Let the CES RumorMongering begin!

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Justin Thyme, Dec 28, 2005.

  1. Jan 6, 2006 #281 of 291
    ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004

    Advertisements

    well lets see if DT_TC clarified me correctly or not ;)

    the Scard is a single stream of decrypted signal

    the Mcard is a multistreams of decrypted signal

    the 1.0 standard was all about the card and how it would decrypt a stream, no bidirectional talk at all and the number of streams were not necessarily limited to 1 by the CC 1 standard.

    now CC 2 standard is about the parts in the HOST that will allow bidirectional communication for VOD or whatever. It does not change the card itself or if it does it is very little. The cable labs people think the CC2 standard they have is just fine and they all agree on it. The consumer electronics group though that needs to ratify it is crying foul at the things the CC2 standard says a host has to do. So a standard exists but the two groups are at odds with no compromise in sight at the moment.

    Do I finally get this DT-DC ? :)
     
  2. Jan 6, 2006 #282 of 291
    lajohn27

    lajohn27 Fanboi.. So what?

    938
    9
    Dec 29, 2003
    Canada
    As for the beta testing.. It is *possible* that this box could be going to test phase sooner rather than later.
     
  3. Jan 6, 2006 #283 of 291
    dt_dc

    dt_dc Mostly Harmless

    2,013
    0
    Jul 31, 2003
    Northern...
    The cards are not "directional" at all. You can plug an MCard into a (theoretical, not yet available) bidirectional host ... and it will work. You can also plug an SCard into a (theoretical, not yet available) bidirectional host ... and it will work.

    There is nothing about the cards that allows for (or prohibits) bidirectional functionality. An MCard will work for interactive stuff ... so will an SCard.
    This is why I'm starting to dislike the "CableCard 1.0" and "CableCard 2.0" tags. There's no real easy way to answer this. There's a whole host of specs (Cards, Interfaces, Hosts, Copy Protection, etc etc etc) AND there's also the federal regs and what cable companies are required to support ... when people say "CableCard 1.0" they are usually referring to a specific slice of all that (basically, what we have now) and when people say "CableCard 2.0" they are usually referring to a specific slice of all that (basically, what it was thought the "next" iteration would look like).

    Anyway ... the MCards are MCards. No 1.0 or 2.0 about them (technically). Although they are (part of) what people generally refer to as "2.0". But ... they are only a part.
    No.

    The MCards should be coming mid year.

    Ok, fine ... assuming they do.

    The specs for what a bidirectional host must do / implement / whatever are not done. Ok, cable says they are basically done and aren't going to change much. The CEA (and Verizon, and probably some other people) say they don't like them and there's probably going to be some argument at the FCC on what to do. No one is going to want to build a bidirectional host to sell to the consumer untill either:

    1) The FCC says exactly what the cable companies have to support ... giving manufacturers and consumers confidence the bidirectional host is going to be usefull

    or

    2) Cable starts deploying their own vision of bidirectional functionality in enough mass / numbers ... giving manufacturers and consumers confidence the bidirectional host is going to be usefull
    Well ...

    Keep in mind those CE companies are selling directly to the cable companies. Comcast is buying 200,000 two-way OCAP boxes from Samsung. Samsung isn't selling those directly to consumers. So it's on Comcast's head to make those work (or not) ... not Samsung's. The consumers aren't buying those ... Comcst is leasing them to customers.

    This goes to path #2 (vs. path #1 and the argument at the FCC I mentioned) above. Cable is going to be rolling out those boxes. They will tell the FCC that everything is in motion. They will say that Once there's enough mass support by the cable companies ... Samsung can start selling these boxes directly to the customer. Everything is a done deal ... the new CableCard regs should be implemented exactly as they have suggested.

    The CEA will say that cable's vision isn't what the FCC / Congress intended. And that while Comcast may be willing to buy these boxes ... the framework does not provide the open-ness that would truly encourage innovation and "navigation devices from competitive sources".

    I have no clue what the FCC will do ... but that will determine whether this is all a "done deal" yet ... or not.

    Clear as mud?
     
  4. Jan 6, 2006 #284 of 291
    dt_dc

    dt_dc Mostly Harmless

    2,013
    0
    Jul 31, 2003
    Northern...
    Well ... in some ways they were "done" with the 1.0 specs.

    You see, the CableCard Host 1.0 spec laid out exactly what must be done to build a bi-directional CableCard host to support two-way services.

    However, by the time the CEA and cable companies finished negotiating and arguing (in private and at the FCC) ... the ONLY part of the 1.0 specs they could actually agree to were the parts to allow one-way support / services.

    So ... if someone built a bidirectional host according to those specs ... it wouldn't work (now or ever).

    We're going through that same process with the CableCard Host 2.0 specs now.

    CableLabs may very well "close" some of those 2.0 specs (for example, to allow Samsung to build those OCAP boxes I mentioned above) ... but that doesn't mean that everything is "all set" for bidirectional support. May very well see 3.0 specs ... 4.0 specs ... etc.
     
  5. Jan 6, 2006 #285 of 291
    ack_thbbft

    ack_thbbft New Member

    77
    0
    Dec 30, 2004
    Las Vegas

    Advertisements

    I can pretty much guarantee you that whoever this guy is who said he is getting a beta box is full of shite. I personally spoke with the project director for the Series 3 box at CES, and he said there is no beta program at this time, as the hardware hasn't even come close to being finalized yet. Another TiVo exec next to him said that even SHE couldn't get one for testing yet.
     
  6. Jan 6, 2006 #286 of 291
    ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004

    that was how I took it , just someone starting a rumor tha the boxes were close to coming out for whatever reason - maybe just to see how far it spread. :mad:
     
  7. Jan 6, 2006 #287 of 291
    mattack

    mattack Well-Known Member

    25,138
    599
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    Maybe I'm wrong, but I could swear that the various Tivo hacking FAQs that talk about getting shows off a Tivo over the network (i.e. after hacking and turning on things like FTP) require you to *TURN OFF* encryption so that you can only successfully use _future_ recordings on the computer you transfer to.
     
  8. Jan 7, 2006 #288 of 291
    dr_mal

    dr_mal It's CWS time

    2,367
    0
    Mar 21, 2001
    Abingdon, VA
    I know that's true for DirecTiVos -- buy my personal experience is only with antiquated Series 1 machines. Perhaps with the advent of MRV on the Series 2 boxes, the shows are now encrypted.
     
  9. Jan 7, 2006 #289 of 291
    stevel

    stevel Dumb Blond TCF Club

    39,960
    11,700
    Aug 23, 2000
    Nashua, NH
    It is also true for S2 boxes. The recordings are encrypted on disk.
     
  10. Jan 7, 2006 #290 of 291
    ChuckyBox

    ChuckyBox New Member

    1,663
    0
    Oct 3, 2005
    Thanks for the info. Could be this guy was just trying to drive traffic to his web site.

    BTW, who were the project director and the exec?
     
  11. Jan 8, 2006 #291 of 291
    megazone

    megazone Hardcore TiVo Geek

    3,302
    0
    Mar 3, 2002
    .worcester.m...
    My understanding is that it will be going into testing Real Soon Now. So it is possible this guy *was* a beta tester.

    *Was* because I also saw that comment the night it was posted, and a few seconds after I saw it, it was on its way in an email to TiVo's beta coordinator.

    And yes, people have leaked details from betas in the past, more than once, and this would not be the first one to do so in an indentifiable way. However, it may be the first time someone pre-announced it. :)
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements