TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-15-2008, 04:51 PM   #1831
jeffspam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Dublin, OH
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
Simply, the IP channel ... on the TiVo is an unknown quantity (as far as security and identity goes),
Certainly security certificates and encryption, which devices such as the Tivo already make use of, can handle this part.
Quote:
a web based back end ... more complex software layer on the host device
Why web-based? A simple server in the racks at the headend, doing all the authentication and communication with the consumer devices (e.g. my Tivo), could relay requests into the headend equipment. As far as the headend equipment is concerned, it'd be seen just as if a cable box had made the request. And as far as the Tivo (or whatever) goes, it just puts a simple request ("I"d like to reserve channel 632 for 1 hr") into an authenticated wrapper and opens a port to the (let's call it...) SDV translation server. The server sends back a yea or nay, and Bob's your uncle (I've always wanted to use that phrase. Apologies.).
Anyway, just a thought. I would think it'd be a lot easier to do this than deploy yet more equipment to end users, but I suppose I should have applied for a membership to CableLabs a while back.
jeffspam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2008, 05:35 PM   #1832
JayBird
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
I don't think that any of the OEMs other than Mitsubishi put CableCARD slots in their 07/08 model lines
The Pioneer KURO Plasmas had cable card slots up until the latest models that were just released in the last couple of months.
JayBird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 12:41 AM   #1833
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
TA support doesn't actually require a data path between the CableCARD and USB port--the UDCP talks to the TA solely through the USB connection and forwards any information that the TA needs about the CableCARD over that path.
I figured you might nit about that. It's true no data comes directly from the CableCard to the modulator. Rather, data passed to the CPU by the CableCard is acted upon by the CPU sending packets to the moduator. It's definitely an indirect path, but it also requires the processor be able to act upon data from the CableCard and send out data to the USB port. I expect many TV's have the CPU instructions on PROM, not in non-volatile RAM. Others may use different dedicated systems for the two, since the CableCard in a UDCP isn't expected to send data out the USB port.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
I assume that these products (consumer TVs and STBs) have some central processor responsible for UI functions, listening to remote commands and formulating tuning requests--if that processor also handles communication with the USB port, TA compliance can be implemented.
Yes, but I suspect many times that may not be the case, and even if it is the case, the firmware may not be downloadable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
There may be a handful of televisions out there which could potentially be upgraded to support it
A very small handful, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
I can't remember who, but I remember that at least one company produced some televisions which could accept firmware upgrades written to flash cards (the other use for the flash card slot was display of pictures from digital cameras)--you could download upgrades from their site, write the files in the appropriate directory of the flash card and upgrade your firmware that way.
I think my Mitsubishi is supposed to work that way, as I recall, but I never have found the software on their website. OTOH, I haven't looked in almost 2 years, either.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 12:51 AM   #1834
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabby46 View Post
The reason for SDV is to save bandwith
'Not to save bandwidth, per se, but to increase it manyfold. In short, it allows the CATV companies to potentially provide literally thousands of channels to their customers at an extremely low cost to the CATV provider per channel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shabby46 View Post
so if it is known that I have cablecards and I am one of the very few people in the area who has it, couldnt there be a way to have our (CC users) HD channels sent to us all the time which would barely use any bandwith since there are so few of us?
That is just the oppostite. What you are proposing woud use much more bandwidth, not less, than SDV. Indeed, it is essentially just a regular linear channel. The bandwidth is the same whether 1 person is watching the channel or 100,000. Besides, how would the CATV company's equipment know where the TiVo owners are?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shabby46 View Post
At the very least they could let me pick which HD channels I want to receive and have those turned on all the time. I can deal with OTA networks for now, but I miss Discovery and Food HD.
You seem to be misunderstanding not only how SDV works, but also how legacy linear broadcast channels work.

Last edited by lrhorer : 08-16-2008 at 01:26 AM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 01:21 AM   #1835
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
Simply, the IP channel from the ethernet or wireless adapter on the TiVo is an unknown quantity (as far as security and identity goes), plus the cable providers would have to set up a web based back end to support it, not to mention a more complex software layer on the host device.
This is total nonsense. 'Give the TA a MAC address and ARP or similar capability, beacon from the Tivo to find a TA using the same ARP or ARP-like protocol, and from then on send all packets to the MAC address found by the TiVo. The TA then simply passes on any non-ARP packets to the modulator. 'Trivial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shabby46 View Post
The Tuning Adapter, as currently designed, connects locally to the host, using a rather simple and standard protocol
The 802.1 specification is every bit as much a standard as USB. The Universal Serial Bus architecture is in no way any less complex than Ethernet. Finally, they are both bus architectures (notice the name: Universal Serial Bus) allowing multiple devices to be attached together in a single segment.

Since IP is layer 3, it can be transported over any sort of lower layer protocols, including Ethernet, Token Ring, Arcnet, SLIP, PPP over RS-232, RS-445, DS-1, DS-3, OC-3, OC-12, or PPTP, IPSec, L2TP, etc., or last but not least, USB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
, and requires little change to the cable head/back end, perhaps just marrying the serial number of the TA to the cablecard(s) in the host, if it doesn't marry itself to or assume the identity of the host cablecard.
It does nothing of the sort. All it does is provide layer 2 bridging from the host network segment to the CATV network segment. This only requires that it recognize data coming from the host as being destined for the CATV network and pass it on. It will ignore any data not destined for the CATV network (or the TA itself). This is its function whether it is Ethernet based or USB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
The providers cannot send channels to particular providers
(I think you meant "...to particular subscribers".) Well, they could, and indeed this is precisely what Uverse does, and FIOS's implementation of VOD, as well. SDV is generally a more attractive alternative for the CATV topology, however. In a CATV plant, it makes best sense to put the switch boundary at the node. Anywhere else is much less efficient. IPTV puts the switch boundary at the subscriber's dwelling.

Last edited by lrhorer : 08-17-2008 at 05:48 PM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 10:48 AM   #1836
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,155
As I said, lrhorer, the number of televisions eligibile to be adapted to TA-compliance will be small--probably only a few of the high-end models from two or three manufacturers in '06 and '07--certainly no more than ten distinct models altogether and probably fewer. One wonders if those manufacturers would bother--Mitsubishi is progressive enough that they might. I don't know about the others. For those few customers actually using the CableCARD slots in their televisions, it would be a great boon, cementing customer loyalty.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 12:59 PM   #1837
shabby46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
'Not to save bandwidth, per se, but to increase it manyfold. In short, it allows the CATV companies to potentially provide literally thousands of channels to their customers at an extremely low cost to the CATV provider per channel.


That is just the oppostite. What you are proposing woud use much more bandwidth, not less, than SDV. Indeed, it is essentially just a regular linear channel. The bandwidth is the same whether 1 person is watching the channel or 100,000. Besides, how would the CATV company's equipment know where the TiVo owners are?


You seem to be misunderstanding not only how SDV works, but also how legacy linear broadcast channels work.
You are right that I dont understand SDV too well, Im not a big communications guy, but I guess what I am asking is why is that that with my cablecards, the company can still send me premium channels like HBO, but they cant somehow make a note to send the rest of the channels my way?
shabby46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 03:44 PM   #1838
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabby46 View Post
You are right that I dont understand SDV too well, Im not a big communications guy, but I guess what I am asking is why is that that with my cablecards, the company can still send me premium channels like HBO, but they cant somehow make a note to send the rest of the channels my way?
The backbone of the most modern cable systems is fiber, with coax running into your neighborhood, which can't transport nearly as much information as the fiber backbone can. It's a bit like a river with little garden hoses siphoning from it, bringing the content past homes. (Not a very good analogy, but I'll stretch it ). Pre-switched-broadcast, all of the all-the-time channels were taken out of the river and put in your garden hose, but now they want to make more stuff available to subscribers than will fit in the hose at once. With switched broadcast, they pick and choose only the things that the homes attached to your local hose are actually using and put them in the hose; they can't send you anything that isn't also presented to everyone else using the same stretch of hose. (Yeah, it's a pretty poor analogy all right ).

In practice, they continue to send some things to eveyone all the time, but some other things become only available upon request, sharing a designated portion of each "hose's" capacity.

Take a good look at that illustration in the top post of this thread--in it, the big thick tube with the little houses on it represents my garden hose whereas the dashed yellow lines are the river.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 10:18 PM   #1839
CharlesH
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Milpitas (San Francisco Bay Area)
Posts: 969
Maybe I am just missing it, but do the alternative TA implementations being discussed here require that the user get their Internet service from the cable company?

There is the question of how TiVo talks to the TA: over USB vs over the home LAN connection (wired, wireless, whatever) to a centralized place on the home network.

And the question of the upstream communication to the cable company SDV equipment: IP (over the public Internet vs over the cable) vs low level DOCSYS protocol on the cable.
CharlesH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 10:45 PM   #1840
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabby46 View Post
You are right that I dont understand SDV too well, Im not a big communications guy, but I guess what I am asking is why is that that with my cablecards, the company can still send me premium channels like HBO, but they cant somehow make a note to send the rest of the channels my way?
They don't "send you" anything, other than the encryption keys for the premium services you are authorized to receive, and they only do that once every few days or weeks. Linear services are there all the time, period. It's just that if you do not pay for them, your box is not given the encryption key so it can decrypt the data stream which appears at every house in the city. Any linear channel eats up its respective timeslot on the entire CATV plant.

An SDV stream is different. It does not appear at every house in the city. Instead, it appears at every house serviced by the fiber node of the subscriber who orders the stream. Typically this may be 400 - 1000 homes, or perhaps up to 3000 receivers. The stream in question then eats up the timeslot only on the node servicing the sub who requested it. The same timelsot on the other 100 - 500 or so nodes in the city is fee to carry some other video, or in fact up to the number of different videos as there are nodes. In an all digital CATV system (there are none of these yet) a typical plant may be able to handle about 600 QAMs, for a round figure. If all 600 are carrying 2 HD channels and one SD, that's 1200 HD channels and 600 SD. In a linear configuration, that's the limit. In a complete SDV configuaration, however, hypothetically a 500 node system with 600 QAMs could carry 600,000 HD videos and 300,000 SD videos. That's a big difference.

The "always on" configuration you are suggesting is a linear channel. In a 500 node CATV system, a single linear channel reduces the total number of available channels by 500. A single analog channel reduces the total number of videos by 1000 HD channels and 500 SD channels.

Note, however, that some channels, notably the National networks, the more popular "superstations" (WGN Chicago, TBS Atlanta, etc),, and the primary pay channel feeds (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, TMC, Starz, etc) all have large enough market shares that those channels will be continuously viewed by at least one subscriber on every node. This being the case, SDV offers no significant advantage for the CATV provider over a linear implementation, so it is very likely that for the moderately long term future those channels will continue to be broadcast on linear QAMs. Any channel whose viewership during any significant period of the day is low enough so that at least one node on average will not be carrying the channel during that time represents a potential increase in the number of available channels if the provider switches them to SDV. In a system with 100 active receivers per node at that time of day, that means if during any period of the day a particular channel (including HD versions of popular channels) drops regularly below 1%, moving that channel to SDV will increase the humber of available channels, particularly VOD offereings. Since 99.9% of the viewing penetration is taken up by the 5 national networks, SD versions of the "superstations", and SD versions of the primary premium channels, plus a small handul of Cable Channels (Lifetime, Animal Planet, Discovery, etc), the remaining channels all represent lucrative conversions to SDV, or revenue left on the table if the provider does not convert. On the other side of the equation is the capital costs of conversion and the annoyance of subs who can no longer receive the channel.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 10:47 PM   #1841
dswallow
Save the Moderatоr
 
dswallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Long Branch, NJ, USA
Posts: 49,223
TC CLUB MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesH View Post
Maybe I am just missing it, but do the alternative TA implementations being discussed here require that the user get their Internet service from the cable company?

There is the question of how TiVo talks to the TA: over USB vs over the home LAN connection (wired, wireless, whatever) to a centralized place on the home network.

And the question of the upstream communication to the cable company SDV equipment: IP (over the public Internet vs over the cable) vs low level DOCSYS protocol on the cable.
The TA implementations use private channels on the cable for communication with the head-end. It is really just IP traffic, but it isn't mixed in with or otherwise in any way related to internet service your cable company provides except that it's the same technology. The TiVo communicates with the TA via the USB port. The TA communicates with the head-end using the internal cable modem over the private channel the cable company supports.
__________________
¯\_(ツ)_/¯****************
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dswallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 10:58 PM   #1842
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesH View Post
Maybe I am just missing it, but do the alternative TA implementations being discussed here require that the user get their Internet service from the cable company?
No, not necessarily at all. The most direct Ethernet solution would not necessarily require one even have internet service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesH View Post
There is the question of how TiVo talks to the TA: over USB vs over the home LAN connection (wired, wireless, whatever) to a centralized place on the home network.
Yes, that is the point. By utilizing the home LAN (not the internet), the TA could service multiple TiVos. Of course hypothetically the USB based TA could do the same thing utilizing a USB hub, but that solution is very messy, both from a cabling perspective and a networking perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesH View Post
And the question of the upstream communication to the cable company SDV equipment: IP (over the public Internet vs over the cable) vs low level DOCSYS protocol on the cable.
'Not at all. If the connection were over the internet - which would also be technically possible - then a TA is not required at all. In this case, however, there are IP security issues at the CATV headend. Firewalling and VPN tunnels could easily alleviate those issues, but while it is the most elegant solution of all, I can readily understand why the CATV companies would be loathe to dive into it. That, plus it would require the subscriber to have an internet conenction, while a TA, whether Ethernet or USB based, does not.

It would also have been possible to make an Ethernet solution work directly with the subscriber's existing DOCSIS modem quite outside the internet IP stream. While doing so would have eliminated the firewall issues at the CATV headend, it would have required the subscriber not just to have internet service, but internet service from their CATV provider. A lot of Series III owners may have balked at that.

Last edited by lrhorer : 08-16-2008 at 11:15 PM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 11:10 PM   #1843
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
As I said, lrhorer, the number of televisions eligibile to be adapted to TA-compliance will be small--probably only a few of the high-end models from two or three manufacturers in '06 and '07--certainly no more than ten distinct models altogether and probably fewer.
Absolutely, and that's my point. In terms of being at the design stage of the TA, the desire to have make it compatible with a vanishingly small number of non-Tivo systems was one not really worth consideration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
One wonders if those manufacturers would bother--Mitsubishi is progressive enough that they might. I don't know about the others. For those few customers actually using the CableCARD slots in their televisions, it would be a great boon, cementing customer loyalty.
True. Now that the decision has been made and implemented to provide a USB based TA, there is very little to prevent the manufacturers of the few TVs which either are or will be compatible with the TA from writing the siple code to implement it. Indeed, if you ask me it would serve the CATV companies, CableLabs, and the CATV manufacturers right if there were a sudden explosion of TA capable devices in the marketplace, totally screwing up their plans for tru2way. The problem is, the real people to blame are at the FCC, and nothing that happens in the real world is going to take any skin off their noses.

If my 62" Mitsubishi DLP can be made to work with a TA, I might even go to the trouble of getting one for it, but only if Time Warner will give me four TAs free of monthly charges.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 11:25 PM   #1844
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by dswallow View Post
The TA implementations use private channels on the cable for communication with the head-end. It is really just IP traffic, but it isn't mixed in with or otherwise in any way related to internet service your cable company provides except that it's the same technology.
That is correct. The internet exclusively makes use of TCP/IP networking and public IP addresses for its existence, but that in no way means IP is equivalent to the internet, despite its misleading name of "Internet Protocol". I haven't looked, but while I believe the handshaking for SDV probably is IP based, it may not be. It could possibly be OSI, or even IPX, although I would seriously doubt the latter. On the other hand if I were the one designing the SDV network, I would definitely seriously consider OSI. Assuming it is TCP/IP, and not OSI or some other set of networking protocols, I would bet a great deal the addresses are non-routable.

Last edited by lrhorer : 08-16-2008 at 11:32 PM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 03:37 AM   #1845
ADent
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
The internet exclusively makes use of TCP/IP networking and public IP addresses for its existence
Don't forget UDP - the internet is not all TCP.
ADent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 10:37 AM   #1846
classicsat
Astute User
 
classicsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ontario Canada.
Posts: 17,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesH View Post
Maybe I am just missing it, but do the alternative TA implementations being discussed here require that the user get their Internet service from the cable company?
Not necessarily.
It would be, as said, a matter of tunneling internet traffic (securely) to the private network the cable boxes use, or to the SDV control gear.
Quote:
There is the question of how TiVo talks to the TA: over USB vs over the home LAN connection (wired, wireless, whatever) to a centralized place on the home network.
My understanding is the TiVo talks to the TA in , more or less a simple command protocol, The lower level protocol is handled by some sort of USB stack operated by a driver.

That stack could be IP on ethernet I suppose, but it would also have to run a VPN or other security means to an ethernet TA, or over the internet to the VPN connection at the cable headend. That VPN on the hos would have to be customized for each provider, and that customization could requires "secrets" be revealed, or at least vulnerable.
Quote:
And the question of the upstream communication to the cable company SDV equipment: IP (over the public Internet vs over the cable) vs low level DOCSYS protocol on the cable.
As said, the public internet would require the host device implement a VPN to the cable provider. For all intents and purposes, ones home network would be considered public internet (for security purposes, there would be no trusting the consumer keeping their home network "clean"), and the ethernet TA in one's home the providers SDV receptor, or an outside internet receptor at the node or headend.

The bigger picture, IMO, is that the TA as will be implemented is a lot more simpler and secure for most customers, the box developers (TiVo), and the cable providers.
__________________
Series 2 234 Hr Lifetime.
Window XP and Ubuntu Linux on my PCs.
Watching more and more in HD direct now.
classicsat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 04:49 PM   #1847
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADent View Post
Don't forget UDP - the internet is not all TCP.
Indeed, it is not, but the topology is still known as TCP/IP. It is one of several misleading definitions running around in the networking world. Although UDP is specifically separate from TCP, even though both are layer 4 protocols which can be chosen by the developer as replacements for each other, even though both are commonly used not only on the internet but also in many other networks, and even though "IP" stands for "Internet Protocol", the term TCP/IP refers to any implementation which carriers layer 4 or above protocols over an IP stack. Go figure.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 05:42 PM   #1848
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
Not necessarily.
It would be, as said, a matter of tunneling internet traffic (securely) to the private network the cable boxes use, or to the SDV control gear.
'Not internet traffic. The SDV control traffic, or rather probably only the half of it going towards the CATV headend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
My understanding is the TiVo talks to the TA in , more or less a simple command protocol, The lower level protocol is handled by some sort of USB stack operated by a driver.

That stack could be IP on ethernet
'Not unless the engineer were a fool. There is no reason to implement layer 3 or higher protocols, whether the TA is Ethernet based or USB. layer 2 is not only sufficient to the task, it is vastly perferable for this traffic. There is no reason to implement a layer 3 stack, or to implement routing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
I suppose, but it would also have to run a VPN or other security means to an ethernet TA, or over the internet to the VPN connection at the cable headend. That VPN on the hos would have to be customized for each provider, and that customization could requires "secrets" be revealed, or at least vulnerable.
If you are talking about VPN tunneling, VPN takes a layer 3 datagram whose destination (probably IP) address is inside the firewalled network, encrypts it, and encapsulates it into an unecrypted layer 3 datagram whose destination IP address is the VPN endpoint which is in turn packaged into an ordinary unencrypted layer 2 datagram whose destination address is the local router, and finally into an unencrypted layer 1 packet and sent out towards the internet. Along the way, layers 1 and 2 will be variously stripped and added back as the packet travels toward the VPN endpoint. Once at the endpoint, the unencrypted layers are all stripped away, the encrypted packet is decrypted back to an ordinary layer 3 packet, then ordinary layer 2 and 1 encapsulations are added back to the layer 3 packet to send it oward its final destination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
As said, the public internet would require the host device implement a VPN to the cable provider. For all intents and purposes, ones home network would be considered public internet (for security purposes, there would be no trusting the consumer keeping their home network "clean"), and the ethernet TA in one's home the providers SDV receptor, or an outside internet receptor at the node or headend.
None of this applies to a TA of any sort. It only would apply to a solution which did not use a TA at all, but instead used the internet. It also would not apply to a non-TA Ethernet solution which made use of the subscriber's DOCIS modem at layer 2. While perfectly secure (and then some) for the CATV provider, it would restrict the application only to those who happen to have broadband service through their CATV provider.

Enough. An Ethernet solution would have been just as simple, practical, and secure, but for purely specious reasons the protocol chosen was USB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
The bigger picture, IMO, is that the TA as will be implemented is a lot more simpler and secure for most customers, the box developers (TiVo), and the cable providers.
No, the bigger picture is people who understand little or nothing about networking and computer hardware were the ones who made the decisions on what protocols to submit in the standard. They were swayed by completely specious and erroneous arguments like yours. USB offers nothing whatsoever in this situation not offered at least as simply and securely if not moreso by Ethernet. What's more, 802.1 was crafted from the base up as a networking protocol. While serial networking predates 802.1 by quite some number of years, serial protocols, including USB, were never crafted with networking as a primary focus. Ethernet was, and so is established as a superior solution for any multi-peer topologies, such as one TA providing SDV for multiple UDCPs.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 07:50 PM   #1849
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,155
I think that there are a couple of different conversations going on here, one being about the pluses and minuses of implementing this using IP networking back to some sort of central server without any form of Tuning Adapter, and one is about whether the TA could have been implemented as a Ethernet LAN app with a single box serving all TiVos in the home. I believe that classicsat's last reply was about the former.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 10:24 PM   #1850
CharlesH
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Milpitas (San Francisco Bay Area)
Posts: 969
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
and one is about whether the TA could have been implemented as a Ethernet LAN app with a single box serving all TiVos in the home.
In this proposal, the TA could have its own DOCSIS modem to talk to the SDV server over the cable (as in the adopted implementation), so no Internet service of any kind is required, but only one TA would be required in a household.
CharlesH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 10:05 AM   #1851
classicsat
Astute User
 
classicsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ontario Canada.
Posts: 17,877
My reply is about either, in that the ethernet or wireless network from a UDCP is "public internet" (even inside ones home network), for the purposes of the security of the TA, and that requires a level of security be developed on the UDCP host, and by the SDV receptor (be it the TA in ones home, or over the "outside internet" to an SDV receptor at the cable headend), a level of security which both UDCP developers and cable hardware/service providers would sooner not deal with.
__________________
Series 2 234 Hr Lifetime.
Window XP and Ubuntu Linux on my PCs.
Watching more and more in HD direct now.
classicsat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 11:27 AM   #1852
shabby46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
They don't "send you" anything, other than the encryption keys for the premium services you are authorized to receive, and they only do that once every few days or weeks.
OK, thanks. That is the part that I was missing. I get the general idea behind SDV but I was under the impression that Premium services were handled in a similar way. Thanks for clearing that up.
shabby46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 12:16 PM   #1853
jeffspam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Dublin, OH
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
requires a level of security be developed on the UDCP host, and by the SDV receptor (be it the TA in ones home, or over the "outside internet" to an SDV receptor at the cable headend), a level of security which both UDCP developers and cable hardware/service providers would sooner not deal with.
Given that crypto is already present in both the headend and consumer equipment, this would not be very difficult to implement. Encryption is well understood, and present in tons of devices (e.g. our Tivos), including those with modest CPU/RAM capabilities. My $30 wireless router can implement the "level of security" required to make this work (I'm not talking about WEP/WPA/etc., but about a general purpose ARM-based CPU, similar to what a Tivo already has in it, running something like OpenVPN).

Instead, we get a solution needing additional hardware to be deployed, inevitably requiring (not really, but tell that to TWC) an installer to make a trip out to the customer's location. I don't know enough about the history of the SDV TA, but it seems to me to be a hack which only serves to feed more money to GI/SA, yet simultaneously making CableCard less and less attractive to consumers.
jeffspam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 12:29 PM   #1854
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffspam View Post
Instead, we get a solution needing additional hardware to be deployed, inevitably requiring ... an installer to make a trip out to the customer's location.
And what will folks do in November to address this failure of regulation to provide for what "we" get? Nothing. They'll still vote pro-business legislators into office, who will appoint pro-business officials, just like has been the case for the last thirty-five years. As much as these things seem to some people like they should be another way, the way they are is the way people (in general) have, time and time again, have voted to have them be.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2008, 04:04 PM   #1855
Mordred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 35
I think lrhorer might have been my networking professor He's bringing back a lot of bad memories from that class at least. It is interesting reading, but I've forgotten a good 75% of everything I've learned so I'm feeling a little lost. Still nice to see someone who knows exactly what they're talking about.
Mordred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 08:48 AM   #1856
mel.simmons
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Del Mar CA
Posts: 24
Digeo solution for cable card and SDV?

Digeo has at times looked as if they wanted to become a direct competitor to TiVo. Their past announcements have not been followed by real products, and they have pulled back a lot as a company. They did not launch products to compete with TiVo Series 3 as cable card hosts. However they now seem to be carving out a role in cable card SDV by working with Charter Communications.

http://www.lightreading.com/document...61848&site=cdn

From the announcement, this seems to be an SDV solution with capabilities of a Tuning Adapter, but not full interaction with PPV or other cable company services. Their initial market is only through Charter, but there is mention of a possible future retail product.
mel.simmons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 10:36 AM   #1857
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,155
As far as I know, Digeo's past has mostly been selling Moxi to cable providers (locally Adelphia--since annexed by TWC--was using Moxi on Motorola boxes and many people in that territory still have them). That article says that they have a new box that they're marketing to cable providers. If so, it must support PPV and VOD as well as SDV tuning. Certainly, Moxi as deployed on leased cable boxes today supports PPV and VOD (page 38 of the Moxi Media Center User's Guide talks about controlling PPV and On Demand purchases).

Saying that it has the "capabilities of a Tuning Adapter" is like saying that the Cisco and Moto boxes that the cable companies lease have the "capabilities of a Tuning Adapter"--kind of putting the cart before the horse. Digeo is working with BigBand networks to integrate their flavor of SDV tuning into Moxi. The article also says that BigBand Networks has integrated their SDV tuning system into Macrovision/Gemstar's Passport, TWC's Digital Navigator and Cisco's SARA IPGs.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 05:48 PM   #1858
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabby46 View Post
OK, thanks. That is the part that I was missing. I get the general idea behind SDV but I was under the impression that Premium services were handled in a similar way. Thanks for clearing that up.
No. IPPV may be, and depending on the provider probably is, and VOD definitely is, but regular Premium channels do not have to be, and generally only will be if their total market share on a node by node basis is less than about 1% or so. That's why it is likely at least some of your Premium channels - at least the SD versions - probably still work. If the instantaneous market share of a channel never drops below the inverse of the number of active receivers on a node, then it doesn't make much sense to configure the channel as SDV, unless there are just no linear slots left.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 06:01 PM   #1859
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicsat View Post
My reply is about either, in that the ethernet or wireless network from a UDCP is "public internet" (even inside ones home network), for the purposes of the security of the TA
So is the USB port. First of all, anything appearing at one of the USB ports will automatcially also appear at the other. What's more, there is nothing whatsoever preventing the Tivo owner from connecting his TiVo to a USB hub, or for that matter directly connecting the TiVo to whatever device one wants via the Ethernet port, making it a point-point connection. Any security desired by the manufacturer must be implemnented on the USB port, precisely as it must be on the Ethernet port. Only layer 1 is different, and the layer 1 code already exists for both devices, compiled into the kernel.

I don't know how else to break this to you classicsat, but you are just simply, completely wrong. There is nothing from a cost, engineering, security, software, or parts availability perspective to recommend USB over Ethernet in this situation. There are cases where USB is the better choice either for the manufacturer or for the consumer, but this is not one of those cases. It just is not.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 06:12 PM   #1860
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordred View Post
I think lrhorer might have been my networking professor
Thanks. I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordred View Post
Still nice to see someone who knows exactly what they're talking about.
It's also nice to know I have at least one person totally snowed.

I haven't lectured a networking class in nearly ten years, and I've never been a professional educator, but my role as an engineer does frequently require me to provide tutoring. I hope I'm fairly competent at it, but I'm definitely not a professional teacher.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:45 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |