it'll be like the dialup Internet connection timeout people used to hate about dialup Internet, before always-on broadband became popular.


If the sytem is designed right (ie they don't try to pinch too many pennies), there will be enough channels for all of the receivers in the technically defined digital neighborhood to be on at the same time. For this to work, the number of receivers much include all types of devices (TV sets (those with cablecards and the ability to 'talk' with the cable SDV controllers, or future equivalents), cable boxes, Tivos, etc. that can have a 'conversation' with the cable plant SDV controllers.) Of course, they will try to pinch pennies.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

pmiranda said:


> ...
> The fun of this is that if you have a marginal signal now, expect it to be at least 2dB more marginal after installing it. It might even have trouble operating through some cable amps or splitters you might have. Still, it beats having a separate cableco box just to watch one or two SDV channels I care about.


If designed properly the signal level of incoming signals wouldn't be goed significantly affected, only the frequency(s?) of the docsis upsteam signals would see much change. This assumes no penny pinching.


----------



## NotVeryWitty (Oct 3, 2003)

bicker said:


> FIOS refuses to offer service to the less affluent neighborhoods in our town. Nice company. :down:


Bicker, why didn't the Burlington selectmen make 100% town coverage part of their license agreement with Verizon?


----------



## SMWinnie (Aug 17, 2002)

NotVeryWitty said:


> Bicker, why didn't the Burlington selectmen make 100% town coverage part of their license agreement with Verizon?


Massachusetts Cable Choice & Competition Act? PDF of Verizon summary, linked.


----------



## gwar9999 (Jan 16, 2007)

Charles said:


> Am I the only S3 user getting their broadband through DSL?


Nope... I have a dedicated SDSL line. Cox can barely deliver cable television... do you'd think I'd spend another dime on any of their other unreliable products & services (internet, phone, fish & chips)?

FWIW, a company I work with has a Cox business cable internet connection that has problems all too frequently. I've had no issues with my SDSL line in several years. That's not to say I wouldn't switch to FiOS if it's available in my area (which it probably won't be since the Santa Barbara City Council is about as socialist as you can get, but I digress).


----------



## NotVeryWitty (Oct 3, 2003)

SMWinnie said:


> Massachusetts Cable Choice & Competition Act? PDF of Verizon summary, linked.


Not sure what your point is. AFAIK, this has *not* become law in Massachusetts yet. And, it certainly wasn't in effect when Burlington granted the franchise to Verizon last year.


----------



## SMWinnie (Aug 17, 2002)

NotVeryWitty said:


> Not sure what your point is. AFAIK, this has *not* become law in Massachusetts yet. And, it certainly wasn't in effect when Burlington granted the franchise to Verizon last year.


Ah. No point, just curious. I had heard about the Massachusetts bill, but wrongly understood that the bill had already passed.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> This solution is extremely hackable. I'm surprised the cable companies are allowing it. I'd force Tivo to update the S3 to hardwire the module inside the Tivo. Making the connection using the easily-accessible USB is just begging someone to hack it.


Other than a denial-of-service attack to fill the node with useless channels, what would be gained by hacking it? The cable card still has to be authorized and be able to decrypt whatever channel is on the wire, regardless of whether it is there due to a valid or hacked SDV request (or always there, as for non-SDV). It's not like VOD where the request may generate a $$ charge, and thus you really want to make sure the request is authorized.

If one wants to fill the node with useless channels, just channel surf over all available channels on a regular basis.


----------



## mattn2 (Mar 23, 2001)

DCIFRTHS said:


> The problem I see with this solution is that it leaves DSL and dial-up users without a _solution_.


I never said that you'd be billed or even have acces to this CABLEMODEM for your internet use. It is just a quick solution using existing hardware and infrastructure and not having to re-invent the wheel.

And to address the "hacking", what is there to gain? Filling up the headend w/ channels that aren't really being watched? You can do this easily w/ a programmable remote or driven from a pc that outputs IR to a Cablebox. You still need authorization to view the channels out there, and that is where the CABLECARDS come into play.

# Matt


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

CharlesH said:


> Other than a denial-of-service attack to fill the node with useless channels, what would be gained by hacking it?


Didn't you just answer your own question? I guess no one holds a grudge against your cable company. You're lucky. Many people hold a grudge against mine (including me).


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

CharlesH said:


> Other than a denial-of-service attack to fill the node with useless channels, what would be gained by hacking it? The cable card still has to be authorized and be able to decrypt whatever channel is on the wire, regardless of whether it is there due to a valid or hacked SDV request (or always there, as for non-SDV). It's not like VOD where the request may generate a $$ charge, and thus you really want to make sure the request is authorized.
> 
> If one wants to fill the node with useless channels, just channel surf over all available channels on a regular basis.


Yeah, but if the signaling is done over the internet (as opposed to over the return path up the coax), the device is vulnerable to attack from anyone else with an internet connection.

Just wait until the first skript kiddie finds a hole in the headend equipment to change the channel on every set tuned to an SDV channel in an entire state at the same time.

It isn't about getting access to something you're not paying for, it's a race for some hacker club in Russia to see how much chaos they can cause.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

GoHokies! said:


> Yeah, but if the signaling is done over the internet (as opposed to over the return path up the coax), the device is vulnerable to attack from anyone else with an internet connection.


I got the impression that the proposal to the FCC was essentially a stripped-down Docsis modem (maybe only a transmitter) and some controller logic, that could only send low-level stuff (not even IP) to the head-end. The TiVo already has the Docsis receiver. And as someone else mentioned, any sensitive data could well be encrypted by the time it appears at the USB connector.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

GoHokies! said:


> Just wait until the first skript kiddie finds a hole in the headend equipment to change the channel on every set tuned to an SDV channel in an entire state at the same time.


Why couldn't they do that by snooping the data on the cable and then reverse-engineering the protocol used by the existing SDV-capable set-top boxes? Why would the TiVo dongle be any more or less resistant to hacking?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Whatever solution that the powers that be end up using, TiVo better pray that it is available soon... this situation with SDV is getting to be quite a problem for them. I'm sure I'm not alone in being a long-time TiVo user who currently would not recommend TiVoHD or the Series 3 as the first choice for a cable customer, because I'd hate for them to get it and not be able to get the HD channels they bought it for in the first place.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

CharlesH said:


> If one wants to fill the node with useless channels, just channel surf over all available channels on a regular basis.


Doesn't SDV decrement the reference count when you leave a channel?


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

CharlesH said:


> Why couldn't they do that by snooping the data on the cable and then reverse-engineering the protocol used by the existing SDV-capable set-top boxes? Why would the TiVo dongle be any more or less resistant to hacking?


They could do that, if they lived in my neighborhood, and they could only affect folks on the same node as them (which you are correct, about the FCC proposal). My objection is to the folks that say it should be done via IP, opening up the node to IP traffic (which can come from anywhere). Instead of screwing with just their node, the skript kiddie can render anyone using the same hardware nationworldwide useless.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

GoHokies! said:


> My objection is to the folks that say it should be done via IP, opening up the node to IP traffic (which can come from anywhere). Instead of screwing with just their node, the skript kiddie can render anyone using the same hardware nationworldwide useless.


You are making assumptions about *your* implementation of an SDV Internet gateway that doesn't necessarily have to translate into the actual deployed implementation.

BTW why do you feel the traffic from a compromised DOCSIS modem is limited to your node only? There's a routable network/transport layer running over DOCSIS right?

If you want to say the reason they are going with the USB solution is because it is the least amount of work on their end and it integrates into the existing system, I would agree with that.

This security angle, I just don't buy. These guys run an ISP with megaloads of data running over their QAM network 24/7 and need to guarantee services are up and running while accepting random traffic from all over the net. I think they are perfectly capable of running an SDV Internet Gateway with very limited controlled traffic (they don't need to even respond to data from people they don't recognize)


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

sfhub said:


> BTW why do you feel the traffic from a compromised DOCSIS modem is limited to your node only? There's a routable network/transport layer running over DOCSIS right?


The stripped-down little dongle need not support the (routable) IP protocol stack at all. It just needs a dumb link-level protocol (analogous to Ethernet) to its node or head-end (however they do it). While I agree that securing an IP connection is certainly straightforward, it seems to be a bit of overkill for the essentially link-level requirements of this problem.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

NotVeryWitty said:


> Bicker, why didn't the Burlington selectmen make 100% town coverage part of their license agreement with Verizon?


I'm not sure, but I think it was because subscription television service is not a major concern for the vast majority of people. We folks here who chat about these things online are anomalies.

And I wouldn't expect the town to go against Verizon on this. It is their company, their equipment, their costs, etc. It adversely affects me, but their policy is sound. I'd love to embarrass them into changing it, but I really don't have a leg to stand on, ethically, in objecting to what they're doing.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

SMWinnie said:


> Massachusetts Cable Choice & Competition Act?


The Act hasn't passed yet.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

CharlesH said:


> The stripped-down little dongle need not support the (routable) IP protocol stack at all. It just needs a dumb link-level protocol (analogous to Ethernet) to its node or head-end (however they do it). While I agree that securing an IP connection is certainly straightforward, it seems to be a bit of overkill for the essentially link-level requirements of this problem.


Exactly. It isn't a huge issue, but why open a can of worms that you don't have to? There isn't a compelling reason to try and do this over IP.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

mattn2 said:


> I never said that you'd be billed or even have acces to this CABLEMODEM for your internet use. It is just a quick solution using existing hardware and infrastructure and not having to re-invent the wheel.


I know the hardware bill of materials on a cablemodem would be several times that of the dongle. It's also significantly more software work in the host device (ie TiVo) to support an arbitrary cablemodem than a dedicated dongle. Plus, the cablemodem would need new firmware to allow it to send traffic that would be prohibited under normal use. Also, not all cablemodems have USB connections.

Oh, and my guess for when the dongle can hit beta testing? Q407!
When will it really be supported by cablecos depends on if it just looks like a normal bidirectional device to the node or not. If it requires any changes to the cable infrastructure, it could take years, but I think that would be a non-starter anyway. Now that I think about it, you could see the dongle in retail by THIS Christmas.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

GoHokies! said:


> Exactly. It isn't a huge issue, but why open a can of worms that you don't have to? There isn't a compelling reason to try and do this over IP.


I'd say there is an advantage if the device hosting the dongle already has an IP stack since the programing interfaces will be there and the programmers will be using a paradigm they are used to. I'd hope any IP-based protocol would be closer to DHCP than SIP, though.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

So is the dongle just extra logic or will we have to have a splitter and send the cable both to the dongle and the tivo unit.

I hope not.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

zalusky said:


> So is the dongle just extra logic or will we have to have a splitter and send the cable both to the dongle and the tivo unit.
> 
> I hope not.


 Let's not get picky about it now. 1st step is to have a solution that works and is reasonably priced - then worry about other details...


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

moyekj said:


> Let's not get picky about it now. 1st step is to have a solution that works and is reasonably priced - then worry about other details...


Well, the thought of having to split the cable line at *every* TiVo that needs a dongle (  ) is a problem for many people as their signals are marginal - at best. If it won't work with a signal amp, then it _really_ would be a problem. With that said...

Let's hope for the best, and be glad that a solution is in the works.

My prediction for dongle availability (  ) is within six months.


----------



## nathanziarek (Sep 1, 2006)

pmiranda said:


> Now that I think about it, you could see the dongle in retail by THIS Christmas.


I love the hope. I disagree with it, but I love it.


----------



## nathanziarek (Sep 1, 2006)

zalusky said:


> So is the dongle just extra logic or will we have to have a splitter and send the cable both to the dongle and the tivo unit.


I don't know about the technology of it all, but I'd guess it would sit "inline." At least, in terms of user interaction and setting the thing up, that'd be the easiest way to go.


```
----cable----{}----SDV thingy----{}----TiVo
                        |               |
                        -------USB-------
```
Of course, I am thinking this device can be as small as a signal amplifier, and it may be as big as a cable modem, for all I know.

Anyway, I guess that is nitpicking. Just get it to us and then work on making it svelte.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Let's not get picky about it now. 1st step is to have a solution that works and is reasonably priced - then worry about other details...


Reasonably priced? From something that comes from your cable company? Or Tivo?


----------



## mike_camden (Dec 11, 2006)

DCIFRTHS said:


> Well, the thought of having to split the cable line at *every* TiVo that needs a dongle (  ) is a problem for many people as their signals are marginal - at best. If it won't work with a signal amp, then it _really_ would be a problem. With that said...


I agree. Based on multiple posts here, it appears that the Tivo HD's (and maybe the S3) RF front end is very sensitive to signal quality issues and may not even handle signals at the far end of the spec range (that is based on a post I read yesterday in this forum, but I can't remember by whom). Who know what effect adding in a device that serves as a splitter that further attenuates the signal will have.

Seeing as how SDV willl probably prove to be a significant make or break issue for Tivo, I'm hopeful that they will test this device with marginal signals and come up with a solution _before_ it's released (unlike the cable card pixelation issue).


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

GoHokies! said:


> Exactly. It isn't a huge issue, but why open a can of worms that you don't have to? There isn't a compelling reason to try and do this over IP.


The compelling reason is an SDV Internet Gateway, if designed and implemented properly, would allow TiVo to use the existing ethernet port and broadband connection to tune the SDV channels with no additional hardware, no need to dig through the cables in the back of your media center and install a coax splitter (dealing with 50% loss of signal) and USB dongle, or install a small shunt coax from the USB dongle to existing S3/HD coax connection, possibly dealing with the USB dongle getting dislodged like some eSATA connections we've seen, avoid an added piece to purchase or lease possibly from the cable company, etc. etc.

In short it would be a pure software solution which does not require the user to do anything and would support all users with broadband connections.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Not to throw a kink into the works, but aren't there different SDV implementations? So that a solution would require either (1) a single protocol at the TiVo<->USB interface talking to a dongle that is configured for a specific cable system, or (2) cable-system-specific software in the TiVo talking to a single type of dongle(!), or (3) TiVo/dongle talking a new protocol for which all cable systems would have to implement support (not in this decade).


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Let's not get picky about it now. 1st step is to have a solution that works and is reasonably priced - then worry about other details...


As people have mentioned its important to talk about this now because they haven't started to mass produce them yet.

Signal sensitivity is a big thing. I installed a structured wiring system(containing RG6QS coax) and a channel vision splitter and I still have problems with some channels like TNTHD.

A lot of people had problems with Enet connectivity and had to replace their hub or use a USB dongle.

Its important they get this right and not low bid the components. I will pay extra dollars for a quality dongle so I dont have to replace amplifiers and everything else later.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

sfhub said:


> The compelling reason is an SDV Internet Gateway, if designed and implemented properly, would allow TiVo to use the existing ethernet port and broadband connection to tune the SDV channels with no additional hardware, no need to dig through the cables in the back of your media center and install a coax splitter (dealing with 50% loss of signal) and USB dongle, or install a small shunt coax from the USB dongle to existing S3/HD coax connection, possibly dealing with the USB dongle getting dislodged like some eSATA connections we've seen, avoid an added piece to purchase or lease possibly from the cable company, etc. etc.
> 
> In short it would be a pure software solution which does not require the user to do anything and would support all users with broadband connections.


No reason for the splitter if Nathan's excellent suggestion is implemented, and USB doesn't have the same type I/type II issues that esata has.

The one time install may be a bit of a pain, but if it comes down to work for you to install or work for the cable company to try and secure an SDV internet gateway, which do you think that cable would choose?  (not to mention Charles' issues *may *mean there needs to be dongle<->SDV equipment pairing at the hardware level)


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

GoHokies! said:


> if it comes down to work for you to install or work for the cable company to try and secure an SDV internet gateway, which do you think that cable would choose?


That's a complete separate point you are making which I've already stated I agree with.

My response was addressing the statement that there wasn't a compelling reason to do this over IP. If you wanted to qualify that statement by saying there wasn't a compelling reason for the cable company to do this by IP, I would agree.


GoHokies! said:


> (not to mention Charles' issues *may *mean there needs to be dongle<->SDV equipment pairing at the hardware level)


Charles issues have to do with the dongles and whether you can have one single dongle that works with all cable systems with the complexities of different systems hidden in TiVo software or if you need different dongles tailored to different SDV implementations.

An SDV Internet Gateway, if properly designed and implemented, could hide the complexity of underlying implementations with a software interface.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

sfhub said:


> My response was addressing the statement that there wasn't a compelling reason to do this over IP. If you wanted to qualify that statement by saying there wasn't a compelling reason for the cable company to do this by IP, I would agree.


I'm cool with that - with the cable companies making the decision and all, I kinda had that framework in my head but could have been more precise in my wording.  I think that we're pretty much in violent agreement here.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

nathanziarek said:


> ```
> ----cable----{}----SDV thingy----{}----TiVo
> |               |
> -------USB-------
> ```


This would make the most sense and cause the least amount of signal loss (though it would still cause some). It could even be powered by the USB slot (assuming it doesn't use much power).

The only issue I see with something so tiny is it might have trouble talking back to the head-end if there is a lot of noise on the line. My cable modem frequently has to shout pretty loud (high upstream dBmV) and I'm not sure a tiny little device like that would be powerful enough.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

morac said:


> This would make the most sense and cause the least amount of signal loss (though it would still cause some). It could even be powered by the USB slot (assuming it doesn't use much power).
> 
> The only issue I see with something so tiny is it might have trouble talking back to the head-end if there is a lot of noise on the line. My cable modem frequently has to shout pretty loud (high upstream dBmV) and I'm not sure a tiny little device like that would be powerful enough.


 If it does need quite significant power then it probably would need it's own power adapter and could not draw power from USB interface, which would add quite significantly to it's size and inconvenience for hooking it up. So based on speculation so far this device may potentially need an RF input and output, a USB interface and potentially it's own power source.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

morac said:


> The only issue I see with something so tiny is it might have trouble talking back to the head-end if there is a lot of noise on the line. My cable modem frequently has to shout pretty loud (high upstream dBmV) and I'm not sure a tiny little device like that would be powerful enough.


Size is unimportant, it's just a question of if the 5V and 500mA provided by a USB host is enough... it should be.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

pmiranda said:


> ...Now that I think about it, you could see the dongle in retail by THIS Christmas.


Sorry to break the bubble, but nothing is sold retail or available in most distribution channels in a Christmas season if it hasn't already been produced and shipped to major Distribution Centers by September that year.

Unless this "dongle" has already been actually developed and prototyped, we will be lucky to have one by Christmas 2008. To be available this Christmas, it would have already been designed, prototyped, tested, and then sent to manufacturing by September.

Also, don't assume it will be sold via retail. Even though I hate the model, the cablecard distribution/mgmt model is likely the one that the cable companies will use...that said, I would like nothing more than the dongles to come from the CE manufacturers alongside and already tested with the unit in question. Unless SDV is implemented identically in all cable systems, this dongle will likely have to come from the cable company to insure that it works with the appropriate head-end (...thus the cable card scenario).

This all said, this thread is certainly an interesting academic excercise, but no one should discern the discussion of the technical feasbility of a dongle in this thread from the actual process it will take to actually make the dongle a reality.

So unless something is actually in development now (which I hope), the idea of having something available in the coming 12 months is very weak. Something in the 12-18 month timeframe is possible...assuming they've started the design and development sometime around...oh say, now.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

I ain't no engineer, actually know very little about the hardware side (30 years in software development), but this doesn't sound like something that would require 12-18 months of development and launch.

I'm the optomist who believes that this has already been designed and ready for manufacture and testing and was only awaiting approval. I'm sticking with the expectation of a launch by Comcast in the first quarter of 2008.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You're right: You're an optimist. This was just a bunch of discussions until that last week or so. The next step after discussions is to convert the technical requirements into design specifications. We have no reason to believe that that work has not yet started, but we also have no reason to believe that that work is even close to completion yet.


----------



## mike_camden (Dec 11, 2006)

bicker said:


> You're right: You're an optimist. This was just a bunch of discussions until that last week or so. The next step after discussions is to convert the technical requirements into design specifications. We have no reason to believe that that work has not yet started, but we also have no reason to believe that that work is even close to completion yet.


Well, we do have the English language to lead us to the conclusion that such a product has already been developed or the development process in currently going on.

Specifically, from the article linked by the OP, see this statement (emphasis added by me):



> The NCTA said cable *has* worked with individual consumer-electronics makers ' it cited TiVo ' to develop a solution that can provide two-way switched digital video channels to unidirectional digital cable products.


Note that the NCTA used the past tense -- has worked; not will work (future) or is working (present). Hopefully, such meaning can be taken from NCTA's choice of words.

Of course, Comcast is a member of the NCTA, and they incorrectly use the past tense all of the time. For example they recently told me that they had already trained their CSRs, install techs, and dispatchers on cable card installations when in fact not a single one of the 20 or so that I talked with during my Tivo installation debacle had been trained and only two knew anything at all about cable card installations (they should have used future tense such as we WILL train our people .. when pigs fly). Another example could be when I was told by three separate Comcast CSRs that they had fixed their billing mistakes on my account when they had the incorrect subscription info. They should have used the future tense, such as we will fix your billing info ... after you call a fourth time. 

So I guess that sometimes one's proper use of the English language may not be an accurate reflection of reality.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

mike_camden said:


> Note that the NCTA used the past tense -- has worked; not will work (future) or is working (present).


I've 'worked' on a heck of a lot of things that are no where near complete and will likely never complete. Don't read too much into 'worked'. It is like the old saying. "I never miss a 'start' milestone."


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

Reasonably priced??? I think it's BS to have to pay for something that allows access to channels that I *should* be receiving any way... Just my .02


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

dolfer said:


> Reasonably priced??? I think it's BS to have to pay for something that allows access to channels that I *should* be receiving any way... Just my .02


 :up: :up: :up:

Exactly, it should not cost anything!


----------



## nathanziarek (Sep 1, 2006)

Maybe, _maybe_, the dongle will be included with the cablecard rental fee, but I doubt it. With any luck we'll get mcards and the dongle at the same time, and it'll be a sum zero kind of thing.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

nathanziarek said:


> Maybe, _maybe_, the dongle will be included with the cablecard rental fee, but I doubt it. With any luck we'll get mcards and the dongle at the same time, and it'll be a sum zero kind of thing.


I don't mind paying for a piece of hardware that wasn't in the box I bought, but TiVo would be smart to give them to subscribers and sell them for a modest fee to users of other OCUR devices that can use them. The last thing in the world I want is to depend on the cableco to rent it, much less supply it at any cost.

Unlike cablecards, the dongle shouldn't need any user or even system specific setup. All the authentication is in the cablecard, the dongle should be just a dumb transmitter.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

pmiranda said:


> Unlike cablecards, the dongle shouldn't need any user or even system specific setup.


But SOMETHING would have to be system-specific. The SDV protocol used between the set-top box and the head end varies between systems.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

CharlesH said:


> But SOMETHING would have to be system-specific. The SDV protocol used between the set-top box and the head end varies between systems.


Question is whether the system specific stuff happens in TiVo software drivers, in the USB dongle, or there is some middleware interface that hides the differences.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Slightly related topic... are CE manufacturers still interested in using CableCARD technology anyway? I could easily see where this product would be ideal in non-TiVo recorders such as DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray with or without harddrives, but I wonder if they will do so? It would be good for TVs too, but since it's only dual tuner anyway, people seem to be OK with having a box for it, so an integrated CableCARD solution that would need an extra USB stick somewhere seems more than a bit impractical.

Are TiVo fighting this battle mostly alone with some token support from the CE manufacturers, or do they really have a stake in it?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mike_camden said:


> Note that the NCTA used the past tense -- has worked; not will work (future) or is working (present). Hopefully, such meaning can be taken from NCTA's choice of words.


They're referring to a "solution", not a technical implementation of that solution. I met with customers last week and we worked out a solution to their need. Now, this week, I'm working on technical specifications for the solution. Next week, I'll do some design specifications. Then, in early October, we'll begin coding the solution. We'll test it in November, and perhaps have it ready for our January release. And I assure you, it is no where near as complicated as what Comcast and TiVo are talking about.



mike_camden said:


> So I guess that sometimes one's proper use of the English language may not be an accurate reflection of reality.


I think, rather, sometimes some folks read way too much into the written or spoken word, perhaps as a reflection of wishful thinking.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dolfer said:


> Reasonably priced??? I think it's BS to have to pay for something that allows access to channels that I *should* be receiving any way...


Yet that's also wishful thinking. Very often pricing is split into a flat fee plus a variable fee based on grade of service. In the case of cable, that split is between equipment rental (flat fee, and sometimes no charge) and number of channels included in your package (variable fee). Different equipment often have different capabilities with regard to which channels they provide access to. No equipment (no fee) provides access only to local channels, even if your cable package (variable fee) includes other channels. You have to have either a digital STB (flat fee) or CableCard(s) (flat fee, possibly multiple) in order to access encrypted channels that may be included in your cable package (variable fee). In this case, some channels would require not only CableCard(s) (flat fee, possibly multiple) but also the dongle (a second or third flat fee).


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> Yet that's also wishful thinking. Very often pricing is split into a flat fee plus a variable fee based on grade of service. In the case of cable, that split is between equipment rental (flat fee, and sometimes no charge) and number of channels included in your package (variable fee). Different equipment often have different capabilities with regard to which channels they provide access to. No equipment (no fee) provides access only to local channels, even if your cable package (variable fee) includes other channels. You have to have either a digital STB (flat fee) or CableCard(s) (flat fee, possibly multiple) in order to access encrypted channels that may be included in your cable package (variable fee). In this case, some channels would require not only CableCard(s) (flat fee, possibly multiple) but also the dongle (a second or third flat fee).


As long as all of what you just said amounts to .50 or less per month, I am on board!


----------



## 1003 (Jul 14, 2000)

*Maybe*
even a dollar a month, but absolutely no more than that. A clear and positive statement on this and/or addressing QAM mapping to digital broadcast data by TiVo means I immediately run to my local dealer for a heaping helping of TiVo HD goodness...


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

And I guess we can assume that will $1 per month per Tivo.


----------



## mike_camden (Dec 11, 2006)

bicker said:


> I think, rather, sometimes some folks read way too much into the written or spoken word, perhaps as a reflection of wishful thinking.


Reading too much into something is an _inference_ ; taking what someone actually says or writes at face value is different. I tend to take comments by companies and people who work for those companies (since they're acting as that comapny's representative if they are being paid to answer the phone) at their face value. When dealing with certain companies such as Comcast, this approach tends to lead to quite a bit of dissapointment, since I have found the word of most Comcast employees to be basically worthless. I would much rather have a representative of a company tell that they don't know but will look into it and get back to me (and actually do get back to me) than to outright lie. Unfortunately, it appears that in my experience at least, very few Comcast CSRs are either trained in this approach or it is not enforced by management. You can take that for whatever you want, but it's a far cry from inference.

On the subject of the thread itself -- This statement  on Tivo's Support website leads me to believe that at least some actual product development has occured.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

mike_camden said:


> taking what someone actually says or writes at face value is different. I tend to take comments by companies and people who work for those companies (since they're acting as that comapny's representative if they are being paid to answer the phone) at their face value.


You are basing your whole argument on the word and tense of "worked". This is enough wiggle room in that word that it could mean anything. Like I said earlier, it means nothing about the completion of a task. I worked on painting my house. What can you take from this statement about when I will be done?


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

nathanziarek said:


> I don't know about the technology of it all, but I'd guess it would sit "inline." At least, in terms of user interaction and setting the thing up, that'd be the easiest way to go.
> 
> ```
> ----cable----{}----SDV thingy----{}----TiVo
> ...


This would also permit the construction of devices like:

```
tin cans and string --- TCSDV box ----- coax ---  TiVo
                           |                        |
                           +----------USB ----------+
```
Or any other technology between the video provider and the intermediate box. Like IP TV, or satellite, or ...


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

sommerfeld said:


> This would also permit the construction of devices like:
> 
> ```
> tin cans and string --- TCSDV box ----- coax ---  TiVo
> ...


Well the picture and flow diagram would permit it, but the price point wouldn't be in the same league. The new box in your picture is doing a whole lot more than the USB SDV dongle would be doing.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

I'm particularly interested in your tin cans and string technology!


----------



## mike_camden (Dec 11, 2006)

ah30k said:


> You are basing your whole argument on the word and tense of "worked". This is enough wiggle room in that word that it could mean anything. Like I said earlier, it means nothing about the completion of a task. I worked on painting my house. What can you take from this statement about when I will be done?


No, I'm basing my argument on the fact that they used this language in an official filing with the FCC. When a company issues such a filing with a regulatory body such as the FCC, isn't there a reasonable expectation that they actually have a product close to being ready to launch? Otherwise, why call attention to it with a regulatory body and open yourself up to repeated and increasingly more painful questioning.

I am not a software or hardware engineer as some here, but I do have a decent amount of experience with a couple of federal regulatory bodies, and I do know that they tend to frown on unreasonable delays with a product being launched once they have been officially informed that it is being developed,especially when a member of Congress has expresssed concern. Once a company shines a light on such a product to a regulatory agency, the stop watch starts ticking. However, my experiences are with two agencies other than the FCC, so maybe it's different with them.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

mike_camden said:


> No, I'm basing my argument on the fact that they used this language in an official filing with the FCC.


What filing again, could you lpease refer me to the quote you are talking about.


mike_camden said:


> When a company issues such a filing with a regulatory body such as the FCC, isn't there a reasonable expectation that they actually have a product close to being ready to launch?


No, the expectation is that they are truthful and nothing else. If you read into that that they are very very close to an SDV solution and run out and buy two or three more TiVos then that is your problem.


mike_camden said:


> I am not a software or hardware engineer as some here, but I do have a decent amount of experience with a couple of federal regulatory bodies, and I do know that they tend to frown on unreasonable delays with a product being launched once they have been officially informed that it is being developed,especially when a member of Congress has expresssed concern.


Oh, let's see, like the forever development cycle of the CableCARD itself? Oh yes, that was rolled out quickly after it was first announced.


----------



## mike_camden (Dec 11, 2006)

ah30k said:


> What filing again, could you lpease refer me to the quote you are talking about.


Well, the filing that this entire thread is referring to. These weren't just comments or promises made by the NCTA; they were quotes taken out of an official filing to the FCC. If you're going to argue the points I make, it might be worthwhile if you actually clicked on the links I offered.

For example, this one that I offered, is from tivo's Webiste that directs the reader to the official filing by NCTA: http://customersupport.tivo.com/TiV...8de-4b74-82c1-754c3260112a/ins_Content.html#?

The official filing by the NCTA is here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519612942 For this document, please ignore the 2006 date on the front page (it's a typo as Megazone points out here: http://www.tivolovers.com/2007/08/27/more-hope-for-sdv-on-tivo-series3-and-tivo-hd/).

So no; it's not just my wishful thinking. This is a case in which an industry has voluntarily offered an official filing to a regulatory agency stating that they have worked on developing a solution to a problem (that has already received Congressional attention -- http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6441564.html). this filing is being offered by the NCTA at least partially to convince the FCC to reject a competing propsal for handling SDV by the CEA.

Like I said before, I'm not a developer, so I may not be as cognizant of the steps and timelines as some others here. But I have played the political regulation game, and unless the FCC is significantly different than the two regulatory bodies I have experience with ( I doubt they are since a bureaucrat is a bureaucrat regardless of what he or she is regulating), it's a major no-no to offer this kind of solution in a filing (especially with Congressional interest), and not be able to back it up in the near future.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

mike_camden said:


> If you're going to argue the points I make, it might be worthwhile if you actually clicked on the links I offered.


Sorry, your point makes no sense and me reading hundred of pages of filings won't change that.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

mike_camden said:


> Well, the filing that this entire thread is referring to. These weren't just comments or promises made by the NCTA; they were quotes taken out of an official filing to the FCC. If you're going to argue the points I make, it might be worthwhile if you actually clicked on the links I offered.
> 
> For example, this one that I offered, is from tivo's Webiste that directs the reader to the official filing by NCTA: http://customersupport.tivo.com/TiV...8de-4b74-82c1-754c3260112a/ins_Content.html#?
> 
> ...


Working = still in progress
Developing a solution = still not out

By "working on developing a solution" that could mean they're still talking with Tivo and nothing's been done. After all, Tivo itself is still "working on developing" MRV and TTG with CableLabs. Nothing out yet.

Given Cable's past history with foot dragging on CC and everything else that isn't "their way or the highway" mentality you honestly believe that they AND Tivo have actually finalized something at this point? At BEST, they're "still working on it".


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

mike_camden said:


> I am not a software or hardware engineer as some here, but I do have a decent amount of experience with a couple of federal regulatory bodies, and I do know that they tend to frown on unreasonable delays with a product being launched once they have been officially informed that it is being developed,especially when a member of Congress has expresssed concern. Once a company shines a light on such a product to a regulatory agency, the stop watch starts ticking. However, my experiences are with two agencies other than the FCC, so maybe it's different with them.


Must have been some CableCARD exception to the rule


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mike_camden said:


> Reading too much into something is an _inference_ ; taking what someone actually says or writes at face value is different.


My point was that what some people perceive as taking someone else at face value is really reading way too much into the written or spoken word. Also, there is the matter of context and perspective: Insisting that everything a CSR says be treated the same as if it was a press release put out by the corporate office is also reading way too much into the written or spoken word. CSRs are definitive sources of information on current offerings and current billing. Customers, and especially the threat of being reported to supervisors for being unwilling to provide information, intimidates CSRs into addressing whatever issue the customer chooses to interrogate the CSR regarding, and that invariably leads to reading way too much into the written or spoken word, and therefore disappointment.



mike_camden said:


> I tend to take comments by companies and people who work for those companies (since they're acting as that comapny's representative if they are being paid to answer the phone) at their face value.


My advice is DON'T: Take what a CSR says about anything other than their actual job (i.e., current offerings and current billing) with a grain of salt. That will improve your level of satisfaction.



mike_camden said:


> On the subject of the thread itself -- This statement  on Tivo's Support website leads me to believe that at least some actual product development has occured.


That absolutely indicates that you're reading way too much into the written word. You're definitely not taking that statement at face value, but rather placing meaning on the statement far beyond what it actually says. Development of a "solution" is NOT development of the "technical implementation of that solution", which is what we were explicitly talking about.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ah30k said:


> I worked on painting my house. What can you take from this statement about when I will be done?


Good example. Part of "working on painting our house" included meeting with the painter, choosing colors and such. THEN, he gave us a price quote and THEN he started talking with us about scheduling the actual implementation of the work, i.e., applying paint to walls.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mike_camden said:


> When a company issues such a filing with a regulatory body such as the FCC, isn't there a reasonable expectation that they actually have a product close to being ready to launch?


No. Where did you get such an idea? (Perhaps you were reading too much into something else? )



mike_camden said:


> Otherwise, why call attention to it with a regulatory body and open yourself up to repeated and increasingly more painful questioning.


I think it is reasonable for companies to just say what they want to say and decline to provide further details. So in the end, what you're referring to may be painful to you, but not to them, especially since the vast majority of customers generally don't care about a product until after it is actually offered.



mike_camden said:


> I am not a software or hardware engineer as some here, but I do have a decent amount of experience with a couple of federal regulatory bodies, and I do know that they tend to frown on unreasonable delays with a product being launched once they have been officially informed that it is being developed,especially when a member of Congress has expresssed concern.


I'm sorry, but with respect, I think you're either making that up or are referring to something that has no relevance to this issue. The FCC doesn't care one bit about timing of product introduction. If timing mattered, they'd simply put deadlines into the regulations.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

bicker said:


> If timing mattered, they'd simply put deadlines into the regulations.


They put deadlines in their regulations all the time, last sale of devices with NTSC-only OTA tuners for example. They also had a deadline for when cable company STBs must use cable cards.


----------



## mike_camden (Dec 11, 2006)

bicker said:


> I'm sorry, but with respect, I think you're either making that up or are referring to something that has no relevance to this issue. The FCC doesn't care one bit about timing of product introduction. If timing mattered, they'd simply put deadlines into the regulations.


And here's a situation in which I believe you are ignorant of the politics involved in the working of regulatory bodies. Regulatory agencies put deadlines on the implementation of their regulations all of the time; sometimes they even enforce those deadlines  Congressional interest in an issue (regardless of an already established deadline) tunrs the heat up on all parties. When a Congressman started questioning SDV implementation by cable in May, that greatly eased my fears of buying a Tivo -- controlling the purse strings of an agency can really help to refocus attention and the companies involved are as aware of this as the regulatory body.

Again, my experiences are with federal agencies other than the FCC, so maybe it doesn't work the same in this realm, but I really find it hard to believe that it would be that different with any group of bureaucrats.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Mike - don't let bicker get to you. 

Your points were well taken and I read the FCC filing and the Tivo comments the same way - things are certainly well beyond the "we have an idea on how to solve this" stage.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

vman41 said:


> They put deadlines in their regulations all the time, last sale of devices with NTSC-only OTA tuners for example. They also had a deadline for when cable company STBs must use cable cards.


Precisely.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mike_camden said:


> And here's a situation in which I believe you are ignorant of the politics involved in the working of regulatory bodies.


I used to work for a regulatory body (though, like you, not the FCC). I'm saying what I'm saying is true _despite_ the politics involved. You're asserting that there is a time limit -- an assertion for which there is simply no foundation.



mike_camden said:


> Regulatory agencies put deadlines on the implementation of their regulations all of the time; sometimes they even enforce those deadlines


And my point is that when they don't put in deadlines, then there aren't any beyond those imposed by the marketplace. (Eventually, the product being discussed won't even be relevant.)



mike_camden said:


> Congressional interest in an issue (regardless of an already established deadline) tunrs the heat up on all parties.


That's effectively non-sequitur. Again, with respect, there is a lot of innuendo and conspiracy woven into what you're writing, and again, I see no foundation for any of it. I think you are going to have to be more concrete and specific in what you're saying for it to really hold water.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

jrm01 said:


> I ain't no engineer, actually know very little about the hardware side (30 years in software development), but this doesn't sound like something that would require 12-18 months of development and launch.
> 
> I'm the optomist who believes that this has already been designed and ready for manufacture and testing and was only awaiting approval. I'm sticking with the expectation of a launch by Comcast in the first quarter of 2008.


I love your optimism...but it's unrealistic.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

d_anders said:


> I love your optimism...but it's unrealistic.


I also believe that if the Pirates win their last 23 games they will be in the playoffs.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> I'm sticking with the expectation of a launch by Comcast in the first quarter of 2008.


thats a pretty high expectation. They signed a deal with tivo in 2005 for their software, its almost 2008. And being in software for the last 11 years, 2+ years development time to port it to new hardware seems like an awfully longtime dont you think? Comcast is always late with their new stuff. Id be amazed if you saw this solution 1st qtr 2009. By then, their will be a standard for 2way coms and tivo will be putting a new box out with the hardware and software to support it.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Since I didn't have cable HD before today, I didn't care. Now I say DAMN YOU TIVO, hurry up!


----------



## StuffOfInterest (Jul 18, 2007)

DCIFRTHS said:


> Well, the thought of having to split the cable line at *every* TiVo that needs a dongle (  ) is a problem for many people as their signals are marginal - at best. If it won't work with a signal amp, then it _really_ would be a problem. With that said...


Rather than a splitter they could use a tap. A tap only takes a small percentage of the signal so the main channel is not seriously degraded. For that matter, the tap could be built into the dongle itself so your cable would hit the dongle and then continue from there on up to the TiVo.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

StuffOfInterest said:


> Rather than a splitter they could use a tap. A tap only takes a small percentage of the signal so the main channel is not seriously degraded. For that matter, the tap could be built into the dongle itself so your cable would hit the dongle and then continue from there on up to the TiVo.


Another factor is that only the low frequency band used for the reverse data channel needs to be split out.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

so would it be more like a diplexer then a splitter?


----------



## ares (Mar 4, 2007)

CharlesH said:


> Ummm.. *I* don't have a cable modem. I have a DSL modem. So any Internet connection would be out through the wild Internet.
> 
> Am I the only S3 user getting their broadband through DSL? So many of these posts begin with "use the TiVo ethernet connection to your cable modem" that I am wondering if I am in the miniscule minority.


assuming i had an s3, i'd be in the same camp as you, as i prefer my isp to be an internet *service* provider instead of an internet *content* provider. i've personally got a netblock of 16 ip's which i couldn't get from any cable company anywhere for the price i pay my isp for them.


----------



## bradcapo2 (Aug 3, 2009)

Thanks for sharing this useful information. It's great.


----------



## bradcapo2 (Aug 3, 2009)

Cheers and we look forward to your Forum Favourites selections!


----------

