SA 8000HD & 8300HD w/ Passport software (TWC) [Text View] - Page 20

michaeltscott

09-12-06, 01:53 AM

From the first post in the Tips & Tricks thread - "A Hard Reboot will refresh all available software and modules on the system, as well as clear out the memory cache". I understand this to mean that it will check the firmware in flash-ram to see if it is corrupt and redownload it if needed. It also redownloads the IPG, etc., whereas a soft reboot basically just resets some internal indicators. Oftentimes though you will not notice any difference in the two because the firmware is intact, etc. It all depends on just what is wrong in the first place.Unplugging it for a while (usually 30 seconds is recommended for devices with HDDs) and then plugging it back in without holding down the power button is not a "soft reboot". A "soft" (aka, "warm") reboot is one started by the up-and-running system, like selecting "Start->Turn Off Compuer-Restart" in Windows. Most PCs have a POWER/RESTART" button, but it just signals the OS to reboot itself. If the OS is sufficiently screwed up, it may be unable to respond, requiring a "cold" (sometimes called "hard") reboot.

No embedded system I've ever worked on is completely quiescent when there is power present--all of their power buttons are monitored by firmware. Even the processor in your mobile phone won't be completely inactive until you remove the battery.

Reading that section of the "Tips and Tricks" thread (most of which are completely inapplicable to Passport, BTW), I understand that plugging it back in while holding in the POWER button forces a reload of the firmware from the network, whether it already matches that version or not and will take 5 to 10 minutes? Is that correct?

mikeford

09-12-06, 03:43 AM

Can anybody tell me what good can come of me running a diag program on my perfectly fine cable modem?

Getting a baseline reference to compare with when it messes up in the future. As long as the diagnostic is "passive" just reading information etc., it should be fairly harmless.

Also I find it annoying that when something does go wrong with the cable connection, I have no way to download things and check stuff on the net, so having it already in a file means that its available if needed.

Making a locally stored HTML document that has clickable links to your router, modem, etc. is very handy when you have troubles and want to check status etc.

IamtheWolf

09-12-06, 05:58 AM

I am still getting the vertical stripe with the 8300HD. It is there with both HDMI and Component. It is likely not the 8300 as the cause. Is the stripe uniform in width for every channel? Probably not. To me that indicated something to do with the broadcast/provider combo to align horizontally. If anyone knows about the technical reason for this I'd be curious about why.

There have been many posts in this long thread about settings to eliminate grey or black side bars (not the vertical stripe). Using Wide Screen or various Aspect Ratio settings will help fill the screen (and mask the vertical line problem). Explore some of those combinations between your TV and STB. You'll end up with some compromise, and a personal preference for the combinations that suit you best.

pepar

09-12-06, 08:55 AM

I just got an 8300 with TWC NYC. I have Passport 1.8.112. Within the first 2 days of using it, while using dvr features, it froze then rebooted. Any suggestions for preventing this?
First try a hard reboot - turn it off and remove AC power for 30 seconds. Re-apply AC and watch the display. When the time appears, turn on the box. At that point, it will probably show some more boot screens before returning to normal operation. Use it a while, if the aberrant behavior continues, call your cableco's tech support department as there's nothing more YOU can do.

pepar

09-12-06, 09:05 AM

Getting a baseline reference to compare with when it messes up in the future. As long as the diagnostic is "passive" just reading information etc., it should be fairly harmless.

Also I find it annoying that when something does go wrong with the cable connection, I have no way to download things and check stuff on the net, so having it already in a file means that its available if needed.

Making a locally stored HTML document that has clickable links to your router, modem, etc. is very handy when you have troubles and want to check status etc.
I understand and maybe I'm just not that curious or adventurous, but if my cable modem messes up in the future, and a cold reboot doesn't fix it, I'm calling the cable company and/or Motorola (I own it). I'm annoyed as well when I can't access the internet, but most problems I've ever had doing so were not fixable by me.

In my opinion, the lights on the front tell me all I need to know. :)

BTW, how did we get on cable modems on the 8300/Passport thread?

DoubleDAZ

09-12-06, 09:36 AM

Maybe we need a FAQ to define hard, soft, cold, warm, etc., reboots, the terms are used interchangeably depending on which thread you're reading and who is posting. I take my cues from vegggas who posted the first SA3250HD Guide, though I'm not sure the difference in definitions is worth too much discussion, most folks specify what they mean in their posts.

In any case, I've often seen no difference in reboot times, so I don't know if the hard reboot "forces" a download or not, though it might not really take long enough to really notice a difference in boot times. The main point is to try all avenues before returning a box.

As for the Tips & Tricks insturctions being applicable to Passport, it was stated they were not, but the info is still useful for those new to SA DVRs and wondering what features there are, etc. Oftentimes reading how one system works leads one to a solution with another system. Some of the generic info, like rebooting, etc., is applicable to SA boxes in general and come into play before SARA and Passport get up and running.

pepar

09-12-06, 09:49 AM

Maybe we need a FAQ to define hard, soft, cold, warm, etc., reboots, the terms are used interchangeably depending on which thread you're reading and who is posting. I take my cues from vegggas who posted the first SA3250HD Guide, though I'm not sure the difference in definitions is worth too much discussion, most folks specify what they mean in their posts.

In any case, I've often seen no difference in reboot times, so I don't know if the hard reboot "forces" a download or not, though it might not really take long enough to really notice a difference in boot times. The main point is to try all avenues before returning a box.
As there's no reset button on our STBs, can there be a warm reboot? I take "cold" to mean removing and restoring AC power after a brief wait. In the context of our STBs, I take "hard" to be the depression of one of the front buttons - I forget which - while restoring AC power, but like the poster from Peoria I've not seen any difference in boot time between hard and cold reboots.

michaeltscott

09-12-06, 11:38 AM

A warm reboot is pressing the POWER button and holding it until "boot" appears in the LEDs--any means of causing a reboot while the system is up and running w/o removing power. Again, if the firmware has gotten into a particularly nasty state, it might not be capable of responding to this signal. This is similar to many modern PCs; a quick press of the power button turns it off and pressing and holding the power button restarts it (I guess it saves a little money on buttons :rolleyes: ).

Dave, I've been awake during a 3:00 AM firmware push a couple of times and it takes several minutes, during which rapidly changing gibberish is displayed in the LEDs. It's more involved than just downloading a file, and it's writing flash and not an HDD, which is considerably slower.

I did say that most of the Tips and Tricks thread was not applicable to Passport, not all :). A lot of it deals with undocumented DVR control, all of which is SARA specific (like the "Mimic TiVo Jump-Back" and "Skip To End" tips--Passport does "Jump-Back" and keeps bookmarks in recordings). Some of the maintenance-related instructions don't translate either, like enabling diag mode.

Riverside_Guy

09-12-06, 12:07 PM

Oh boy, how folks use the same technology terms to mean totally different things is very frustrating because it makes communicating extremely hard.

Indeed I think a 8300/Passport specific set of re-booting terms might be in order. Personally, I consider the "hold the power button down for X seconds with the unit on" to be a warm boot (as Michael does). Pulling the power cord does a cold boot. Performing other actions during a cold boot should be described as "cold boot with..." whatever the action is. Of course, "the unit being on" is kind of a misnomer, it is ON all the time, BUT there are two "states" of on!

I think the modem came into play when the discussion was centered around "signal on the wire." There are readings when the modem is queried (that another one, isn't it more like a bridge than a modem?) that might indicate certain conditions of your wire. Yes, that applicability to the TV side is tenuous at best.

holl_ands

09-12-06, 02:48 PM

I just got an 8300 with TWC NYC. I have Passport 1.8.112. Within the first 2 days of using it, while using dvr features, it froze then rebooted. Any suggestions for preventing this?
I've found using the HDMI port caused my SA8300HD to freeze up much more frequently.
If you are using HDMI, try switching to Component Video.
If this "cures" the problem, you might contact your HDTV manufacturer re whether they have a firmware upgrade that might address an HDMI issue---
But due to the large number of people who have HDMI "issues", it's probably in the SA8300HD....

pepar

09-12-06, 02:49 PM

I've found using the HDMI port caused my SA8300HD to freeze up much more frequently.
If you are using HDMI, try switching to Component Video.
If this "cures" the problem, you might contact your HDTV manufacturer re whether they have a firmware upgrade that might address an HDMI issue---
But due to the large number of people who have HDMI "issues", it's probably in the SA8300HD....
How would HDMI freeze the STB?

mikeford

09-12-06, 04:37 PM

"US: WatchDog: BD 0 stuck for 20 Sec (TxTime=1246E88 Info:0001)"

-Mike

Watchdog often means a little program that runs on a timer, as long as its told on a regular basis that everything is OK, it does nothing, but if the timer runs out and no "ok" signal was made it sends an error message like that one letting some diagnostic monitor some place else know that your system froze for at least 20 seconds.

A favorite message is, "this should never happen" with some reference number.

michaeltscott

09-12-06, 05:57 PM

A favorite message is, "this should never happen" with some reference number.Plenty of code in systems use "ASSERT" macros, which basicly test that conditions are as expected before trying to execute a routine; if not, it outputs a message and stops the system. I've often used some text briefly explaining the problem, followed by "--Cannot Happen" in these.

On a vaguely related and also completely off-topic note, my favorite code comment was in the Sixth Edition Unix kernel, before a particularly enigmatic bit of code: "You are not expected to understand this". (Huh--I just did a search and found out that the comment's become a bit of programming lore. The author of the code, one of the co-creators of Unix and the C language, gives an explanation for it here (http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/odd.html)).

humdinger70

09-12-06, 08:22 PM

Curious to why those who have the 1.8 series have yet to be upgraded to the (improved) 2.5 series?

Barry928

09-12-06, 08:29 PM

My understanding is once you upgrade the headend to 2.5 you can't go back to 1.8. This means the beta testing is difficult because no guide data is available and none of the two way services will work.

holl_ands

09-13-06, 01:37 AM

How would HDMI freeze the STB?
For the same bucketful of reasons Win98 would freeze up...buggy, buggy, buggy software....

Or maybe a micro-quantum "cooling" effect when a quark loses its charm....

UNIX was one of the early pioneers in what is called "fault tolerant" software, i.e. it just keeps chugging along as best as it can, restarting modules when they are found to have problems and stopping ONLY those modules that can not be recovered so that whatever is left can do whatever is possible with whatever survives.

Hence a mis-behaving HDMI driver could be idled (or shut down) without forcing a reboot of the entire DVR...
Hopefully OCAP will use more modern computer science techniques....

pepar

09-13-06, 08:09 AM

....maybe a micro-quantum "cooling" effect when a quark loses its charm....
Now why didn't I think of that? :)

mikeford

09-13-06, 03:00 PM

Curious to why those who have the 1.8 series have yet to be upgraded to the (improved) 2.5 series?

Because cable is a monopoly that doesn't give a rats behind about its customers.

or

Older stable releases have fewer customer complaints than newer releases with more features, and more opportunities for the customer to get it messed up and need a service call.

mikeford

09-13-06, 03:12 PM

UNIX was one of the early pioneers in what is called "fault tolerant" software, i.e. it just keeps chugging along as best as it can, restarting modules when they are found to have problems and stopping ONLY those modules that can not be recovered so that whatever is left can do whatever is possible with whatever survives.

I would put it at less than fault tolerance, its fault awareness, plenty of poorly written code skips any kind of error testing, like range checking beyond the user interface. This means the user can't ask for channel 57314, but if some bit of bad code deep in the bowels of the program messes the number up it gets propagated with unpredictable results until everything is so fubar the system freezes.

Riverside_Guy

09-13-06, 03:16 PM

Curious to why those who have the 1.8 series have yet to be upgraded to the (improved) 2.5 series?

I take the optimistic view, one that actually IS very plausible. The latest 2.5 release when used with an external drive appears to have a serious bug in that the trick play features (something I absolutely take advantage of) don't work correctly. Once that issue is addressed, they probably will roll it out to the biggest section of the NYC market, Manhattan.

AFAIK, the only "feature" 2.5.x brings is external drive support. Rolling it out with a bad enough bug I wouldn't want to USE an external drive is kinda pointless IMO.

pepar

09-13-06, 03:35 PM

Because cable is a monopoly that doesn't give a rats behind about its customers.

or

Older stable releases have fewer customer complaints than newer releases with more features, and more opportunities for the customer to get it messed up and need a service call.
Aren't they the same?

michaeltscott

09-13-06, 03:41 PM

I would put it at less than fault tolerance, its fault awareness, plenty of poorly written code skips any kind of error testing, like range checking beyond the user interface. This means the user can't ask for channel 57314, but if some bit of bad code deep in the bowels of the program messes the number up it gets propagated with unpredictable results until everything is so fubar the system freezes.Still, various Unix variants are far, far, far more reliable than any version of Windows. I've never used any flavor of Unix at home, but I spent years at various companies using Sun's Solaris as a cross development platform for embedded programming, running compilations, simulators, modeling tools, remote debuggers, e-mail clients, Web browsers and document prep tools all day, day in and day out. Once, I was about to bring my workstation down because the power in my facility was going to be out for site preventative maintenance over the Christmas holiday and found that it had been running continously for nine months. Try getting that kind of reliability out of Windows :).

Of course, this is wildly off topic :D.

pepar

09-13-06, 03:44 PM

I take the optimistic view, one that actually IS very plausible. The latest 2.5 release when used with an external drive appears to have a serious bug in that the trick play features (something I absolutely take advantage of) don't work correctly. Once that issue is addressed, they probably will roll it out to the biggest section of the NYC market, Manhattan.

AFAIK, the only "feature" 2.5.x brings is external drive support. Rolling it out with a bad enough bug I wouldn't want to USE an external drive is kinda pointless IMO.
Those of us who are using an external SATA drive don't consider it "serious." Annoying, perhaps. But I rarely paused live TV previously anyway. The only live TV we watch is CNN and a morning show. All other programming - Brotherhood, Rescue Me, Weeds, CSI, etc. - is recorded and watched at our convenience. Also, 2.5.xx does not have to bring external SATA support; it can be turned on and off by the system operator.

Not long before 052 was pushed to me, they rolled out 048. My contact told me that 048 was deployed because of an SA hardware rev. If TW-NYC has a warehouse full of boxes, I'd guess they don't need the firmware upgrade. Trust me, it has zip to do with losing trick-play features on live TV and everything to do with mikeford's insightful analysis.

holl_ands

09-14-06, 12:51 AM

Curious to why those who have the 1.8 series have yet to be upgraded to the (improved) 2.5 series?
After suffering through three releases under 2.5.xxx, it still beats the heck out of me---federally mandated Firewire is non-functional, federally mandated HDMI is still flaky with more frequent lock ups (and reportedly still not "supported", whatever that means), HDMI no longer controls HDTV power ON/OFF, IR Blaster for VCR/D-VCR control is still missing, eSATA doesn't support FF/RW (and is still not yet "supported" with MSO issued add-on drives), and Multi-Room is non-functional although it is found in the menus.

I think we slid backwards to a less reliable release and very few minor bells and whistles to show for it....

When the crew (software developers) put on life-vests (resumes) and started swimming to another ship (OCAP), someone obviously issued an "ABANDON SHIP" order for the S.S SARA and S.S. PASSPORT....leaving a pile of unfinished work....

pepar

09-14-06, 08:51 AM

After suffering through three releases under 2.5.xxx, it still beats the heck out of me---federally mandated Firewire is non-functional, federally mandated HDMI is still flaky with more frequent lock ups (and reportedly still not "supported", whatever that means), HDMI no longer controls HDTV power ON/OFF, IR Blaster for VCR/D-VCR control is still missing, eSATA doesn't support FF/RW (and is still not yet "supported" with MSO issued add-on drives), and Multi-Room is non-functional although it is found in the menus.

I think we slid backwards to a less reliable release and very few minor bells and whistles to show for it....

When the crew (software developers) put on life-vests (resumes) and started swimming to another ship (OCAP), someone obviously issued an "ABANDON SHIP" order for the S.S SARA and S.S. PASSPORT....leaving a pile of unfinished work....
I'm completely in agreement on this. But what percentage of cable customers are aware on a level that they know any of this, or care?

HDMI not working? We don't support it; use the component cables. OK.

Firewire? What's that?

eSATA, Multi-Room - huh?

I do not believe the cable industry is taking any steps to cater to knowledgeable audiophiles/videophiles. They will naturally get their share of us - nearly completely by default - but their "target demographic" is not us.

Just my $.01, $.02 or $.03.

michaeltscott

09-14-06, 09:08 AM

When the crew (software developers) put on life-vests (resumes) and started swimming to another ship (OCAP), someone obviously issued an "ABANDON SHIP" order for the S.S SARA and S.S. PASSPORT....leaving a pile of unfinished work....I don't know about SARA, but Aptiv has already demonstrated an OCAP version of Passport. (See this (http://www.aptivdigital.com/presscenter/pressreleasesdetail.asp?ID=8) and this (http://www.quote.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=BWIRE:100&story=200606191000_BWR__BW5426)). Of course, TWC plans to abandon it anyway, in favor of an IPG that they've been developing for several years.
eSATA, Multi-Room - huh?Note that, unlike HDMI and 1394/DTCP, there is no FCC regulation requiring them to support either external DVR drives or multi-room. They're perfectly free to say that they don't support those features of the DVR or that they haven't heard of them.

pepar

09-14-06, 09:30 AM

Note that, unlike HDMI and 1394/DTCP, there is no FCC regulation requiring them to support either external DVR drives or multi-room. They're perfectly free to say that they don't support those features of the DVR or that they haven't heard of them.
Apparently, some are able to say that about Firewire and HDMI as well. Enacting a mandate is one thing, while enforcing it is something else. Is there even any government body monitoring compliance? If a citizen reports a problem, does it result in an investigation?

michaeltscott

09-14-06, 10:13 AM

Apparently, some are able to say that about Firewire and HDMI as well. Enacting a mandate is one thing, while enforcing it is something else. Is there even any government body monitoring compliance? If a citizen reports a problem, does it result in an investigation?Yes. In the beginning of HDTV-over-cable, many of the providers tried to encrypt their rebroadcast of over-the-air DTV signals, which is in violation of CFR Title 47 §76.630 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5bb2fa229c701c1de2107c73e958c0f6&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:4.0.1.1.4.11.3.14&idno=47), which forbids the scrambling or encryption of anything in the core basic tier and CFR Title 47 §76.901 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5bb2fa229c701c1de2107c73e958c0f6&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:4.0.1.1.4.14.3.1&idno=47)(a), which requires that every rebroadcast of a local OTA station be positioned in the core basic tier. Several participants in these forums wrote complaints to the FCC and got results.

First, make your complaint to your cable provider over the phone, carefully recording the names of the people that you talk to. When they say that they don't support 1394 or HDMI, write a letter (snail-mail on paper) to their management, telling them that CSR so-and-so told you that they don't support such-and-such and that Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47 §76.640 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5f79adf82c7e4990d3318accb77071a3&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:4.0.1.1.4.11.3.15&idno=47)(4) requires that they support it. If you get a negative response from them (or no response within a reasonable period of time), draft a letter to the FCC, complaining that you've been told by your cable provider that they don't support a feature that they're required to support by CFR, Title 47 §76.640 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5f79adf82c7e4990d3318accb77071a3&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:4.0.1.1.4.11.3.15&idno=47)(4); cite the names of the people in you SO's management that you've dealt with and include a copy of any negative response in writing that you've received. When you mail the letter send a copy to your cable provider's management. This procedure tends to get action.

Of course, the cable provider may be able to complain that their equipment provider hasn't been able to provide them with STBs on which these features work correctly (which I strongly suspect is true). Luckily, the FCC governs feature requirements for communications equipment as well :).

The FCC is dead serious about the cable and consumer electronics industries' compliance with the regulations which codify the Plug-and-Play DTV-Over-Cable agreement that they were nearly all signatory to. It considers that compliance to be essential to the successful completion of the DTV transition; successful completion of the DTV transition is important to Congress, inasmuch as they hope that the government will rake in some billions of dollars from the sale of the bandwidth that'll be released at that time (the extra 6 MHz that each broadcaster was provided on which to bring up an interrim DTV transmission).

holl_ands

09-14-06, 03:27 PM

Comments embedded:

I'm completely in agreement on this. But what percentage of cable customers are aware on a level that they know any of this, or care?

HDMI not working? We don't support it; use the component cables. OK.
[Many people NEED to use HDMI, cuz the CV ports on their HDTV are FULL.]

Firewire? What's that?
[Remember VCR's that could record as many TV programs you like onto tapes for long term viewing and even editing? It's been replaced by D-VCR's, which are fed by a IEEE-1394 Firewire interface that was carefully designed by industry consortiums to have copy protect features that keep Hollywood happy so we can retain our "fair use" recording rights. Right now, Firewire issue is about the only thing keeping me from jumping to Dish....plus waiting for FOX-HD to be activated.]

eSATA, Multi-Room - huh?
[I don't know about you, but even with the D-VHS, I tend to have a nearly full DVR all the time and would welcome the extra space an external drive would provide. This is a BIG problem whenever I go on vacation.]

[I didn't think I needed Multi-Room until my son upgraded to Dish HD-DVR, which distributes live or recorded signal to every room in his house....unfortunately not in HD. Now I can see how I could use it to records kidz programs so they can watch them later at a much more convenient time.]

I do not believe the cable industry is taking any steps to cater to knowledgeable audiophiles/videophiles. They will naturally get their share of us - nearly completely by default - but their "target demographic" is not us.
[Yup, although cable households are in the vicinity of 66% (and shrinking), half of them subscribe to no more than Basic/Extended channels. And of the other half who subscribe to digital cable, a fraction of whom spend the extra $10-20/mo for a DVR (and even fewer get a HD-DVR). So HD-DVR users are the "high-end" customers...who are paying a lot more for more services and deserve better....and are being lost to SAT in droves...not to mention FiOS....]

Just my $.01, $.02 or $.03.

So if they can't keep their "high-end" customers, who pay extra for HD-DVRs, multiple cable tiers, premiums and PPV, how high will the cable rates climb for the remaining customers???

PS: Here's a report on SAT and Cable DVR penetration (both 26%)...note that most estimates don't separate SD-DVR from HD-DVR:
http://www.kagan.com/ContentDetail.aspx?group=5&id=260

PPS: NCTA Apr2006 report sez 66% of households nationwide subscribe to cable, with nearly 30% of those customers paying for digital cable. In particular, 25% of all COMCAST digital customers had HD-DVR:
http://i.ncta.com/ncta_com/PDFs/NCTAAnnual%20Report4-06FINAL.pdf#search=%22time%20warner%20hd-dvr%20penetration%22

pepar

09-14-06, 03:47 PM

Comments embedded:

So if they can't keep their "high-end" customers, who pay for multiple cable tiers, premiums and PPV, how high will the cable rates climb???
I don't necessarily equate "high end" (audiophile/videophile) with a high monthly cable bill. Sure, we've got HBO, MAX and SHO, but no sports packages and never any PPVs. How about you?

pepar

09-14-06, 03:49 PM

The FCC is dead serious about the cable and consumer electronics industries' compliance with the regulations which codify the Plug-and-Play DTV-Over-Cable agreement that they were nearly all signatory to.
If you say so, but yet count the posts from those who's HDMI and IEEE1394 connections do not work. :eek:

barrygordon

09-14-06, 03:56 PM

Pepar, But what proportion of cable users Post on forums like this 1%? 0.5% ? I'll bet it is very low.

pepar

09-14-06, 04:07 PM

Pepar, But what proportion of cable users Post on forums like this 1%? 0.5% ? I'll bet it is very low.
I'd bet it's low as well, but I'm not sure what conclusion, if any, can be drawn from that. How many people with $20k+ (pick a number - $10k+, $50k+) in their home theaters are high rollers with the cable companies? In my home theater, TV competes with DVD and computer. And then there's all the other things that keep me away from the TV altogether.

michaeltscott

09-15-06, 12:45 AM

If you say so, but yet count the posts from those who's HDMI and IEEE1394 connections do not work. :eek:Yeah--have any of those people approached the FCC about these problems? I haven't heard anyone claim that they have. Even if one of them does, it'd probably only solve the problem on his system. Multiple people had to go through this for their local systems when they were encrypting OTA DTV rebroadcasts. I'm sure that the FCC doesn't have the resources to go out and check the hundreds of SOs across the country to make sure that they're all complying with these requirement, and to tell you the truth, compliance doesn't really matter until someone needs it ("If a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear..." :)). They should all keep aware of emerging FCC requirements and comply on time without being told, but it rarely happens.

scott_bernstein

09-15-06, 01:41 PM

I take the optimistic view, one that actually IS very plausible. The latest 2.5 release when used with an external drive appears to have a serious bug in that the trick play features (something I absolutely take advantage of) don't work correctly. Once that issue is addressed, they probably will roll it out to the biggest section of the NYC market, Manhattan.

AFAIK, the only "feature" 2.5.x brings is external drive support. Rolling it out with a bad enough bug I wouldn't want to USE an external drive is kinda pointless IMO.
This somehow seems unlikely to me. In fact, it is much more likely that the people who make the decisions about things like what firmware is being deployed on our DVRs are totally clueless about the SATA feature. My guess is that there are other pressures and concerns that they are making the decisions based upon.

More likely, the decision to push an update to the customers' boxes will have something to do with upgrading software at the head-end servers....

Riverside_Guy

09-15-06, 04:05 PM

Honestly Scott, I'm ever so slightly happier with the optimistic view! Of course I'm sure there are a bunch of other issues that go into a corporate decision, it's not unheard of that the guy who makes the final decision has a bunch of family in the area and they don't roll out until they would be happy; I "know" you've seen capricious corporate decision making!

Prepar, you already have more than enough drive space to record everything and watch it that way. I just have the puny internal drive. I have to watch certain things live, and a lot of folks I know now know it's cool to call me during the news hour because I only have to hit the pause button. Yes I know I could hit a few more buttons if I had support for the drive but software that still had the bug.

pepar

09-15-06, 04:25 PM

This somehow seems unlikely to me. In fact, it is much more likely that the people who make the decisions about things like what firmware is being deployed on our DVRs are totally clueless about the SATA feature. My guess is that there are other pressures and concerns that they are making the decisions based upon.

More likely, the decision to push an update to the customers' boxes will have something to do with upgrading software at the head-end servers....
I'll give you points for cynicality, but disagree ayway. Anyone in the position of making decisions of what Passport version to deploy is well aware of all of the various features available, specifically SATA support and Multi-Room. You're probably right about other concerns, but I would not necessarily characterize them as pressures. I think it is a very cold and calculated decision process with the subscriber have ZERO advocates.

pepar

09-15-06, 04:42 PM

Yeah--have any of those people approached the FCC about these problems? I haven't heard anyone claim that they have. Even if one of them does, it'd probably only solve the problem on his system. Multiple people had to go through this for their local systems when they were encrypting OTA DTV rebroadcasts. I'm sure that the FCC doesn't have the resources to go out and check the hundreds of SOs across the country to make sure that they're all complying with these requirement, and to tell you the truth, compliance doesn't really matter until someone needs it ("If a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear..." :)). They should all keep aware of emerging FCC requirements and comply on time without being told, but it rarely happens.
Wow, optimistic, realistic and unrealistic all at once. And I'm witcha on all of it. Complaining here = easy. Knowing how and who to complain to that matters = obscure. If we really wanted to be an asset to the community, we'd figure out how to enable the squeaky wheel to get the grease.

How can we find out who at the FCC to comlain to about non-compliance we uncover and what format is the most productive in getting results? I'm serious. Let's do some research and post an FAQ for those with HDMI and IEEE1394 problems and assist them in doing what they can to troubleshoot their problems, fix what they can fix and report what they cannot.

Any interest in doing this? If so, what can I do to help?

pepar

09-15-06, 04:52 PM

Prepar, you already have more than enough drive space to record everything and watch it that way. I just have the puny internal drive. I have to watch certain things live, and a lot of folks I know now know it's cool to call me during the news hour because I only have to hit the pause button. Yes I know I could hit a few more buttons if I had support for the drive but software that still had the bug.
Priverside_guy: :) You'd be shocked at how quickly 500GB of external storage fills up. One cannot possibly use it for time-shifting weekly series and watching in any sort of a timely fashion. So, it becomes an archive for hi-def content - for me movies from HBO, MAX, SHO and HDNet Movies. I am not quite at the point where I need to prioritize my recordings making room for mre desirable content, but it is just around the corner.

Greetings from South Miami Beach.

ksk1186

09-15-06, 10:56 PM

Sorry to but in but, I have a problem I cant solve with the SA 8300 HD box. TW in Charlotte. I just bought a new Sony KDSA2000 and when I change channels on cable there is a delay and then sometimes I get a picture, sometimes I get snow on the whole screen. I switched out the box to a newer (refurbished probably) and still had problems. I then had a tech out and he said I had a weak signal and put in a amplifier splicer. It worked for 2 hours and now same problem. And yes, using HDMI. Can I check the signal somehow, I thought someone said there was a hack? Advice would be appreciated, thanks!

phish2007

09-16-06, 02:00 AM

I am a little confused. Can I add an esata 750gb drive to my TWC ny 8300hd box. Thanks.

ZMike

09-16-06, 06:06 AM

I am a little confused. Can I add an esata 750gb drive to my TWC ny 8300hd box. Thanks.

There are at least 3 different 8300HD firmwares in NYC right now. If yours is 1.8.112, no. If it is 2.5.xxx, probably yes. As of a month ago Brooklyn was still on 1.8.112.

Check out the NYC thread for local info, located at

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=297592&page=281&pp=30

-Mike

Paul Chiu

09-16-06, 11:20 AM

I am not sure as well. I am in Queens with passport 2.5.066 and am thinking of getting this too.

http://www.cavalrystorage.com/Caxm37750.asp

Most of the people here have reported good results with 300GB and 500GB drives, but I have not read any with the Seagate 750GB drives as yet. This is the drive inside the Cavalry enclosure.

Paul

I am a little confused. Can I add an esata 750gb drive to my TWC ny 8300hd box. Thanks.

phish2007

09-16-06, 12:08 PM

I have PASSPORT echo 2.5.066. I guess I will by the cavalry 750. I live in Brooklyn with TWC. Do I have to worry about them changing my OS. Thanks

Tony Tingen

09-16-06, 12:14 PM

I am still getting the vertical stripe with the 8300HD. It is there with both HDMI and Component. I have tried it on 2 42" sets a Maxent Plasma and a VIZIO LCD. In order to get rid of the line I set the TV to widescreen and the cable box to stretch. The pillars still appear but without the line. This is annoying because I have to switch the aspect ratio's whenever I change to a channel that is a different format (HD widescreen program for 4:3 content).

I just swapped out a 8000HD box for the 8300HD box and I'm having the same problem. On many (but not all) of the 4:3 channels there is a black stripe on the left side of the 4:3 picture. The stripe is thinner on some channels than others. I'm using the component output. The stripe does not appear using the S-Video connection. The 8300HD is using Passport Echo 2.5.048 software. I did a quick search, but did not see any solutions posted other than to stretch the picture. Obviously, that's not a real solution. Has anyone found a real solution other than swapping out the box again?

Paul Chiu

09-16-06, 12:31 PM

It is a concern.

I have 3 D-VHS recorders that are now useless because of the latest HDTV changes.

These will not be my last as that's technology for ya!

As for the 750GB, I figure I will be out $400 if they change the system. I just hope I can read the stuff after they DO change and not lose all the content.

Paul

I have PASSPORT echo 2.5.066. I guess I will by the cavalry
750. I live in Brooklyn with TWC. Do I have to worry about them changing my OS. Thanks

michaeltscott

09-16-06, 12:42 PM

phish2007

09-16-06, 12:54 PM

michaeltscott

09-16-06, 01:01 PM

How can we find out who at the FCC to comlain to about non-compliance we uncover and what format is the most productive in getting results? I'm serious. Let's do some research and post an FAQ for those with HDMI and IEEE1394 problems and assist them in doing what they can to troubleshoot their problems, fix what they can fix and report what they cannot.

Any interest in doing this? If so, what can I do to help?pepar, I've never personally made a complaint to the FCC, since I've never been affected by a provider's non-compliance with some requirement in the FCC regs. I'm still not, since I don't have a use for working 1394 on the DVR and don't have a television with an HDMI or DVI input. Unfortunately, all of the threads detailing the trials and tribulations of people who did it years ago to get their local DTV channels unencrypted (some providers were actually charging extra) and to get any STB with working 1394/DTCP don't seem to be available. (There used to be archives here, but I can't even find those).

In any case, I found this (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadcast.html) page on the FCC's site. It gives an address for complaints; the page speaks specifically about obscenity complaints, but the address seems generic enough:
FCC
Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554Anyone wanting to complain about their provider refusing to support HDMI or 1394 on their box could send a written complaint there. Make sure that you go through the procedure that I described back in this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8427446&&#post8427446) post; try all the normal remedies first and document that effort before coming to the FCC with it.

Paul Chiu

09-16-06, 01:07 PM

I ordered 2 from buy.com

Were are you buying the drive from?

Paul Chiu

09-16-06, 01:19 PM

Mike and others,

I have send numerous letters to the FCC, my congressman, and the cable companies. Since I adopted HDTV in 1999, I have done my part, both in welcoming the new concept and addressing the problems. I have had 3 D-VHS decks, 2 HD tuners, and gone through 9 HD cable boxes since and it has been a series of headaches. BUT, the results are just too good to give up. Not that I can.

Enough said, we can complain and we need to do it in size. Without the group and masses doing so, they are not going to change.

With so many formats, methods, and delivery systems for HD, the cable companies have many excuses not having that precious firewire working out of the boxes. It's always "this" and "that" whenever I write or call. I have spoken to Mr Watson over at TWC NYC, and even his boss. Not even sure if they know how the whole HD system works or if some quick change may not break some Hollywood copyright laws.

It's a BIG mess.

Hopefully, if I am lucky after nearly a decade with now $20K+ invested in HD, they WILL have HD-DVD and lots of content in 1080p, SOON.

I hope for our sake

Paul

pepar, I've never personally made a complaint to the FCC, since I've never been affected by a provider's non-compliance with some requirement in the FCC regs. I'm still not, since I don't have a use for working 1394 on the DVR and don't have a television with an HDMI or DVI input. Unfortunately, all of the threads detailing the trials and tribulations of people who did it years ago to get their local DTV channels unencrypted (some providers were actually charging extra) and to get any STB with working 1394/DTCP don't seem to be available. (There used to be archives here, but I can't even find those).

In any case, I found this (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadcast.html) page on the FCC's site. It gives an address for complaints; the page speaks specifically about obscenity complaints, but the address seems generic enough:
Anyone wanting to complain about their provider refusing to support HDMI or 1394 on their box could send a written complaint there. Make sure that you go through the procedure that I described back in this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8427446&&#post8427446) post; try all the normal remedies first and document that effort before coming to the FCC with it.

phish2007

09-16-06, 01:49 PM

I ordered 2 from

can you use 2 with one box?

Paul Chiu

09-16-06, 01:56 PM

Only one at a time. I have read that some here have a collection of 500GB drives. I have not confirmed if that is true.

Paul

can you use 2 with one box?

NCCharlie

09-16-06, 02:13 PM

TWC Charlotte uses SARA, not Passport. Try posting these problems in the SA 8300 HD Tips & Tricks -- SARA (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=471859) thread.Wrong, TWC Charlotte NC is using Passport. Atleast myself and other users I know have been on Passport for several years. I'm currently running 2.5.066.

pepar

09-16-06, 02:33 PM

michaeltscott

09-16-06, 02:41 PM

Wrong, TWC Charlotte NC is using Passport. Atleast myself and other users I know have been on Passport for several years. I'm currently running 2.5.066.Okay--I'll take your word for it. I said that based on an old memory (I may have been thinking of South Carolina) and the fact that all of their online documentation and advertisement (like their DVR test-drive) is for SARA. Sorry :o.

EDIT: I checked again and at least their "Answers On Demand" for the DVR are for Passport. The user's guides that they link to are all for SARA, as is that little interactive DVR demo.

michaeltscott

09-16-06, 02:55 PM

Mike and others,

I have send numerous letters to the FCC, my congressman, and the cable companies. Since I adopted HDTV in 1999, I have done my part, both in welcoming the new concept and addressing the problems. I have had 3 D-VHS decks, 2 HD tuners, and gone through 9 HD cable boxes since and it has been a series of headaches. BUT, the results are just too good to give up. Not that I can.

Enough said, we can complain and we need to do it in size. Without the group and masses doing so, they are not going to change.

With so many formats, methods, and delivery systems for HD, the cable companies have many excuses not having that precious firewire working out of the boxes. It's always "this" and "that" whenever I write or call. I have spoken to Mr Watson over at TWC NYC, and even his boss. Not even sure if they know how the whole HD system works or if some quick change may not break some Hollywood copyright laws.

It's a BIG mess.

Hopefully, if I am lucky after nearly a decade with now $20K+ invested in HD, they WILL have HD-DVD and lots of content in 1080p, SOON.

I hope for our sake

PaulThat's depressing, particularly if you've complained about poor HDMI support. I can understand a softening of commitment to 1394 since, going forward, it's irrelevant. Today, the only way to make permanent recordings of HDTV is with a DVHS deck (or with an expensive analog WVHS decks, which can't record surround sound). In the future, recorders should all have conditional access tuners built in, either CableCARD or DCAS. They'll might also support 1394 for making copies (of things that can be copied) recorder-to-recorder, but support from leased cable STBs won't be critical.

HDMI, on the other hand, is very important. What bothers me is that some cable SOs are telling people that they don't support it, when they're required to by regulations. "We don't support it" implies "we don't care and we're not even going to look into the problems with it".

e137811

09-16-06, 04:23 PM

Okay--I'll take your word for it. I said that based on an old memory (I may have been thinking of South Carolina) and the fact that all of their online documentation and advertisement (like their DVR test-drive) is for SARA. Sorry :o.

EDIT: I checked again and at least their "Answers On Demand" for the DVR are for Passport. The user's guides that they link to are all for SARA, as is that little interactive DVR demo.

Time Warner Charlotte is running Passport & always has.

ksk1186

09-16-06, 05:10 PM

Time Warner Charlotte is running Passport & always has. Ok now that we have established something I already know, :) I found that running it in 1080i is the only way with no problems. Without reading 160 pages (please), are there any tweeks I can do to this to get the most out of this HD box?

phish2007

09-16-06, 08:45 PM

Is this a good set up for a 750gb system in Nyc TWC?
http://www.memorylabs.net/se757216hadr.html
Thanks

michaeltscott

09-16-06, 09:34 PM

Ok now that we have established something I already know, :) I found that running it in 1080i is the only way with no problems. Without reading 160 pages (please), are there any tweeks I can do to this to get the most out of this HD box?Again, I apologize. I'm pretty sure that I was thinking of South Carolina. There was a TWC marketing director who used to be highly active in the erstwhile "SA8x00HD on TWC w/SARA" thread who was located in S. Carolina (her username was DianaTWCSC). Charlotte is the only name I know of any city in either Carolina :). I did go to their site to check before I posted that and was fooled by SARA manuals and demo. There are no references to SARA on TWC San Diego's site and the few pictures of the UI there are are of Passport.

"Tweak"? When you enter an old thread like this one, it can help to take a look at the first post. Often, the guy who started the thread will turn it into a FAQ or a collection of pointers to interesting topics within the thread. The top post of this thread features a link to a Passport Echo manual and a link to a post within this thread giving various tips and tricks for Passport Echo.

mikeford

09-16-06, 09:47 PM

I think the Calif bill ending the cable monopoly just passed, no idea when its going to really kick in.

pepar

09-16-06, 10:17 PM

michaeltscott

09-18-06, 08:18 PM

We discussed the upcoming TWC OCAP Navigator previously in this thread. Now there's a "Time Warner Cable Navigator (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=723830)" thread in this forum, if you're interested. It gives a link to a page on a TWC site describing it in some detail, here (http://www.timewarnercable.com/nebraska/products/cable/mdn/mdn_dvr.html).

The OCAP Navigator should eventually replace Passport completely on TWC systems; it's designed to run in the OCAP platform which is part of Plug-And-Play V2, coming next year as required by the FCC. The FCC's requiring the elimination of the use of proprietary conditional access methods built into new leased cable STBs in July next year--that was originally scheduled for July last year, but the cable MSOs lobbied for and got an extension to allow them more time to properly complete the specs for OCAP and Multi-Stream CableCARD, necessary for running their interactive program guides and other interactive apps--like Video On Demand and Impulse Pay-Per-View--on Plug-and-Play V2 consumer devices, without an STB.

The OCAP Navigator seems very similar to Passport, but does seem to have a few new features. One thing it has is something that TiVo had and Passport doesn't, the "Recording Log". In TiVo, there's a list of the dispositions of recordings (accessible from the "Season Pass" list); if you can't find a recording that you expect to be there, you can find an explanation of why it's not there (like "someone in your household deleted it"). I don't at all miss "Showcases" or "Wishlists", but I miss that feature. It also has on-screen Caller-ID and a call log, if you use cable digital phone. The "Enhanced TV Menu" is kinda cool. You can scroll through the list of saved recordings by both date and title. (It's unclear that you can change the deletion order, as you can in Passport--I'd hate} to lose that).

See the "Answers On Demand" page (http://www.timewarnercable.com/CustomerService/AonDemand/AonDemand.ashx) and/or the PDF "Navigator & DVR Conversion Guide (http://www.timewarnercable.com/MediaLibrary/4/49/Content%20Management/Products%20And%20Services/images/mystro/conversion_guide.pdf)", which gives some instructions on the use of the new Navigator.

phish2007

09-18-06, 09:33 PM

michaeltscott

09-18-06, 10:14 PM

Will this effect esata hd's?Unknown. Remember that external drive feature in Passport Echo is unannounced and incomplete, and therefore not supported. TWC hasn't stated any commitment to providing it on Passport Echo.

External drives are supported in SARA and the use of them is documented in the latest SciAtl user's guides.

davehancock

09-18-06, 10:24 PM

Unknown. Remember that external drive feature in Passport Echo is unannounced and incomplete, and therefore not supported. TWC hasn't stated any commitment to providing it on Passport Echo.

External drives are supported in SARA and the use of them is documented in the latest SciAtl user's guides.

Yes, but name me ONE TW division that has officially supported them. In fact, name one cable system in the USA that has officially supported them (links to web sites are needed). I sure haven't heard of any Passport or SARA system that does (but I could be wrong - but I've been watching this ever since DMILAMI "discovered" that it worked on 3/4/05).

michaeltscott

09-18-06, 10:29 PM

Yes, but name me ONE TW division that has officially supported them. In fact, name one cable system in the USA that has officially supported them (links to web sites are needed). I sure haven't heard of any Passport or SARA system that does (but I could be wrong - but I've been watching this ever since DMILAMI "discovered" that it worked on 3/4/05).Maybe not, but TWC and Maxtor issued a press release at the beginning of 2005 stating corporate intent to support them, with a statement that they'd made a large order of Maxtor Quickview Expander drives. Whether this order was ever delivered and if so how they were deployed is uncertain.

davehancock

09-18-06, 10:35 PM

The problem was that the "corporate" intent was from Scientific Atlanta - not individual cable systems. Any SA documentation on the hard drives still says to "check with your local cable system".

The only place that I've ever heard officially supporting external drives has been in Canada. They seem to have a different view (on a lot of things) up there.

mikeford

09-19-06, 01:14 AM

arpjunk

09-19-06, 02:00 AM

I am still looking for a solution to this problem. The stretch picture combined with TV set to widescreen seems to eliminate the problem and the picture does not look stretched. I am not sure why. When the source changes from 4 X 3 to 16 X 9 it does look stretched and you have to chenge the setting on the cable box back to normal. Please let me know if you find a solution.
Thanks
I just swapped out a 8000HD box for the 8300HD box and I'm having the same problem. On many (but not all) of the 4:3 channels there is a black stripe on the left side of the 4:3 picture. The stripe is thinner on some channels than others. I'm using the component output. The stripe does not appear using the S-Video connection. The 8300HD is using Passport Echo 2.5.048 software. I did a quick search, but did not see any solutions posted other than to stretch the picture. Obviously, that's not a real solution. Has anyone found a real solution other than swapping out the box again?

jruhnke

09-19-06, 05:14 AM

DVR is a wonderfull thing, but its main weak point is that you are NEVER in the current arrangement going to be able to have confidence that what you can watch this week you will still have access to at any future point.I've never seen a DVR advertised as an archival platform, any more than my TV or my receiver is an archival platform.

But there are options. You can always dump content to a VCR or a DVD burner, and I've also used the S-video output to record HD-originated content via a PC tuner card, with good-quality results. I also have a couple of programs on my DVR that are over a year old.

The archival issue is not a big deal to me.

pepar

09-19-06, 09:05 AM

DVR is a wonderfull thing, but its main weak point is that you are NEVER in the current arrangement going to be able to have confidence that what you can watch this week you will still have access to at any future point.
So true, and it sxhould be in the back of every DVR user's mind, with or without an extermal drive. Never expect more and never be disappointed if/when content is lost. For me, the DVR is only an interim hi-def solution until next gen optical makes sense.

michaeltscott

09-19-06, 09:08 AM

DVR is a wonderfull thing, but its main weak point is that you are NEVER in the current arrangement going to be able to have confidence that what you can watch this week you will still have access to at any future point.As jrunhke points out, DVRs are not for archiving. DVRs are DVRs--they timeshift programming, give instant access to any saved programs and allow realtime manipulation of "live" television; do you count the inability to do those things as "weak points" of archival hard-media devices?

But take heart--recordable HD DVD and Blu-ray are coming. A couple of years back in Japan, Sony was selling a hideously expensive ($4000+) early form of Blu-ray with a built-in DVR. Maybe we'll see something like that (w/M-CARD-or-DCAP and OCAP), hopefully for a much lower price.

pepar

09-19-06, 09:11 AM

As jrunhke points out, DVRs are not for archiving. But take heart--recordable HD DVD and Blu-ray are coming.
Do you think "they" will let us record hi-def movies from cable? I doubt it. If not, the only thing we'll be archiving on HD-DVD/BD are our home movies.

DoubleDAZ

09-19-06, 09:13 AM

As jrunhke points out, DVRs are not for archiving. But take heart--recordable HD DVD and Blu-ray are coming.But if cableco's set copy flags to the most restrictive settings, what good are they? Isn't that part of the problem today with 1394? It's all but useless for anything except locals, isn't it?

michaeltscott

09-19-06, 09:31 AM

But if cableco's set copy flags to the most restrictive settings, what good are they? Isn't that part of the problem today with 1394? It's all but useless for anything except locals, isn't it?FCC regulations only allow the most restrictive copy protection mode, "Copy Never", to be applied to Video On Demand and Pay-Per-View business models. The core basic tier must all be "Copy Freely"; everything else can be set to "Copy One Generation", which would allow you to make one non-recordable copy on hard media. Transfer of "Copy One Generation" material from a DVR would presumably delete the copy on the HDD; otherwise the purpose of "Copy One Generation" is defeated, since you could simply record "Copy One Gen" on the HDD and then dub it to removable media as many times as you like. You couldn't make further copies of those removable media recordings, but who cares? For the same reason, I'd expect for playback of "Copy One Gen" DVR recordings to emerge over 1394 as "Copy No More", if they ever get 1394/DTCP on DVRs to work :). ("Copy No More" is distinct from "Copy Never"--it's a mode which will only be used for playback of "Copy One Gen". To receive keys to decrypt "Copy Never", a device must go through a different, more secure authentication handshake; devices which record 1394 need not be provisioned with the credentials necessary to perform that handshake). DVRs with 1394/DTCP connections could implement a special copy-over-1394 operation that would send "Copy One Gen" marked "Copy One Gen" over 1394 once, deleting the recording afterwards (possibly controlling the 1394 attached recorder using AV/C commands). Output of "live" "Copy One Gen" content could be transmitted over 1394 marked "Copy One Gen" as long as it's not being recorded on the DVR.

Note that the upcoming Windows Vista is supposed to be able to record conditional access content using CableCARDs, though CableCARD interfaces aren't supposed to be purchasable ala carte. Inclusion of a CableCARD slot in a product requires CableLABs certification of the entire integrated system.

See CFR Title 47 §76.1904 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=11330530f26def62f56403b8138260db&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:4.0.1.1.4.23.3.4&idno=47):
§76.1904 Encoding rules for defined business models.

(a) Commercial audiovisual content delivered as unencrypted broadcast television shall not be encoded so as to prevent or limit copying thereof by covered products or, to constrain the resolution of the image when output from a covered product.

(b) Except for a specific determination made by the Commission pursuant to a petition with respect to a defined business model other than unencrypted broadcast television, or an undefined business model subject to the procedures set forth in §76.1906:

(1) Commercial audiovisual content shall not be encoded so as to prevent or limit copying thereof except as follows:

(i) To prevent or limit copying of video-on-demand or pay-per-view transmissions, subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section; and

(ii) To prevent or limit copying, other than first generation of copies, of pay television transmissions, non-premium subscription television, and free conditional access delivery transmissions; and

(2) With respect to any commercial audiovisual content delivered or transmitted in form of a video-on-demand or pay-per-view transmission, a covered entity shall not encode such content so as to prevent a covered product, without further authorization, from pausing such content up to 90 minutes from initial transmission by the covered entity (e.g., frame-by-frame, minute-by-minute, megabyte by megabyte).Definitions for the various business models ("pay television transmissions, non-premium subscription television, and free conditional access delivery transmissions", etc) can be found in §76.1902 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=11330530f26def62f56403b8138260db;rgn=div8;vie w=text;node=47%3A4.0.1.1.4.23.3.2;idno=47;cc=ecfr).

archiguy

09-19-06, 11:20 AM

So, it becomes an archive for hi-def content - for me movies from HBO, MAX, SHO and HDNet Movies. I am not quite at the point where I need to prioritize my recordings making room for mre desirable content, but it is just around the corner.

How do you manage to direct the movies you want to archive to your expansion drive? Do you keep your internal drive almost "filled up" so that anything new you record will be sent to the new drive, or is there a way to direct specific recordings to specific drives?

mikeford

09-19-06, 03:57 PM

User has no control of which drive is used, and I don't think anybody has really experimented enough to say for sure what the internal logic is for choosing, but it most likely is space used per drive (absolute or percent not sure which) or space remaining. What I have suggested somebody try is to fill the original drive with junk, then connect the esata drive and put on a bunch of stuff you want to keep, then delete the junk on the internal drive and see if the internal then gets used for all the trick play features for watch and delete stuff.

For archive I am thinking about things like the 1394 devices, D-vhs, RCA 2160, either connected to the cable box DVR or to the display. Archiving HD content via S-vhs to an anything is NOT appealing to me. Neither is the notion that the DVR and any external drives have all material locked to that specific box, any repair or even a software push could lose all the recordings.

Right now all this funky failure to work stuff is only an issue to people like us, but a year from now as HD content that people would "like" to archive starts showing up, expect to hear some noise from the general public and real solutions to start showing up.

Bootlegs are going to be the key indicator, when pirated HD material starts showing up, people may become must less tolerant of the way HDMI and HDCP mistreat honest consumers.

Legitimate sources of free SD material are popping up on the internet like crazy right now, with broadcasters joining in fast. Check out places like http://www.youtube.com or read this thread http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=40&threadid=1926327&enterthread=y I don't think HD can be far behind given the increasing bandwidth most users are demanding, and my bet is that Sony and Microsoft would both like to be a gateway for that material (both free and paid, since free is bound to have some money making scheme behind it as well) that is what the real PS3 vs Xbox battle will be.

mikeford

09-19-06, 04:10 PM

Pardon me commenting on my own post, but ...

PCs, PS3, and Xbox, and more, like the cablecos, are going for the same "appliance" spot in our homes telephone, network access, entertainment, computing and more all in the same box. This is a next generation thing, where the box is NOT the money maker, its the gateway to content that will have money pouring in on a monthly basis. The money flow is going to be HUGE, and the competition fierce.

archiguy

09-19-06, 04:41 PM

User has no control of which drive is used, and I don't think anybody has really experimented enough to say for sure what the internal logic is for choosing, but it most likely is space used per drive (absolute or percent not sure which) or space remaining. What I have suggested somebody try is to fill the original drive with junk, then connect the esata drive and put on a bunch of stuff you want to keep, then delete the junk on the internal drive and see if the internal then gets used for all the trick play features for watch and delete stuff.

I had a discussion with a TWC rep a few years ago and he said what they were looking for with expansion drives was just that: the ability to direct content to a specific drive. And stuff recorded on one drive would list as a different color than stuff on another drive so that you would immediately know which programs were on which drives when you pulled up the list. And there would be the ability to "daisy-chain" drives together, all programming listed with different colors in the list-guide. Finally, the cable company would lease the external drives to you for a nominal charge, around $2.00/month.

Needless to say, the reality we got is a far cry from the features they were proposing back then. :rolleyes:

Oh, and 1394 connections would actually work as they're supposed to with the equipment we legitimately purchase. That hasn't worked out too well for many of us either. :(

michaeltscott

09-19-06, 05:29 PM

davehancock

09-19-06, 06:31 PM

The way that SARA works is fully documented in SciAtl manuals--the drive with the greatest amount of free space gets every recording until it has less free space than the other drive. I'd expect that the underlying filesystem infrastructure, the same in both SARA and Passport, would make this determination; the application asks to open a new file and the OS chooses where to put it.
Slight addition to this Michael to answer one of Mikeford's questions. According to the SA "Connecting the SA8300HD" document, the logic on which drive to use is based on the % full of each drive.

pepar

09-19-06, 07:59 PM

FCC regulations only allow . . .].
:)

You really need to stop quoting - verbatim - FCC reulations. In the real world, they aren't worth a bucket of spit. I refer you to our recent posts on IEEE1394 and HDMI, and getting them to work properly.

:)

davehancock

09-19-06, 08:30 PM

:)

You really need to stop quoting - verbatim - FCC reulations. In the real world, they aren't worth a bucket of spit. I refer you to our recent posts on IEEE1394 and HDMI, and getting them to work properly.

:)
Well, Michael and I have carried out spirited arguments elsewhere (and we probably should not get into that [argument of "functional"] again) on whether or not the FCC actually requires the IEEE1394 ports to work. The bottom line has been that if you demand that cable provide you with a STB with a functional IEEE1394 - they will, but it likely will be a SA3250HD.

RE: DVI/HDMI - most 8300s will work properly with some, maybe a few, sets. That basically gets cable off the hook - if it works with brand X, but not with brand Y, the problem is "obviously" brand Y. I don't buy that, but it is an argument that can be put forward. - We really should all know the reason for this problem: a piss poor spec on HDCP. They (the HDCP folks) obviously never developed a comprehensive spec with bullet-proof test cases!

michaeltscott

09-19-06, 10:22 PM

:)

You really need to stop quoting - verbatim - FCC reulations. In the real world, they aren't worth a bucket of spit. I refer you to our recent posts on IEEE1394 and HDMI, and getting them to work properly.

:)It may be a big hairy technical problem to make either HDMI/HDCP or 1394/DTCP work properly on this equipment; perhaps they're trying to deal with it as quickly as possible and it's just taking forever. None of us knows the entire story. If FCC regs require that they provide you with an STB which floats in mid-air, the cable provider cannot comply until someone offers such an STB which is compatible with their existing infrastructure. What's absolutely bogus by the regs is for the provider to claim that they "don't support" either HDMI or 1394. They have to at least be making their best effort to comply.

As I said before, I think that the HDMI problems are far and away the more serious of the two. Only a very small subset of cable subscribers have any use for 1394, but just about every DTV model of any significant size introduced in the last two years (and many models shipped prior to that) has an HDMI-or-DVI/HDCP connection, as per FCC requirements. That's got to be 10s of millions of televisions in active use nationwide. Personally, I blame the HDMI/HDCP certification process; supposedly these things are tested for interoperability before being put on the market and any two devices which passed those tests should work together perfectly.

The regulations are worth more than "a bucket of spit". People in these forums and others that I participate in have successfully used them to force their cable SOs to put local DTV rebroadcasts on the wire without encryption and to include them in the core basic service tier, so that they could get them with an inexpensive basic cable subscription. Others have used them to force their service providers to cough up an STB with working 1394 and to fix any incorrect protection modes applied to 1394 output.

Insofar as these protection bit are concerned, any problems with those is almost certainly a pure matter of software which cannot ber difficult to fix. There are couple of 1394 control bits which aren't part of the content stream that could be asserted in error by a poorly designed interface chip (the EMI--"Encryption Mode Indicator"--bits, which allow a device to determine the copy protection mode applied to the stream without actually decrypting it). If nothing else, if the wrong protection modes are being applied to 1394 output, the operator can probably turn off all protection until they can fix it.

Another problem with the FCC regs is some slip-shod writing. Dave and I have locked horns over CFR Title 47 §76.640 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6062fe4894b22fc21de158b66a88a090&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:4.0.1.1.4.11.3.15&idno=47)(b)(4)(ii):
(4) Cable operators shall:

(i) Effective April 1, 2004, upon request of a customer, replace any leased high definition set-top box, which does not include a functional IEEE 1394 interface, with one that includes a functional IEEE 1394 interface or upgrade the customer's set-top box by download or other means to ensure that the IEEE 1394 interface is functional.

(ii) Effective July 1, 2005, include both a DVI or HDMI interface and an IEEE 1394 interface on all high definition set-top boxes acquired by a cable operator for distribution to customers.

(iii) Ensure that these cable operator-provided high definition set-top boxes shall comply with ANSI/SCTE 26 2001 (formerly DVS 194): “Home Digital Network Interface Specification with Copy Protection” (incorporated by reference, see §76.602), with transmission of bit-mapped graphics optional, and shall support the CEA–931–A: “Remote Control Command Pass-through Standard for Home Networking” (incorporated by reference, see §76.602), pass through control commands: tune function, mute function, and restore volume function. In addition these boxes shall support the power control commands (power on, power off, and status inquiry) defined in A/VC Digital Interface Command Set General Specification Version 4.0 (as referenced in ANSI/SCTE 26 2001 (formerly DVS 194): “Home Digital Network Interface Specification with Copy Protection” (incorporated by reference, see §76.602)).IMHO, there's no way that the requirement for 1394 on all STBs purchased after 1 July 2005 was intended to be interpreted the way that Dave is intepreting it. I could believe that they'd require that at least non-working 1394/DTCP interfaces be on all boxes purchased after that date (Dave's interpretation) if and only if they'd also provided a deadline by which they have to be made to work, and there is none. If we accept Dave's interpretation, the SOs and STB OEMs can completely ignore that clause, other than to slap an interface chip and connector on the STB boards. Hell--the section doesn't even say that it must be possible to make the interface work in the future--the chip doesn't even have to be connected to foils. Read that way, the clause is a total waste, since it doesn't require anyone to ever provide anything of any use to any cable subscriber. Yet, it's written in a fashion which allows completely reasonable folks like Dave to interpet it in that nonsensical way :D.

The other thing about that section is that they're not required to give you any particular STB with 1394; as Dave points out, they've satisfied all requirements if they give you any STB with 1394, like the Explorer 3250HD. Due to this, I'm not sure that you can make a valid complaint of non-compliance if they refuse to give you a DVR with 1394. You'll never be assured of getting a DVR with any kind of 1394 connection (working or not) until all the ones they bought before mid 2005 wear out and are replaced with new ones.

michaeltscott

09-19-06, 10:44 PM

RE: DVI/HDMI - most 8300s will work properly with some, maybe a few, sets. That basically gets cable off the hook - if it works with brand X, but not with brand Y, the problem is "obviously" brand Y. I don't buy that, but it is an argument that can be put forward. - We really should all know the reason for this problem: a piss poor spec on HDCP. They (the HDCP folks) obviously never developed a comprehensive spec with bullet-proof test cases!Well, this idiot testing policy (http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/testing_policies.asp) might explain some things. According to it, if you've manufactured one HDMI source, sink or repeater that passes the validation process, you don't have to submit any future product of that type for validation in order to get it licensed. So, if you make a standard definition DVD player (a source) that passes validation, some future HD Cable DVR that you bring to market (another source) would not have to be submitted for validation. Completely different hardware and firmware teams might be (probably are) responsible for the two products, and the later team might not even have made reference to the earlier team's successful implementation. Yet we assume that because the company has created one HDMI source product which works right, every future product that they design which is an HDMI source will also work properly. "When you assume..." :rolleyes:.

Do actual grown-ups write this stuff?

michaeltscott

09-19-06, 10:49 PM

Slight addition to this Michael to answer one of Mikeford's questions. According to the SA "Connecting the SA8300HD" document, the logic on which drive to use is based on the % full of each drive.So, if the 160GB embedded drive has 32GB free (20%) as soon as the external 750GB drive drops to less than 150GB free, the DVR will revert to using the far smaller amount of space available on the internal drive. A little strange, but OK :).

davehancock

09-19-06, 10:59 PM

Michael,

Did you miss one IMPORTANT POINT here? The issue is that it is HDCP - NOT HDMI that is the cause of handshake problems (the problems that most all have with HDMI). Even your HDMI reference points this out:
HDCP Testing
Currently, HDMI Licensing LLC does not offer HDCP testing, although the HDMI Founders, at their discretion, may elect to do so in the future. However, HDCP testing services are available from the following providers. (Note that neither HDMI Licensing, LLC nor the HDMI Founders as a group endorse these resources and are not responsible for such services in any way).
Or is that what you meant by Idiot Testing Policy? They (the HDMI organization) have sidestepped this issue ("passing the buck" in political terms) - but please, let's get it right - it's an HDCP issue - that the HDMI organization has allowed to exist. :eek:

davehancock

09-19-06, 11:00 PM

So, if the 160GB embedded drive has 32GB free (20%) as soon as the external 750GB drive drops to less than 150GB free, the DVR will revert to using the far smaller amount of space available on the internal drive. A little strange, but OK :).
Strange, but that's what the SA Document shows!

michaeltscott

09-20-06, 01:17 AM

Michael,

Did you miss one IMPORTANT POINT here? The issue is that it is HDCP - NOT HDMI that is the cause of handshake problems (the problems that most all have with HDMI). Even your HDMI reference points this out:

Or is that what you meant by Idiot Testing Policy? They (the HDMI organization) have sidestepped this issue ("passing the buck" in political terms) - but please, let's get it right - it's an HDCP issue - that the HDMI organization has allowed to exist. :eek:I didn't see that. Inasmuch as HDCP has only been used with DVI and HDMI, I assumed that HDMI testing would include HDCP testing ("When you assume ..." :rolleyes: :D).

It sounds as though no one requires HDCP conformance testing, and yes, I would consider that to be an "idiot testing policy" as well.

In any case, HDCP is a protocol layered on top of HDMI; if there is a flaw in the implementation of the physical layer protocol it could well affect HDCP, just as the workings of perfect IP stack could be screwed up by a bad implementation of, say, IEEE 802.3. Without analyzers for all protocols, it'd be difficult to pin down exactly where the fault lies and on what side of the connection.

mikeford

09-20-06, 02:45 AM

pepar

09-20-06, 08:39 AM

1394 does work with most displays that support though doesn't it?

My main issues with HDMP and HDCP, other than a total dislike of both concept and execution, are switching and audio with receivers and computers. Maybe things will start to get sorted out by the time second generation HD players are out?
The only problems I've read about with Firewire are from people trying to dump content from their DVR to a D-VHS deck. In fact, I don't remember anyone even mentioning ujsing it as a video connection to a display.

mikeford

09-20-06, 11:42 AM

I may have this all wrong, but many displays have a connection for a DVR type device, isn't it via firewire? Toshiba calls it symbio, http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=597769

michaeltscott

09-20-06, 12:56 PM

I may have this all wrong, but many displays have a connection for a DVR type device, isn't it via firewire? Toshiba calls it symbio, http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=597769Mitsubishi was the greatest booster for 1394/DTCP when it emerged and lobbied against the use of DVI/HDCP (no HDMI at the time). At one point they swore that they'd never put an DVI interface on any of their products. Of course, they eventually had to fold against industry (and MPAA) pressure, but all of their televisions still have 1394/DTCP connections and an elaborate system of peripheral device control (using the 1394 A/V control protocols AV/C and HAVi). They call it "Netcommand".

Mits' cheaper D-VHS deck had no YPrPb, RGBHV or DVI connections--the only way to display HD recordings using it was through 1394/DTCP. RCA made an HD DVR with no other A/V connection (which seems to be discontinued). and there was a similar device in Toshiba's Symbio line. Both used the connected television's tuner to make recordings.

I'm not sure how much trouble people have had viewing television through the 1394 connections on cable STBs which have working ones. Comcast was using a Motorola DVR that had working 1394 (I don't know what IPG it was running), primarily advertised as a means to view television over it, though I'm pretty sure that people have used it with D-VHS decks. I don't know about watching television through SA3250HD's on TWC, though.

davehancock

09-20-06, 01:42 PM

michaeltscott

09-20-06, 03:40 PM

I've said before that 1394/DTCP support is not terribly important, because it essentially concerns only the very small percentage of people who bought legacy D-VHS decks and televisions with 1394/DTCP and no DVI-or-HDMI/HDCP connections (virtually all Mitsubishi products). It also affects a much smaller percentage of technophiles who use it to record unencrypt digital cable (including local DTV rebroadcasts) onto storage on their computers using vanilla Firewire PC interfaces. All of the legacy televisions with 1394/DTCP have component video connections as well and the techie PC recording crowd can buy clear QAM tuning cards. (Windows Vista will be able to use CableCARD to record conditional access stuff, though you'll probably have to buy a new computer). If they don't make it work on leased cable DVRs, all of these groups can get working 1394 on at least one non-DVR cable STB from their cable providers.

D-VHS is still the only current consumer technology for recording DTV directly to removable media; D-VHS decks have lacked HD tuners of any kind because when they emerged, such tuners tended to add $1000 to the list price of products. (I'm not sure--maybe the very last batch of D-VHS recorder models had at least ATSC tuners). By the time video disc recorders (HD DVD, Blu-ray) make it to market, I expect that they will all have integrated CableCARD or DCAS tuners and will be able to record all conditional access cable content onto disc, with the exception of Pay-Per-View and Pay-Per-Viewing-Period Video On Demand. "Free" ("Food Channel On Demand", etc) and/or subscription VOD ("HBO On Demand", etc) may be recordable, but since it defeats the intent of "Copy One Generation" protection, it may not be. (For whatever reason, the FCC decided to leave subscription VOD an "undefined business model", so that set of encoding rules I discussed back in this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8462745&&#post8462745) post don't apply to it. Starz!/Encore was lobbying for setting the highest protection level which could be used on subscription VOD as "Copy One Generation", while all the other premiums were lobbying to be able to mark it "Copy Never").

ZMike

09-20-06, 03:50 PM

Thanks to all who posted those intelligent and important comments about IEEE1394 and the other digital interfaces on the last two pages.

I am one of those who invested in a Mitsubishi system, including Mits D-VHS. I also bought a JVC D-VHS for use in a JVC system, thinking that Firewire was at least going to last for awhile.

It was a rocky start on Comcast in NJ with the MOT 6208 boxes, but they got it straight after 2 firmware updates. There was trouble getting Firewire to work when the 6412 HD-DVR boxes came out, but they got that fixed with a couple of updates very quickly as well.
After it was fixed I could watch, record and archive perfectly. It worked about as well as anything has ever worked for me. And then I moved all of my stuff back to Manhattan, and TWC/SA where just about nothing works perfectly. Under certain circumstances I can record from the SA 8300HD onto both D-VHS machines. I can watch through the Firewire connection on the JVC, but not on the Mits. I can archive with glitches onto the JVC, but not at all on the Mits with 1.8.112 firmware.

I think TWC/SA is breaking the law by not providing a functional IEEE1394 interface. Based on what I've read both here and on the local NYC thread, the SA3250 is Firewire-dead with the latest SA firmware. Where does that leave us?
I really like Pepar's idea of forming another thread to combine our information and our efforts and try to get something done about all of the digital interfaces, as a group.

My question to all the regulars is what happens next?

Regards to all of you good people.

-Mike

michaeltscott

09-20-06, 06:00 PM

My question to all the regulars is what happens next?Though I stated in my last post that I didn't think that 1394/DTCP support on leased cable STBs was a terribly important issue any longer :o, I appreciate the position that non-support by your cable service provider puts you in, given your substantial good-faith investment in 1394/DTCP equipment, and I sympathize.

Though they clearly are required to make 1394 work on at least one digital STB (of any kind), I'm not so sure that they're violating regulations in regards to HD DVRs. I quoted the relevant regs a few posts back (). CFR Title 47 §76.640(b)(4)(i) clearly states that they have to get you some STB on request with working 1394/DTCP; (b)(4)(iii) outlines the standards that the 1394/DTCP connection must comply with. As for DVRs, (b)(4)(ii) says that they have to have 1394/DTCP on all STBs that they purchase after the middle of last year; Dave Hancock thinks that the regs don't specify that the 1394/DTCP interface has to work, but I think that (b)(4)(iii) applies to those as well. If the 1394 connections on those newly purchased STBs are required to work, nothing in the regulations requires them to give you one, so if it doesn't work on the HD DVR that you're leasing, there doesn't seem to be anything in the FCC regs as written could be used to force them to give you one. (I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong :)).

Have you looked at [url=http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8444100&&#post8444100]Paul Chiu's post (]here[/url) about his efforts to work with TWC and the FCC to resolve the problem. His hope seems to be that everyone having problems with 1394/DTCP and HDMI/HDCP could complain en masse to get some sort of action. (He's also in New York somewhere).

It's cool to hear that Comcast has been so consumer-responsive on the issue as well as so successful in delivering the functionality--it kinda puts TWC/SciAtl to shame. As a slightly off-topic aside, what IPG was Comcast using (Passport, Microsoft TV, Moxie, etc)? Was there a formal "archive to tape" operation for DVR recordings? If you attempted to archive conditional access premium content, how did that work?

holl_ands

09-20-06, 06:52 PM

Just a footnote to Mike Scott's excellent note: Because Mits was initially pushing ONLY IEEE1394 was the motivation for the FCC to mandate some support for the interface. It was not to assure that cable customers had a means to record HD signals.
Although Mitsubishi and a few other HDTV manufacturers were interested in using Firewire vice DVI/HDMI, there were also several manufacturers, incl Mitsubishi and JVC, who were pushing Firewire and its accompanying DTCP copy protect system for RECORDING devices.

And there was a very loud voice expressed to maintain "FAIR USE" RECORDING RIGHTS.

You only have to look at the intro and first few pages of FCC-03-225 re "Impl. Sec. 304, ... Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment":
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-225A1.pdf

"In this proceeding we consider regulations to facilitate the direct connection of digital “navigation devices” or customer premises equipment purchased from retail outlets – including television receivers, set-top boxes and DIGITAL RECORDERS – to cable television and other multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) systems." [My italics.]

holl_ands

09-20-06, 07:04 PM

I may have this all wrong, but many displays have a connection for a DVR type device, isn't it via firewire? Toshiba calls it symbio, http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=597769
Yes, Toshiba's built-in Symbio DVR used an IEEE-1394 Firewire interface, but they stated that it ONLY worked with certain Toshiba model HDTVs.

holl_ands

09-20-06, 07:41 PM

I've said before that 1394/DTCP support is not terribly important, because it essentially concerns only the very small percentage of people who bought legacy D-VHS decks and televisions with 1394/DTCP and no DVI-or-HDMI/HDCP connections (virtually all Mitsubishi products). It also affects a much smaller percentage of technophiles who use it to record unencrypt digital cable (including local DTV rebroadcasts) onto storage on their computers using vanilla Firewire PC interfaces. All of the legacy televisions with 1394/DTCP have component video connections as well and the techie PC recording crowd can buy clear QAM tuning cards. (Windows Vista will be able to use CableCARD to record conditional access stuff, though you'll probably have to buy a new computer). If they don't make it work on leased cable DVRs, all of these groups can get working 1394 on at least one non-DVR cable STB from their cable providers.

D-VHS is still the only current consumer technology for recording DTV directly to removable media; D-VHS decks have lacked HD tuners of any kind because when they emerged, such tuners tended to add $1000 to the list price of products. (I'm not sure--maybe the very last batch of D-VHS recorder models had at least ATSC tuners).

Since it is currently the ONLY way to maintain our FAIR USE RECORDING RIGHTS with Cable,
I firmly believe that a working IEEE-1394 Firewire port is VERY IMPORTANT.....
although it is not yet as widely used for that purpose as it's VHS predecessor.

HD OTA recording enthusiasts could go through the hassle (and cost) of firing up a HTPC....
But they might also want to consider buying the under $300 MIT MDR-300 OTA STB
which is (thus far) the only OTA STB I know of with a Firewire port:
http://www.digitalconnection.com/products/video/mdr200.asp
http://www.mitinc.co.kr/mitinc/e_site/prod/catalog/mdr200(e).pdf
and a D-VHS recorder for anywhere from $250 to $500 (per Google search).

Or spend about $1000 (Ouch!!!) for a D-VHS with built-in ATSC tuner:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=JVHMDT100S&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=348856

ZMike

09-20-06, 07:57 PM

[QUOTE=
Have you looked at Paul Chiu's post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8444100&&#post8444100) about his efforts to work with TWC and the FCC to resolve the problem. His hope seems to be that everyone having problems with 1394/DTCP and HDMI/HDCP could complain en masse to get some sort of action. (He's also in New York somewhere).

It's cool to hear that Comcast has been so consumer-responsive on the issue as well as so successful in delivering the functionality--it kinda puts TWC/SciAtl to shame. As a slightly off-topic aside, what IPG was Comcast using (Passport, Microsoft TV, Moxie, etc)? Was there a formal "archive to tape" operation for DVR recordings? If you attempted to archive conditional access premium content, how did that work?[/QUOTE]

I was actually thinking of another post by Paul Chiu wherein he wrote that he has 3 dead D-VHS recorders, courtesy of a TWC firmware upgrade of his SA3250 boxes. There was another post I recall on this thread from someone with an 8300HD who received the latest firmware that resulted in problems for his D-VHS.
As I remember Comcast was using a TV Guide IPG. There was no formal archive to tape command. I could archive anything except OnDemand-type programs. I don't recall ever having a copy protection issue after the firmware was perfected.

Based on what I've seen on AVSForum threads I would have to conclude that TWC has no STB that meets the IEEE1394 mandate--outside of the fact that the interface physically exists and is electrically active, there isn't a whole lot more than that going on.

-Mike

davehancock

09-20-06, 08:21 PM

Although Mitsubishi and a few other HDTV manufacturers were interested in using Firewire vice DVI/HDMI, there were also several manufacturers, incl Mitsubishi and JVC, who were pushing Firewire and its accompanying DTCP copy protect system for RECORDING devices.

And there was a very loud voice expressed to maintain "FAIR USE" RECORDING RIGHTS.

You only have to look at the intro and first few pages of FCC-03-225 re "Impl. Sec. 304, ... Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment":
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-225A1.pdf

"In this proceeding we consider regulations to facilitate the direct connection of digital “navigation devices” or customer premises equipment purchased from retail outlets – including television receivers, set-top boxes and DIGITAL RECORDERS – to cable television and other multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) systems." [My italics.]

Holl_ands,

You reference is to later deliberations. What I was commenting on was that when the subject of IEEE1394 was first included in Part 76, it was as the primary digital input to a display - as was being promoted, at the time, by Mitsubishi.

It is also clear in the document that you linked, that DIGITAL RECORDERS being referred to there are part of the category of Navigation Devices (Devices that "....... are defined for purposes of this proceeding as “converter boxes, interactive equipment, and other equipment used by consumers within their premises to receive multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems.” I don't think that this includes D-VHS recorders that receive their digital bit stream from a IEEE1394 input.

michaeltscott

09-21-06, 12:08 AM

Holl_ands,

You reference is to later deliberations.I don't think that's true--FCC 03-225, which holl_ands cited, is the Report and Order which specifies the modifications to CFR Title 47 Parts 15 and 76 which implement Plug-and-Play DTV-Over-Cable (see Appendix B, starting on PDF page 42). I'm fairly sure that 1394/DTCP was unmentioned in the regs prior to that order.

mikeford

09-21-06, 12:51 AM

I've said before that 1394/DTCP support is not terribly important, because it essentially concerns only the very small percentage of people who bought legacy D-VHS decks and televisions with 1394/DTCP and no DVI-or-HDMI/HDCP connections (virtually all Mitsubishi products). It also affects a much smaller percentage of technophiles who use it to record unencrypt digital cable (including local DTV rebroadcasts) onto storage on their computers using vanilla Firewire PC interfaces. All of the legacy televisions with 1394/DTCP have component video connections as well and the techie PC recording crowd can buy clear QAM tuning cards. (Windows Vista will be able to use CableCARD to record conditional access stuff, though you'll probably have to buy a new computer). If they don't make it work on leased cable DVRs, all of these groups can get working 1394 on at least one non-DVR cable STB from their cable providers.

I disagree, DTV 1394 is everything that HDMI/HDCP isn't, consumer friendly, plug and play*, and pretty much the standard for digital movie cameras and computers. I predict a LONG future of fighting HDMI/HDCP every step of the way to maintain current consumer rights. 1394 is the consumers foot in the door keeping some kind of quality archival recording possible.

One fly in the ointment for the HDMI crowd is that "most" placeshifters are perfectly happy with a non HD, even compressed SD image and sound, and that is going to be VERY hard if not impossible to block. Major league baseball hasn't gotten anywhere with Slingbox have they?

Timeshifting general consumers care enough about to fight for, and raise hell if it gets blocked. One taste of DVR or Tivo and most are hooked, even if they could never program the old VCR, the "right" to record is burned into their minds.

*Except with cable DVR boxes, but if we start taking those boxes back and demanding the working 1394, I bet we get it even if its a 3250.

It is HIGHLY likely within 5 years that most HD content will be available via fee or free as a on demand download from the internet using the cableco etc as just a pipe with no direct profit from the transaction.

michaeltscott

09-21-06, 04:52 AM

I disagree, DTV 1394 is everything that HDMI/HDCP isn't, consumer friendly, plug and play*, and pretty much the standard for digital movie cameras and computers. I predict a LONG future of fighting HDMI/HDCP every step of the way to maintain current consumer rights. 1394 is the consumers foot in the door keeping some kind of quality archival recording possible.Archiving doesn't require 1394--just integrated tuners in removeable media recorders and they're coming. No HD video disc recorder--the true consumer DTV archiving platform--will ever ship without integrated tuning.

The one place that 1394 as an A/V transport will remain relevant is in camcorders--it's a great way to download digital home movies in digital form onto a computer for editing. Directly playing those movies in digital form from a camcorder is one reason why some televisions have the connection (a cursory search at PriceGrabber reveals that 32.4% of the RPTVs that they list and 2.3% of the flat panels--about 10% of those with integrated tuners--have 1394 connections).

Again, 1394 will become almost completely irrelevant for recording television. Soon, all new recorders will have cable and over-the-air television tuners built into them, and I'm guessing that HD video disc recorders will all have CableCARD or DCAS tuners which will allow them to record subscription and premium cable. By the end of the year, you should be able to buy a Windows Vista HTPC with a CableCARD tuner. Given built-in tuners, why would you need to record television via 1394? Recording from built-in cable tuners is far more consumer friendly than 1394 will ever be.

There are around 100 million television watching households in this country. I'll bet that less than 1% of those households has anyone trying to archive DTV at this point. I think that the majority of people have no interest in archiving television and are satisfied with DVRs (they'd just like them to have bigger HDDs); most of the people who might be interested aren't interested in going back to archiving things on bulky cassettes, which is why D-VHS has had such a piss-poor adoption rate, which will dry up completely when HD video disc recorders appear.

1394/DTCP has a few glaring weaknesses as a transport for video from an STB to a display. For one thing, to display video from A/V 1394, a television has to have an MPEG-2 decoder; not a big deal anymore, since all televisions will soon, by FCC requirement, have to have DTV tuners, which would include an MPEG decoder. However, MPEG decoders are not created equal; some produce images of higher quality than others. If you use 1394 to display all of your digital video sources, you're limited to the best your television's decoder can do.

Also, how many televisions (if any) have decoders capable of handling advanced video encodings like H.264/AVC and VC1, the primary encodings for HD video disc? (Sony is hanging with MPEG-2 for their Blu-ray releases for the moment, but I think that they'll eventually see the error of their ways). The CableCARD spec only requires decoding of a couple of MPEG-2 profiles and the ATSC broadcast standard is pretty much stuck with MPEG-2. Even if some televisions show up with the ability to decode those advanced encodings as received over 1394, there will always be new encodings in the future. If you assign the compressed video decoding function to video source devices and deliver the imaged video in raster form to the monitor (HDMI), the ability to decode a new encoding scheme comes with the device which plays media encoded that way.

In any case, none of the emerging HD video disc players, HD DVD or Blu-ray, has a 1394 connection and I strongly doubt that any HD video disc player ever will (unless, of course, Mitsubishi decides to field one :)). The AACS licensing agreement allows it, and I expect that HD video disc recorders will have 1394 connections, if only to allow archiving of camcorder tapes to disc. Again, even if they had them, would it do any good if the discs are encoded in H.264/AVC or VC1?

Note also that Series 3 TiVo doesn't have any 1394 connections. But then, TiVo is a Hollywood whore :D. I have a friend working on them and you wouldn't believe its current and future mechanisms for supporting digitally embedded advertising gimmicks. (My friend works in that group--once they had a horrible scare when one of the cable MSOs decided to strip out the VBI-encoded stuff that the broadcasters and their advertisers use to talk to TiVo, on purpose).

Paul Chiu

09-21-06, 07:38 AM

Mike,

I dearly hope that your prognostications will turn out. Just as they were saying that my D-VHS will be around, I trusted them. I will get whatever they release in the coming years as well, but with the promise of Blu-ray and those luscious 1080p movies, I may no longer yearn for means to increase my HD recordings.

Before HD through cable, I was happy to accumulate SD DVDs. After seeing the first HDTVs at the SONY Madison Ave showcase back in 1998, seeing how great that 30" CRT and 64" HDTV RPTV was, I was sold and stopped buying SD DVDs.

I work hard in investing but do not wish to work hard in recording HD stuff for my large screens. I feel mistreated over the last 8 years in my embrace of the new technology.

I will buy 2 more 750GB eSATA hard drives to continue loading them with cable HD movies and specials through my 8300HD DVR until they stop that.

Hopefully, hopefully, HD 1080p DVDs will be loading up store shelfs at and I can finally rest in my hunger for high definition programming.

Paul

Archiving doesn't require 1394--just integrated tuners in removeable media recorders and they're coming. No HD video disc recorder--the true consumer DTV archiving platform--will ever ship without integrated tuning.

The one place that 1394 as an A/V transport will remain relevant is in camcorders--it's a great way to download digital home movies in digital form onto a computer for editing. Directly playing those movies in digital form from a camcorder is one reason why some televisions have the connection (a cursory search at PriceGrabber reveals that 32.4% of the RPTVs that they list and 2.3% of the flat panels--about 10% of those with integrated tuners--have 1394 connections).

Again, it will become almost completely irrelavant for recording television. Soon, all new recorders will have cable and over-the-air television tuners built into them, and I'm guessing that HD video disc recorders will all have CableCARD or DCAS tuners which will allow them to record subscription and premium cable. By the end of the year, you should be able to buy a Windows Vista HTPC with a CableCARD tuner. Given built-in tuners, why would you need to record television via 1394? Recording from built-in cable tuners is far more consumer friendly than 1394 will ever be.

There are around 100 million television watching households in this country. I'll bet that less than 1% of those households has anyone trying to archive DTV at this point. I think that the majority of people have no interest in archiving television and are satisfied with DVRs (they'd just like them to have bigger HDDs); most of the people who might be interested aren't interested in going back to archiving things on bulky cassettes, which is why D-VHS has had such a piss-poor adoption rate, which will dry up completely when HD video disc recorders appear.

1394/DTCP has a few glaring weaknesses as a transport for video from an STB to a display. For one thing, to display video from A/V 1394, a television has to have an MPEG-2 decoder; not a big deal anymore, since all televisions will soon, by FCC requirement, have to have DTV tuners, which would include an MPEG decoder. However, MPEG decoders are not created equal; some produce images of higher quality than others. If you use 1394 to display all of your digital video sources, you're limited to the best your television's decoder can do.

Also, how many televisions (if any) have decoders capable of handling advanced video encodings like H.264/AVC and VC1, the primary encodings for HD video disc? (Sony is hanging with MPEG-2 for their Blu-ray releases for the moment, but I think that they'll eventually see the error of their ways). The CableCARD spec only requires decoding of a couple of MPEG-2 profiles and the ATSC broadcast standard is pretty much stuck with MPEG-2. Even if some televisions show up with the ability to decode those advanced encodings as received over 1394, there will always be new encodings in the future. If you assign the compressed video decoding function to video source devices and deliver the imaged video in raster form to the monitor (HDMI), the ability to decode a new encoding scheme comes with the device which plays media encoded that way.

In any case, none of the emerging HD video disc players, HD DVD or Blu-ray, has a 1394 connection and I strongly doubt that any HD video disc player ever will. The AACS licensing agreement allows it, and I expect that HD video disc recorders will have 1394 connections, if only to allow archiving of camcorder tapes to disc. Again, even if they had them, would it do any good if the discs are encoded in H.264/AVC or VC1?

Note also that Series 3 TiVo doesn't have any 1394 connections. But then, TiVo is a Hollywood whore :D. I have a friend working on them and you wouldn't believe its current and future mechanisms for supporting digitally embedded advertising gimmicks. (My friend works in that group--once they had a horrible scare when one of the cable MSOs decided to strip out the VBI-encoded stuff that the broadcasters and their advertisers use to talk to TiVo, on purpose).

ZMike

09-21-06, 09:04 AM

Paul Chiu

09-21-06, 09:48 AM

Mike,

I was at Audio Breakthroughs out in Manhasset yesterday picking up the Denon 1920CI DVD upconverter and the specialist there told me about the Verizon fiber optics service. He said that they have installed such a system and it is a great alternative to TWC.

Well, that's all hunky-dory for private home dwellers but a no go for those like myself with co-op boards. Hard noses that are still smarting over allowing for cable back in the 80's.

Just like satellite, fiber is a no-go and TWC is still a monopoly. That is not right.

Paul

I feel the same as you. I also have upgraded as the technology advanced. I have a few S-VHS recorders that went into storage when the D-VHS machines came in.
But congress looked at the whole "everything is dead as soon as something is new" culture that technology (and corporate greed) created, and at least tried to mandate some sense of stability (even if imperfect) with the digital interface laws that the FCC is supposed to administer.
I'm going to buy what comes down the pipe as well, but I can't help complaining that cable monopolies like TWC are doing to people like us exactly what the law was intended to stop. TWC/SA has no right to run updated firmware on SA 8300HD and SA3250 STB's that kills the functionality of existing IEEE1394 or other digital interfaces that are mandated for our benefit.

-Mike

michaeltscott

09-21-06, 10:15 AM

Since it is currently the ONLY way to maintain our FAIR USE RECORDING RIGHTS with Cable,
I firmly believe that a working IEEE-1394 Firewire port is VERY IMPORTANT.....
although it is not yet as widely used for that purpose as it's VHS predecessor....and by the grace of Providence, it never will be.

Damn--I seem to have inadvertently deleted my original response to your post, holl_ands, posted late last night, which included a brilliant rant on my low opinion of so called "FAIR USE RECORDING RIGHTS" (it really gets me started when emphasized in all caps :D). Oh well--no BFD. Much of the gist of it has been reiterated in my response to mikeford above, mainly that "Fair Use" recording is much more elegantly preserved by integrated conditional access cable tuners, highly likely to ship in the first HD video disc recorders, the first method of archiving DTV which will have broad appeal to consumers. Adding yet another A/V connections for televisions and STBs (YPrPb, S-video, composite, VGA, RGBHV, DVI, HDMI, on and on and on) was not a very marketable idea. With integrated cable tuning, all Joe Average has to do is plug the cable from his wall socket into the recorder (and possibly install an M-CARD, but hopefully DCAS will have supplanted CableCARD by then).

The other thing in that post was a comment on your comparison of the prices of available D-VHS recorders without DTV tuning to the one with DTV tuning. I don't know what accounts for the price difference (probably the fact that the one with tuner is much newer than the cheaper ones), but I don't think that it's the tuner. Having ATSC and clear QAM tuning doesn't seem to have added $500 to the price of this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=TO27D46&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=419045) 27" 4:3 standard definition "SDTV" direct-view from Toshiba's current product line. Its MSRP is $300 and it can be had for $250, e-tail.

Remember the FCC mandate to phase in ATSC tuners, CFR Title 47 §15.117 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6eab4b4a3dcc657011d473be16444462&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.12.2.236.10&idno=47)(i)(i thru iv). By 1 March this year, all televisions with screen sizes over 25" had to include a built-in ATSC tuner and
by 1 March next year, all televisions regardless of screen size, and all interface devices which include a tuner (VCR, DVD player/recorder, DVR) must include a built-in ATSC tuner. I haven't seen any recent television or STB with ATSC tuning which didn't also tune clear QAM, since recent ATSC tuners chipsets also tune NTSC and QAM. Since everything with a TV tuner is now or soon will be required to have one, economies of scale have driven the price of DTV tuner chips way down.

Slikkster

09-21-06, 10:45 AM

dc10forlife

09-21-06, 11:01 AM

Archiving doesn't require 1394--just integrated tuners in removeable media recorders and they're coming. No HD video disc recorder--the true consumer DTV archiving platform--will ever ship without integrated tuning.

...

Again, 1394 will become almost completely irrelevant for recording television. Soon, all new recorders will have cable and over-the-air television tuners built into them, and I'm guessing that HD video disc recorders will all have CableCARD or DCAS tuners which will allow them to record subscription and premium cable. By the end of the year, you should be able to buy a Windows Vista HTPC with a CableCARD tuner. Given built-in tuners, why would you need to record television via 1394? Recording from built-in cable tuners is far more consumer friendly than 1394 will ever be.

I agree that archiving probably will not require 1394 in the future. But I think 1394 will be the best way to do it in the future.

First, putting cablecards in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray recorders will increase costs of these units. Why duplicate the effort if its required in the cablebox? Not only will the consumer have to have a cablecard in their tv they will also have to have it in their HD-DVD recorder. With 1394, you simply connect the cable from the STB to the HD-DVD recorder. Sounds consumer friendly to me.

Second, relying solely on cablecards ignores the fact that many people get their HDTV through sat. Will there be different HD-DVD recorders released with sat cards in them? Instead, why not have a firewire output on the cable box and the sat receiver and have one model HD-DVD recorder?

1394/DTCP has a few glaring weaknesses as a transport for video from an STB to a display. For one thing, to display video from A/V 1394, a television has to have an MPEG-2 decoder; not a big deal anymore, since all televisions will soon, by FCC requirement, have to have DTV tuners, which would include an MPEG decoder. However, MPEG decoders are not created equal; some produce images of higher quality than others. If you use 1394 to display all of your digital video sources, you're limited to the best your television's decoder can do.

I agree that 1394 for purposes of video playback or as a replacement for component video input on a TV from a STB is not needed in the future. But I would note that at least on my Toshiba, the 1394 video input from the STB is better than the component input from the STB.

Also, how many televisions (if any) have decoders capable of handling advanced video encodings like H.264/AVC and VC1, the primary encodings for HD video disc? (Sony is hanging with MPEG-2 for their Blu-ray releases for the moment, but I think that they'll eventually see the error of their ways). The CableCARD spec only requires decoding of a couple of MPEG-2 profiles and the ATSC broadcast standard is pretty much stuck with MPEG-2.

I think you ahve just stated a good reason why cablecards in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray recorders is a bad idea. Why limit a recorder to mpeg2? 1394 can transmit mpeg4 material and H.264/AVC or VC1 encoded material. Its all 1s and 0s. If the HD-DVD player supports these codecs then it could record this data stream via firewire onto a HD-DVD and subsequently play it back.

Even if some televisions show up with the ability to decode those advanced encodings as received over 1394, there will always be new encodings in the future. If you assign the compressed video decoding function to video source devices and deliver the imaged video in raster form to the monitor (HDMI), the ability to decode a new encoding scheme comes with the device which plays media encoded that way.

Playback will be done via the HD-DVD player, which will decode the compressed stream and output it via component or HDMI. No need for 1394 input on a TV or a separate decoder in the TV.

In any case, none of the emerging HD video disc players, HD DVD or Blu-ray, has a 1394 connection and I strongly doubt that any HD video disc player ever will (unless, of course, Mitsubishi decides to field one :)). The AACS licensing agreement allows it, and I expect that HD video disc recorders will have 1394 connections, if only to allow archiving of camcorder tapes to disc. Again, even if they had them, would it do any good if the discs are encoded in H.264/AVC or VC1?

I think you are factually wrong on this point. Prototype HD-DVD and Blu-Ray recorders do in fact have firewire (1394) inputs for recording. And yes, if the STB outputs H.264/AVC or VC1 and the HD-DVD supports playback of this, then it will be able to record this stream via 1394.

The bottom line is that firewire is the simplest solution. One STB or one cablecard device, and one HD-DVD recorder with a simple firewire input. Tune the channel on the STB and record via firewire to the HD-DVD recorder. Playback your HD-DVD disk to the TV via HDMI. Hollywood is happy because 5c will prevent people from copying.

I think we should start another thread on this as its probably the most important issue for HD recordings in the future. Suggested thread title: HD recordings in the future? What will happen.

archiguy

09-21-06, 11:06 AM

I was actually thinking of another post by Paul Chiu wherein he wrote that he has 3 dead D-VHS recorders, courtesy of a TWC firmware upgrade of his SA3250 boxes. There was another post I recall on this thread from someone with an 8300HD who received the latest firmware that resulted in problems for his D-VHS.

Paul wasn't the only one. The same thing happened to me here in Charlotte when my local TWC downloaded new software (or is it firmware? what's the difference??) a couple of months back. All of a sudden, I can't get a solid recording (they're full of macroblocking and dropouts) even though I can "see" the programming just fine thru my JVC 40k tape deck via firewire. It doesn't seem to be a 5C problem as the 5C flags don't appear to be turned on now. I've started two threads here on AVS asking if anyone else has experienced that. To date, the response to those threads has been abysmal, but it looks like Paul has the same problem (do you Paul?). The only conclusion I can come up with is that nobody is trying to archive HD to a JVC tape deck via a Scientific Atlanta STB anymore. Nobody! The motorola STB's/DVR's apparently continue to work with the JVC tape decks.

Based on what I've seen on AVSForum threads I would have to conclude that TWC has no STB that meets the IEEE1394 mandate--outside of the fact that the interface physically exists and is electrically active, there isn't a whole lot more than that going on.

Yes, that's my conclusion as well. Sure would love to hear from anyone who's experiencing it differently, though. :(

Paul Chiu

09-21-06, 11:28 AM

Same here in NYC. You're right, not too many record using D-VHS.
Most are using those DVRs with HD capability.

Paul

Paul wasn't the only one. The same thing happened to me here in Charlotte when my local TWC downloaded new software (or is it firmware? what's the difference??) a couple of months back. All of a sudden, I can't get a solid recording (they're full of macroblocking and dropouts) even though I can "see" the programming just fine thru my JVC 40k tape deck via firewire. It doesn't seem to be a 5C problem as the 5C flags don't appear to be turned on now. I've started two threads here on AVS asking if anyone else has experienced that. To date, the response to those threads has been abysmal, but it looks like Paul has the same problem (do you Paul?). The only conclusion I can come up with is that nobody is trying to archive HD to a JVC tape deck via a Scientific Atlanta STB anymore. Nobody! The motorola STB's/DVR's apparently continue to work with the JVC tape decks.

Yes, that's my conclusion as well. Sure would love to hear from anyone who's experiencing it differently, though. :(

Paul Chiu

09-21-06, 11:32 AM

They object to any drilling into the structure of the building in addition to those already there.

Why would the co-op board complain about FIOS? There's already phone service and cable service installed in the buildings. Have you seen this article? http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=90412

pepar

09-21-06, 02:19 PM

archiguy

09-21-06, 03:13 PM

Beyond digital video editing (and the application being discussed here), I know of no other use of Firewire. It is certainly not a dead-end technology like D-VHS, but it is not the future for archiving hi-def content we pull from cable. In fact, I'll bet there's no future for archiving hi-def content such as movies that we pull from cable.

You might be correct, but to quote a line from one of my favorite shows, "does that seem right to you?"

The fact remains that D-VHS should work, and it doesn't. It was deliberately sabotaged. Equipment has been sold; promises have been made. It's all gone to sh!t, and nobody's being held accountable. Even here on AVS, where once there was a mighty legion of D-VHS advocates, there's barely a whimper anymore at what's come to pass. Everybody's moved on, it seems. Under that reality, I certainly don't see a shining future for recordable HD optical formats.

pepar

09-21-06, 04:07 PM

You might be correct, but to quote a line from one of my favorite shows, "does that seem right to you?"

The fact remains that D-VHS should work, and it doesn't. It was deliberately sabotaged. Equipment has been sold; promises have been made. It's all gone to sh!t, and nobody's being held accountable. Even here on AVS, where once there was a mighty legion of D-VHS advocates, there's barely a whimper anymore at what's come to pass. Everybody's moved on, it seems. Under that reality, I certainly don't see a shining future for recordable HD optical formats.
No, it does not pass the "seems right" test. But it does pass the "I'm not surprised" test. This will certainly not endear me with the D-VHS owners out there, but this product had at least three strikes against it right outta the gate. I've never understood why the manufacturers were able to sell deck #1. Magnetic tape? Proprietary DRM? And outrageous prices considering that magnetic tape R&D had been amortized, what, decades ago? It never made sense to me. Perhaps that's why there's "barely a whimper"; they all knew it would end. And now that proprietary DRM prevents owners from transferring their purchased content to a viable format going forward.

pepar

09-21-06, 04:25 PM

They object to any drilling into the structure of the building in addition to those already there.
Who are the co-ops if not the very people who will benefit from higher bandwidth? Luddites, all?

Paul Chiu

09-21-06, 04:37 PM

I wished I had kept another apartment I own in this complex, I would then have more votes than anyone on the board. But the real estate market was so enticing....

They don't mind rewiring, but the Verizon folks wanted to drill into the building from several ends and send a bunch of major tubes. They also want to run wires onto every floor and our main power grid. All this talk gave the board cold feet.

We all are paying a lot to TWC, the average bill into the $100 for everyone who uses TWC in the co-op, so we were motivated to seek an alternative. Unfortunately, the president of the board and the second in command don't even use road runner and really do not watch much cable. Strange, but there are these people lurking among us.

What can you do?

Paul

I understand why Dutch workers threw their wooden shoes into the machines that were replacing them, but rewiring is usually done quite inconspicuously. And who are the co-ops if not the very people who will benefit from higher bandwidth? Luddites, all.

michaeltscott

09-21-06, 04:40 PM

I agree that archiving probably will not require 1394 in the future. But I think 1394 will be the best way to do it in the future.You're certainly entitled to that opinion and I respect it. Of course, I think it's wrong, but I do respect your right to hold it :D.
First, putting cablecards in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray recorders will increase costs of these units. Why duplicate the effort if its required in the cablebox?The point is to totally eliminate the need for leased cable STBs when using all Digital Cable Ready equipment. FCC regulations require that a product have a CableCARD slot if it's labelled "Digital Cable Ready". Because of this, CableCARD slots on DTVs are becoming increasingly common. At PriceGrabber.com, they list 198 widescreen RPTVs. The overall least expensive current model (before tax and shipping) is a $1000 46" Samsung DLP RPTV. Of the 198, 118 have CableCARD slots. The cheapest of those is the same Samsung. In fact, the first 7 or 8 least expensive current model RPTVs overall (comparing ones with and without CableCARDs) all have CableCARDs. I don't think that CableCARD is adding a lot the retail price of these televisions (either that or the manufacturers are taking a big hit on their margins, and I doubt that). As more and more televisions and STBs add CableCARD to get that "Digital Cable Ready" designation, the affect on the cost of manufacturing will diminish even further.

After 1 July next year, all new STBs purchased for lease by the cable SOs are required to use CableCARD for conditional access. This is to force the SOs to depend upon CableCARD working properly with their systems, to make it much more likely that consumer-owned Digital Cable Ready equipment will work properly with the CableCARDs they distribute.

A new standard for non-proprietary conditional access is called DCAS (Downloadable Conditional Access System). In this system, code implementing the proprietary conditional access method used on the wire from by your cable operator (Motorola's DigiCipher, SciAtl's PowerKey, etc) is downloaded and run internally by the television or STB. This doesn't require any leased equipment at all--no CableCARD and no lease charge for it.Not only will the consumer have to have a cablecard in their tv they will also have to have it in their HD-DVD recorder. With 1394, you simply connect the cable from the STB to the HD-DVD recorder. Sounds consumer friendly to me.Again, with the aforementioned DCAS system, which I hope will be what the first HD video disc recorders will have, you don't need an STB, CableCARD or a cable from an STB into the recorder. Even with CableCARD, things are simplified by the STB and the connecting wire going away.
Second, relying solely on cablecards ignores the fact that many people get their HDTV through sat. Will there be different HD-DVD recorders released with sat cards in them? Instead, why not have a fireqire output on the cable box and the sat receiver and have one model HD-DVD recorder?I don't think that any recent DirecTV STB has had a 1394/DTCP connection. Certainly the spec for their current HD DVR (http://www.directv.com/images/assets/Landing/HR20/HR20SpecSheet.pdf) shows that it doesn't have one. It even has a nice color photo of the rear panel, totally devoid of 1394. In any case, D* has gone to using MPEG-4, which no current television could decode even if they send it over 1394.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the VIP622 is E*'s latest HD DVR. There's a picture of the back of it on PDF page 11 of this (http://www.dishnetwork.com/downloads/pdf/technology/ViP622_DVR/Chapter12.pdf) document. If you zoom in on that, you can see that it doesn't have a 1394 connection either. The issue of 1394 on satellite receivers would seem to be moot.
I agree that 1394 for purposes of video playback or as a replacement for component video input on a TV from a STB is not needed in the future. But I would note that at least on my Toshiba, the 1394 video input from the STB is better than the component input from the STB.Okay--how does it compare to the receiver's HDMI output?
I think you ahve just stated a good reason why cablecards in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray recorders is a bad idea. Why limit a recorder to mpeg2? 1394 can transmit mpeg4 material and H.264/AVC or VC1 encoded material. Its all 1s and 0s. If the HD-DVD player supports these codecs then it could record this data stream via firewire onto a HD-DVD and subsequently play it back.But we were talking about cable, remember? No advanced codecs off the cable. And what do you think that CableCARDs feed to the television or STB on the other side of the slot? DFAST encrypted MPEG (for conditional access channels--it's probably clear MPEG from core basic channels). There is no compressed video decoder in the CableCARD, so it could care less what's in the transport stream: CableCARD and DCAS are just as capable of delivering content encoded as H.264/AVC or VC-1 to a device as 1394 is.
Playback will be done via the HD-DVD player, which will decode the compressed stream and output it via component or HDMI. No need for 1394 input on a TV or a separate decoder in the TV.Part of what I was talking about was using 1394 as video transport into your television.
I think you are factually wrong on this point. Prototype HD-DVD and Blu-Ray recorders do in fact have firewire (1394) inputs for recording. And yes, if the STB outputs H.264/AVC or VC1 and the HD-DVD supports playback of this, then it will be able to record this stream via 1394.I did say that I thought that recorders would have them. No currently offered player has one and I don't expect that any future player ever will. Hollywood doesn't trust DTCP and with good reason--though it's not easy to break, I expect that it will be broken within the next few years. The superior-quality compressed video source on theatrical release HD video discs is even more precious to the studios than the source bits of broadcast television. Heck--they're paranoid about people videotaping HDTV screens, for God's sake!

And nothing says that recorders will output playback through those connections; they may only use them for recording 1394 sources like camcorders.
The bottom line is that firewire is the simplest solution. One STB or one cablecard device, and one HD-DVD recorder with a simple firewire input. Tune the channel on the STB and record via firewire to the HD-DVD recorder. Playback your HD-DVD disk to the TV via HDMI. Hollywood is happy because 5c will prevent people from copying.Wrong--the simpliest solution is integrated conditional access tuners in both your television and HD video disc or recorder. It eliminates the STB and the wire from it to the recorder. DCAS further eliminates the CableCARD and its associated cost. Even using CableCARDs, the lease for a CableCARD on my system is $1.75/month as opposed to $7/month for an STB; leasing two of them is half the price of leasing an STB.

Face it--1394/DTCP, a cool idea when it was conceived given the circumstances at the time (expensive HD MPEG decoding and HD tuning, no DVI or HDMI). But it never really got off the ground and its opportunity to be a popular interconnect for home entertainment equipment has passed. Integrated tuners are cheap now and 1394 offers no advantages over recording directly from an integrated tuner.

mikeford

09-21-06, 04:42 PM

Archiving doesn't require 1394--just integrated tuners in removeable media recorders and they're coming.

By the end of the year, you should be able to buy a Windows Vista HTPC with a CableCARD tuner.

There are around 100 million television watching households in this country. I'll bet that less than 1% of those households has anyone trying to archive DTV at this point. I think that the majority of people have no interest in archiving television and are satisfied with DVRs (they'd just like them to have bigger HDDs); most of the people who might be interested aren't interested in going back to archiving things on bulky cassettes, which is why D-VHS has had such a piss-poor adoption rate, which will dry up completely when HD video disc recorders appear.

1394/DTCP has a few glaring weaknesses

Also, how many televisions (if any) have decoders capable of handling advanced video encodings like H.264/AVC and VC1

In any case, none of the emerging HD video disc players

Note also that Series 3 TiVo doesn't have any 1394 connections. But then, TiVo is a Hollywood whore :D. .

Cable Cards are new to me, I haven't used one, so I remain skeptical of there panacea effect. What are they going to cost to buy and per month or per connection? I don't want to pay more, especially monthly just because the cable box won't talk to my archival system. I don't "need" more tuners.

Windows Vista HTPC, this may come as a shock, but I and many others are not planning on jumping on this proprietary bandwagon. I understand many early adopters are running like lemmings for it, but it has no appeal whatsoever to me. If my only option is VISTA, I will be going in another direction and skipping any technology that requires Vista as a gateway.

From what you say I agree 1394 doesn't seem to have as much chance as I hoped. I didn't realize it was so limited in bandwidth and dependant on a single old compression method. If not 1394, then what is going to be the interconnection technology? HDMI?

"100 million households"
This isn't about 100 million in the US, its going to be worldwide, even Canada.

Most people don't realize the cable DVR isn't archival, and won't until the stuff they have on it poofs. I am sure that is a fundamental part of the marketing plan, don't mention how "not archived" the saved programs are.

What most people are going to want, and not be happy about, and what may become available to them has a wide range of possibilities. Most of them are going to be amazed and impressed with HD, but may prefer lower or lowest cost options that none of us would ever consider.

"None of the emerging HD" ... would be a lot more convincing if we weren't talking about 4 first gen sets from 3 brands.

Tivo exists by such a tenuous thread, I am sure its in bed with anybody that has a bed. Simple, cheap, universal guide information can't be that far off, its just not rocket science, its critical mass of users needed to make it trivial to produce and distribute. I've gotten it free for life for YEARS with my Ati all in wonder cards, and its going to be REAL hard to block something that is highly desirable to make free and easily acquired by both the end users and sources, with only the middle men resisting and trying to hold on to old profit models.

pepar

09-21-06, 04:57 PM

I wished I had kept another apartment I own in this complex, I would then have more votes than anyone on the board. But the real estate market was so enticing....

They don't mind rewiring, but the Verizon folks wanted to drill into the building from several ends and send a bunch of major tubes. They also want to run wires onto every floor and our main power grid. All this talk gave the board cold feet.

We all are paying a lot to TWC, the average bill into the $100 for everyone who uses TWC in the co-op, so we were motivated to seek an alternative. Unfortunately, the president of the board and the second in command don't even use road runner and really do not watch much cable. Strange, but there are these people lurking among us.

What can you do?

Paul
This (http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_clearwire.biz2/index.htm) (WiMAX) is what you can do. It's not here yet, but it's just around the corner.

Paul Chiu

09-21-06, 05:06 PM

That's great. More hi power magnetic and radio energy crossing my balls and zapping my brain every other nano-second 24/7..... :rolleyes:

Paul

This (http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_clearwire.biz2/index.htm) (WiMAX) is what you can do. It's not here yet, but it's just around the corner.

pepar

09-21-06, 05:07 PM

That's great. More hi power magnetic and radio energy crossing my balls and zapping my brain every other nano-second 24/7..... :rolleyes:

Paul
The exact thought went through my already RF-addled brain, too.

mikeford

09-21-06, 05:12 PM

Who are the co-ops if not the very people who will benefit from higher bandwidth? Luddites, all?

Coops and condo boards are the lowest form of communist government. There is only one party, it owns all the property, previlege is related to party loyalty and support.

As soon as I sort of the cable industry, condo boards are next.

mikeford

09-21-06, 05:33 PM

Good discussion, I have replaced old questions with new questions, but some things are clearer to me. ;)

Sounds like for me I will be wanting some kind of new HD box with a cablecard, and that will replace the 8300 and potentially replace or circumvent using a HTPC. Guessing now that "maybe" the HD box will become my "gateway" to my AV system from my computing systems.

Slingbox with hard drives and a cable card could rock. No doubt that is the industries worst nightmare.

michaeltscott

09-21-06, 06:48 PM

Cable Cards are new to me, I haven't used one, so I remain skeptical of there panacea effect. What are they going to cost to buy and per month or per connection? I don't want to pay more, especially monthly just because the cable box won't talk to my archival system.You can't buy CableCARDs--you lease them from your service provider just like your current STB. As I pointed out in my last post, my cable provider leases current unidirection single-stream cards (S-CARDs) for $1.75/month and STBs for $7/month (might be $8 now). I expect the upcoming multi-stream bidirectional cards (M-CARDs) to cost about the same. You can lease four CableCARDs for the monthly price of one STB. If you only need one for your television and one for a recorder, the cost is half.
I don't "need" more tuners.Sure you do--it's the shape of things to come. They're cheap--take a handful :D.
Windows Vista HTPC, this may come as a shock, but I and many others are not planning on jumping on this proprietary bandwagon. I understand many early adopters are running like lemmings for it, but it has no appeal whatsoever to me. If my only option is VISTA, I will be going in another direction and skipping any technology that requires Vista as a gateway.It doesn't particularly shock me. I myself am not into HTPCs. I just mention it as an emerging option. Windows Vista PCs will be one of the only HTPC solutions which will ever allow you to record conditional access cable. I've heard that there's at least one company integrating Linux based CableCARD-capable HTPCs. You won't be able to integrate the hardware yourself, since the integrated system as a whole has to be qualified by CableLab or some group certified by CableLab to perform the qualification.
From what you say I agree 1394 doesn't seem to have as much chance as I hoped. I didn't realize it was so limited in bandwidth and dependant on a single old compression method. If not 1394, then what is going to be the interconnection technology? HDMI?The bandwidth limitations of A/V 1394 are not really an issue, given that it transports compressed video. The bandwidth of A/V 1394, a dated standard, is 200 Mbps (I think--it could be 400); the maximum bitrate of HD DVD is a little over 36 Mbps. (I think that Blu-ray is a similar number). HDMI, which transfers the uncompressed, decoded video raster and multi-channel sound has a maximum bandwidth of 4,65 Gbps in V1.2 and 10.2 Gbps in the new V1.3.

There's nothing that prevents 1394/DTCP from being used to transport H.264/AVC or VC-1. It's just that none of the televisions which can play video from a 1394 source can decode that stuff.

If the problems with HDMI can be ironed out, it's a decent transport for video and sound. You can't record it, but DCR equipment doesn't need it for recording.
"100 million households"
This isn't about 100 million in the US, its going to be worldwide, even Canada.Are you disputing the number or do you think that it should be bigger? The FCC doesn't directly control the way that cable television is transmitted or what features consumer television equipment must have in Canada or any of the rest of the world. Whether those nations kowtow to what we do is another thing. I know that there are some significant differences in the EU's plans. For instance, I think that they standardize satellite a lot more than we do.

BTW--I get that 100 million number from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association's statistics pages, here (http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=54); the first line of the table reads "U.S. Television Households 110,900,000".
Most people don't realize the cable DVR isn't archival, and won't until the stuff they have on it poofs. I am sure that is a fundamental part of the marketing plan, don't mention how "not archived" the saved programs are.I truly don't think that most people want to archive television. Anyone who's been using a DVR for a few months is likely to find out that things go "poof" if you don't watch them in time, especially if they've been recording primarily HDTV. I think that in reality most people who make archival copies of television never watch most of it ever again.
Most of them are going to be amazed and impressed with HD, but may prefer lower or lowest cost options that none of us would ever consider.In my experience, Joe Average mostly isn't that impressed by HD video, with the exception of sports. Jill Average tends to be even less impressed. The thing that they like most about any of the technology is the thinness and brightness of flat-panel televisions. They're going to get HD video, at least from television, whether they particularly want it or not.
"None of the emerging HD" ... would be a lot more convincing if we weren't talking about 4 first gen sets from 3 brands.True, but as I said in my last post, Hollywood hasn't trusted DTCP protection ever. I feel certain that the reason that these players lack 1394/DTCP is due to pressure from the film studios. It would serve a fairly small population of users and only be useful for viewing video anyway--pre-recorded theatrical releases would all be marked "Copy Never" on output through 1394/DTCP.
Tivo exists by such a tenuous thread, I am sure its in bed with anybody that has a bed. Simple, cheap, universal guide information can't be that far off, its just not rocket science, its critical mass of users needed to make it trivial to produce and distribute. I've gotten it free for life for YEARS with my Ati all in wonder cards, and its going to be REAL hard to block something that is highly desirable to make free and easily acquired by both the end users and sources, with only the middle men resisting and trying to hold on to old profit models.TiVo's existence is a lot less tenous these days, mostly because of their willingness to hop into anyone's bed. Their deal with Comcast to provide their UI on Motorola boxes and a recent one with Cox to do the same (on both Motorola and SciAtl boxes) has really improved their financial outlook.

michaeltscott

09-21-06, 10:09 PM

While looking for a reference to the Linux CableCARD HTPC that I recall hearing about, I stumbled on this (http://thehtpcrecord.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26), a good and amusing synopsis of the state of non-proprietary conditional access methods (CableCARD, DCAS, etc), what their problems are and where we're headed. Enjoy.

The sad thing revealed by this article is that DCAS/OCAP platforms aren't scheduled to roll out until mid 2009, after the NTSC broadcast cut-off date, which seems like a bad thing. They are going to have to implement M-CARD/OCAP in the interrim, because the FCC's mandate to remove built-in proprietary conditional access from leased cable STBs has already been pushed back for 2 years once (it was supposed to happen in mid-2005), much to the ire of the Consumer Electronics Association. Pushing it back for another 2 years with the excuse that they thought of a better idea will cause the CEA to hire mercenaries to storm the offices of the FCC :D.

pepar

09-21-06, 11:40 PM

I truly don't think that most people want to archive television. Anyone who's been using a DVR for a few months is likely to find out that things go "poof" if you don't watch them in time, especially if they've been recording primarily HDTV.
On one of my 8300HDs, I have movies that have been on the (internal) drive for over one year. All of my stored content is hi-def and none has ever gone poof.

mikeford

09-22-06, 01:43 AM

On one of my 8300HDs, I have movies that have been on the (internal) drive for over one year. All of my stored content is hi-def and none has ever gone poof.
Jinx ;)

Just kidding, I am sure just because you said it doesn't mean that now something will poof, ;) or does it?

I have many thousands of books, about 800 LPs, closer to 1000 CDs, around 300 vhs tapes, and about 300 DVDs, with maybe 30 things on my DVR, and around 20,000 MP3 tracks and a couple dozen movies on my PC. I'd say I am something of an expert on the topic of keeping stuff around that isn't frequently used. Its very hard to predict how often you may want to watch or listen to anything. Even harder sometimes to decide you aren't going to want it next week or month.

I could be happy with my DVR just to timeshift and delete, and forget the notion of DVR as a replacement for purchases. Most of the archival itch has been from series, and I can tell you nothing kills that itch like ownership, as in after you have the whole series, watch it a few times, it gets less appealing for at least a period of time.

Sorry to ramble, but I can't help but be a little excited, interesting things are going to be happening over the next few years and I don't think anybody can really say exactly what direction they will be going in. Sports and the nature channel have sold about all the HD sets they can, the rest of the movement is going to have to come from either lower prices or some OTHER content like movies.

Stuff is going to happen, I think I will write a few letters to the FCC etc. and make some reddenbacker's Kettle Corn and watch.

holl_ands

09-22-06, 04:43 AM

FYI: The MediaREADY 6000 is the Linux based HTPC which plans to support CableCARD---
Their website says that they expect to release it "Fall 2006":
http://www.mediareadyinc.com/
http://www.mediareadyinc.com/press_122205.php

Note that the company name used to be Video Without Boundaries and signed an agreement with CableLabs to integrate the two-way M-CARD:
http://www.digitaltvdesignline.com/products/settopboxdesign/174900635
Of course, these agreements make it extremely difficult for a HTPC enthusiast to do their own thing...

pepar

09-22-06, 08:32 AM

I could be happy with my DVR just to timeshift and delete, and forget the notion of DVR as a replacement for purchases. Most of the archival itch has been from series, and I can tell you nothing kills that itch like ownership, as in after you have the whole series, watch it a few times, it gets less appealing for at least a period of time.
I think of it more as a temporary solution while I wait out the BD/HD-DVD situation. After I make a buy there, I'll continue to use the DVR to time shift and, perhaps, to "archive" the movies that I want to keep around, but can't justify purchasing the hi-def optical disc version.

bigd86

09-22-06, 09:04 AM

On one of my 8300HDs, I have movies that have been on the (internal) drive for over one year. All of my stored content is hi-def and none has ever gone poof.

Yes-I had movies on my 8300HD for way over a year-great HD movies that may not be rebroadcast for many a moon-and the machine never made them go poof. Unfortunately, the 8300HD went poof-harddrive failure. Personally, I would not consider the 8300HD for long term archiving, and with all the DRM restrictions built in to the various HD disc systems, archiving anything but over the air HD is going to be tough (for those going the legal route, anyway! :) )

pepar

09-22-06, 09:56 AM

Yes-I had movies on my 8300HD for way over a year-great HD movies that may not be rebroadcast for many a moon-and the machine never made them go poof. Unfortunately, the 8300HD went poof-harddrive failure. Personally, I would not consider the 8300HD for long term archiving, and with all the DRM restrictions built in to the various HD disc systems, archiving anything but over the air HD is going to be tough (for those going the legal route, anyway! :) )
Yes, the movies I have recorded may not be rebroadcast for a long time, and I accept that if my rig went south I may never be able to find them again. I would be unhappy - for a brief time - if I lost them, but c'est la vie. I am appalled by the hardware and software releases of both BD and HD-DVD camps and only need to get another year or so with the DVR as my hi-def delivery and library.

Paul Chiu

09-22-06, 10:28 AM

DoubleDAZ

09-22-06, 10:29 AM

No Firewire/1394 port.

Paul Chiu

09-22-06, 10:33 AM

As a baby boomer, I collect things. Among them are HD recordings on D-VHS, hard drives, and DVRs. Do I ever go back to the near 800+ titles I have accumulated since 1999? Probably when close friends come over to watch on the large screen in the living room. For my office, I rarely if ever go look for a recorded D-VHS title, feed the JVC 40K and sit back to watch. On the other hand, I often play 1080p or 1080i material I have on my computer with PowerDVD. It looks great on my HP 23" LCD and now on my Westinghouse 37" LCD.

So if I can have DVR HD content uploaded onto computer, life is good. Otherwise at my age, things are simply collected and sooner or later after I'm gone, they will be never seen again.....

Paul

Yes, the movies I have recorded may not be rebroadcast for a long time, and I accept that if my rig went south I may never be able to find them again. I would be unhappy - for a brief time - if I lost them, but c'est la vie. I am appalled by the hardware and software releases of both BD and HD-DVD camps and only need to get another year or so with the DVR as my hi-def delivery and library.

pepar

09-22-06, 10:48 AM

As a baby boomer, I collect things. Among them are HD recordings on D-VHS, hard drives, and DVRs. Do I ever go back to the near 800+ titles I have accumulated since 1999? Probably when close friends come over to watch on the large screen in the living room. For my office, I rarely if ever go look for a recorded D-VHS title, feed the JVC 40K and sit back to watch. On the other hand, I often play 1080p or 1080i material I have on my computer with PowerDVD. It looks great on my HP 23" LCD and now on my Westinghouse 37" LCD.

So if I can have DVR HD content uploaded onto computer, life is good. Otherwise at my age, things are simply collected and sooner or later after I'm gone, they will be never seen again.....
Sure they will, after your estate sells them on eBay. :)

pepar

09-22-06, 11:02 AM

As a baby boomer, I collect things. Among them are HD recordings on D-VHS, hard drives, and DVRs. Do I ever go back to the near 800+ titles I have accumulated since 1999? Probably when close friends come over to watch on the large screen in the living room.
When CDs arrived, I purchased all of my favorite albums on CD and sold the vinyl versions. Eventually, nearly every album I had had been replaced. However, some things were never released on CD. I kept those records for a while - until I tried to go back and listen. My audiophile proclivities, having been fed remastered and digitally recorded material, would not allow me to enjoy the music; all I could hear was the crappy original recording quality. Those remaining LPs went soon afterward. This played out again recently with my laserdisc collection. Once I'd seen DVDs and hi-def from cable, I could no loinger enjoy the movies on laserdisc. Fortunately for me, others were still doing lasers and I was able to sell my Pio Elite CLD-99 on eBay for a healthy price. I foresee the same scenario occuring again with my DVDs sometime after BD/HD-DVD establishes itself.

Oh yeah, I missed a cycle (or two) in there; I went through it when MFSL and high quality Japanese vinyl became available. My standard LPs went out the door then (only to be replaced later by the CD). And on a very limited scale, Superbits, digitally remastered transfers and Director's Cuts replaced some of my "standard" DVDs in the last year or so. With hi-def optical on the horizon, at least that will not happen anymore as I anticipate buying (a substantial portion of) my collection again anyway. Guess I'll be buying Fifth Element for the fourth time . . . ;)

Paul Chiu

09-22-06, 11:10 AM

Gosh, I am so glad I am not the only one.....

5th element in 3 different DVD's
Laserdisc
1080p downloaded
1080i recorded
soon..... Blu-ray

As for old stuff.

I cleaned my collection the other night and discovered some of my Coldtrain LPs have fused onto other LPs due to (most likely) humidity. Like you, I also have the (super duper enhanced verison on SACD) so I shed little tears over the discovery.

Why is it that only guys have issues with this?

Paul

When CDs arrived, ...... Director's Cuts replaced some of my "standard" DVDs in the last year or so. With hi-def optical on the horizon, at least that will not happen anymore as I anticipate buying (a substantial portion of) my collection again anyway. Guess I'll be buying Fifth Element for the fourth time . . . ;)

sabt

09-22-06, 12:06 PM

8300HD DVR
Just switched from component to HDMI to my Vizio 42"LCD. Now all 4:3 content is off-center, skewed to the right and a little low (ie. left side bars are much wider than right and bottom of screen is cut off). Didn't really have this problem with component.

Although i haven't connected a dvd player via HDMI, i'm suspecting it's the box. Any suggestions to fix the problem??? I looked in the passport user guide but no luck. thx!!!

(i searched this thread but didn't come up with anything)

ZMike

09-22-06, 03:41 PM

...Guess I'll be buying Fifth Element for the fourth time . . . ;)

Me too. It must be the orange hair or something...

pepar

09-22-06, 04:31 PM

Me too. It must be the orange hair or something...
Nah, it's Leeloo for those few moments before the straps go on. :)

michaeltscott

09-22-06, 04:38 PM

A friend just ask me if the new TIVO3 HD can transfer HD material over to the Computer like the older TIVOs with Analog material.

I don't think it can and why would TWC and others allow it....Apparently not. According to TiVo's Series 3 FAQ (http://www.tivo.com/2.0.3hdDvr.plt.faqs_2.asp#8):
Will the TiVoToGo™ feature and Multi-Room Viewing be available on the Series3 HD?
As always, TiVo's goal is to make all of the Emmy® award-winning TiVo service features available on all of our hardware platforms. Because TiVo worked directly with Cable Television Laboratories Inc. (CableLabs®) to enable the recording of digital standard definition and high definition channels with the TiVo Series3 HD box, this product has unique requirements, including what content can be taken off of the DVR and in what form. TiVo is working with CableLabs and our own engineering team to enable both Multi-Room Viewing and TiVoToGo functionality in a future release.TiVoToGo obviously does not sit well with the MPAA (and the NFL). It allows TiVo owners to upload recordings to their PCs over a LAN. You can watch these recordings on a laptop and there's software to download them to PSPs and video iPods. The other obvious thing that you can do with these recordings is edit out the ads and upload them to the Internet for all and sundry to share, the MPAA's greatest nightmare. People do this anyway, using other means to get the video onto their computer, but TiVo is an off-the-shelf device with a built-in function for collecting broadcast video and putting it on your computer in clear MPEG files (so are TV tuner cards, but Joe Average isn't so likely to use that). The MPAA fought TiVoToGo on Series 2 units and lost.

Apparently TiVo collaborated with some company called Sonic to add TiVoToGo editing features to their MyDVD product, which enables easy editing of the files for removal of ads, etc. Essentially, they're a major corporation who've been working openly against the MPAA's digital content distribution control efforts. (It should be noted that they did kowtow to the Broadcast Flag before it was axed, but not to do so would have been a Federal offense),

Series 3, however, adds the complication of CableCARD and the ability to tune and record conditional access cable services like the premium movie channels. It can also record HD programming, which the IP holders consider to be much more precious than their old SD programming. It seems like it would be a simple matter to limit TiVoToGo to recordings of "Copy Freely"-marked content; you can load those onto your PC legally over 1394 from any digital cable box with a working 1394 connection (and we all know how easy those are to come by :D). The paranoid MPAA probably doesn't like the chance that its firmware might be hacked to allow it to upload anything on the drive.

mikeford

09-22-06, 05:49 PM

Tivo was never my cup of tea anyway, whats the point of a $900 Tivo box vs $9.95 a month for a 8300?

I don't have a real problem with using existing SD methods with the 8300 to archive material to placeshift. Slingbox, Squeezebox, or a HTPC, I can't say yet which is going to work for me. S vhs and analog audio for input I am OK with, but I would like to have digital outputs to my AV system. Slingbox working with a PC goes a long way for me, all I am really waiting for is to see if the current Svhs and analog audio connection gets improved, and thats "really" mostly an audio issue to me for playback on my main system of PC sounds and files.

It sounds like cable sourced HD material is going to be very hard to placeshift, but simple to timeshift, and about as fussy as now to do the moving from cableco DVR even via SD, mostly my feeling now is see what happens and deal with it.

Paul Chiu

09-22-06, 11:03 PM

I think you meant bandage...

I am also certain that you also want to find out if 1080p will step through that "dressing up" scene in Bruce's cubicle home.

Paul

Nah, it's Leeloo for those few moments before the straps go on. :)

ZMike

09-23-06, 07:15 AM

Riverside_Guy

09-23-06, 09:42 AM

FWIW, 1394 (FireWire) was first "proposed" by Apple almost 10 years BEFORE it ever showed up on a piece of equipment. Back then, it was expected that while the original spec was for the first incantation (FW400) there was a clear path to more and more bandwidth (faster speeds was the specific focus). It was always meant as a peripheral interface for a computing device. Seat of the pants, but I'd bet you if you looked at chipsets (that which allows a peripheral to connect to a host) you'd find the vast majority being used in extended storage. One of my favorite uses is my ability to have a very small device that can hold up to 120G, that I can tote around with it needing only one wire to connect AND that it can easily boot my computer (or any other Mac with a port).

BUT, there started a trend to USB even for this purpose (where you do NOT get enough power to really/easily power the device and forget the booting part) to take the majority of that market. Most recently, external SATA has actually started to be a real market.

Ah Leeloo! Last night I saw TNT was running it. As I'm a total channel surfer, I surfed to it to see if they were doing the 4:3 stretch they seem to do to a lot of movies... ah, no distortion! One of the movies tat HD does make a dramatic difference in. BUT, it was SOOOO glitched out as to be totally unwatchable. We've had this sort of discussion and it seemed a consensus it was the "fault" of the 8300; I opined that I felt it was more the broadcast. I "popped over" to it several times, but it was awful, while other channels were fine. 1/2 hour later, I managed to skim past it and I could actually watch it.

Ah, co-op boards! Several years ago there was an initiative to completely re-do the common hallways. Before they did that, they wanted to get rid of the mass of wires that were tacked around. So the started a project to "encase" a "bunch of wires" of into jackets running up the stairwells, then buried in the walls into the apartments. A good goal. There were multiple 2-wire, telephone wires and at least 2 coaxial wires. The BIG mistake they did was no dark fiber (believe me if I had ANY wind of this before the installer knocked on my door, I would have lobbied for the fiber). So who knows how this will play out when Verizon calls about fiber/FIOS.

michaeltscott

09-23-06, 12:02 PM

CableCards--The Tivo S3 has generated a lot of discussion about these things, mostly related to an expected short life span for the current one-way technology. Is there anything advantageous about them compared to the tuners in an SA8300HD? Less video noise? Higher quality parts? Better picture quality? Anything?Far, far, far, superior UI. Did I mention that the UI was better :)? Interesting capabilities like the ability to download MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 videos into it. You can play music and display photos you have stored on the machines on your LAN. THX certified. Two weeks of guide data, SATA expansion drives that work. You can schedule a recording over the Internet (if someone tells you about some upcoming program at work, you can schedule it right then and there). Access to some net services, like Yahoo! Photos, Yahoo! Weather, etc, Live365 Radio, Fandango, and some podcasts.

I believe that they're working on some kind of online downloaded movie rental service, so you can download new theatrical releases from the net. I don't know whether any of these are HD res. Of course, a 2 hour HD movie with decent PQ would take hours to download, even if encoded in H.264/AVC, but it's faster than Netflix.

It's largest weakness is, as you say, S-CARDs. No access to IPPV or VOD, and if your cable provider starts placing channels in Switched Digital Video, no access to any of those. Another thing is the cost--you pay for the unit, then $13/month for the guide data and firmware updates.

Apparently WeaKnees.com is putting larger drives in the cabinet for up to 100 hours of HD. They curiously don't list the space in GB, but since they claim that the 250GB in the original unit is worth 35 hours of HD, they're counting on a 15.87 Mpbs average for HD content, making 100 hours 714GB; they want $1600 for that model, which is a ripoff, essentially $800 for 400GB. You can get a 500GB external SATA II drive for $300 (http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=202636811&SearchEngine=PriceGrabber&SearchTerm=202636811&Type=PE&Category=Comp&Gad=0&dcaid=15890).

It was originally spec'd as having M-CARD support, so it's possible that they built in the hardware interface and it'll be good to go for dual-channel tuning using a single CableCARD when they appear. It's unclear whether they'll implement OCAP, so it's possible that they may still be locked out of SDV channels.

michaeltscott

09-23-06, 12:12 PM

BUT, it was SOOOO glitched out as to be totally unwatchable. We've had this sort of discussion and it seemed a consensus it was the "fault" of the 8300; I opined that I felt it was more the broadcast.Hmmm--I've never seen glitches in an HD movie broadcast on TNT HD. My local TWC SO puts TNT HD on the wire at the highest bitrate used for any service, 18.5+ Mbps average (ESPN and HDNet are also carried at this rate). It's generally as sparkling as the transfer. If it's on again this weekend, I'll record it to see what it looks like.

If you want to know the average rate of programs on TNT HD on your system, record something, go to the diags "DVR AVFS" page and write down the free cluster count. Erase the recording and write down the free cluster count afterwards (do this while the unit is not recording anything). Report the two numbers here (or just the difference between them), with the duration of the program and I'll tell you what the average bitrate was.

You can also calculate it yourself:

total_clusters * 2406400 = total_bytes / 1073741824 = total_GB / duration_in_seconds = GB/sec * 8590 = Mbps

(I use clusters because they're more precise than .1GB)

bigd86

09-23-06, 12:35 PM

[QUOTE=Riverside_Guy]
Ah Leeloo! Last night I saw TNT was running it. As I'm a total channel surfer, I surfed to it to see if they were doing the 4:3 stretch they seem to do to a lot of movies... ah, no distortion! One of the movies tat HD does make a dramatic difference in. BUT, it was SOOOO glitched out as to be totally unwatchable. We've had this sort of discussion and it seemed a consensus it was the "fault" of the 8300; I opined that I felt it was more the broadcast. I "popped over" to it several times, but it was awful, while other channels were fine. 1/2 hour later, I managed to skim past it and I could actually watch it.QUOTE]

I'm on the Upper West Side, too. My reception had been perfect for months. Last week glitches started on ALL HD channels-sound drop outs, pixilizations, on all my sets-and I since I have 2 connected apartments with 2 separate cable drops from outside the apartment, and both DVR and regular HD cable boxes, my conclusion was a definite "them-not me". However, since I have been a TWC subscriber for years, and thus familiar with their technical "expertise", I decided the best thing to do was to wait a day or two and see what happens. And, of course, it all magically cleared up and is now back to "normal". So typical!

mikeford

09-23-06, 01:12 PM

Far, far, far, superior UI. Did I mention that the UI was better :)?

I believe that they're working on some kind of online downloaded movie rental service, so you can download new theatrical releases from the net. I don't know whether any of these are HD res. Of course, a 2 hour HD movie with decent PQ would take hours to download, even if encoded in H.264/AVC, but it's faster than Netflix.

It's largest weakness is, as you say, S-CARDs. No access to IPPV or VOD, and if your cable provider starts placing channels in Switched Digital Video, no access to any of those. Another thing is the cost--you pay for the unit, then $13/month for the guide data and firmware updates.

Yeah, not my cup of tea. My old style (not the new fast, or the cheaper slow, the middle one) Road Runner downloads about 2GB/hr so thats around 7 to 8 hrs for a 2 hr HD movie. My bet is that all the next generation fast services will be targeting HD with some margin of error real time download speeds, but what I have now would be OK for the occasional as opposed to regular downloads.

I am such a cheapskate, I know that $13/month for guide service kills Tivo for me. OTOH I see some ads that push the "basic" Tivo with 3 day guide, which is about all I use now anyway, but am not happy about. Other guide services will start showing up, it will be more a question of how integrated they are.

I am not going to be an early adopter, sticking to the 8300 and some level of HTPC until things are a LOT more sorted out.

Paul Chiu

09-23-06, 01:19 PM

If our co-op boards had some pro-engineers or PHDs, they would have laid in fiber tubings that are insulating and moisture proof. These 4in hollow tubes can accomodate many future developments and make removal of old cabling simple.

The again, if Wireless USB-2 flies, no hardware is needed and we just get cap 24/7 by high magnetic energy.

Paul

FWIW, 1394 (FireWire) was first "proposed" by Apple almost 10 years BEFORE it ever showed up on a piece of equipment. Back then, it was expected that while the original spec was for the first incantation (FW400) there was a clear path to more and more bandwidth (faster speeds was the specific focus). It was always meant as a peripheral interface for a computing device. Seat of the pants, but I'd bet you if you looked at chipsets (that which allows a peripheral to connect to a host) you'd find the vast majority being used in extended storage. One of my favorite uses is my ability to have a very small device that can hold up to 120G, that I can tote around with it needing only one wire to connect AND that it can easily boot my computer (or any other Mac with a port).

BUT, there started a trend to USB even for this purpose (where you do NOT get enough power to really/easily power the device and forget the booting part) to take the majority of that market. Most recently, external SATA has actually started to be a real market.

Ah Leeloo! Last night I saw TNT was running it. As I'm a total channel surfer, I surfed to it to see if they were doing the 4:3 stretch they seem to do to a lot of movies... ah, no distortion! One of the movies tat HD does make a dramatic difference in. BUT, it was SOOOO glitched out as to be totally unwatchable. We've had this sort of discussion and it seemed a consensus it was the "fault" of the 8300; I opined that I felt it was more the broadcast. I "popped over" to it several times, but it was awful, while other channels were fine. 1/2 hour later, I managed to skim past it and I could actually watch it.

Ah, co-op boards! Several years ago there was an initiative to completely re-do the common hallways. Before they did that, they wanted to get rid of the mass of wires that were tacked around. So the started a project to "encase" a "bunch of wires" of into jackets running up the stairwells, then buried in the walls into the apartments. A good goal. There were multiple 2-wire, telephone wires and at least 2 coaxial wires. The BIG mistake they did was no dark fiber (believe me if I had ANY wind of this before the installer knocked on my door, I would have lobbied for the fiber). So who knows how this will play out when Verizon calls about fiber/FIOS.

Paul Chiu

09-23-06, 01:21 PM

Have you any luck downloading any true 1080p material? I know that most of the stuff out there are really 720p and DIVx'ed at that.

Yeah, not my cup of tea. My old style (not the new fast, or the cheaper slow, the middle one) Road Runner downloads about 2GB/hr so thats around 7 to 8 hrs for a 2 hr HD movie. My bet is that all the next generation fast services will be targeting HD with some margin of error real time download speeds, but what I have now would be OK for the occasional as opposed to regular downloads.

I am such a cheapskate, I know that $13/month for guide service kills Tivo for me. OTOH I see some ads that push the "basic" Tivo with 3 day guide, which is about all I use now anyway, but am not happy about. Other guide services will start showing up, it will be more a question of how integrated they are.

I am not going to be an early adopter, sticking to the 8300 and some level of HTPC until things are a LOT more sorted out.

michaeltscott

09-23-06, 01:58 PM

Have you any luck downloading any true 1080p material? I know that most of the stuff out there are really 720p and DIVx'ed at that.Where would someone get 1080p material to be uploaded for people to download? So far as I know, the only publically available encodings created for 1080p playback are on HD video discs.

ZMike

09-23-06, 02:20 PM

...Ah Leeloo! Last night I saw TNT was running it. As I'm a total channel surfer, I surfed to it to see if they were doing the 4:3 stretch they seem to do to a lot of movies... ah, no distortion! One of the movies tat HD does make a dramatic difference in. BUT, it was SOOOO glitched out as to be totally unwatchable. We've had this sort of discussion and it seemed a consensus it was the "fault" of the 8300; I opined that I felt it was more the broadcast. I "popped over" to it several times, but it was awful, while other channels were fine. 1/2 hour later, I managed to skim past it and I could actually watch it...

I recorded the later showing on my 8300 and I saw no problems. I'm on the Manhattan South headend. But I still agree that the glitches are mostly delivery-based. When I see video glitches and momentary sound dropouts I get them at exactly the same time on both of my boxes.

-Mike

Paul Chiu

09-23-06, 03:31 PM

Mike,

All you need to do is google for them, they are there.

Europeans and Asians have 8mbs upload broadband speed, unlike our 0.5mbs upload speeds. Most of these uploaded 1080p files are from over there.

Where would someone get 1080p material to be uploaded for people to download? So far as I know, the only publically available encodings created for 1080p playback are on HD video discs.

michaeltscott

09-24-06, 01:55 AM

Europeans and Asians have 8mbs upload broadband speed, unlike our 0.5mbs upload speeds. Most of these uploaded 1080p files are from over there.Are you talking "Bytes" or "bits" (MBps would be MB/sec and Mbps would be Mbits; data transfer rates are commonly described in terms of bits/sec). If it's bits, much higher speeds than 500 Kbps are commonly available in the US over cable modems. I get 5 Mbps over cable and could pay another $20/month for 8 Mbps if I wanted it; locally Cox's standard cable modem speed is 6 Mbps. Verizon FiOS has multiple speed options, being 10-, 20- and 50 Mbps (of course, Fiber To The Home service like FiOS isn't available everywhere yet.

I know that some areas of Asia have only had network service backbones installed in the last several years, so it was natural to install FTTH; why futz with hybrid fiber-coax when you're starting from scratch? There are some small communities in the US where the same thing happened. I wouldn't know why the Europeans typically have such high speed (making the EU and particularly the UK the world's premiere illegal video downloaders; the fact that there's such a delay in release of US television there also has something to do with that).

Let's assume that a two hour HD film of very good quality (if not the best possible) will consume 10GB when encoded in H.264/AVC or VC-1 (about 12Mbps, which should theoretically exceed the quality of MPEG-2 at 20Mbps). On my link it'd take 4 hours 45 minutes to download; on a 10 Mbps link it'd take 2 hours 23 minutes and on one of those smoking 20 Mbps FiOS link it'd take about 1 hour 10 minutes.

michaeltscott

09-24-06, 02:03 AM

ZMike

09-24-06, 08:09 AM

...In any case, I think it's obvious that it was not their intent to allow cable providers to distribute new STBs with non-functioning 1394 connections after the 1 July 2005 deadline.

Thank you for that important research. I'm not technical, but you don't have to be in order to reach that conclusion. That said, we have seen reports from Paul Chiu and others that the latest SA/TWC software releases render BOTH SA3250 and SA8300HD STB's IEEE1394 interfaces non-functional--not that they were ever fully functional before.

If that is, in fact, the case then it's also clear that SA/TWC is breaking the law since they have distributed (and continue to distribute) STB's that do not contain a functional IEEE1394 interface.

I never saw any reason why this interface should work perfectly on Comcast and not at all on TWC. Now it's clear that Comcast chooses to be in compliance and TWC does not.

-Mike

pepar

09-24-06, 09:33 AM

DoubleDAZ

09-24-06, 11:07 AM

Michael,

I believe Paul was talking about UPload speeds, at least that's what he said in his post. Most cableco's in the US limit upload speeds making it very time-consuming to upload huge HD movie files. Cox here limits upload to 500 Kbps while download is 6 Mbps or more depending on your subscription.

Paul Chiu

09-24-06, 12:37 PM

michaeltscott

09-24-06, 01:07 PM

If that is, in fact, the case then it's also clear that SA/TWC is breaking the law since they have distributed (and continue to distribute) STB's that do not contain a functional IEEE1394 interface.Unfortunately, distributing boxes without 1394 connections is not against the regulations. All it says is that all the boxes the SOs purchase since 1 July last year and going forward must have 1394 and HDMI connections. It doesn't say that they can't continue to distribute the ones that they have; that would be punative and wouldn't make much sense, since only a small percentage of their HD digital STB leasees have any need for 1394.

If they bought any new HD DVRs (SA8300HDs or otherwise) since 1 July last year they should have working 1394 connections. From what people say here, some of the 8300HDs kinda sorta work in a half-ass fashion and they work better in some firmware releases than in others, so some kind of effort has been made in that area. There has to be substantial code in the firmware to drive the 1394 connection(s) and to stream video through it. I know that the first SA8300HD deployed by TWC in my area did not have a 1394 connector at all, much less a working interface. At some point, they switched to a hardware rev that had it.

However, as I've pointed out before, nothing in that regulation requires that they give you one of the newer DVRs with 1394 even if you ask for one. The only requirement is that they give you some STB with "functional" 1394 if you request one.

As an aside, exactly what should come out of a 1394 connection on a DVR is somewhat confusing to me. Since it might be being used as a video connection to a television, it should be whatever's on the "foreground" tuner or the recording that you're playing back. That raises the question of how copy-protection on it should be set. If it's "Copy One Generation" (and anything other than core basic cable can be marked that way), any playback from a recorder should be marked "Copy No More" on playback through 1394, which is fine for watching it on television, but no authorized recording equipment would record it. If an implementation 1394 were to do that, it would be compliant to the standard. You'd still be able to record "Copy One Generation" content, just not the playback of a recording thereof (and probably not playback while while making a recording; you could record a live stream which isn't being recorded on tje DVR. If they implemented it that way, I could see where some people might be having problems trying to make tapes of stuff they recorded from subscription and premium cable, such as DVR recordings of movies on HBO.

michaeltscott

09-24-06, 01:42 PM

I was referring to asian and european UPLOAD speeds at 8 Mbytes/sec compared to TWC NYC's 480 KB/s. That's over 17+ times faster. this explains why a lot of the 1080 content are not uploadef onto WWW domestically.

your numbers for uploading are right. if you were to use ********** to download, you won't be seeing those times as it depends on who's on that have fragments of your desired torrent. on avg, to download a 2 hours 1080i torrent will take a few days with TWC's 6 MB/s download speeds. if you're lucky and the fragmwnts are all online, a day even. That's rare.

The download speeds of up to 50 MB/s is fantastic, what are the upload speeds?

it takes me 12 hours with that 0.5 MB/s upload speed to send an hour of 1080i HDV *.ts camcorder video over to the WWW.

that is simply ridicously...I'm sorry; I misread your post. I was thinking about direct downloads of commercially available video for a price--not consumer uploaded video (which, for the purposes of this discussion will be assumed to be in the public domain :D); upload speed was irrelevant to that.

The upload speed for that 50 Mbps FiOS connection is 5 Mbps; they offer 10/2, 20/5 and 50/5 (see the PR here (http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2006/page.jsp?itemID=29669681)). I read one release about this on some site other than Verizon where they claimed that the 50 Mbps link would cost $90/month, but if they were going to charge that they changed their minds. The 50 Mbps link is going for "$139.95 a month with a one-year agreement, or $159.95 month-to-month". Ouch!

davehancock

09-24-06, 01:46 PM

Dave Hancock --

I'm going to fire one last and hopefully final volley in our ongoing argument about whether CFR Title 47 §76.640(b)(4)(ii) requires that the 1394 interfaces that it mandates that all STBs purchased by the cable SOs have be "functional" or not :). I was looking for something else in FCC 03-225 (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-225A1.pdf), the FCC's "Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking", the document which ordered the insertion of §76.640 into CFR Title 47 (on PDF page 48), when I ran across the following footnotes (at the bottom of PDF page 12, continuing onto the bottom of PDF page 13):
It would seem that the use of the word functional in (b)(4)(i) and its omission in (b)(4)(ii) was brought up during the Request For Comments phase on the related First Proposal of Proposed Rulemaking. Footnote 62 essentially says that they put the word "functional" in there because of the fact that some previously deployed boxes had 1394 interfaces that were not functional, lacking any firmware to drive the interface. Footnote 63 states that (b)(4)(ii) doesn't include the word functional because cable boxes being purchased by the SOs in the future were expect to come with working 1394 and HDMI interfaces. Given that the question was even raised, I don't know why they didn't include something in (b)(4)(ii) to make it absolutely unambiguous. In any case, I think it's obvious that it was not their intent to allow cable providers to distribute new STBs with non-functioning 1394 connections after the 1 July 2005 deadline.

I'd let that be the "final volley", except that dialog sort of takes this discussion someplace else: I wonder if the issue here is the level of software that we (and the FCC) are really talking about here. Most of us think of "firmware" in the context of DVRs as the operating system. I would think that there is a LOWER level of "firmware" that is embedded in these boxes before being shipped. Along those lines, your quote:… would be made functional by the manufacturer before delivery to the operator. Seems to reinforce that. So the question is: Do these DVRs in question comply with the regulations (not "law", by the way) because the necessary embedded softtware wasn't in those boxes, when shipped by the MANUFACTURER (as required by the regulations) OR were those boxes shipped in compliance - but the cable companies simply have not deployed the software necessary to implement the function? If the later is the case (I suspect it is) - where is there the requirement that the cable operator deploy software to the customer's premises that makes that 1394 port operational on the STB currently on the customer prempremises? I really don't know.

I've found this dialog interesting, and enlightening - but sorry, I don't think we've made it to the point of coming to a final conclusion.

Following those FCC docs are tough. I have a question for you: In the footnotes, such as: 62 Draft Technical Rules at 2. The use of the term “functional” does not appear in connection with the July
2005 deadline for DVI or HDMI interfaces since the MOU signatories anticipate that “interfaces…
associated with future set-top product purchases … would be made functional by the manufacturer before
delivery to the operator.” Cable/CE Response to Questions at 5.What do the references that I highlighted in red refer to (ex. "Cable/CE Response to Questions at 5")? The initial logical references do not line up (Footnote 5 does not refer to response to questions, neither does paragraph 5). Or are these things loaded with clerical errors?

DoubleDAZ

09-24-06, 02:17 PM

I too find the discussion interesting, especially the fact that someone actually reads the FCC regs, though I'm not sure this is the right thread, but then what is? :)

michaeltscott

09-24-06, 03:04 PM

I'm not sure exactly what minutiae is at the root of your mano-a-mano hoohah with davehancock, but you're missing the big picture; you're quoting law chapter and verse that goes unenforced. There is a law against illegal entry into this country, but the government is unable/unwilling (?) to enforce that either. An unenforced law is meaingless. The cable companies know it and act accordingly. Part of their calculation is that their customers will be too ignorant to know, too busy with life to complain if they do and will have their energy dissipated spouting off in forums such as this one and/or would never gain critical mass even if they did - somehow - organize.The "minutiae" that Dave and I have argued about is that he thinks that, because the requirement that they give some STB with 1394 in §76.640(b)(4){i) uses the word "functional" and the requirement that all STBs that they buy after 1 July 2005 in §76.640(b)(4)(ii) doesn't use the work "functional", the 1394 interfaces required by the latter rule don't have to be functional. He thinks that's the actual intent of the rule and that it was written that way on purpose. I disagree with both.

Obviously many laws go unenforced or cannot be enforced uniformly. (As the saying goes, "It ain't illegal if you don't get caught"; untrue, but you get the point). Take the speed-limits; depending on what it is a very large percentage of people on the road may be exceeding it by a significant amount, but few, if any of them, is likely be caught. In many situations the police don't even care. It doesn't mean that the speed-limit laws don't matter. The police can choose how they want to use it.

In the case of this regulation requiring working 1394 interfaces on STBs, unless the FCC has told people, "Yeah, we see that they're non-compliant, but we have no intention of pursuing the matter", then they might be able to say that they're enforcing it.

I'm not sure what they can do to enforce it that would be fair. If TWC can't get Aptiv or SciAtl or whoever's to blame to deliver a version of Passport in which the 1394 connection works properly, what are their alternatives? Would it be fair to them to revoke their license to operate over the matter (or fair to the consumer who depend on them for service, including EAS notifications)? What other sanctions can the FCC apply? Fines? Can they force them to switch to another vendor for their STBs and firmware (probably requiring a whole headend upgrade and replacement of all of their equipment deployed in customer homes at tremendous cost)? Is there something that they can do to spur Aptiv and/or SciAtl into action about the software?

Some requirements that they've been known to enforce are a lot easier; it's not like an SO can say "I flat out absolutely unable to place local DTV rebroadcasts in the core basic tier" or "Our STBs or headend software won't allow us to stop encrypting the local DTV rebroadcast".

pepar

09-24-06, 03:28 PM

The "minutiae" that Dave and I have argued about is that he thinks that, because the requirement that they give some STB with 1394 in §76.640(b)(4){i) uses the word "functional" and the requirement that all STBs that they buy after 1 July 2005 in §76.640(b)(4)(ii) doesn't use the work "functional", the 1394 interfaces required by the latter rule don't have to be functional. He thinks that's the actual intent of the rule and that it was written that way on purpose. I disagree with both.
Dave and I share a high level of cynicism, which to us is referred to simply as "realism." (Right, Dave? :) ) These regs are written by lawyers and I doubt if there was an unintended jot or tittle anywhere. Discussions/debates/arguments take place behind closed doors over a single word. Phrases take much longer. I'm with Dave; it was done intentionally.

Obviously many laws go unenforced or cannot be enforced uniformly. (As the saying goes, "It ain't illegal if you don't get caught"; untrue, but you get the point). Take the speed-limits; depending on what it is a very large percentage of people on the road may be exceeding it by a significant amount, but few, if any of them, is likely be caught. In many situations the police don't even care. It doesn't mean that the speed-limit laws don't matter. The police can choose how they want to use it.

In the case of this regulation requiring working 1394 interfaces on STBs, unless the FCC has told people, "Yeah, we see that they're non-compliant, but we have no intention of pursuing the matter", then they might be able to say that they're enforcing it.
Simply not commenting on it at all is an effective strategy!

I'm not sure what they can do to enforce it that would be fair. If TWC can't get Aptiv or SciAtl or whoever's to blame to deliver a version of Passport in which the 1394 connection works properly, what are their alternatives? Would it be fair to them to revoke their license to operate over the matter (or fair to the consumer who depend on them for service, including EAS notifications)? What other sanctions can the FCC apply? Fines? Can they force them to switch to another vendor for their STBs and firmware (probably requiring a whole headend upgrade and replacement of all of their equipment deployed in customer homes at tremendous cost)? Is there something that they can do to spur Aptiv and/or SciAtl into action about the software?

Some requirements that they've been known to enforce are a lot easier; it's not like an SO can say "I flat out absolutely unable to place local DTV rebroadcasts in the core basic tier" or "Our STBs or headend software won't allow us to stop encrypting the local DTV rebroadcast".
If Aptiv's and SA's customers clamored for support of the HDMI and/or Firewire and were not allowed to buy any more products without that support, they'd have code available in a heartbeat.

Fines? Sure, a per box per day fine would be nice, but there's less than zero chance the regs will be re-visited, much less revised. In the end, the regs were written by politicians, politicians who respond to pressure. And there just isn't any "Consumers for working IEEE1394" lobby.

mikeford

09-24-06, 03:45 PM

Where would someone get 1080p material to be uploaded for people to download? So far as I know, the only publically available encodings created for 1080p playback are on HD video discs.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musicandvideo/hdvideo/contentshowcase.aspx

mikeford

09-24-06, 03:49 PM

I'm not sure exactly what minutiae is at the root of your mano-a-mano hoohah with davehancock, but you're missing the big picture; you're quoting regulations that go unenforced. There is a law against illegal entry into this country, but the government is unable/unwilling (?) to enforce that either.

Perhaps we could require the cable cards to be green? <green cards, get it, ho ho ho>

DoubleDAZ

09-24-06, 04:43 PM

If Aptiv's and SA's customers clamored for support of the HDMI and/or Firewire and were not allowed to buy any more products without that support, they'd have code available in a heartbeat.I don't use 1394 myself, but AFAIK SA included functional support in the1.88.x.x versions of SARA for the 8300 and folks here in Phoenix are using it. The real problem of course is the copy-protection stuff that pretty much limits use for recording to local HD channels. I don't know why it's taken so long for the 8300, since it's been functional onthe 3250 for quite some time. Of course, 1.88.x.x. has been out for quite some time, just not in wide enough use.

HDMI is another subject, but it seems to me that if it works with one version of software and a given HDTV, then it's technically functional. Besides, aren't most HDMI problems HDCP-related and that seems to be a more "open" standard, that is it seems more subject to interpretation and incompatible implementations.

ZMike

09-24-06, 04:53 PM

... I know that the first SA8300HD deployed by TWC in my area did not have a 1394 connector at all, much less a working interface. At some point, they switched to a hardware rev that had it.

However, as I've pointed out before, nothing in that regulation requires that they give you one of the newer DVRs with 1394 even if you ask for one. The only requirement is that they give you some STB with "functional" 1394 if you request one....

There was an 8300HD without 1394 in my apartment when I moved in. I requested two STB's with "functional" 1394. I received two 8300HD boxes with 1394 ports, both on 1.8.112, which is still the case today. I would not want to get involved in a discussion as to what constitutes "functional" because I'm not technical and it would not belong here either, except to say that I do have a practical frame of reference (Comcast) for this term and having seen and used 1394 working perfectly, I would have to conclude that 1394 is not currently functional on SA/TWC STB's regardless of when they were purchased.

-Mike

davehancock

09-24-06, 07:00 PM

Dave and I share a high level of cynicism, which to us is referred to simply as "realism." (Right, Dave? :) ) These regs are written by lawyers and I doubt if there was an unintended jot or tittle anywhere. Discussions/debates/arguments take place behind closed doors over a single word. Phrases take much longer. I'm with Dave; it was done intentionally.

Thanks, pepar. Actually, I have always felt that what the FCC was doing was to force the cable companies to ONLY invest in STBs that physically had these interfaces with the thought that enabling those would come later. Mike's most recent post, as I pointed out in my reply, tends to reinforce my view. But I am not cynical about it at all and I would really like to get at the "truthiness" of it - even if Mike's view prevails.

Some of this afternoons posts indicate working 1394 ports on SA8300HDs for both SARA and Passport systems. This indicates that Aptic and SA have done their part - made functional 8300s available. Deployment of the functionality is up to the local cable companies.

BTW, Though I have maintained that there is nothing in the FCC regs requiring the cable companies to make the 1394 port functional on the SA8300HD that they rented you, I have also maintained that the consumer SHOULD argue with the cable CSR that they ARE required by those regulations to make it functional. It's a barganing position - just like buying a car. Besides, it takes tactics like that to get through to "the powers that be" in the cable companies.

D2LA

09-24-06, 10:57 PM

Guys,

Has anyone hooked up a DVDR to their SA8300 (Passport) to archive recordings onto DVD? If so, how is the best way to do this since we don't have the "copy to VCR" option that SARA users have.

Along those lines, any recommendations for a good DVDR for this purpose?

DD

Paul Chiu

09-25-06, 12:24 AM

If you are referring to those hard drives DVRs from the likes of Panasonic, JVC, etc. with a DV in which is a firewire connect, they do not record 720p or 1080i off your 8300HD. These were meant to archive SD from DVRs or content from your mini-DV camcorders through that DV (1394) plug.

Paul

Guys,

Has anyone hooked up a DVDR to their SA8300 (Passport) to archive recordings onto DVD? If so, how is the best way to do this since we don't have the "copy to VCR" option that SARA users have.

Along those lines, any recommendations for a good DVDR for this purpose?

DD

ZMike

09-25-06, 08:22 AM

...Some of this afternoons posts indicate working 1394 ports on SA8300HDs for both SARA and Passport systems. This indicates that Aptic and SA have done their part - made functional 8300s available. Deployment of the functionality is up to the local cable companies...

Dave, I hope you were not including my good experience with 1394 on Comcast in your post. Comcast (at least in NJ) is on Motorola equipment. As for other posts of people with functioning 1394 ports I have asked a few times on the NYC local thread as well as this thread if anyone has had any luck with 1394 and never received a response. In fact, people like Paul Chiu have reported their D-VHS equipment virtually "killed" by the latest software releases that were recently pushed to their SA3250 and SA8300HD boxes.

-Mike

D2LA

09-25-06, 08:23 AM

unclelev

09-25-06, 12:06 PM

I recently hooked up my 8300hd box via hdmi and component cables. I am using time warner here in nyc. After a week or so, I am noticing that the picture and audio signal blanks out (creen goes black for a split second) every so often while watching NBC HD and other local HD channels. Anyone else have this problem? If so, any solutions? It seems like this only occurrs when watching via hdmi. Also how do I know if my box has the latest firmware? maybe it needs an update. any help is appreciated..

dtrell

09-25-06, 01:27 PM

Actually I was thinking of the "basic" DVD Recordable box. Like a VCR, but using DVDs. I don't want to use it to record live content as my SA8300HD does a great job of that. I just want to archive some of the shows off the SA8300HD onto DVDs. Just wondered if anyone is doing this right now with a Passport SA8300HD. I don't need the hard drive DVD-recordable (I don't think) because I just want to copy straight from the SA8300 to the DVD with no editing. I also realize that I will only be getting SD.

How are folks archiving their "keepers" off their SA8300HD?

-DD
the only way i can figure is to set up the 8300 to output 480i only, then the box will convert everything, even the hi def stuff, to 480i so that it can be sent over s-video to the dvd-r recorder. then its basically the old manual method of push "play" on the dvr and push "record" on the dvd-r. of course you wont be able to use the box then until done recording. AFAIK i havent seen a dvd recorder yet with component inputs.

pepar

09-25-06, 09:39 PM

the only way i can figure is to set up the 8300 to output 480i only, then the box will convert everything, even the hi def stuff, to 480i so that it can be sent over s-video to the dvd-r recorder.
Isn't it doing that all the time anyway - outputting whatever's tuned in at the s-video connection regardless of the resolution being displayed?

mikeford

09-25-06, 11:16 PM

Actually I was thinking of the "basic" DVD Recordable box. Like a VCR, but using DVDs. I don't want to use it to record live content as my SA8300HD does a great job of that. I just want to archive some of the shows off the SA8300HD onto DVDs. Just wondered if anyone is doing this right now with a Passport SA8300HD. I don't need the hard drive DVD-recordable (I don't think) because I just want to copy straight from the SA8300 to the DVD with no editing. I also realize that I will only be getting SD.

How are folks archiving their "keepers" off their SA8300HD?

-DD

My wife has used our S-vhs VCR to copy a few programs off the 8300, but SD of course. I may do the same with PVR software running on a PC also via S-vhs.

Yes, AFAIK the Svideo output is always going.

margoba

09-26-06, 01:28 AM

My wife has used our S-vhs VCR to copy a few programs off the 8300, but SD of course. I may do the same with PVR software running on a PC also via S-vhs.

Yes, AFAIK the Svideo output is always going.

I'll confirm that. I occasionally use an ordinary DVD recorder to archive shows from the 8300HD. I use the s-video output, and just play the show on the 8300HD. It works fine for HD or SD recorded shows. Of course, the resulting DVD is not HD.

-barry

D2LA

09-26-06, 08:36 AM

Thanks for the comments everyone. I just ordered a Samsung DVD-R145 and will try and use that to archive from the 8300.

With that in mind, anyone have a suggestion on how to hook this up for best results? My Pany PT43LC14 TV has HDMI inputs, and I have a cable that I bought when I got the SA8300HD (didn't like the weird effects when changing channels with HDMI, so I went back to component). Should I hook the output from the SA8300 to the DVD-R145 via s-video, then the DVD-R145 to the TV via HDMI? Will that give me the best pic when viewing standard DVDs on the Pany? Will that give me a poorer pic when viewing HD on the SA8300 because I am going through the DVD-R via s-video instead of directly from the SA8300 to the TV via component? have I asked too many stupid questions :) ?

-DD

DoubleDAZ

09-26-06, 09:04 AM

Leave your 8300 connected to the TV via Component and connect the 8300 to the DVDR via S-Video. Both connections should be active at the same time. If you disconnect the Component and just use S-Video, you will never be viewing HD.

Riverside_Guy

09-26-06, 09:43 AM

Because I was "involved" on a business level with ISPs (business) back in 93/94, I can offer some small insight into asymmetric broadband connections. There's really no such thing as an "inherently asymmetric connection, once the wire is hooked through, it's the same in either direction. But businesses paid big bucks for those "fat pipes" (and this was in the days when the most common fat pipe was a T1, which is pathetic today as it was 1.5Mb/s). There was the potentially for a LOT of growth in the consumer market, but pricing was an issue; these guys knew that it had to be priced a LOT lower than business to attract rapid growth. So asymmetric was born; essentially equipment had to be brought into the picture to throttle the up speeds. The reasoning (way back then) was that it was easier for business to stomach really high prices because they got something the far cheaper consumer version didn't get.

Interestingly enough, it appears that this is still very much the case today, a dozen years later.

pepar

09-26-06, 10:00 AM

D2LA

09-26-06, 10:01 AM

ZMike

09-26-06, 10:13 AM

pepar

09-26-06, 10:30 AM

Very interesting post. Thank you. I'm not technical. I was told that the UPLOAD bandwidth creates much more of a capacity problem for isp's than the download side, so they cap uploading at a much lower level and run the system asymetrically in order to ensure that there is enough bandwidth to go around for everyone.
The pipe will carry xGbs. How they divide that - up and down - is usually a marketing decision. For example, my cable provider offers 5Mbps/256Kbps for $40. They also offer 8Mbps/768Kbps for $60 - 50% more. 5Mbps or 8Mbps download speed - not much noticeable difference as the limiting factor is usually the server on the other end. But I maintain a website and it it worth another $20/mo for the faster UPLOAD speed.

galve2000

09-26-06, 02:03 PM

2-My old hd box (3250 I think it was) allowed me to have HD on a seperate video connection on my tv than the SD broadcast. I was able to watch this through a seperate S-video connection.

i am a TWC subscriber in NYC and my current Pioneer HD Cable box (not sure of the model no, but it does not have DVR capabilities) has the ability to simultaniously output an S-Video signal and a Compnent Video signal..

(i've done a ton of tests, and have found taht SD feeds look better outputed from S-Video and HD feeds look better outputted from component video)

however, i'm about to upgrade to an HD-DVR (probably the SA 8300HD) and from what i can tell in this thread, there is only one video output at a time.

can anyone confirm this?

if this is the case, i may not be interested in the HD DVR after all...

does TWC offer an HD-DRV set top box that does allow for 2 outputs?

thanks in advance for taking the time to reply.

best regards,
CMM.

pepar

09-26-06, 03:56 PM

i am a TWC subscriber in NYC and my current Pioneer HD Cable box (not sure of the model no, but it does not have DVR capabilities) has the ability to simultaniously output an S-Video signal and a Compnent Video signal..

(i've done a ton of tests, and have found taht SD feeds look better outputed from S-Video and HD feeds look better outputted from component video)

however, i'm about to upgrade to an HD-DVR (probably the SA 8300HD) and from what i can tell in this thread, there is only one video output at a time.

can anyone confirm this?

if this is the case, i may not be interested in the HD DVR after all...

does TWC offer an HD-DRV set top box that does allow for 2 outputs?

thanks in advance for taking the time to reply.

best regards,
CMM.
Guess you haven't read the posts at the top of this page?

galve2000

09-26-06, 05:01 PM

Guess you haven't read the posts at the top of this page?

you got me.. i have not gone thru all 166 pages of this thread...

can you blame me?

pepar

09-26-06, 06:41 PM

you got me.. i have not gone thru all 166 pages of this thread...

can you blame me?
Nope. But do you have any idea how it got to be 166 pages? :)

davehancock

09-26-06, 06:48 PM

By guys making comments just to get their post count up? :rolleyes:

pepar

09-26-06, 07:06 PM

By guys making comments just to get their post count up? :rolleyes:
Touché! (As his count continues to climb.)

mikeford

09-26-06, 10:32 PM

mikeford

09-26-06, 10:38 PM

The determining factor seems to be a static or dynamic IP. Not that that affects bandwidth, as it most assuredly does not. Anyone, businesses usually, requiring a static IP will often be running applications that that will use more of the bandwidth than a lowly web surfer, even one doing a lot of downloading. And the ISP knows thay can rock them on the monthly charge. It surely is a racket.

The trick to this is that you setup a website with a dynamically updated redirecting link. There are services that offer the websites free or cheap, and applications that run when you log on/off the net that automatically update the website link.

Nothing the cable industry has done is HALF as crazy as the tariffed charges.

tamanaco

09-27-06, 08:41 AM

galen

09-27-06, 08:46 AM

Hello All,

As you may know I have been waiting (like the rest of the world) for Passport to fully support external HD. Well now it is finally here.

I was watching tv here in NYC at about 7:30am and all of a sudden my box started receiving a software download( no I never saw this live before but I am smart enough to know that it was happening, counted down in what appears to be hex).

After the box decompressed the firmware and stored it the unit rebooted. Upon boot it showed Passport(blah blah) but something below had changed. It now showed "APTIV DIGITAL". on the welcome screen For those that don't remember, APTIV is now developing the Passport software.

Ok so you say why does that all matter...

After the unit boots up I turned it on... I saw a screen caption box stating "an external drive has been connected please power down the unit and wait 10 seconds before diconnecting external drive with a "A" to accept. Unfortunately I still running my screwy drive that I hacked to get to work. I will order a new drive (or just move it to the other box currently with out a drive to make sure time-shifting for live tv works properly).

This box now also supports MR-DVR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes multi-room DVR (hope TW actually lets the customer use it).

Last item in the diag details is MR-DVR Status:
Last message: Welcome to MR-DVR!

Additional item added was SATA details showing SATA Status: Authorized

For those who are familiar with my whacky issues, no I have been unable to attempt and try VOD as channel 200 shows a system message" VOD is temporairly unavailible. We apoligize for any inconvenience this may have caused."

This is just plain great....about time.

If anyone has this firmware load and a HDMI capable receiver/stereo please test the passthrough to the TV. I am hoping that the HDMI repeater issue will be fixed in this load. Please post and let us know!

Echo 2.5.066
PTV 6.13.74.1sp

publicpersona

09-27-06, 09:35 AM

Echo 2.5.066
PTV 6.13.74.1sp

In Raleigh, NC my DVR was upgraded to 2.5.066 overnight as well. And it has a behaviour that I really don't like. My primary TV is connected via HDMI, but I have two TVs in other rooms that are fed off the DVRs coax. This allowed me to use DVR in multiple rooms (with the same program going to all TVs obviously, but that's OK).

As of this morning, if I power down my primary TV, the DVR complains about HDCP now missing and explains this in an error message on the image and dims the picture by about 75% .. on the coax.

I am fine with it requiring HDCP on HDMI. But not by dimming f the coax when it is missing!

ncted

09-27-06, 10:08 AM

Hey, I got 2.5.066 last night as well. :)

Does this mean that I am more likely to be successful in using an eSATA drive?

If so, I my 8300 has a WD drive. Does that mean I would me less likely to have problems if I got a WD drive for use externally?

Thanks,
Ted

pepar

09-27-06, 10:10 AM

pepar

09-27-06, 10:14 AM

Hey, I got 2.5.066 last night as well. :)

Does this mean that I am more likely to be successful in using an eSATA drive?
Perhaps, in that a more recent version would/should be more stable. But no version "supports" SATA. You may be able to successfully attach a drive, but it is still not "supported."

If so, I my 8300 has a WD drive. Does that mean I would me less likely to have problems if I got a WD drive for use externally?
No, there's no correlation.

scott_bernstein

09-27-06, 11:59 AM

galen

09-27-06, 12:44 PM

I am not sure, but I just ordered a 400 gb WD to try out and let you know.

I am very optimistic because for the year I have been using my external drive on passport and the 8300 never gave me a popup telling me it recognized the drive. With the APTIV software it does. Seems to be progress in right direction.

Keep poking fun and remember,

Galen was the first to make it work...well mostly.

Have fun all.

galve2000

09-27-06, 12:58 PM

In Raleigh, NC my DVR was upgraded to 2.5.066 overnight as well. And it has a behaviour that I really don't like. My primary TV is connected via HDMI, but I have two TVs in other rooms that are fed off the DVRs coax. This allowed me to use DVR in multiple rooms (with the same program going to all TVs obviously, but that's OK).

How do you change the channel when you are watching TV in the other rooms? do you have an IR "eye" that feeds to the cable box's IR port?

it sounds like a whole lot of hassle, but it's totally doable... and may be worth it

i understand there are a ton of hidden fees in the $5/month TWC charges for each additional box. there is a supplementary fee for "additional" boxes for VOD services. of course, its not a per box charge, but still, it adds up pretty quickly.

galve2000

09-27-06, 02:00 PM

I'm in NYC (Upper West Side) today 09/27/06 at 7:35 AM my 8300HD was updated to Passport Echo ver 2.5.066. Maybe this is old news... but the first thing I noticed was that the Audio option to select HDMI/Digital/Analog... etc is gone from the Advanced Settings Menu. Now using only my HDMI cable I can get sound from my Panasonic LCD TV speakers "AND" thru my receiver's speakers via the 8300HD optical output... SIMULTANEOUSLY!. This was not possible with Passport Echo 1.8.112. No need to change the Audio settings manually to get "digital" sound to my receiver. I "think" I'm a happy camper. I know I could search the forum, but the search function is not working this morning. Before going back and reading a billion posts... In a few words... what else is new/different in Passport Echo 2.5.066?

this is all good news. i actually went back the SA 8300HD User Manual i had downloaded the other day and read it more carefully. stated therein, was something about S-Video for SD feeds and Component/HDMI for HD feeds working concurrently.. which is what i was hoping for.

of course, from reading some of this thread i find that the SA 8300HD is a bit more finicky than id like, what with having to specify what resolution each video output has to be able to handle (480i/480hp/720hp/1080i)

but it sounds like i could just set the S-Video output to 480i and the HDMI/ Component output to 720hp/1080i adandeave it at that. (beinng that the re is nothing broadcast in 480p as far as i know)

from what you all describe in this thread, it sounds like with the above setup, the SA8300HD i wont be able to watch SD feeds from the HDMI output and i wont be able to watch HD feeds (even at SD resolution) through my S-Video output.

then again, from what i've been able to understand at least, the only reason why people are disabling the 480i/480hp resolution on their HDMI/component output is b/c SD programs have black/gray bars on the side which they do nnotlike. i ddon'tlike these either, bbutin my case, unless a program is in "real" HD (720hp/1080i) 16x9, i wont watch it in HD.

is the "black/grey bar" issue the only one that people have with the SA8300HD and component/HDMI only connections or am i -- once again -- missing the obvious?

CMM.

mikeford

09-27-06, 02:03 PM

When you say "coax" do you mean you are connecting the other sets via the RF output?

Try some of the other outputs, if the S-video or composite work, you could feed that to a VCR and use the RF from it possibly (as if I remember how a VCR does RF), or just use one of those signals instead.

pepar

09-27-06, 02:06 PM

but it sounds like i could just set the S-Video output to 480i and the HDMI/ Component output to 720hp/1080i adandeave it at that. (beinng that the re is nothing broadcast in 480p as far as i know)
I'm not using 066, but I'm sure there's no setting for s-video resolution as 480i is all it carries.

Manatus

09-27-06, 03:07 PM

i actually went back the SA 8300HD User Manual i had downloaded the other day and read it more carefully. stated therein, was something about S-Video for SD feeds and Component/HDMI for HD feeds working concurrently.. which is what i was hoping for.

am i -- once again -- missing the obvious?

CMM.

The S-Video and HD outputs have always operated concurrently. Nothing new there. But, as AFAIK, there is no manual for 8300HDs, like ours, that use Passport, not SARA. In all likelihood, any manual that you downloaded is for SARA DVRs only, even if it doesn't explicitly say so.

galve2000

09-27-06, 03:17 PM

The S-Video and HD outputs have always operated concurrently. Nothing new there. But, as AFAIK, there is no manual for 8300HDs, like ours, that use Passport, not SARA. In all likelihood, any manual that you downloaded is for SARA DVRs only, even if it doesn't explicitly say so.

the real problem i'm having is that i read the 1st 20 or so pages of this thread that cover early 2005 and it is now end 2006!!

a lot of the info i've gotten -- while totally interesting to me -- is pretty much missinformation at this point simply b/c oit is about the SA8000HD which is not the DVR i'd be given if i picked one up today...

i think i'm jsut going to bite the bullet and try my one month free and hope for the best...

michaeltscott

09-27-06, 03:21 PM

BTW, Though I have maintained that there is nothing in the FCC regs requiring the cable companies to make the 1394 port functional on the SA8300HD that they rented you, I have also maintained that the consumer SHOULD argue with the cable CSR that they ARE required by those regulations to make it functional. It's a barganing position - just like buying a car.Why would you argue that, since, if the regulations can be interpreted the way that you read them, there is not one single word of text that you could point to in the regs which requires that they ever make the interfaces on more than one STB work. (They wouldn't have to make any leased STB's HDMI-or-DVI interface work, which is ludicrous, since television manufacturers are required to phase in HDMI-or-DVI/HDCP interfaces on a schedule which specifies that all new models 25" or greater have them now, and that all models 13" or greater have them after 1 July next year). An FCC regulation specifying a requirement to provide some new function on equipment which lacks a date by which that function must be provided is empty--non-enforceable.

If you read the regs the way that you do, no consumer can complain about non-working 1394 or HDMI/HDCP on their leased STB, since the providers are only required to provide the physical interfaces on boxes which are purchased after 1 July 2005, not functional ones, with no requirement to ever make them functional. You can validly complain if they can't provide you with any STB with "functional" 1394, Again, this is only true if we interpret the regulation your way.

As for the people who drafted the regulation having examined them so much that have to be worded intentionally, I'd be willing to bet that almost any lawyer willing to work for government wages at the FCC graduated in the lower 10% of their class at some unimpressive law school :). They're probably just as incompetent at composing regulations as most public defense attorneys are at what they do. The FCC is not the kind of public service that many people could rationalize sacrificing a lucrative career elsewhere to pursue. ("I'll be saving so many abused and under-represented people"--Yeah, right :)).

michaeltscott

09-27-06, 03:33 PM

a lot of the info i've gotten -- while totally interesting to me -- is pretty much missinformation at this point simply b/c oit is about the SA8000HD which is not the DVR i'd be given if i picked one up today.If an SA8300HD is running the same firmware revision as a SA8000HD (which they are in my area, Passport 2.5.051), there is nothing that an SA8300HD can do which an SA8000HD doesn't, or which they do any differently. Some of the code in the firmware might follow a different path for the SA8000HD than for the SA8300HD, so there are some bugs that they don't have in common; for instance, running 2.5.051 on my local TWC system, SA8300HDs display an annoying black bar on the left of digital simulcast channels--the SA8000HD running the same revision does not.

No Passport Echo manual that I've ever seen has mentioned any particular hardware model designation. There is separate documentation for Passport running on Motorola boxes, which is called Passport DCT, not Passport Echo.

The SA8300HD has faster processors, and response of the UI is consequently faster. The SA8300HD has been measured by at least one user in these forums as displaying higher effective resolution through its component output. SA8300HDs will have HDMI, eSATA and possibly 1394/DTCP interfaces, which the SA8000HD lacks.

pepar

09-27-06, 03:33 PM

As for the people who drafted the regulation having examined them so much that have to be worded intentionally, I'd be willing to bet that almost any lawyer willing to work for government wages at the FCC graduated in the lower 10% of their class at some unimpressive law school :). They're probably just as incompetent at composing regulations as most public defense attorneys are at what they do. The FCC is not the kind of public service that many people could rationalize sacrificing a lucrative career elsewhere to pursue. ("I'll be saving so many abused and under-represented people"--Yeah, right :)).
These would not have been government lawyers. They would have been INDUSTRY lawyers/lobbyists. Big dif. ;)

michaeltscott

09-27-06, 03:47 PM

These would not have been government lawyers. They would have been INDUSTRY lawyers/lobbyists. Big dif. ;)Okay--you're right. The regulations as codified read almost verbatim as suggested in the MOU, so they were essentially drafted by the cable and CE industries. Given that, I'm willing to believe that the MSOs actually intended to never be required by regulations to provide working 1394/DTCP on all of their leased STBs, or to make HDMI-or-DVI/HDCP work on any leased STB :).

Riverside_Guy

09-27-06, 05:30 PM

Ugh -- removing this feature has caused a huge problem for me -- I would routinely switch between "HDMI", "2 channel" and "dolby digital" for getting HDMI audio, PCM or DD5.1 depending on what I wanted. Now that this option is gone, I'm stuck in the last mode I was set for (2 channel), which means that I have NO WAY to set my box to output DD5.1!

Anybody have any suggestions?????

The issue is that under 1.8.112, there were times that it switched automatically to PCM out of DD 5.1, so I had to use that menu to toggle "Dolby Digital" off then back on. If it does one of those switches, I'm going to be mighty pissed.

The PSC had a nice online complaint form that a few years ago got TWC attention over a billing screw up they made... time to go looking for that!

scsiraid

09-27-06, 07:48 PM