Possible solution to SDV

[gbertler]

I had an idea of a possible way to get the S3 to work with SDV. This would require I'm sure an effort by the FCC to mandate this. For example, I have Time Warner cable and Road Runner. If the S3 could be prgrammed to contact a private IP address, ex. 10.10.10.10 to communicate any interactive features, it might be possible to utilize SDV. This would require a standard type of language that Tivo could use on all cable systems. Most cable systems that are switching to SDV I'm sure have some type of internet access. This would require that an S3 owner have both cable and internet from the same provider. (I'm assuming that they wouldn't want to open this up to a public IP addres.) In theory, it would work like FIOS in a way with their VOD.
Just an idea.
Greg

[Maeglin]

In an ideal world, maybe.

Time will tell whether a standard protocol can be established for such a thing in the real one, though. Even if it were limited to needing a 2nd DOCSIS modem with a USB connection that could then be connected to the S3 (to at least get MAC address authentication with less in between to be tampered with), that would at least be something.

[moyekj]

I haven't heard feedback from users in SDV markets but since SDV requires a lot more communication back and forth I'm sure there's bound to be problems even for cable boxes properly outfitted for SDV. Would be curious to monitor a forum for a market such as TWC Austin to see how much trouble SDV is causing.

[sfhub]

So why can't they just create an TCP/IP -> Motorola/SA/etc SDV gateway.

It's just data and protocol right? Who cares if I transmit via Hybrid Fiber Coax, TCP/IP over DSL/CableModem/etc.

As long as the protocol can be implemented and the latency is reasonable. The data can be encrypted if needed so no need for a private network.

S3 has an ethernet port so it would just be a matter of coding up the interface to this TCP/IP ->SDV gateway, ie a software problem that can be solved in future OS updates, vs a hardware problem that is messy.

This happens all the time in the real world for other business segments. VPN access to gateways that access legacy systems.

This would probably address the SDV problem for 95% of the users. The other 5% are people with S3 still using dialup, where this wouldn't be a reasonable solution.

Ideally they can hide the proprietary nature of the various SDV protocols/interfaces behind the TCP/IP gateway, so TiVo (and others) could just implement a single solution, but the big thing is to convert this from a hardware problem into a software problem.

This could also be used to solve the problem for HTPCs and other devices, so it isn't just a TiVo thing.

[sfhub]

You know if it was any other business where 10's of thousands of clients were going to be affected by an architecture change, they would have committees working on the migration plan.

With cable the attitude seems to be hah hah, tough luck, looks like you are back to renting boxes from us.

I firmly believe this is a solvable problem if the folks involved want to solve it. It is only unsolvable if one or both parties do not want to cooperate. That's just my opinion.

[CharlesH]

S3 has an ethernet port so it would just be a matter of coding up the interface to this TCP/IP ->SDV gateway, ie a software problem that can be solved in future OS updates, vs a hardware problem that is messy.And for those of us who don't have a cable modem? Am I the only S3 owner who doesn't use cable Internet? My $29.99/mo 6Mbs DSL from AT&T (formerly SBC) works great for me.

[sfhub]

And for those of us who don't have a cable modem? Am I the only S3 owner who doesn't use cable Internet? My $29.99/mo 6Mbs DSL from AT&T (formerly SBC) works great for me.
My point was that a *tcp/ip* gateway to legacy SDV infrastructure wouldn't be dependent on cable Internet. Any cable customer with an Internet connection could configure their equipment to use this gateway, whether that be a DSL, cable broadband, Google WiFi, etc.

As to whether something like this is "secure", people are running Virtual Private Networks (VPN) over the big bad "Internet" all the time. There is no reason why access to this tcp/ip gateway couldn't be encrypted and authenticated the same.

[CharlesH]

My point was that a *tcp/ip* gateway to legacy SDV infrastructure wouldn't be dependent on cable Internet. Any cable customer with an Internet connection could configure their equipment to use this gateway, whether that be a DSL, cable broadband, Google WiFi, etc.But it would have to be a public IP address, not a private one like 10.10.10.10 mentioned by the OP. But as you say, not a big deal, given ordinary encryption/tunnelling protocols.

[ashu]

(Not attempting to rain on the thread/parade, but merely pointing this out - don't kill the messenger) This HAS been suggested in numerous other threads.

Heck, the idea of a cheap, simple (even free) USB addon that is CableLabs approved and assists with the two-way part of things has been floated. After all, the S3 has two available USB ports :)

And nice to see sfhub here :)

Oh, and CharlesH, I see a nit over there too, if you'd care to pick it :p

[smc]

With cable the attitude seems to be hah hah, tough luck, looks like you are back to renting boxes from us.



So I was say to cable hah hah off to Dish I go!

[Leo_N]

I haven't heard feedback from users in SDV markets but since SDV requires a lot more communication back and forth I'm sure there's bound to be problems even for cable boxes properly outfitted for SDV. Would be curious to monitor a forum for a market such as TWC Austin to see how much trouble SDV is causing.

The funny thing is, the method that the OP mentions would probably be more consistent than the flaky modems built into cable boxes. They seem to be very touchy if the signal isn't just right.

[classicX]

So I was say to cable hah hah off to Dish I go!

I was say to HUH? you.


:confused:

[SugarBowl]

Time Warner would spend 10 hours developing this interface and then claim that it just isn't reliable.