# New House Bill Could Doom TiVo



## vinsuz (Aug 13, 2007)

This article is from April and may not be news to some, but the cable companies, lead by Comcast, want to do away with regulations for a single anti-signal-theft standard so they can get rid of independent set-top box makers like TiVo, Ruku, and Google:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/tivo-tries-to-keep-remote-interest-over-cable-lobbying.html

Lobbyists for the bill have doled out over $38 MILLION, while TiVo has only mustered $700k. We need a grassroots movement like that of Net Neutrality to tell our lawmakers to protect the consumers, not the multi-billion dollar corporations.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I don't see what the issue is with retaining the current standard. AFAIK, there has been no success in hacking the encryption standard used by digital cable providers with cablecard devices.


----------



## Mister B (Jan 23, 2011)

It does not appear that this would affect the use of a Tivo with an antenna, but I doubt if Tivo could survive with just us OTA folks.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mr.unnatural said:


> I don't see what the issue is with retaining the current standard. AFAIK, there has been no success in hacking the encryption standard used by digital cable providers with cablecard devices.


Cable companies claim that it is too expensive. Basically, they want to increase their profits by cutting out the expense of complying with the CableCard standard. As an added bonus, they would be able to completely kill off 3rd party devices being used with their video streams.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

The real issue is that the TV delivery industry is moving on from the current linear broadcasting, QAM based signal. AT&T are already delivering TV via IP steams. Verizon has been talking about doing the same. Comcast has it on their roadmap. It isn't that the current system is insecure, they want to do away with the whole set top box governed conditional access system. Instead of having the decryption and CA technology in silicon in the box, they want to be able to control delivery via software. The catch is that there is no agreed upon standard for such control. TiVo could be faced with dozens of different systems, and their ability to implement many, if not all of them, will depend upon the cooperation of the cable providers. This won't be easy since many of them also plan to move the DVR function to their servers, and have the customer end just be a simple data stream.

TiVo is, I believe, fully aware of this trend. This is at least part of the reason they are developing a cloud based version of the TiVo software. The Roamio may be the last actual DVR device TiVo makes.

But, if a new, software based, open system is selected, then TiVo would be able to build DVRs around that. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like anyone in government actually understands the issues, so the odds of a good outcome are slim.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Mister B said:


> It does not appear that this would affect the use of a Tivo with an antenna, but I doubt if Tivo could survive with just us OTA folks.


More importantly for this conversation, TiVo can't survive (in a form they want) with just us retail folks. TiVo's future is with the software running on cable company boxes, whether made by TiVo, Pace, or whoever.

I suspect that TiVo wants to cast the main conflict as not TiVo versus the cable companies, but instead TiVo and the second tier cable companies versus the first tier cable companies.

I don't see TiVo fighting to the bitter end to preserve the independent retail market; that's not the most important thing to them anymore.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> More importantly for this conversation, TiVo can't survive (in a form they want) with just us retail folks. TiVo's future is with the software running on cable company boxes, whether made by TiVo, Pace, or whoever.
> 
> I suspect that TiVo wants to cast the main conflict as not TiVo versus the cable companies, but instead TiVo and the second tier cable companies versus the first tier cable companies.
> 
> I don't see TiVo fighting to the bitter end to preserve the independent retail market; that's not the most important thing to them anymore.


Quite true. They can't make money off of the retail market alone, unfortunately.

CableCard will be around as long as QAM is, so I'm not too worried about that. I'd have no issue with getting rid of the separable security requirement, as long as they are still required to support CableCards for user-owned equipment.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Keep in mind that most STBs distributed by cable companies have CableCards inside them. All those millions of boxes would have to be replaced before they can abandon CableCards for something else.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> Keep in mind that most STBs distributed by cable companies have CableCards inside them. All those millions of boxes would have to be replaced before they can abandon CableCards for something else.


Over a 6 year time period they replaces all the analog boxes with digital boxes in the last big replacement, and (at least Comcast CT) is supporting non cable card digital boxes now along with the new Comcast cable card boxes. So if this bill should pass I am sure that Comcast and most other MSO would go back to non cable card boxes but not replace the cable card boxes already in use as the head end is set up for both types now why change. If IP cable delivery is the next big change than cable cards will remain until IP get fully implemented, at least 6 to 10 (or more) years from now. Even ATT IP cable does not have the resolution that most MSO have for network HDTV, and you can't tune unlimited ch at the same time with the IP ATT U-Verse, I have three Roamios each with 6 tuners, so I could tune up to 18 shows at the same time, I don't do that, but I also don't worry about how the rest of my family sets up their Roamios as I have no reason to coronate season passes between TiVos in my home as I don't care if the same program is recorded twice or more on different TiVos..


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Diana Collins said:


> Keep in mind that most STBs distributed by cable companies have CableCards inside them. All those millions of boxes would have to be replaced before they can abandon CableCards for something else.


Not necessarily. They could simply disable the CableCARD and switch to downloadable security via software. That's one of the reasons they want downloadable security, it's backwards compatible. Although in that case TiVo could support it too, but if there is no industry standard then they might be stuck supporting multiple standards for multiple cable companies.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Not necessarily. They could simply disable the CableCARD and switch to downloadable security via software. That's one of the reasons they want downloadable security, it's backwards compatible. Although in that case TiVo could support it too, but if there is no industry standard then they might be stuck supporting multiple standards for multiple cable companies.


You think that MSO cable card digital boxes have both systems built into them ?? or do you think that the cable card is not connected to anything in the MSO box and the MSO is still using downloadable security ??

I not trying to be sarcastic but what a deal if the MSO just used the existing digital cable box and had a slot cut into the back that went nowhere, mounted a fake cable card in that slot, great idea.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

No they have CableCARDs in them now, but if they switch to a downloadable security scheme they could possibly disable the CC and switch to a downloadable scheme via a software update. Depends on how the downloadable scheme works and if it has any special hardware requirements. (i.e. crypto chip, etc...) If it's pure software then there is no reason they can't update older boxes to use it.

Now the only reason I could see them doing that is so they could decommission CC completely and remove support on the backend. As long as they are required to support CC for consumer devices then there is no reason to put in the development effort. But Charter already has a waiver that says they can dump CC support completely as soon as they have one retail device using their new downloadable standard, so it's not so far fetched that CC could go away soon.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> No they have CableCARDs in them now, but if they switch to a downloadable security scheme they could possibly disable the CC and switch to a downloadable scheme via a software update. Depends on how the downloadable scheme works and if it has any special hardware requirements. (i.e. crypto chip, etc...) If it's pure software then there is no reason they can't update older boxes to use it.
> 
> Now the only reason I could see them doing that is so they could decommission CC completely and remove support on the backend. As long as they are required to support CC for consumer devices then there is no reason to put in the development effort. But Charter already has a waiver that says they can dump CC support completely as soon as they have one retail device using their new downloadable standard, so it's not so far fetched that CC could go away soon.


A lot of assumptions here. 1. That all of the CableCARD using devices can be updated remotely. 2. That they all have enough memory to contain the new code. 3. That the processor has sufficient power.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's why I said "not necessarily" and not "no".


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> That's why I said "not necessarily" and not "no".


Sorry, doesn't wash. You said:



> If it's pure software then there is no reason they can't update older boxes to use it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Why bother? They just want to stop the stupid rule to require that all boxes have CableCards. There is no reason that 95% of the customers need CableCard. As long as they still have it for my TiVo, they can use integrated security with no ill effects on anyone. They're looking at cost, they're not trying to get rid of TiVo.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The purpose of the integration ban was so that they were forced to use the same system as the retail devices to insure support. However it never really worked out that way. Even though they technically use the same technology they don't use the same activation process so it did not improve retail support much, if at all.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

While the newer STBs may have the required horsepower, I can't believe that all those SciAtl boxes (just to name one) that have been deployed can do it. I mean, they barely run the UI as it is. 

However, with a former cable company lobbyist running the FCC, I suspect they'll get whatever they want.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> No they have CableCARDs in them now, but if they switch to a downloadable security scheme they could possibly disable the CC and switch to a downloadable scheme via a software update. Depends on how the downloadable scheme works and if it has any special hardware requirements. (i.e. crypto chip, etc...) If it's pure software then there is no reason they can't update older boxes to use it.
> 
> Now the only reason I could see them doing that is so they could decommission CC completely and remove support on the backend. As long as they are required to support CC for consumer devices then there is no reason to put in the development effort. But Charter already has a waiver that says they can dump CC support completely as soon as they have one retail device using their new downloadable standard, so it's not so far fetched that CC could go away soon.


Do you really think it would be that simple? The Cablecard is intimately involved with almost every data bit that passes through the box. I find it hard to believe that they could reroute data to a software based alternative without completely rewriting the set top box software, if then.

It seems to me that it would be much simpler to just phase in software based security. It would do what they want - make the STBs cheaper to buy and deploy. Why spend more money revising and replacing systems that have already been paid for and deployed? As fully depreciated boxes come back from users that move or cancel service they'd dump them and buy the new systems. Over the course of a several years they'd get most of them, and then they could go proactive and replace the remaining boxes in customer's hands.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

These boxes already do decryption. The way a CableCARD works is it decrypts the channel you want and then it re-encrypts it using a key it has negotiated with the host. The host then decrypts the signal again and displays it. So all of these boxes already have hardware to do decryption, all they need is a software update so they can negotiate the key directly with the head end instead of the card.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> These boxes already do decryption. The way a CableCARD works is it decrypts the channel you want and then it re-encrypts it using a key it has negotiated with the host. The host then decrypts the signal again and displays it. So all of these boxes already have hardware to do decryption, all they need is a software update so they can negotiate the key directly with the head end instead of the card.


But wouldn't negotiating an encryption key directly between the box and the headend mean that each box would expect a different key? My understanding was that the encryption used from headend to Cablecard is always using a public key that's the same across all boxes and customers at any given point in time. The card pairing process is actually running code in the card that negotiates a private key (based in part on a value in the STB hardware - the HostID, IIRC) which is the used to re-encrypt the programming. Without the Cablecard as intermediary, I don't see how you get the STB decryption to work with encryption that uses a completely arbitrary (as far as the STB is concerned) key. The STB decryption will want the key to be derivable from its own seed values, but that won't work with the headend since every box has a different seed value.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The public key is stored in the stream and rotates every few seconds. The card is programed with the private key via an OOB message when you pair it to your account. The card then decrypts the stream and re-encrypts it using a key it negotiated with the host device. The host device then decrypts that for display or re-encrypts it again for storage. 

The part that determines which channels you are allowed to receive and which host device it's allowed to talk to is handled via another OOB message. 

A downloadable system would simply remove the CableCARD proxy and move the code that negotiates the keys, and handles conditional access, into software. This part would most likely work similar to OCAP, which is written in Java so it'll run on anything and downloads to the box automatically. The overhead of this part should be minimal and I doubt it would effect the performance of the host device.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Well, ok...you obviously understand how Cablecards work better than I do. However, I just have never seen a hardware based system replaced with a software system and not also seen major system changes, usually involving brand new hardware. Unless the STBs and the core OS were designed to allow for this architectural change from the start, I question whether current devices can be converted with just a software update. I mean, while these systems are very similar to computers, they are still CE devices. The engineers who design these devices usually opt for hardwiring and dedicated processes because it is cheaper and more reliable.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> Well, ok...*you obviously understand how Cablecards work better than I do.* However, I just have never seen a hardware based system replaced with a software system and not also seen major system changes, usually involving brand new hardware. Unless the STBs and the core OS were designed to allow for this architectural change from the start, I question whether current devices can be converted with just a software update. I mean, while these systems are very similar to computers, they are still CE devices. The engineers who design these devices usually opt for hardwiring and dedicated processes because it is cheaper and more reliable.


Why do you continue debate the issue when you don't have the slightest idea how cable cards work and the poster you're disputing does?


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

lew said:


> Why do you continue debate the issue when you don't have the slightest idea how cable cards work and the poster you're disputing does?


1) I'm not debating Cablecard functionality, I'm discussing systems architecture, which is something I've done professionally for 22 years.

2) If you don't like the discussion, don't read it.

Sorry if you are offended by a lowly girl discussing technical issues with all you smart guys.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

lew said:


> Why do you continue debate the issue when you don't have the slightest idea how cable cards work and the poster you're disputing does?


I don't think she is debating how the cable card works just that hardware designed for cable cards would not (most likely) be able to handle downloaded security as most dedicated electronic design is optimize for the job(s) it has to do now, it is not like a PC. It is possible that the design of these MSO boxes had the software/hardware also put into them so in the future the cable card could be removed and just software could be used for security, but that would have cost more and IMHO the MOS would not have spent that extra money for each box.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The purpose of the integration ban was so that they were forced to use the same system as the retail devices to insure support. However it never really worked out that way. Even though they technically use the same technology they don't use the same activation process so it did not improve retail support much, if at all.


Exactly. I think the idea was you could swap the CableCard between a Comcast box and a TiVo, but it doesn't work that way.

I don't see what the point of switching security methods on existing boxes is, the CableCards are already paid for, they may as well just let them chug along. As a side note, the pre-CableCard boxes are going to have to go if the cable companies want to upgrade their networks, as they don't support MPEG-4 channels, which are necessary from a bandwidth perspective.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Bigg said:


> I think the idea was you could swap the CableCard between a Comcast box and a TiVo, but it doesn't work that way.


Truthfully, it could work that way, and did, for me (with Cox). I swapped cards between a TiVo and a leased STB, that was only here for diagnostics, before TA/SDV came to the area and provided a return channel (from the TA).

I managed to get both working properly. Cox wasn't too happy when I announced I'd done it as a diagnostic procedure, of my own design.

The cards are the same. The TiVos and other retail cablecard devices are downstream-only, and the cablecard boots into "slow boot mode", when it detects it has been stuck inside a one-direction device.

I know that's not what you meant. I just wanted to share what I attempted, and succeeded in doing (besides making Cox very mad).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> I don't think she is debating how the cable card works just that hardware designed for cable cards would not (most likely) be able to handle downloaded security as most dedicated electronic design is optimize for the job(s) it has to do now, it is not like a PC. It is possible that the design of these MSO boxes had the software/hardware also put into them so in the future the cable card could be removed and just software could be used for security, but that would have cost more and IMHO the MOS would not have spent that extra money for each box.


That's true. But the system used by CableCARDs is pretty simple and "should" be easy to emulate in software. The only reason they didn't use a software solution for CableCARD is because it was designed in the late 90s when two way communication between box and headend was not even a thought. By the time it was actually deployed 2 way was common but the spec was set. CableCARD is using the same basic system that the earliest digital cable boxes used.



Bigg said:


> I don't see what the point of switching security methods on existing boxes is, the CableCards are already paid for, they may as well just let them chug along.


The cable companies want a downloadable option so that they can make cheaper boxes. The two reasons I can see for them to eliminate CableCARD support are...

1) Makes it easier to support on the backend when you're only supporting one technology

2) Because they can and it might drive more users to their leased equipment

The waiver for Charter says that they are allowed to develop a downloadable system as long as it is open, and that once there is at least one retail device on the market that uses it (no matter how sh*tty) they are allowed to stop deploying new CableCARDs. From then on they are required to continue to support all CableCARDs that are deployed, but if your card breaks they are not required to issue you a replacement. The worst part about it is that the FCC is requiring these systems to be open, but they are not requiring them to be interoperable. So, depending on how they work, it might make it so TiVo would need multiple boxes for different MSOs or a bunch of extra hardware/software in each box to support multiple systems.

When I decommissioned my extra Premiere unit I actually kept the CableCARD, at $2/mo, just because I'm worried about this and want a backup if one of the other ones break.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

If they are truly open, while TIvo might have to maintain multiple versions of the s/w, the code could be downloaded as part of guided setup.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

lpwcomp said:


> If they are truly open, while TIvo might have to maintain multiple versions of the s/w, the code could be downloaded as part of guided setup.


That's certainly theoretically possible. But how do you ensure it's practical?

The major cable companies will probably have many slightly different versions of the software out there, just because of variations in their physical plants. Who's responsible for tracking all the different versions?

If the software doesn't work, who's responsible for making changes? If TiVo, how do you ensure that TiVo has enough info to make the changes (since TiVo can't duplicate the physical plant of every cable franchise out there)?

When the cable companies make a change to their software, who is responsible for making sure the TiVo software still works? The cable companies are not going to allow TiVo to have veto power over all their changes. Who's responsible for making sure the timing of software changes works (when both cable franchise and TiVo software have to change together)? We've all seen how well cable franchises and TiVo/Tribune work together when channel lineups change - here we're talking about something more than just a couple of channels not working.

Why would the cable companies spend any effort to make sure a competitor is able to work well on their system? You've seen how well making one national standard be a legal requirement and having a separate cablecard institute in charge of that standard works (Not well). Having each cable company responsible for their own standard and their own software is guaranteed to be much worse - large parts of their software are going to be viewed as proprietary and they are not going to want to disclose to a competitor. Even the parts that are open software will have substantial problems - the physical and low-level layer assumptions are never adequately laid out. We've all seen lots of examples of standard obeying hardware not being able to interact properly.

If the cable companies couldn't get cablecards, with all their standards and testing, to work well, how do you expect them to work better with TiVo when they don't have to obey any standards?


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

good comments here. In my opinion, cable companies will soon just operate like Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu and will charge ala carte per channel, or discounts for packs of channels - all IP, and streaming to a small puck like a Roku. They'll mainly be internet companies selling subs for shows.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

The only way they will be selling content that way is if the content providers allow it. And currently the content providers require that other channels be purchased to get certain popular ones. I will be surprised if that changes anytime soon.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

CrispyCritter said:


> That's certainly theoretically possible. But how do you ensure it's practical?
> 
> The major cable companies will probably have many slightly different versions of the software out there, just because of variations in their physical plants. Who's responsible for tracking all the different versions?
> 
> ...


If it's really open, then they don't have to "spend any effort to make sure a competitor is able to work well on their system". If, as Dn203 keeps insisting, it can be easily implemented on the cable cos currently deployed h/w, then it can **** sure be just as easily implemented on TiVo.

CableCARDs do work fairly well for what they are designed to do. The only problems I've had in the 6+ years I have been using them is due to CSR ignorance/incompetence.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> CableCARDs do work fairly well for what they are designed to do. The only problems I've had in the 6+ years I have been using them is due to CSR ignorance/incompetence.


Why do you say* cable cards work fairly well*, from my experience once properly activated (and as you stated that in itself can be a problem) they just work, you receive all the stations you have paid for, what more could the cable card do as original designed ? If you saying a better cable card design could have been produced, that would be true of most anything.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

lessd said:


> Why do you say* cable cards work fairly well*, from my experience once properly activated (and as you stated that in itself can be a problem) they just work, you receive all the stations you have paid for, what more could the cable card do as original designed ? If you saying a better cable card design could have been produced, that would be true of most anything.


 What prompted this attack? Why not go after the poster who implied they work poorly at best? I was simply trying to reduce the possibility of creating a confrontation over CableCARDs. For one thing, this thread is about a possible s/w replacement for CableCARDs. I didn't anticipate that someone would object on the grounds that I was inadequate in my defense of CableCARDs.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> What prompted this attack? Why not go after the poster who implied they work poorly at best? I was simply trying to reduce the possibility of creating a confrontation over CableCARDs. For one thing, this thread is about a possible s/w replacement for CableCARDs. I didn't anticipate that someone would object on the grounds that I was inadequate in my defense of CableCARDs.


Not an attack, just wondered what problem you had with cable cards, other than the one time activation crap.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

lessd said:


> Not an attack, just wondered what problem you had with cable cards, other than the one time activation crap.


As I said,just an attempt to avoid starting a discussion about CableCARDS in this thread.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

CableCARDs work fine for the most part, although there have been issues with the firmware on some cards not allowing them to work properly with all 6 streams that they are suppose to support. And in those cases, even though an updated firmware exists to fix the problem, some MSOs have been slow to deploy the upgrade. 

In most instances the problems users have with CableCARDs are due to poor training of CSRs or the tuning adapter. The purpose of the integration ban was to make it so the setup procedure for MSO owned equipment and retail devices were the same, but it didn't work out that way. The MSO equipment is pre-activated by someone who knows what they are doing so the lowly CSRs and field techs don't have to do anything special to get them working. Retail CableCARD installs require them to access parts of the system they don't use much and are not always properly trained on. The second problem is the tuning adapter. As I mentioned above the CableCARD spec was designed before two way communication was even a thought. When MSOs first started deploying SDV TiVos, and other CableCARD devices, could not tune the channels at all. TiVo pushed hard and basically invented the tuning adapter to remedy this. Unfortunately because there are relatively few of them in the wild they are not well tested and the MSOs are not quick to take responsibility when there is a problem.

One positive thing that could come from this whole downloadable security thing is that it will at least be designed with two way communication in mind, which should eliminate the need for tuning adapters and "might" open up retail devices to VOD.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> CableCARDs work fine for the most part, although there have been issues with the firmware on some cards not allowing them to work properly with all 6 streams that they are suppose to support. And in those cases, even though an updated firmware exists to fix the problem, some MSOs have been slow to deploy the upgrade.
> 
> In most instances the problems users have with CableCARDs are due to poor training of CSRs or the tuning adapter. The purpose of the integration ban was to make it so the setup procedure for MSO owned equipment and retail devices were the same, but it didn't work out that way. The MSO equipment is pre-activated by someone who knows what they are doing so the lowly CSRs and field techs don't have to do anything special to get them working. Retail CableCARD installs require them to access parts of the system they don't use much and are not always properly trained on. The second problem is the tuning adapter. As I mentioned above the CableCARD spec was designed before two way communication was even a thought. When MSOs first started deploying SDV TiVos, and other CableCARD devices, could not tune the channels at all. TiVo pushed hard and basically invented the tuning adapter to remedy this. Unfortunately because there are relatively few of them in the wild they are not well tested and the MSOs are not quick to take responsibility when there is a problem.
> 
> One positive thing that could come from this whole downloadable security thing is that it will at least be designed with two way communication in mind, which should eliminate the need for tuning adapters and "might" open up retail devices to VOD.


Could the current TiVo hardware (Roamio Series 5) get a replacement for the cable card (and fit in the same slot) that would allow for downloaded security and get rid of the need for the tuner adapter ??


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

lessd said:


> Could the current TiVo hardware (Roamio Series 5) get a replacement for the cable card (and fit in the same slot) that would allow for downloaded security and get rid of the need for the tuner adapter ??


That is so hard to say, we don't even know that structure of a future software security model.

I am reminded of the Original S3 delivered before the M-Cards were available. Everyone thought that once the Multi-signal cards were available it would work fine - well, early technology and other barriers kept that from happening.

I am working under the assumption that legacy cable cards will be available for quite some time and software security will be handled by an S6 (dual security) architecture.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

nooneuknow said:


> I know that's not what you meant. I just wanted to share what I attempted, and succeeded in doing (besides making Cox very mad).


Very interesting. I didn't realize that would work at all.



Dan203 said:


> The cable companies want a downloadable option so that they can make cheaper boxes. The two reasons I can see for them to eliminate CableCARD support are...
> 
> 1) Makes it easier to support on the backend when you're only supporting one technology
> 
> ...


Any cable company that is big enough to make their own open system up is big enough for TiVo to support. So that's less than a half-dozen large MSOs.

They can't get rid of CableCard on the back end, even if they go to MPEG-4, as they have so many boxes out there already that use CableCard.

It wouldn't surprise me if they were trying to kill off TiVos, since these companies are known to be incredibly stupid, but it would be incredibly stupid to do so, since a lot of customers would leave for DirecTV, or where available, a cable overbuilder or FIOS if they did that.



lessd said:


> Could the current TiVo hardware (Roamio Series 5) get a replacement for the cable card (and fit in the same slot) that would allow for downloaded security and get rid of the need for the tuner adapter ??


There is no reason they need TAs today for TiVos, that's just the way the cable cos are implementing it. If Comcast ever chose to use SDV, they wouldn't need TAs, as they could assign QAMs through their VOD system, which already does the same thing with VOD channels. It also wouldn't be hard to do on MCE either, and there the cable provider could write their own software for Windows to make it work. Even those two, however, may still require them to have TAs just to support some oddball piece of CableCard hardware that might come out of the woodwork, but in reality, TiVo support and software for MCE would support what needs to be supported.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

bradleys said:


> That is so hard to say, we don't even know that structure of a future software security model.
> 
> I am reminded of the Original S3 delivered before the M-Cards were available. Everyone thought that once the Multi-signal cards were available it would work fine - well, early technology and other barriers kept that from happening.
> 
> I am working under the assumption that legacy cable cards will be available for quite some time and software security will be handled by an S6 (dual security) architecture.


I know about the original S3 but most of we are talking about is/was known when the S5 was designed, so I was thinking that TiVo may have taken this downloadable stuff into consideration when they put out the Roamio; wishful thinking on my part, maybe.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

vinsuz said:


> This article is from April and may not be news to some, but the cable companies, lead by Comcast, want to do away with regulations for a single anti-signal-theft standard so they can get rid of independent set-top box makers like TiVo, Ruku, and Google:
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/tivo-tries-to-keep-remote-interest-over-cable-lobbying.html
> 
> Lobbyists for the bill have doled out over $38 MILLION, while TiVo has only mustered $700k. We need a grassroots movement like that of Net Neutrality to tell our lawmakers to protect the consumers, not the multi-billion dollar corporations.


 Let them lobby, what are the odds of the House passing anything these days?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

tenthplanet said:


> Let them lobby, what are the odds of the House passing anything these days?


You're kidding, right? Extremely high. The Senate on the other hand... But in this case, I'm betting that the cable cos can throw enough money in that crook Harry Reid's direction to get action.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> Could the current TiVo hardware (Roamio Series 5) get a replacement for the cable card (and fit in the same slot) that would allow for downloaded security and get rid of the need for the tuner adapter ??


Not really, the TA has built in DOCSIS hardware that allows them to communicate with the headend. TiVo doesn't have that and it's highly unlikely it could be added via the CableCARD slot. (it needs to access the coax) And even if they did I can't see where it would be any better then a TA, you'd basically just be trading a USB connection for a PCMCIA connection. It would still be 3rd party hardware your TiVo would have to deal with.



Bigg said:


> Any cable company that is big enough to make their own open system up is big enough for TiVo to support. So that's less than a half-dozen large MSOs.


But if any of them require a special hardware component to function then it may not be possible to support them all without making different boxes or making a single box prohibitively expensive.



Bigg said:


> They can't get rid of CableCard on the back end, even if they go to MPEG-4, as they have so many boxes out there already that use CableCard.


MPEG-4 is irrelevant. The CableCARD doesn't care what video encoding is used as all the encryption happens at the TS level. The contents of the stream do not matter at all.



Bigg said:


> There is no reason they need TAs today for TiVos, that's just the way the cable cos are implementing it. If Comcast ever chose to use SDV, they wouldn't need TAs, as they could assign QAMs through their VOD system, which already does the same thing with VOD channels.


That's false. With a TA the system is a closed loop. The TiVo sends a request to the TA via USB and TA relays that to the head end directly over the coax then relays the selected QAM to the TiVo over USB. The TiVo knows nothing of the protocol used by the TA to communicate with the headend. With the Comcast VOD system Comcast maintains an app that can communicate with their headend via the internet. All communication happens via private code in the app itself. The only thing TiVo does is allow the app to access the tuner so it can tune the required QAM. It has no concept of the actual communication. To do SDV directly they would either need the communication stuff built directly into the software, which the cable companies wont allow, or they would need to run some sort of middle ware all the time to act as a proxy for the communication. They tried the later with CableCARD 2.0 but it turned into OCAP, which basically requires a device to allow the cable company to completely take over it's UI even just to tune channels.

A viable downloadable system would need to be what CableCARD attempted to achieve. It would need to be some sort of middleware that could act as layer between the tuner and the system software to both decrypt the stream and act as a proxy for SDV. I'm not sure if cable companies are actually going to go that route or just replace the CableCARD part and still require TAs for the two way communication.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> The only way they will be selling content that way is if the content providers allow it. And currently the content providers require that other channels be purchased to get certain popular ones. I will be surprised if that changes anytime soon.


we all know it's live sports / ESPN that rules the package deals. And I don't watch any of that, so it pisses me off to pay the premiums.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Not really, the TA has built in DOCSIS hardware that allows them to communicate with the headend. TiVo doesn't have that and it's highly unlikely it could be added via the CableCARD slot. (it needs to access the coax) And even if they did I can't see where it would be any better then a TA, you'd basically just be trading a USB connection for a PCMCIA connection. It would still be 3rd party hardware your TiVo would have to deal with.


TiVos on Comcast already do VOD through IP, and it even works over the public internet if someone has slow DSL or U-Verse VDSL, although probably 95% of the people doing it have Comcast HSI in addition to video...



> But if any of them require a special hardware component to function then it may not be possible to support them all without making different boxes or making a single box prohibitively expensive.


But we're specifically talking about getting rid of the hardware and going to a software-based system...



> MPEG-4 is irrelevant. The CableCARD doesn't care what video encoding is used as all the encryption happens at the TS level. The contents of the stream do not matter at all.


I was thinking of an influx of new boxes when a provider switches HD to MPEG-4 and it forces out everything that's pre-CableCard and gets a lot of new boxes in...



> That's false. With a TA the system is a closed loop. The TiVo sends a request to the TA via USB and TA relays that to the head end directly over the coax then relays the selected QAM to the TiVo over USB. The TiVo knows nothing of the protocol used by the TA to communicate with the headend. With the Comcast VOD system Comcast maintains an app that can communicate with their headend via the internet. All communication happens via private code in the app itself. The only thing TiVo does is allow the app to access the tuner so it can tune the required QAM. It has no concept of the actual communication. To do SDV directly they would either need the communication stuff built directly into the software, which the cable companies wont allow, or they would need to run some sort of middle ware all the time to act as a proxy for the communication. They tried the later with CableCARD 2.0 but it turned into OCAP, which basically requires a device to allow the cable company to completely take over it's UI even just to tune channels.


Since TiVo already knows how to interact with the VOD system, all they would need is a software update to get it to do the same thing with SDV... If it's too sandboxed right now, then they just need to un-sandbox some of the code, and let the TiVo access it when not running the app, and it would be good to go. However, it isn't a standard of any sort, Comcast worked with TiVo to support it...


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Bigg said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if they were trying to kill off TiVos, since these companies are known to be incredibly stupid, but it would be incredibly stupid to do so, since a lot of customers would leave for DirecTV, or where available, a cable overbuilder or FIOS if they did that.


Since Verizon has abandoned expanding FIOS that's an empty threat.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> TiVos on Comcast already do VOD through IP, and it even works over the public internet if someone has slow DSL or U-Verse VDSL, although probably 95% of the people doing it have Comcast HSI in addition to video...


Depending on a flaky internet connection for SDV is not a wise choice.



Bigg said:


> But we're specifically talking about getting rid of the hardware and going to a software-based system...


I know, but the only requirement for these systems is that they are "open" and low cost. While it's likely they will be pure software, there is a chance there could be some sort of hardware component involved.



Bigg said:


> Since TiVo already knows how to interact with the VOD system, all they would need is a software update to get it to do the same thing with SDV... If it's too sandboxed right now, then they just need to un-sandbox some of the code, and let the TiVo access it when not running the app, and it would be good to go. However, it isn't a standard of any sort, Comcast worked with TiVo to support it...


That's the thing TiVo doesn't know how to interact with the VOD system, the Comcast VOD app does. That code is maintained by Comcast and the only thing special TiVo has to do is expose the tuner to the app so it can tune the proper frequency as determined by the app. For SDV they would have to allow TiVo itself to communicate with the head end, which they don't want to do, or TiVo would have to continuously run some sort of middleware written by the cable company which they probably don't want to do. (this is basically what OCAP is)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

randian said:


> Since Verizon has abandoned expanding FIOS that's an empty threat.


I'm talking about areas that FIOS currently serves.



Dan203 said:


> Depending on a flaky internet connection for SDV is not a wise choice.


It depends on what you're SDVing. If it's everything, that would suck. If it's a bunch of crap that no one watches that's there to drive up channel count, it would probably be OK.



> I know, but the only requirement for these systems is that they are "open" and low cost. While it's likely they will be pure software, there is a chance there could be some sort of hardware component involved.


That sounds like it would defeat the whole purpose.



> That's the thing TiVo doesn't know how to interact with the VOD system, the Comcast VOD app does. That code is maintained by Comcast and the only thing special TiVo has to do is expose the tuner to the app so it can tune the proper frequency as determined by the app. For SDV they would have to allow TiVo itself to communicate with the head end, which they don't want to do, or TiVo would have to continuously run some sort of middleware written by the cable company which they probably don't want to do. (this is basically what OCAP is)


Then de-sandbox it. They have the code, it's just a matter of where it goes... Those hurdles are just political BS between the two companies...


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Just to clarify: for Comcast VOD, only the control information goes over the Internet connection. The program content itself goes over QAM like normal cable programming. This is why you need a tuner available to use VOD.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> It depends on what you're SDVing. If it's everything, that would suck. If it's a bunch of crap that no one watches that's there to drive up channel count, it would probably be OK.


If that's the case then you can just disconnect the TA and not worry about it. We have to assume the SDV channels are channels that people actually want to tune reliably.



Bigg said:


> That sounds like it would defeat the whole purpose.


It could. The FCC requirement in the Charter waiver was very vague and left it entirely up to Charter as to how they wan the system to work. TiVo tried to fight back and get clarification, but it fell on deaf ears.



Bigg said:


> Then de-sandbox it. They have the code, it's just a matter of where it goes... Those hurdles are just political BS between the two companies...


They had this fight years ago during the CableCARD 2.0 debate. Basically the CE manufactures just wanted it to be an API that they could use to access the communication stuff, but the cable companies insisted that they retain complete control over the user experience (i.e. the UI) for anything that was accessing their system. Obviously the CE manufactures didn't want that, as their UI is the only thing that gave them a competitive edge over leased equipment, so the whole thing fell apart and we ended up with OCAP which is only used on leased equipment.

So unless the cable companies have changed their tune in the last 6 years I think we're going to have a similar standoff when it comes to download able security, and cable is going to have the upper hand because of the FCCs poor decision in the Charter waiver.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

CharlesH said:


> Just to clarify: for Comcast VOD, only the control information goes over the Internet connection. The program content itself goes over QAM like normal cable programming. This is why you need a tuner available to use VOD.


Yes, but the control information part is what we're discussing. It's currently contained in private code inside the Xfinity app. TiVo has no concept of communicating with the head end on it's own.


----------



## andrewc2 (Sep 27, 2011)

It's not the first time they've tried getting this changed, however I think it would be accepted if they were required to maintain cablecard availability.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> They had this fight years ago during the CableCARD 2.0 debate. Basically the CE manufactures just wanted it to be an API that they could use to access the communication stuff, but the cable companies insisted that they retain complete control over the user experience (i.e. the UI) for anything that was accessing their system. Obviously the CE manufactures didn't want that, as their UI is the only thing that gave them a competitive edge over leased equipment, so the whole thing fell apart and we ended up with OCAP which is only used on leased equipment.
> 
> So unless the cable companies have changed their tune in the last 6 years I think we're going to have a similar standoff when it comes to download able security, and cable is going to have the upper hand because of the FCCs poor decision in the Charter waiver.


But TiVo and Comcast could do that above and beyond what's required by law if Comcast wanted to roll out SDV, which I don't see them doing anytime soon...



andrewc2 said:


> It's not the first time they've tried getting this changed, however I think it would be accepted if they were required to maintain cablecard availability.


That's what we should hope for, as then they won't care about CableCard anymore, and it will just fly under the radar...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> But TiVo and Comcast could do that above and beyond what's required by law if Comcast wanted to roll out SDV, which I don't see them doing anytime soon...


Oh yeah they could if they wanted to cooperate.

Although, while they may not have SDV in your area there are Comcast markets that do use SDV and in those markets they just use TAs. They get a bad wrap around here, but for the most part TAs work fine and are a proven technology. I think I'd be more scared of some experimental software only solution that depends on my internet connection to function.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

andrewc2 said:


> It's not the first time they've tried getting this changed, however I think it would be accepted if they were required to maintain cablecard availability.


The FCC waiver given to Charter says that if they develop a downloadable system that is "open" and there is at least one retail device available that supports it then they can stop issuing new CableCARDs. They're required to continue to support all CCs that have been deployed, but if they fail they are not required to replace them.

So basically they're allowed to start phasing out CCs as soon as their new system is ready and supported by at least one retail device.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> They get a bad wrap around here, but for the most part TAs work fine and are a proven technology.


Only if by "work fine" you mean "takes 20-30 _minutes_ to resync after power cycling" and "randomly stops working without warning, causing recording loss and requiring power-off reboots to clear".


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Oh yeah they could if they wanted to cooperate.
> 
> Although, while they may not have SDV in your area there are Comcast markets that do use SDV and in those markets they just use TAs. They get a bad wrap around here, but for the most part TAs work fine and are a proven technology. I think I'd be more scared of some experimental software only solution that depends on my internet connection to function.


Which markets exactly?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> The FCC waiver given to Charter says that if they develop a downloadable system that is "open" and there is at least one retail device available that supports it then they can stop issuing new CableCARDs. They're required to continue to support all CCs that have been deployed, but if they fail they are not required to replace them.
> 
> So basically they're allowed to start phasing out CCs as soon as their new system is ready and supported by at least one retail device.


And from where is this retail device going to appear?


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> And from where is this retail device going to appear?


The Charter development labs.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Diana Collins said:


> The Charter development labs.


I know you're being facetious, but that's not entirely crazy. Come up with something nobody will want but claim that since there's a retail device available (however terrible it might be) they can now start dumping cablecard. Then when there proves to be no market for their terrible device, dump it too. Charter gets what it always wanted, total lockdown of its system. When the FCC complains fight it ferociously on the grounds it would be too expensive to go back to cablecard.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

randian said:


> I know you're being facetious, but that's not entirely crazy. Come up with something nobody will want but claim that since there's a retail device available (however terrible it might be) they can now start dumping cablecard. Then when there proves to be no market for their terrible device, dump it too. Charter gets what it always wanted, total lockdown of its system. When the FCC complains fight it ferociously on the grounds it would be too expensive to go back to cablecard.


This is exactly what I'm afraid of.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

randian said:


> I know you're being facetious, but that's not entirely crazy. Come up with something nobody will want but claim that since there's a retail device available (however terrible it might be) they can now start dumping cablecard. Then when there proves to be no market for their terrible device, dump it too. Charter gets what it always wanted, total lockdown of its system. When the FCC complains fight it ferociously on the grounds it would be too expensive to go back to cablecard.


I hope the FCC is not that nuts and would require a viable retail product, not a sham product.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lessd said:


> I hope the FCC is not that nuts and would require a viable retail product, not a sham product.


LOL I have to wonder how the FCC would define a "viable" product and also how many years it would take them to decide whether Charter's offering was one. It would be all over but the shouting by then.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Diana Collins said:


> The Charter development labs.


My understanding was that it would have to be a 3rd party retail device, not Charter just deciding to allow customers to buy a Charter cable box rather than renting one.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> My understanding was that it would have to be a 3rd party retail device, not Charter just deciding to allow customers to buy a Charter cable box rather than renting one.


So, they bankroll a third party to build it, based on their design. There are plenty of ways to "manufacture" a 3rd party device.

I was only half kidding...I wouldn't doubt for a minute that this is exactly what Charter would do if given the opportunity.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> So, they bankroll a third party to build it, based on their design. There are plenty of ways to "manufacture" a 3rd party device.
> 
> I was only half kidding...I wouldn't doubt for a minute that this is exactly what Charter would do if given the opportunity.


We do have some ethics in this country, such a 3rd party help would amount to the same as insider trading, I don't think any MSO would take that chance, when I was working, and on our officers board and we were even thinking of doing something that was a little off, I would say think of our actions ending up on 60 minutes. Look what happened to GM and a $.57 spring, you can get away with some crap some of the time but not all of the time. TiVo would be first to try to find out about any shame retail product. Having said that however, a MSO might pay TiVo to make a DVR just for their system and sell it at retail in any area served by that MSO.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Oh yeah they could if they wanted to cooperate.
> 
> Although, while they may not have SDV in your area there are Comcast markets that do use SDV and in those markets they just use TAs. They get a bad wrap around here, but for the most part TAs work fine and are a proven technology. I think I'd be more scared of some experimental software only solution that depends on my internet connection to function.


Where? I've never heard of Comcast SDV.



lessd said:


> We do have some ethics in this country, such a 3rd party help would amount to the same as insider trading, I don't think any MSO would take that chance, when I was working, and on our officers board and we were even thinking of doing something that was a little off, I would say think of our actions ending up on 60 minutes. Look what happened to GM and a $.57 spring, you can get away with some crap some of the time but not all of the time. TiVo would be first to try to find out about any shame retail product. Having said that however, a MSO might pay TiVo to make a DVR just for their system and sell it at retail in any area served by that MSO.


If TiVo is the only one that has such a product that could work, then if they don't make it compatible, Charter is required to continue using CableCard...

They should have just immediately eliminated the integration ban but forced Charter to support TiVos and MCE through CableCard... Would have gotten Charter to the same end goal.

Unfortunately, Charter has little overlap with FIOS or RCN, so they don't have competitive pressure to keep CableCard support like Time Warner, BHN, and Comcast.

Although at the same time, if they stopped supporting CableCard, TiVo users would likely go to DirecTV...


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> ....... They get a bad wrap around here, but for the most part TAs work fine and are a proven technology.......


Hmm... As one for whom the TA is a constant PITA (for five years now), I wonder what evidence there is to support that general statement? On the other hand, maybe the "bad rap" is deserved(?).

I agree the TA's, when functioning in a properly set up cable plant, should be fine but I suspect there are a lot of neighborhoods where the cable plant does not reliably support them.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

If Comcast dropped cablecards and left TiVo out in the cold, those U-Verse brochures I keep getting in the mail would suddenly get a whole lot more attention. TiVo compatibility is the only reason I keep my VoIP-phone/Internet/TV service with Comcast.

I don't understand what Comcast would gain by wrecking TiVo. I am paying Comcast pretty much the same as if I were using their set-top boxes.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Uverse is pretty bad. They are very limited in their bandwidth so they compress everything a LOT and even so they only have enough to send 4 streams simultaneously and it still slows your internet down.

If you're not super picky about quality, don't need super fast internet and are OK with only being able to watch/record 4 things at once they're OK. But in all likelihood if you're a power user like most on this forum u-verse is probably not a good alternative.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

CharlesH said:


> If Comcast dropped cablecards and left TiVo out in the cold, those U-Verse brochures I keep getting in the mail would suddenly get a whole lot more attention. TiVo compatibility is the only reason I keep my VoIP-phone/Internet/TV service with Comcast.
> 
> I don't understand what Comcast would gain by wrecking TiVo. I am paying Comcast pretty much the same as if I were using their set-top boxes.


Cablecards are like $2-5. A DVR (which you would need if you couldn't use cablecards) are like $15.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

b_scott said:


> Cablecards are like $2-5. A DVR (which you would need if you couldn't use cablecards) are like $15.


The Triple Play package that I get from Comcast includes one standard DVR (not the AnyRoom X1). I declined the DVR, but that did not reduce my bill. They gave me a $40/mo "promotion" discount to keep me from downgrading to a package with fewer premium channels (and no DVR).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Uverse is pretty bad. They are very limited in their bandwidth so they compress everything a LOT and even so they only have enough to send 4 streams simultaneously and it still slows your internet down.
> 
> If you're not super picky about quality, don't need super fast internet and are OK with only being able to watch/record 4 things at once they're OK. But in all likelihood if you're a power user like most on this forum u-verse is probably not a good alternative.


Exactly. U-Verse is terrible. It has so many limitations that would affect a lot of different use cases.

OTOH, if CableCards disappeared tomorrow, I'd switch to DirecTV. However, depending on where I end up living, I could have access to a provider like RCN that has TiVo. So that's another angle...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> if CableCards disappeared tomorrow, I'd switch to DirecTV.


+1


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

CharlesH said:


> The Triple Play package that I get from Comcast includes one standard DVR (not the AnyRoom X1). I declined the DVR, but that did not reduce my bill. They gave me a $40/mo "promotion" discount to keep me from downgrading to a package with fewer premium channels (and no DVR).


ah. Yeah I never do their "special" packages - they never save me money for what I order.


----------



## Tiresius (Mar 22, 2004)

randian said:


> Only if by "work fine" you mean "takes 20-30 _minutes_ to resync after power cycling" and "randomly stops working without warning, causing recording loss and requiring power-off reboots to clear".


That's exactly how mine "work", though to be fair it's not daily, but maybe monthly reboots when they randomly stop working, or at least when I notice they've stopped working since we only occasionally watch SDV channels.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Tiresius said:


> That's exactly how mine "work", though to be fair it's not daily, but maybe monthly reboots when they randomly stop working, or at least when I notice they've stopped working since we only occasionally watch SDV channels.


When my Cisco TA fails everything except local broadcast channels stop working. The TiVo, unfortunately, doesn't alert you when a recording fails because of lack of signal, so it's easy to miss the fact that a recording is missing.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

randian said:


> Only if by "work fine" you mean "takes 20-30 _minutes_ to resync after power cycling" and "randomly stops working without warning, causing recording loss and requiring power-off reboots to clear".


That sounds like a signal issue. With a strong signal it should resync in just a couple of minutes after a reboot. As for why it just randomly stops working... could be anything from a bad power supply, to bad firmware, to a bad box.

I have two that have not been rebooted in 6+ months (connected to UPS so not even a power outage) and they still work fine. And if I do power cycle them they take like a minute to resync.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> That sounds like a signal issue. With a strong signal it should resync in just a couple of minutes after a reboot. As for why it just randomly stops working... could be anything from a bad power supply, to bad firmware, to a bad box.
> 
> I have two that have not been rebooted in 6+ months (connected to UPS so not even a power outage) and they still work fine. And if I do power cycle them they take like a minute to resync.


I have a UPS as well. Tried replacing the box and having a tech come out to check on things. No change and the signal was good according to the tech. I have a Cisco TA from Cox. Could be Cox itself is the cause.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Could be Cisco. Mine are Motorola. I've had them for like 4-5 years and never had an issue with them at all.


----------

