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

SDV solution for S3, TiVo HD

Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by 20TIL6, Aug 25, 2007.

  1. Aug 28, 2007 #81 of 163
    NotVeryWitty

    NotVeryWitty Too Big to Fail

    770
    0
    Oct 3, 2003
    Central Mass.
    Bicker, why didn't the Burlington selectmen make 100% town coverage part of their license agreement with Verizon?
     
  2. Aug 28, 2007 #82 of 163
    SMWinnie

    SMWinnie Dis Member

    233
    0
    Aug 17, 2002
    Peninsulam...
    Massachusetts Cable Choice & Competition Act? PDF of Verizon summary, linked.
     
  3. Aug 28, 2007 #83 of 163
    gwar9999

    gwar9999 New Member

    119
    0
    Jan 15, 2007
    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).
     
  4. Aug 28, 2007 #84 of 163
    NotVeryWitty

    NotVeryWitty Too Big to Fail

    770
    0
    Oct 3, 2003
    Central Mass.
    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.
     
  5. Aug 28, 2007 #85 of 163
    SMWinnie

    SMWinnie Dis Member

    233
    0
    Aug 17, 2002
    Peninsulam...
    Ah. No point, just curious. I had heard about the Massachusetts bill, but wrongly understood that the bill had already passed.
     
  6. Aug 28, 2007 #86 of 163
    CharlesH

    CharlesH Member TCF Club

    1,066
    2
    Aug 29, 2002
    Sacramento...
    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.
     
  7. Aug 28, 2007 #87 of 163
    mattn2

    mattn2 New Member

    104
    0
    Mar 23, 2001
    Erie, CO
    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
     
  8. Aug 28, 2007 #88 of 163
    BobCamp1

    BobCamp1 Active Member

    1,383
    18
    May 15, 2002
    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).
     
  9. Aug 28, 2007 #89 of 163
    GoHokies!

    GoHokies! O2->CO2 Converter

    2,657
    0
    Sep 21, 2005
    KFME
    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.
     
  10. Aug 28, 2007 #90 of 163
    CharlesH

    CharlesH Member TCF Club

    1,066
    2
    Aug 29, 2002
    Sacramento...
    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.
     
  11. Aug 28, 2007 #91 of 163
    CharlesH

    CharlesH Member TCF Club

    1,066
    2
    Aug 29, 2002
    Sacramento...
    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?
     
  12. Aug 28, 2007 #92 of 163
    MickeS

    MickeS New Member

    25,884
    1
    Dec 26, 2002
    AZ
    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.
     
  13. Aug 28, 2007 #93 of 163
    sfhub

    sfhub Active Member

    1,386
    16
    Jan 6, 2007
    Doesn't SDV decrement the reference count when you leave a channel?
     
  14. Aug 28, 2007 #94 of 163
    GoHokies!

    GoHokies! O2->CO2 Converter

    2,657
    0
    Sep 21, 2005
    KFME
    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.
     
  15. Aug 28, 2007 #95 of 163
    sfhub

    sfhub Active Member

    1,386
    16
    Jan 6, 2007
    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)
     
  16. Aug 29, 2007 #96 of 163
    CharlesH

    CharlesH Member TCF Club

    1,066
    2
    Aug 29, 2002
    Sacramento...
    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.
     
  17. Aug 29, 2007 #97 of 163
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,403
    44
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    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.
     
  18. Aug 29, 2007 #98 of 163
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,403
    44
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    The Act hasn't passed yet.
     
  19. Aug 29, 2007 #99 of 163
    GoHokies!

    GoHokies! O2->CO2 Converter

    2,657
    0
    Sep 21, 2005
    KFME
    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.
     
  20. pmiranda

    pmiranda New Member

    669
    1
    Feb 12, 2003
    Austin, TX
    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.
     

Share This Page