End of QAM tuners ?

[evilpenguin]

Well, it really comes down to how many tuners you really *need*. The only time I really run into unrecoverable conflicts is with my local HD channels and since my 2xHDHR's will work for those no matter what Comcast does, i'm set there.

Then for my favorites that are only on cable channels only I bet I could get away with a single tuner since every cable show is rebroadcast like 5 times a day/week.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by SHS

stanger89 you never know what going happing just like with HD-PVR even I though for sure it was going get canned but as old saying gose if there will there a way hehehe.

The HD PVR (whether specifically from Hauppauge or not) was basically guaranteed to happen. The hardware (video encoder, video digitizer) existed, so did the market, and there was really nothing anyone could do to stop it.

That never going to happing becuases if MPAA had it there way there would be no VCR, DVR, Camcorders nor any PC Capture card weather not it Analog or Digital.

Well camcorders would exist anyway since there's a huge (home videos) market that's got nothing to do with motion pictures.

And PC capture cards would exist too because, well quite simply they're necessary for lots of things beyond recording TV.

But to get to the important matter, recording TV, there are two important differences between the VCR, the "father" of modern TV recording, and digital TV recorders.

First there were big companies (Sony) with the motivation and resources to create such a device, and to defend it.

But there's a much bigger, more fundamental difference, that is it was (still is really) technologically impossible to prevent the capture of analog signals. Analog signals can't be encrypted or obfuscated in such a was as to make them undecipherable. Because the entire video system from studio to your TV was analog, it was simply impossible prevent people from capturing and deciphering analog audio/video signals, and since the standards were published, anyone could go out and build a device which records video.

Yeah, stuff like macrovision and scrambled cable were done, but they didn't really work very good.

Digital video is an entirely different ballgame. With digital transmissions, you can encrypt and obfuscate your message so that only people you give the keys to can access the content.

What this means is that while anyone can go out and build a device which can capture the raw transport stream, only those with the permission of the industry will be given the keys to allow use of the transport streams contents.

So where as with the VCR, a "rogue" company could go out and build a TV recorder, without the permission of the content industry, sell it, and most importantly, do it all legally.

The problem with digital video is you can't do the same thing. If you don't have the blessing of the content industry, you're SOL, you can't legally build or sell a device that decrypts that content.

So in the era of digital video, we're at the whim of the content industry, including both creation (MPAA) and distribution (cable/sat/internet) to be able to directly record digital video. Until either the distribution (cable/sat/internet) sector or the content creation sector themselves realize, like the RIAA is starting to, that it's in their best interest to make their content as easy to obtain and use legally we're stuck with workarounds like the HD PVR.

Originally Posted by evilpenguin

I know the HD-PVR is the silver bullet to save us from the cable companies meddling, but I was just hopping it wouldn't be necessary because its the most expensive single tuner you can buy.

The first hardware-encode, consumer capture card, the Vision Tech Kfir based Hauppauge WinTV PVR-PCI, released in 2000, was exactly the same price as the HD PVR, $249, actually, it was more, it was about $300 in today's dollars:
http://www.hauppauge.com/html/wintvpvr_datasheet.htm
Yet within a few years, we had cards for $150, then $100, and now they're even cheaper.

Just some perspective.

[SHS]

I wonder why there's no competition for it yet

Yup I have been wondering the same thing as well
ADS Tech or even AVerMedia would have joint the party

[SHS]

The first hardware-encode, consumer capture card, the Vision Tech Kfir based Hauppauge WinTV PVR-PCI, released in 2000.

Ho stanger89 this way wrong it wasn't the frist how ever it was the frist that come out with Analog TV Tuner
The frist are hardware-encode capture card are
Pinnacle MP10 MPEG-1
Dazzle DVC2 "Digital Video Creator II" MPEG-2 it was out May/June of 2000
The frist Capture card with a TV Tuner was the Hauppauge WinTV PVR-PCI Aug 2000

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by stanger89

The HD PVR (whether specifically from Hauppauge or not) was basically guaranteed to happen. The hardware (video encoder, video digitizer) existed, so did the market, and there was really nothing anyone could do to stop it.

It depends on what you mean by "stop it". Other companies can always threaten anyone planning on releasing HD-capable capture devices. Lawsuits are sort of the stereotypical example, but you could also imagine companies refusing to do business with anyone releasing HD capture devices.

I kind of wonder if that has something to do with the fact that only Hauppauge has released something like the HD-PVR. Early pictures of Leadtek's cell-based transcoder card had video input, but the released version doesn't have it (though I never thought the product was going to be released at all).

As long as its just Hauppauge in the game, I wouldn't expect prices for the HD-PVR to drop very quickly. At the same time, I'm not convinced the market for HD capture devices is big enough to attract the interest of other companies. Since Hauppauge basically only sells capture devices they didn't really have a choice but to try to develop and market the HD-PVR. Leadtek doesn't have that problem, and probably thinks its easier to focus on other types of products.

[hingepin]

Well, I now know what everyone is talking about not receiving many channels. I checked out the siliconedust.com site today and ran my zip code on what channels I can expect. I know the screenshots they post are new cause they are of NBC announcing Ted Kennedy has died. Looks like once the upgrade is complete, nothing but Baltimore and Washington locals.

It's kind of like sitting in the chair with a wet sponge under that little metal hat waiting for them to throw the switch!

Guess I wasted $ upgradding to 4TB of storage! Guess I'll be moving back to a set top once it happens.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by evilpenguin

I know the HD-PVR is the silver bullet to save us from the cable companies meddling, but I was just hopping it wouldn't be necessary because its the most expensive single tuner you can buy.

Nonsense.. some of use have an R5000 (or more)....

Also, there is still promise in Media Foundations protected path system. It still has a lot of missing pieces, but if it could be completed to where an authentication card would be required not only for recording, but also playback of a protected media file, then there MIGHT be some hope in the future. I personally would be fine with having DRM on my recordings, limiting playback to 'autohorized' devices, as long as those devices could be more than one (let me get an auth card for each client) if it meant I could record the direct stream, without any wasteful reencoding (the reason I spent the money on the R-5000).

[gplasky]

It's too bad the cable companies just don't provide a single box that would decrypt the signals and produce ClearQAM as the output. And maybe provide mulitple outputs to run cable to each room. Newer TVs nowadays have a ClearQAM tuner and you would be able to use any TV in your house and view it anywhere. (Instead of wasting the use of a tuner at the TV.) Users wouldn't need and the cable company wouldn't have to provide DTAs for each TV. Less remotes to mess with. I would pay a little more per month for that to offset loss of rental revenue. Or maybe they could charge a $1.00 or $2.00 per month per extra TV. (Or the price could include up to X number of TVs) Less hardware for the cable company to manage also. One box per household as opposed to one box per TV. Let people set up what they want and enjoy TV the way they want at home.

Gerry

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by gplasky

It's too bad the cable companies just don't provide a single box that would decrypt the signals and produce ClearQAM as the output.

That would have to be quite a box. It would have to decrypt every channel in real-time. That's a lot of data to process. I'm not saying it's not possible. Certainly there are line encryptors/decryptors out there that process similar amounts of data, but those aren't cheap devices.

So, to make it practical, you have to limit it to just decrypting a single channel at a time, and then you basically end up with a DTA.

Edit to Add: Actually, line decryptors aren't a good example here. Sure, there are line decryptors that can process huge amounts of data, but they typically just have a single stream of encrypted data. Processing multiple streams of encrypted data would be harder. It would be tough to use just a single, really powerful crypto chip. You'd probably need lots of crypto chips to deal with decrypting all the different channels, maybe even one per channel.

[stanger89]

The real problem is you've got on the order of 100 RF carriers each with encrypted data. Decrypting any of those individually would not be hard, the problem is demodulating 100 carriers simultaneously so the data can be decrypted and then modulating them all back onto their original carriers and putting them back on the coax.

You'd basically need a duplicate of the hardware at the head end in every house.

[SHS]

stanger89 and reggie14 are both rigth that not possable with today tech
As it stand rigth now one single decryption engine can only process two encrypted streams at time if it is fast one just like what found in Dual Tuner DVR.

[Dave62]

Another solution would be for the STB to decrypt just 1 channel then remodulate it in the clear. That would work with QAM TV's and also my tuners (with a software update).

[stanger89]

The Dish 5000 STB had an "HDTV Digital Modulator" which would output the direct, clear, demodulated transport stream from Dish as an ATSC standard channel that any ATSC TV tuner could view/record.

That idea has long since been thrown by the wayside.

[oddjob]

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=637

* merged 1 *

[Taddeusz]

This is really very sad. Makes me wonder if Cox's decision to keep their analog tier going till Feb 2012 was actually a stalling tactic to wait and see if this DTA exception would be approved?

Who knows what will happen though? Two and a half years is a long time for things to change for the better or worse.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Dave62

Another solution would be for the STB to decrypt just 1 channel then remodulate it in the clear. That would work with QAM TV's and also my tuners (with a software update).

Sure, that would work. But, I don't see why cable companies, or 99% of users, would want it. For regular cable subscribers you'd still need another box and remote at each TV, and you wouldn't get any kind of EPG on your TV. It would sort of be like going back to hooking up your VCR to your TV using coax and setting the TV to channel 3. That solution basically only makes sense for people wanting to use PC-based DVRs, and we won't see cable companies going out of their way to support that. There's no reason for them to.

[FreshOne]

The FCC granted waivers to turn on "Privacy Mode" (56-bit encryption) for 4 cable DTAs.

http://anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=637

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/0...V-and-the-HTPC

Unfortunately, this will certainly reduce the usefulness of my 4-tuner Sage box (I was so looking forward to canning my DirecTV subscription).

WHOOPS - Didn't see this thread in Hardware section
http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43792

MODS can delete.

* merged 2 *

[FreshOne]

Originally Posted by Dave62

I can see it now, 1 HDHR replaced with 2x HDFury, 2x STB, and 2x HDPVR. If that happens I quit.

Agreed. All that equipment is way to complex and expensive than 1 HDHR (as an owner of 2 HDHRs).

[Graygeek]

I recall from a year ago, give or take, there was talk of SiliconDust working on a cable capture box. There was some discussion here, at Green button and on SiliconDust's forum. I recall they answered a post on their forum saying they were working on something, but it's been a long time since it has been mentioned by anyone. Anybody have any insight on if this is still in the works or if it died like other rumored capture devices.

[mwareman]

Looks like comcast got their waiver to enable the security module in the DTA - so ClearQAM may be going away for the expanded basics at any time. Just a heads up for thost that have configured HDHR or HVR devices..

http://www.lightreading.com/document...80850&site=cdn

* merged 3 *