New FCC Order on CableCards re SageTV

[SomeWhatLost]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk6

I just want to watch my friggin' shows on my Hd200.

and DRM is the only thing stopping you from doing that...

sure would be nice if someone would create an AnyCC type program, so that paying Cable customers could actually use CC... where is slysoft when you need them?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk6

SageTV makes a DVR product. If that product doesn't allow me to DVR my shows, then Sage needs to stop stringing us along and drop the DVR functionality of the program.

How exactly are they "stringing us along"? Jeff is on record saying he doesn't like DRM and think's it's bad for his customers. I suppose he's never actually ruled out CableCard support but he's given no indication that Sage is working on it, and if it's not in the V7 beta already at RC stage, then I don't expect it anytime soon.

And I honestly feel that the HD-PVR is not a solution - it's half-baked hack. I mean seriously, an IR Blaster? I won't buy that junk.

That is of course your prerogative, but opinions like this are IMO misguided/misinformed usually based on 3rd party reports not first hand experience.

Originally Posted by ericscottf

It is also for that reason that i never expect to use a cablecard -- i can't imagine that sage could get away with using a cablecard and not DRMing the output.

It's not even up to the application, it's up to the tuner. The actual "DRMing" of the recording happens in the CableCard tuner, so the app never even sees "clear" output from it.

If this resulted in *all* of sage getting DRM, including OTA and HDPVR stuff, i'd be really annoyed.

If people want cablecard, and the only way to get cablecard is to drm the output, and the only thing that gets drm is cablecard, then I've got no problem with that.

It isn't even like i'm doing much with the videos I have, i watch 99.9% of them on my HD200 (And the remaining % on my ipod, so in theory, DRM wouldn't really affect my watching habits).

I'm just fundamentally opposed to media providers treating me like a criminal, and I'll make every effort to support non-drm systems and eschew DRM.

IMO, if you're willing to accept the restrictions of CableCard, you're willing to give up all the advantages of a PC based system and might as well just go with something like a Tivo or Moxi. Heck, a Moxi can pretty much match the functionality of that Sage or WMC are allowed with DRM'd recordings (multi-room viewing etc).

[paulbeers]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk6

Frankly, I'm a little tired of all the fretting over DRM. I just want to watch my friggin' shows on my Hd200. I don't care what's baked into it, I just want to watch the damn shows!! Honestly! SageTV makes a DVR product. If that product doesn't allow me to DVR my shows, then Sage needs to stop stringing us along and drop the DVR functionality of the program. And I honestly feel that the HD-PVR is not a solution - it's half-baked hack. I mean seriously, an IR Blaster? I won't buy that junk.

This is so misguided that I'm not even sure what to begin. First off, Cable card might be important to you, but last I checked it's only for those in the USA AND using cable. That makes it only about 5% (at best) of the world.

I myself love my Dish Network and you couldn't get me to go to the cable provider in my area even if it was the only option in my area (I use them grudgingly for my internet, but that's because I can't stand Qwest either for DLS). So for me, Cable card does not matter.

And your point about an IR blaster and the HDPVR, have you ever used the combination? Really? First off, I have utilized one of my HDPVR's for over 2 years with virtually NO ISSUES, and my IR Blaster misses (at best) one show ever 2 months (and it's cable, they will show it again).

Seriously, if you want to make stupid ignorant comments, go to the Green Button or one of the other HTPC forums. Don't act like that without Cable Card there are no other perfectly acceptable options.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by paulbeers

This is so misguided that I'm not even sure what to begin. First off, Cable card might be important to you, but last I checked it's only for those in the USA AND using cable. That makes it only about 5% (at best) of the world.

Though unfortunately I bet it's well over 50% of SageTV's customers. I wouldn't be surprised if it were more like 90%.

I myself love my Dish Network and you couldn't get me to go to the cable provider in my area even if it was the only option in my area (I use them grudgingly for my internet, but that's because I can't stand Qwest either for DLS). So for me, Cable card does not matter.

I agree completely except Qwest has been pretty good for me.

[Sparhawk6]

Originally Posted by paulbeers

And your point about an IR blaster and the HDPVR, have you ever used the combination? Really? First off, I have utilized one of my HDPVR's for over 2 years with virtually NO ISSUES, and my IR Blaster misses (at best) one show ever 2 months (and it's cable, they will show it again).

Missing one show every two months? That is not acceptable. I have cable for sports only. My QAM tunes never missa game. Every 2 months is not acceptable.

I don't think i have to go through the reasons why the HDPVR is a hack. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

[JerryB]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk6

I don't think i have to go through the reasons why the HDPVR is a hack. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

I don't. Perhaps you should enlighten me. I have 2 HDPVRs, use firewire to change channels, and haven't missed a show in over a year due to HDPVR issues. How many HDPVRs do you own and what is your actual experience with them that allows you to say that they're a hack?

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by JerryB

I don't. Perhaps you should enlighten me. I have 2 HDPVRs, use firewire to change channels, and haven't missed a show in over a year due to HDPVR issues. How many HDPVRs do you own and what is your actual experience with them that allows you to say that they're a hack?

It's a hack because you're not able to capture the original digital signal. You're converting a signal that's already been converted from a lossy source, usually MPEG2, to an analog component signal. Then taking that and digitizing it and converting it to yet another lossy digital format, H.264. It might be a way of getting a recording if there are no other possible ways of getting the original digital stream but it's certainly not the best and while I might not classify this technically as a hack it's certainly far from ideal. Not to mention expensive.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk6

Missing one show every two months? That is not acceptable. I have cable for sports only. My QAM tunes never missa game. Every 2 months is not acceptable.

I don't think mines missed one in years. It's certainly as reliable as any of my tuners have ever been.

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

It's a hack because you're not able to capture the original digital signal. You're converting a signal that's already been converted from a lossy source, usually MPEG2, to an analog component signal.

That sounds great in theory. In practice there is no difference beyond the file size.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by stanger89

That sounds great in theory. In practice there is no difference beyond the file size.

I suppose that depends on your perceptions. To me an HDPVR recording contains a perceptibly fuzzier picture compared to the picture directly from my cable box or HDHR. Plus, depending on the amount of compression you're using there might also be quite visible compression artifacts.

[stanger89]

Well all I know is I've never noticed a difference between my HD PVR and my R5000, even on my projector.

[JerryB]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

It's a hack because you're not able to capture the original digital signal. You're converting a signal that's already been converted from a lossy source, usually MPEG2, to an analog component signal. Then taking that and digitizing it and converting it to yet another lossy digital format, H.264. It might be a way of getting a recording if there are no other possible ways of getting the original digital stream but it's certainly not the best and while I might not classify this technically as a hack it's certainly far from ideal. Not to mention expensive.

If that's the way you feel, then fine don't use it but my real world experience is different and I don't agree. I've captured both the original mpeg signal and the HDPVR signal and I don't see any difference in video quality on my 46 inch LCD screen. My problem is more with the way current TV shows are filmed, which appears to be designed to minimize HD quality in order to blur the wrinkles on actors faces, etc, than a problem with image quality from the HDPVR. There is a much more noticable difference in the sharpness/quality of the broadcast of a sporting event than a scripted drama than any difference in the quality of the original vs HDPVR processed signal.

[Taddeusz]

Saying there is no difference is flat out wrong. Again, it's a matter of personal perception. I notice it quite well myself. Others might not notice it as much. For example my 17 year old daughter couldn't care less whether something is in HD or not. She doesn't notice or care about any difference between HD or SD if both are 16x9. The only thing she notices about HD vs SD broadcast TV is that it fits the screen. She really doesn't see any difference between the quality of the picture.

I however have a bit more sensitive eyes. Switching between the STB and the HD200 that are both hooked to the same TV I notice obvious quality differences between the two. Even at the highest recording quality available. If you don't notice the difference then so be it. Just because you can't doesn't mean that others might not.

Besides, going through the convoluted process needed to capture protected cable channels is stupid. While the current form of DRM is not acceptable there needs to be a balance between the rights of consumers and those that created the works. A system that gives consumers the ability to record and use those personal recordings as seen fit but also gives content producers a reasonable expectation that their media can't be easily pirated would be the ideal compromise. The idea that "information wants to be free" is completely ignorant of the fact that the person or persons that create the original works have the rights to protect said works from impropriety. DRM-free, while ideal for the consumer, ignores the rights of the creator.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Saying there is no difference is flat out wrong. Again, it's a matter of personal perception.

Nobody is saying there is no difference, I think you should go reread what was actually said.

I however have a bit more sensitive eyes. Switching between the STB and the HD200 that are both hooked to the same TV I notice obvious quality differences between the two. Even at the highest recording quality available. If you don't notice the difference then so be it. Just because you can't doesn't mean that others might not.

What sort of differences? Because unless you've calibrated them both the same there are a lot of variables. JerryB and I have done a little more apples to apples comparison (same decoder, same input, same calibration) by capturing the same thing both digitally/directly and through the HD PVR. This eliminates variables like calibration. I uploaded a comparison a while back.

Again, nobody is saying there aren't differences, by the nature of the process there must be.

DRM-free, while ideal for the consumer, ignores the rights of the creator.

Except for the fact that DRM utterly doesn't work, it never works, and it can't possibly work just by it's nature. That plus it stifles innovation. The music companies have figured this out and have basically abandoned selling DRM'd music.

That's not to say there's not a place for content protection, there is, that place is access protection. That is to keep people from accessing content they haven't payed for, like the encryption on Cable lines and Satellite broadcasts

[Sparhawk6]

I apologize for my little rant, and I recognize that the HD-PVR works for a lot of people and they like it. I just am a little frustrated when I see that DRM is the reason Sage won't get Cablecard certified. When I bought into the SageTV system, never read anywhere on their website or in their material that a major selling point of the product was that it was DRM-free. Rather, I bought it because after doing some trial runs on Media Center, Beyond TV, GBPVR, and Sage, I thought Sage worked best as a DVR. And I just want to use it as a DVR, to record all the shows I pay for without having to hook up a digital to analog to digital work-around that uses an IR-blaster on a STB to change channels. I bought Sage to DITCH the STB.

When I bought my HD200, I got deeper into the Sage system. At that point, they didn't have a cablecard solution, but I figured that one day they will. I still have hope that that day will come. And to those that say it never will, then why are the Sage folks investing time and money into submitted comments to the FCC re the CableCard regime? They didn't ask the FCC to completely ditch the entire program - rather they asked the FCC to make certification easier and less costly. That tells me that they plan on it one day.

[reggie14]

I'm with Taddeusz- I recording off of one of my STBs using firewire, and my other STB using an HD-PVR. I can tell when something records off of the HD-PVR instead of over firewire. The video looks noticeably "softer". It doesn't bother me much, but its part of the reason I keep using the relatively buggy firewire recording solution instead of just using HD-PVRs with both STBs.

I'd much rather use a cable card tuner than an HD-PVR. First, I have fewer problems getting MPEG-2 video to work. It's better now than when I first got my HD-PVR, but MPEG2 video is still easier to work with. Second, I've never been able to get digital audio working on the HD-PVR without weekly crashes. Third, I have a lockup with my HD-PVR every month or two. And fourth, sometimes my STB will decide to turn off randomly, or reset its configuration.

I don't really think DRM would get in the way for me much. Mostly I'm just using my extenders. Occasionally I use a software client, but I don't think that would have to be forbidden with DRM. A few times a year I'll use placeshifter, but I wouldn't miss it. About the only thing that would be a problem is comskip wouldn't work for DRMed recordings. I'd very willingly trade that for a good STB-less way to record stuff.

And, as I've said before here, I don't agree with stanger89 that DRM never works. I think it has worked very well with DVDs and blu-rays. Sure, there are pretty easy ways to bypass the DRM protection, but I really don't think the creators of CSS and AACS really thought they'd be able to stop piracy. I suspect the goal was more to stop casual piracy, and in that regard I think they've been pretty successful. I had lots of non-techie friends that copied CDs in high school, but I only know a couple people that have copied or ripped DVDs.

Though, I'm not really sure what content creators and providers are worried about when it comes to cable TV. While I could imagine "regular" people copying DVDs in a world without CSS, I have a hard time imagining casual piracy on any significant scale with content recorded off of cable TV.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk6

And to those that say it never will, then why are the Sage folks investing time and money into submitted comments to the FCC re the CableCard regime? They didn't ask the FCC to completely ditch the entire program - rather they asked the FCC to make certification easier and less costly. That tells me that they plan on it one day.

Well, for one, talk is cheap. Why not submit comments to the FCC?

To some extent, a good part of Sage's to the FCC were promoting ditching cable card. Sage advocated for a DRM-less gateway device, which, IMHO, is never going to happen.

In the interim, they did advocate for getting rid of certification requirements for software systems. That would still, presumably, require DRM, but might at least avoid some of the expensive licensing and certification costs. That suggests that Sage would have at least considered putting Playready DRM into Sage to get CableCard support, if they didn't need to spend $100-200k on CableCard licensing and certification. But I suspect it would be hard to get a good return-on-investment from that given the HD-PVR works as well as it does.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by reggie14

And, as I've said before here, I don't agree with stanger89 that DRM never works. I think it has worked very well with DVDs and blu-rays.

How so, it's made BD an utter disaster to work with if you want to be "legal", requiring constant firmware/software updates. And heck, Slysoft usually beats the licensed people out of the gate with updates for new protection, usually by days if not weeks.

Yeah, they've been successful at preventing DVD and Blu-ray jukeboxes from becoming mainstream (like music jukeboxes), they've been successful at making it impossible for small developers (Theatertek, SageTV, etc) from throwing their hat in the ring, leaving end users stuck with crap like PowerDVD.

So yeah, they've succeeded very well at preventing the innovative legal, and cash-flow generating ecosystem of products that may well be saving the music industry as we speak.

And all for what? BD+ was supposed to be uncrackable and it proved useless. Movie piracy is as rampant as ever. Why? Because DRM can't ever work because by it's nature you have to put all the information to crack it on the disk. If you don't it can't be played.

Sure, there are pretty easy ways to bypass the DRM protection, but I really don't think the creators of CSS and AACS really thought they'd be able to stop piracy. I suspect the goal was more to stop casual piracy, and in that regard I think they've been pretty successful. I had lots of non-techie friends that copied CDs in high school, but I only know a couple people that have copied or ripped DVDs.

Unfortunately that does far more harm than good. The music industry figured out, now we just need the movie industry to.

[sleonard]

Originally Posted by JerryB

I don't. Perhaps you should enlighten me. I have 2 HDPVRs, use firewire to change channels, and haven't missed a show in over a year due to HDPVR issues. How many HDPVRs do you own and what is your actual experience with them that allows you to say that they're a hack?

Wow, where to start here. First, we are allowed to critique a piece of hardware whether or not our "experience" ranges from using 3 of them exclusively since they were first released (My "experience") to having done nothing but some honest research.

And, BTW, just a bit of research shows that on the whole the HD-PVR's are seriously flawed. That some of you do not experience the lockups and missed recordings does not negate this basic fact. Even Narflex, in his release notes for some of the beta's has strongly implied this. Why else is he spending time adding workarounds?

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

It's a hack because you're not able to capture the original digital signal. You're converting a signal that's already been converted from a lossy source, usually MPEG2, to an analog component signal. Then taking that and digitizing it and converting it to yet another lossy digital format, H.264. It might be a way of getting a recording if there are no other possible ways of getting the original digital stream but it's certainly not the best and while I might not classify this technically as a hack it's certainly far from ideal. Not to mention expensive.

There is no magically pristine "original digital signal" that comes to your house. The cableco has already manipulated it according to their needs and bandwidth. Even OTA stations re-encode before broadcast to fit it in the bandwidth slot they have determined for it. I'm not wasting my time searching for a holy grail that doesn't exist.

Adding yet another layer of conversion and reencoding is less than ideal in theory but not "far" from it. My recordings generally come out with no noticable difference from the STB output. I have, in the past, had recordings come out noticably soft and even a bit fuzzy but not since upgrading the server 18 mos. ago. Since then my recordings have been of outstanding quality.

Originally Posted by Sparhawk6

I apologize for my little rant, and I recognize that the HD-PVR works for a lot of people and they like it. I just am a little frustrated when I see that DRM is the reason Sage won't get Cablecard certified. When I bought into the SageTV system, never read anywhere on their website or in their material that a major selling point of the product was that it was DRM-free. Rather, I bought it because after doing some trial runs on Media Center, Beyond TV, GBPVR, and Sage, I thought Sage worked best as a DVR. And I just want to use it as a DVR, to record all the shows I pay for without having to hook up a digital to analog to digital work-around that uses an IR-blaster on a STB to change channels. I bought Sage to DITCH the STB.

Where did you see that the reason Sage won't get CC certified because of DRM? AFAIK, Sage has never commented on whether or not they are pursuing certification at all much less any reasons they might have for their course of action.

What I do see is a lot of people putting words in Sage's mouth and then other people making wild assumptions as to what those (nonexistant) words mean.

If you bought Sage to "DITCH the STB" than you bought for the wrong reason (unless you want OTA only).

Originally Posted by Sparhawk6

When I bought my HD200, I got deeper into the Sage system. At that point, they didn't have a cablecard solution, but I figured that one day they will. I still have hope that that day will come. And to those that say it never will, then why are the Sage folks investing time and money into submitted comments to the FCC re the CableCard regime? They didn't ask the FCC to completely ditch the entire program - rather they asked the FCC to make certification easier and less costly. That tells me that they plan on it one day.

Obviously they have shown interest in CC - a la FCC submissions. This does not show that they plan on anything but only that they hoped that the current process could be altered to accomodate smaller players as themselves. With the recent decision and included comments from the FCC it doesn't appear that their hopes were realized. Maybe the appearances are decieving. Without an official statement from Sage it is all hearsay, assumption, and scuttlebut.

Originally Posted by reggie14

I'm with Taddeusz- I recording off of one of my STBs using firewire, and my other STB using an HD-PVR. I can tell when something records off of the HD-PVR instead of over firewire. The video looks noticeably "softer". It doesn't bother me much, but its part of the reason I keep using the relatively buggy firewire recording solution instead of just using HD-PVRs with both STBs.

As I mentioned above, I used to see this from all 3 of my current HD-PVR's as well as the previous 6 that these finally replaced. I used to also have amazingly terrible stability with 2-5 lockups per day! I still have moderate to good stability with lockups generally limited from once a week at most to going almost 2 months.

But I solved the 'soft' issue when I built a new server 18 mos ago. Since then my HD-PVR recordings are as sharp and clear as HDMI directly from STB to TV. I don't know what exactly made this better but I suspect it was related to the onboard USB controllers. My stability was greatly improved by this new server as well.

So, what I think is going on is that some of you are seeing are seeing the 'soft' image I used to see and some of you are seeing the same quality I do now. I think the 'soft' picture is not caused by the D to A to D conversion and re-encoding process but to a design flaw that makes the HD-PVR unreliably compatible with various different systems.

Originally Posted by reggie14

I'd much rather use a cable card tuner than an HD-PVR. First, I have fewer problems getting MPEG-2 video to work. It's better now than when I first got my HD-PVR, but MPEG2 video is still easier to work with. Second, I've never been able to get digital audio working on the HD-PVR without weekly crashes. Third, I have a lockup with my HD-PVR every month or two. And fourth, sometimes my STB will decide to turn off randomly, or reset its configuration.

I don't really think DRM would get in the way for me much. Mostly I'm just using my extenders. Occasionally I use a software client, but I don't think that would have to be forbidden with DRM. A few times a year I'll use placeshifter, but I wouldn't miss it. About the only thing that would be a problem is comskip wouldn't work for DRMed recordings. I'd very willingly trade that for a good STB-less way to record stuff.

I generally agree

Originally Posted by reggie14

And, as I've said before here, I don't agree with stanger89 that DRM never works. I think it has worked very well with DVDs and blu-rays. Sure, there are pretty easy ways to bypass the DRM protection, but I really don't think the creators of CSS and AACS really thought they'd be able to stop piracy. I suspect the goal was more to stop casual piracy, and in that regard I think they've been pretty successful. I had lots of non-techie friends that copied CDs in high school, but I only know a couple people that have copied or ripped DVDs.

Though, I'm not really sure what content creators and providers are worried about when it comes to cable TV. While I could imagine "regular" people copying DVDs in a world without CSS, I have a hard time imagining casual piracy on any significant scale with content recorded off of cable TV.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the above hi-lited text.

Originally Posted by Paraphrase

DRM works very well. It is easy to break.

I think the designers had a lot more than your friends in mind when they developed AACS and it was widely touted as the end all/be all of DRM protection that would put professional pirates out of business.

S

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by sleonard

There is no magically pristine "original digital signal" that comes to your house. The cableco has already manipulated it according to their needs and bandwidth. Even OTA stations re-encode before broadcast to fit it in the bandwidth slot they have determined for it. I'm not wasting my time searching for a holy grail that doesn't exist.

Adding yet another layer of conversion and reencoding is less than ideal in theory but not "far" from it. My recordings generally come out with no noticable difference from the STB output. I have, in the past, had recordings come out noticably soft and even a bit fuzzy but not since upgrading the server 18 mos. ago. Since then my recordings have been of outstanding quality.

Magical, no. Better, yes. The original signals that cable companies and local broadcasters receive is generally of much higher quality than what is sent to their customers. I can't recall the bandwidth used but I have seen a couple clips from the original feeds and they are nothing like what goes out to consumers.

I would prefer a signal that has been converted as few times as necessary before reaching my eyes. Certainly good quality HDPVR recordings aren't unwatchable. It still bothers me that the convoluted process is needed at all.

And it's expensive. Each HDPVR costs $200-$250. Then there are the rental fees for each STB. Granted, CC adapters are similarly expensive but you don't need as many of them, nor as many rented CC's, to record the same number of programs at once.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

It still bothers me that the convoluted process is needed at all.

Nobody "likes" the process, personally I wish we had a system in the US like DVB Conditional Access Module/Common Interface (DVB-CAM/CI) in Europe. Where you just get a smart card with your subscription and you can put it in whatever DVB-CI device you want, and it works, no DRM, no restrictions, just you get the content you paid for.

But that's not reality in NA. Here we have to deal with a plurality of different entities that refuse to work together and for whatever reason have no standard CAM/CI for subscription programming, so we're stuck finding workarounds.

And it's expensive. Each HDPVR costs $200-$250. Then there are the rental fees for each STB. Granted, CC adapters are similarly expensive but you don't need as many of them, nor as many rented CC's, to record the same number of programs at once.

The problem for me with CableCard is the DRM and the associated restrictions. By the time you accept the restrictions imposed by CableCard, you've basically given up all the benefits of a PC DVR. You might as well just go with a Moxi that you never have to fiddle with. I'd probably personally use a Moxi for TV and a Dune for my movies and be done with the whole PC thing.

And of course CableCard is of no use for those of us with Satellite. Those of us who are stuck with consistently the worst cable company in the country.

This CableCard thing is a huge fiasco, it's utterly failed to provide the sort of innovative 3rd party products it was intended to do.