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. Feb 1, 2008 #1021 of 2401
    mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,390
    2
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    Actually, it's a good sign. One of their barriers to releasing the spec was doing an IP search to make sure that their design didn't cross any existing patents. So that's done and people can manufacture to the spec without fear of surprise litigation.
     
  2. Feb 1, 2008 #1022 of 2401
    morac

    morac Cat God

    8,964
    25
    Mar 14, 2003
    NJ
    I notice that there is a special message sent by the resolver in the case where a channel is requested, but not by the user:
    I'm assuming a value of 6 would be used for suggestions. This makes sense since requests can then be given priority depending on what it being done. For example, I'm assuming a "speculative recording" (ie: Suggestion) would be given the lowest priority.

    Also see section 10.2 for examples of confirmation windows to confirm you are watching the channel.
     
  3. Feb 1, 2008 #1023 of 2401
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    That's not a circular reference. It is a forward reference. It is not uncommon for one word to say its definition is the same as the definition for another word, and then have that other word mention that there is another word that is synonymous.
     
  4. Feb 3, 2008 #1024 of 2401
    husky55

    husky55 Member

    175
    0
    Feb 2, 2008
    Madison, CT
    The concern I have is there is no clear schedule of the SDV dongle rollout for Tivo from the cable cos. Some vague date like 2H 2008. Will our Tivos become dinosaurs in this new SDV HD world?
     
  5. Feb 3, 2008 #1025 of 2401
    mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,390
    2
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    And what reason would they have to publish a precise schedule to the public? To make you feel better? I don't think so. That type of crap will get you sued for missing the date by a month or two. In the engineering world you don't issue completion guarantees unless you have to. by the end of the 2nd half of calendar '08 is good enough.
     
  6. Feb 7, 2008 #1026 of 2401
    moyekj

    moyekj Well-Known Member

    11,151
    35
    Jan 23, 2006
    Mission...
    This thought occurred to me in the unencrypted QAM thread...

    I wonder if the tuning resolver could be used in units without cablecard? It may offer channel mapping capabilities of it's own such that unencrypted channels would be properly mapped to the cable company channel #s and solve the unencrypted QAM without cablecard problem.
     
  7. Feb 8, 2008 #1027 of 2401
    pmiranda

    pmiranda New Member

    669
    0
    Feb 12, 2003
    Austin, TX
    It kinda sounds like it from the spec, although in a twist of fate, the FCC rules might actually require a cablecard in the TR if it can operate without one in the TiVo :)
     
  8. Feb 8, 2008 #1028 of 2401
    morac

    morac Cat God

    8,964
    25
    Mar 14, 2003
    NJ
    Apparently CableLabs just got the tools to test the tuning resolver. This means they haven't had a chance to test it yet. I'm also wondering how ready it will actually be if they do deploy it by 2nd quarter. I'm wondering what would be worse, not having the tuning resolver or having it and finding that it flakes out half the time because they didn't have a chance to test it fully before deployment.
     
  9. Feb 8, 2008 #1029 of 2401
    mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,390
    2
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    As an engineer with 30 years experience (12 of them in development of large scale networking devices), I think that they've given themselves plenty of time to get this thing to market. It depends on how many resources the various players (Motorola, SA, TiVo, the cable providers, etc, etc) have devoted to the effort--with enough people and dollars it could conceivably be done in significantly less time. This is, conceptually, not a very complicated project--I've been on teams that got out new products with many hundreds of thousands of lines of integrated code, much of it newly written, in less time.

    Chill, people, and stop fretting about it :rolleyes:.
     
  10. Feb 8, 2008 #1030 of 2401
    mercurial

    mercurial Retro-Av

    17,166
    0
    Oct 17, 2002
    Caraleigh, NC
    Or dealing with the compression TWC is using around here that's really killing a bunch of SD channels right now. I'd almost not get some channels than see some of the painful artifacts. :p
     
  11. Feb 9, 2008 #1031 of 2401
    CharlesH

    CharlesH Member

    1,061
    1
    Aug 29, 2002
    Sacramento...
    I suspect that the resolver will pretty much be a stripped-down set-top box, rather than something developed from scratch. Remove the audio and video hardware, and add the software to talk the host device. That functionality is pretty much the only new software that has to be written; all the other stuff, such talking the SDV protocol to the head end, pulling channel maps off the cable, and such, is already there. For that reason, there is technically no reason that it also couldn't handle VOD and PPV for the host, but it seems that OCAP in the host is the way they want to go.
     
  12. Feb 9, 2008 #1032 of 2401
    ah30k

    ah30k Active Member

    2,211
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    It was already stated to be the same form factor as the DCT-700
     
  13. Feb 9, 2008 #1033 of 2401
    mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,390
    2
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    More like rumored. Motorola hasn't officially said anything about it at all. What we "know" about it we "know" from the blog of someone with "inside Motorola contacts". Take it all with a big bucket of salt.
     
  14. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    If it is in fact true, it's only true for Motorola systems. Most of us are not on Motorola systems.
     
  15. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    I don't think that's really the issue. There's not going to be any large scale re-tooling, and the functional blocks already exist, so no, no motivated engineering team should have a problem getting this out, unless of course infighting among the various UDCP manufacturers caused a big delay. Between the fact the TiVo is virtually the only device which will be able to make use of the TR and the fact the standard has now been published, this problem is pretty much moot.

    THAT's the issue, and it boils down to how motivated the marketing authorities in the respective companies are to induce the accounting executives to approve resources for the engineering teams to produce the product. In some companies, that level may be less than zero, with one or more members of the senior executive team being actively opposed to its development. We all know what "The check's in the mail" means.

    Yeah, but with any significant amount of opposition within the company's power structure, the company might well never spend a single penny to develop the dongle. Without an FCC mandate, there won't be anything forcing the company to bother, and since most markets don't have competing CATV systems, the fact the S3 and other UDCP devices are pretty much locked into using a CATV provider implies there can be real marketing arguments for not wanting to develop the dongle in the first place.
     
  16. ah30k

    ah30k Active Member

    2,211
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    True, my frame of reference is Mot so I tend to only think that way. How do you figure 'most of us are not on Mot systems'? I was under the impression Mot had a rather significant market share.
     
  17. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Well, some companies do. One of our major vendors, Nortel , for example is usually very good about forecasting release dates. They usually hit them, too. It's one reason we're loyal to them. They keep us informed of their development plans and meet their commitments. It's not breaking any law not to do so, however.
     
  18. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    A significant market share is not most. Less than half of all subscribers are on Motorola systems, so by definition most are not on Motorola systems. It's been some time since I looked at the stats, but there may not be a single majority SDV vendor. If there is, it's Scientific Atlanta.
     
  19. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,924
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    That's a reasonable way to handle it. So is taking a DOCSIS modem and adding a USB 2.0 port and some software.

    The host software required to interface with the dongle is minimal. VOD, PPV, and other non-primitive 2-way functions are vastly more sophisticated, not to mention being highly proprietary to each CATV system. There are only a handful of SDV protocols and hardware for handling scheduled programs. The number of proprietary interactive systems is vast.
     
  20. ah30k

    ah30k Active Member

    2,211
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    I guess that is where I must have been off. I thought Mot had more systems share than SA. Where do you get your data?

    Yes, SA is ahead on SDV but not for long.
     

Share This Page