1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

SDV FAQ

Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by bdraw, Jul 3, 2007.

  1. Nov 15, 2007 #601 of 2401
    CrispyCritter

    CrispyCritter Purple Ribbon Wearer

    3,647
    1
    Feb 28, 2001
    North...
    You're wrong on two accounts. First, your message said that TiVo doesn't support SDV. My message says that TiVo can't support SDV. Very different.

    Second, "the" protocol is not published in any form that TiVo can make use of. There is no single protocol common among all implementations, and there is no commitment from any one cable company not to change the protocol. There is a reason why standards are needed. Once the cable companies commit to a standard, TiVo can do something. Before then, they can't.
     
  2. Nov 15, 2007 #602 of 2401
    dswallow

    dswallow Save the ModeratŠ¾r TCF Club

    50,978
    32
    Dec 3, 2000
    Long...
    It's not unnecessary info at all. Your implication is that a 2-way host device will solve the problem. That's untrue. A 2-way host device, absent any standards to communicate with the cable head-end to request switched digital video channels, is useless. And no such standard exists.
     
  3. Nov 15, 2007 #603 of 2401
    ah30k

    ah30k Active Member

    2,211
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    Doug and Crispy,
    There is what is commonly referred to as the Time-Warner spec named for the comapny that took the lead in the field. This is available to any legit company that want to interface to a headend using that spec. There is the Comcast NGOD spec which is a slight variation of the TW spec and the favored protocol of Comcast. Mot and BigBand systems follow these specs. I'm sure SA systems have one as well. Just because you can't google a spec doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    lets not get too wrapped up in the difference between an ICD and a standard.
     
  4. Nov 15, 2007 #604 of 2401
    CrispyCritter

    CrispyCritter Purple Ribbon Wearer

    3,647
    1
    Feb 28, 2001
    North...
    Where did I deny internal protocols exist?

    Where is the public commitment from any of these companies that they will not change their protocol?
     
  5. Nov 15, 2007 #605 of 2401
    ah30k

    ah30k Active Member

    2,211
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    Oh, where to begin. I guess in order
    yes it is, jsut because you dont have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    Right there are about three. Life sucks get over it. Code to all three.[/QUOTE]
    Again, life sucks. code to it or sit on the sideline.
     
  6. Nov 15, 2007 #606 of 2401
    morac

    morac Cat God

    8,959
    23
    Mar 14, 2003
    NJ
    And this attitude was why the FCC had to intervene to get the cable companies to commit to a standard (what is currently cableCARD) in the first place.
     
  7. Nov 15, 2007 #607 of 2401
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    I do not have the technical details of the Scientific Atlanta system, but I do not believe it is. I could be mistaken.

    If both it and Motorola (and whatever other system is out there) is DOCSIS compliant, then a dongle is unnecessary for most subscribers with TiVos, which is what I have been saying all along in any case. Since the TiVo is probably just about the only device which can even make use of a USB dongle in the first place, there just is no terribly good reason to develop one. An Ethernet solution will be far simpler and cheaper.
     
  8. Nov 15, 2007 #608 of 2401
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    That's total crap. They either lied to you, you misunderstood, or they haven't a clue. All CableCards meets the same specs, and the FCC has mandated that all CATV providers support CableCards. Indeed, all the new series of CATV STBs are CableCard based, and every CableCard works with every version of SDV. It's true the S3 does not yet support M-cards, but S-Cards work fine with SDV - you just have to have two of them rather than one. The inability of the TiVo (and every other generally available consumer device at this point) to receive SDV has nothing to do with the CableCards and everything to do with the fact the devices are one way. 'Modify the TiVo (with an external device or whatever) to handle two way communictaions with the CATV system and it will work just fine with SDV.
     
  9. Nov 15, 2007 #609 of 2401
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    I don't know what you mean. TiVo most likely wouldn't in any case.

    How so? Orwellian, yes. Useless, no.

    That's true, but what has that to do with your previous statements? Just becasue the proposed standard would allow the CATV company to install utilities on your TiVo whether you want them or noty and just because the user does not have the option to use a third party vendor for the software rather than the CATV company's software has nothing to do with the TiVo being useless or not.
     
  10. Nov 15, 2007 #610 of 2401
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    That's nonsense. Who told you this? All that is required for basic SDV compatibility at the software level is the ability to request a particular digital stream from the SDV host. It doesn't care in the least what software generates the packet. Even interactive services only require hooks similar to TiVo's HME protocol to work. For that matter, implementing OCAP on the TiVo would not be difficult. It's just that a lot of people object to OCAP and it's Big Brother implications.
     
  11. Nov 15, 2007 #611 of 2401
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Middleware is not essential to the picture, at all, unless of course it is mandated by the FCC through OCAP or other auspice. That said, I would definitely say a middleware soulution is the way to go. I just don't want the CATV company to have control over what middleware goes into my TiVo. If I don't want a particular feature, I should be able to refuse to allow the software providing the feature to be loaded. That, or if I want to purchase / procure my middleware from someone else other than the CATV company, then that should be my right.

    That's true.
     
  12. Nov 15, 2007 #612 of 2401
    ah30k

    ah30k Active Member

    2,211
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    I'm just tired of people claiming there is no standard and TiVo can't do anything until the standard exists and TiVo is being totally kept out of the secret world of SDV. There are specs that define what might be three possible protocols based on three implementations of SDV. Who is going to decide which one of those three should be a standard? You? Congress? Who? Tell me who? Please? The others will then go away quietly?

    And, byt the way, the CableCARD is an abstraction layer that allows different standards on the back end and a common interface on the STB side. This came what, 10 years after the start of digital cable encryption hit the market.
     
  13. Nov 15, 2007 #613 of 2401
    HiDefGator

    HiDefGator New Member

    1,851
    0
    Oct 12, 2004
    Even if Tivo decided to somehow detect and code to multiple different specs wouldn't there still be a problem with knowing how each system was configured? It just sounds like an impossible task for Tivo to me. Certainly one that would have to be tweaked constantly every time the cable company decided to upgrade firmware, etc.

    My money is on the dongle never seeing the light of day. Tivo's future is as a download to boxes that someone else installed and built. The Comcast model.
     
  14. Nov 15, 2007 #614 of 2401
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Well, yeah, to some extent. The situations as a whole was much more complex, however. First of all, there were a lot more than a handful of different proposals with every company holding on dearly to their favorite brand. Secondy, not only was there a tug - of - war between TV manufacturers and between CATV companies, but the two groups as a whole fought against each other. Here we're talking about a much smaller number of combatants.
     
  15. Nov 15, 2007 #615 of 2401
    mrmike

    mrmike Custom User Title

    3,691
    0
    May 2, 2001
    Location:...
    Really? Care to share linkages to them? The only one I'm aware of is a proprietary spec with a $100K licensing fee on it.
     
  16. Nov 15, 2007 #616 of 2401
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Well, can't and unwilling are two different things. I do understand their caution. I think it may not be as safe a position as they think, but I do understand.

    That's the $64 question, isn't it?

    'Closer to 20, at least in some markets.
     
  17. Nov 15, 2007 #617 of 2401
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Not at the basic level, no. More sophisticated functions like VOD, Internet browsing, etc are more complex, but at the level of watching "standard" channels it's rather simple.

    No, because remember the CATV company is in somewhat the same boat as TiVo. If they make any fundamental change to their SDV hosts, then they also have to make that change to all their STBs and DVRs. They're not going to want to break anything, so the protocols will be highly backwards compatible.
     
  18. Nov 15, 2007 #618 of 2401
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    While daunting to you or I, that's nothing to a company the size of TiVo.
     
  19. Nov 15, 2007 #619 of 2401
    ah30k

    ah30k Active Member

    2,211
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    I mentioned two (TW-Spec and the Comcast NGOD spec). You'll need to contact their respective owners for copies. Existence is not governed by the lack or presence of a hyperlink. If you are serious about delivering a product to market, you can get the spec.
     
  20. Nov 16, 2007 #620 of 2401
    CrispyCritter

    CrispyCritter Purple Ribbon Wearer

    3,647
    1
    Feb 28, 2001
    North...
    I thought the entire point of OCAP is to allow the cable companies to change their protocols at will. They theoretically will be able to change head end-end STB software at the same time, thus not breaking anything (except, of course, all the third-party non-OCAP devices).

    If the cable companies publicly commit to not changing their basic SDV protocols, then I agree TiVo should go right ahead and implement them. But the cable companies have had every opportunity to do so, and have not; instead they are proposing dongles, which is going to cost them a lot more expense than a simple public commitment. To me, that means they expect the protocols to change.
     

Share This Page