Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by britdiver, Apr 14, 2008.
This is where I am having a real hard time following the logic. MPEG2 absolutely IS major compressed.
The bottom line is that MPEG4 usually gets much more compression for an equivalent visual quality. You could dial each one to make it look worse or better.
When you say major compression, perhaps you mean additional compression over and above the standard level (if that exists) of compression.
Under the current system, the addressable equipment has to be distributed through a particular provider.
With that, if a cable provider were to take the notion to sell their hardware, they'd have to sell it through their store front, or work out deals with local retailers. Now, MSOs could partner with major retailers to sell local boxes in local stores. This is some what how it happens in Canada, where customer owned cable equipment is the norm.
Customers have to do their due diligence to to ensure the equipment they own or intend to buy will work on the system they intend to use it on, and the provider is willing and able to authorise it.
I think the point is that with MPEG4 you can achieve higher compression than MPEG2 without noticeably impacting quality. Therefore, if both are transmitted at same bitrate then the MPEG4 quality should be better in that it is carrying more in terms of the original uncompressed video per compressed bit compared to MPEG2. Stated a different way if you encode uncompressed video to 8GB MPEG4 and 8GB MPEG2, the 8GB MPEG4 should look better.
Of course the problem with D* is in many cases they have to transcode source MPEG2 -> MPEG4 before transmission which will mean worse quality compared to the original MPEG2.
Here is why:
The SDV adapter itself is not a simple 2-way/back communications device, but half a cable box itself, and as such has to match what the existing cable network is.
Cable systems use different combinations of hardware and software platforms. Although the various permutations are small, they are too many to reasonably build into one piece of hardware today.
The promise was this spring, or at least this summer/fall.
The only time reasonable solution is to make the platform specific half cable box Tuning Adapter. To make a universal Tuning Adapter might extend that another year or more.
Now, if so inclined, they could make a 2nd Gen TA that is universal, but I doubt they will.
Why do people keep saying the promise was time-x? I really don't recall any promise by anyone.
I don't mean to pick on words, but people set false expectations for themselves and others when they look at a forward looking press release by a someone saying what they expect someone else to produce at some time in the future and then think that is a promise. The makers of the adapter (Mot and SA) never made any promises.
I've seen it many times here referred to as a promise.
Yes,yes,yes !!!Thank you very much . You made it now short and sweet !
Maybe not quite a promise, but CableLabs issued a press release (saying it was working on the tuning resolver along with TiVo, Motorola, Scientific-Atlanta, BigBand Networks and C-COR) in November that set expectations when its president, Richard Green, stated:
"the new adapter will solve the switched digital issue for UDCPs that have a USB connector and necessary firmware. Such UDCPs will enable consumers to view all linear cable channels, including both switched and non-switched linear channels. He said the new adapter will be available to consumers in the first half of 2008."
So if anyone set false expectations in this case, it is the cable industry (and in any case, it looks like they will be pretty close to their first half of '08 target, so maybe the expectations are not false at all).
All of that applies to cable modems as well. And we have a standard. And the SDV dongle is far far simpler than a cable modem (I strongly disagree wih your first point). All the SDV dongle does is communicate what channel is where. We already have CC's that can tune to the channels, it's just the "random" mapping that's a problem.
All of your stuff above is irrelevent. It's a real-time data issue only (and/or request/response issue). Trivial to standardize, if they thought that was important.
In my view cablecards don't meet what the FCC wanted and the cable indusry should be held to account. They should of had all this figured out before they came out with cablecards. It's as simple as that. I mean how many years ago did Directv come out with an access card?
Yeah. It's the cable industries fault for not fully embracing something they didn't want to do in the first place. Big surprise there.
I don't see any evidence that the FCC wanted cable cards.
The FCC allowed the cable industry to delay cable card introduction for almost 10 year. The FCC followed the letter of the law as passed by congress and no more. They allowed other technologies that effectively negate cable card to be introduced.
I would have agreed with the statement that cable cards, as implemented, did not meet the original intent of Congress, but that is just my opionion.
It would have been much more effective, I believe, if Congress had stated the intent in the law.
But CableLabs is not building anything so how can they state anything about delivery dates let alone imply any promises?
the problem is cable ALLOWED that to occur in the first place.
they could have told the 3 SDV equipment providers to work together to come up with a single standard. In fact that would have made life better for the cable company's of the world as they wouldn't then have been locked into proprietary SDV systems like they have gotten stuck with the proprietary CA systems for the past umpteen years. Now if they buy the company X solution they are married to company X untill OCAP becomes the norm.
There's a variety of reasons why such things occur. Many legit. Sometimes competing standards just need to get deployed and see where the chips fall (blue ray vs HD DVD anyone..., CDMA vs GSM.... etc) But in the face of cable I think there is an added bit that they are flat out stupid and stuborn and aren't capable of looking at the big picture. JMHO of course...
the intent pretty clear in my opinion. THe law seems obvious to me.
Congress wants 3rd party devices to be readily availible in retail outlets.
The FCC was instructed to make that happen.
The FCC has failed.
The reason why the FCC failed is subject to speculation.
The funny thing is that there are things the FCC or it's individual commisioners have said that sure sound like they did intent to accomplish what congress told them to do. In fact there's some comments from them that they expected a robust and highly competitive market for such 3rd party devices years and years ago. Apparently they got snowed or didn't understand the issue very well...
Maybe OCAP/true2way makes it a reality.
Time will tell...
because as a cable owned and operated entity they are something of a defacto mouthpiece.
from their website
Those members pay the dues that employ the cablelabs people.
So in my head both the NCTA and cablelabs speak on behalf of the boogeyman called "cable". (And NOTICE both are involved in the press release linked above)
I dont know that anyone "promised" anything. But an employee of the major cable company's (that's the folks that pay for cablelabs employees) creating a press release can reasonably be construed to speak for cable in my mind. So yes I think it’s implied when cablelabs speaks that they are speaking for the big 5 cable companies at least. Now how can the big 5 cable company’s speak on behalf of moto and sa and the SDV providers? Because they are major customers and they are intricately connected.
If Continental airlines announces that they are having 10 Boeing jets delivered in 2009- would it not be reasonable to expect that Boeing will be building those 10 jets in that timeframe? One step farther If continental vacations (a travel agent subsidiary of continental) said that they will have tickets for vacation destination on new routes to be served by those 10 new planes in 2009 would you not be able to assume that Boeing is making the delivery when continental says?
I guess there's room for disagreement and we can all get lawyer like but I don’t think people are insane or unreasonable to infer that cablelabs speaks on behalf of the large cable company's. Maybe they are wrong- but cable should understand that when cablelabs or the NCTA speaks people assume that they are speaking on behalf of cable (and I personally think they do understand that and are carefull to parse their words accordingly)
I've read some of those statements as well. Their actions didn't seem to reflect their statements. How long did they allow the cable industry to take to do this? That alone is a strong statement.
Yes, that is the bigger picture. We can argue that until we are blue or red in the face, but the fact remains that the cable systems are today proprietary systems, and as such requires a proprietary TA.
Don't forget about the hardware platform.