ePVision PHD-VRX & VRX2 Owners Thread - Page 49 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1441 of 2299 Old 04-26-2013, 05:15 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
videobruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Buffalo NY
Posts: 14,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Why anyone would want to live in a dictatorship (sometimes called a HOA) is beyond me. Too lazy to cut the grass & shovel snow? rolleyes.gif
BTW, you shouldn't have to contact anyone. Put the damn antenna up and tell them to take a hike.

Abundant OTA television is what makes this country different from all others. Lets keep it this way.
The Internet is no place for streaming video.
videobruce is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1442 of 2299 Old 04-26-2013, 06:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
LenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Randolph, NJ, 725' above sea level, 30 miles west of ESB
Posts: 1,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 107
From my experience HOA's do little and never live up to their commitments to the tenants.

Whether to ignore them and mount an antenna on the roof is a tough call.
LenL is offline  
post #1443 of 2299 Old 04-26-2013, 06:28 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
videobruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Buffalo NY
Posts: 14,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Unfortunately you can't completely ignore them, but a stern letter from you or your attorney to them, sitting the riot act, should put them in their place. wink.gif

Abundant OTA television is what makes this country different from all others. Lets keep it this way.
The Internet is no place for streaming video.
videobruce is offline  
post #1444 of 2299 Old 04-26-2013, 09:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTV1080P24 View Post

JHBrandt the article is based on facts. In the past many years ago cable companies had a security problem with consumers using analog descramblers, however since all cable companies in the USA now use digital encryption, their signal is now 100% secure from piracy as long as the channel is encrypted. Comcast has had such a major problem with consumers illegally going outside and connecting themselves up for free local channels and basic cable service that they started an online forum where people can report other people that attempt to get free unencrypted analog and free unencrypted QAM digital channels. Click this link for the Comcast cable theft forum that people use to report other people who have attempted to get free basic cable or limited basic cable. Some people are too lazy to install an outdoor or indoor TV antenna so that they can get legally free local channels and instead think that getting free limited basic or basic cable is ok. Here is another article link about passive cable theft and Comcast. Since 100% of the Comcast network nationwide or soon to be nationwide is using 100% digital encryption for all their channels this means signal theft is no longer an issue for Comcast.

Apparently I didn't make myself clear. I certainly wasn't arguing that encryption wouldn't provide essentially perfect security against cable theft. Nor do I believe that cable theft wasn't a serious problem for Comcast overall. Where we differ is that I believe there was no compelling reason to encrypt OTA channels also, if the goal was only to stop cable thieves.

I note that your links rely on Comcast as their primary source. But that only reveals Comcast's public perception of these issues. I'm skeptical they're being fully honest with the press about all their motives, though.

I realize there are some who will steal cable even if all they can get is local OTA channels. For some, cable theft looks attractive compared to the hassle of putting up an antenna. Some have recalcitrant HOAs, a few live in poor OTA reception areas, and sometimes cable theft is just easier. I bet there are even some who steal cable just for the thrill of "getting away with it."

But regardless of how Comcast perceives the issue, I simply don't buy that theft of OTA channels alone is a serious problem for them. Few thieves who would get only OTA via cable would become cable subscribers if they lost it, so as a business decision it made little sense to encrypt OTA if "OTA-via-cable" theft were truly the issue. But if you also consider the additional monthly charges from legitimate subscribers who lose the use of clear QAM tuners, and the additional valuable info about how many devices in subscribers' homes are tuning in Comcast's signals, it starts to make more sense. Unfortunately, those additional factors also apply to providers like Fios, for whom cable theft isn't an issue. So, while I'm pleased that Fios is not encrypting OTA (or other basic cable channels, since cable theft isn't an issue), I simply can't be as confident as you that they will never do so.
JHBrandt is online now  
post #1445 of 2299 Old 04-26-2013, 09:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by videobruce View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithdoor View Post

Low cost remote works great from walmart http://www.walmart.com/ip/RCA-5-Device-Learning-Universal-Remote/14554642
Just so you know, that is a typical "doughnut" remote. Instead of four separate navigation keys, there is single a 'ring' (doughnut) that controls those functions. Problem is, it's far too easy to have your finger between two functions (right & down for example) and wind up pressing the wrong one. wink.gif

The "doughnut" (basically a joystick w/o the stick) is a good idea if the remote is emulating a pointing device such as a mouse or trackball. But as Bruce said, it's not so hot when emulating left/right/up/down keys frown.gif The common Windows Media Center remote has both for precisely this reason: the doughnut emulates a mouse, while the discrete navigation keys emulate the cursor keys on the PC keyboard.
JHBrandt is online now  
post #1446 of 2299 Old 04-26-2013, 12:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Randolph, NJ, 725' above sea level, 30 miles west of ESB
Posts: 1,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post

Apparently I didn't make myself clear. I certainly wasn't arguing that encryption wouldn't provide essentially perfect security against cable theft. Nor do I believe that cable theft wasn't a serious problem for Comcast overall. Where we differ is that I believe there was no compelling reason to encrypt OTA channels also, if the goal was only to stop cable thieves.

I note that your links rely on Comcast as their primary source. But that only reveals Comcast's public perception of these issues. I'm skeptical they're being fully honest with the press about all their motives, though.

I realize there are some who will steal cable even if all they can get is local OTA channels. For some, cable theft looks attractive compared to the hassle of putting up an antenna. Some have recalcitrant HOAs, a few live in poor OTA reception areas, and sometimes cable theft is just easier. I bet there are even some who steal cable just for the thrill of "getting away with it."

But regardless of how Comcast perceives the issue, I simply don't buy that theft of OTA channels alone is a serious problem for them. Few thieves who would get only OTA via cable would become cable subscribers if they lost it, so as a business decision it made little sense to encrypt OTA if "OTA-via-cable" theft were truly the issue. But if you also consider the additional monthly charges from legitimate subscribers who lose the use of clear QAM tuners, and the additional valuable info about how many devices in subscribers' homes are tuning in Comcast's signals, it starts to make more sense. Unfortunately, those additional factors also apply to providers like Fios, for whom cable theft isn't an issue. So, while I'm pleased that Fios is not encrypting OTA (or other basic cable channels, since cable theft isn't an issue), I simply can't be as confident as you that they will never do so.

Add CableVision to the list. Their basic service includes the local NY OTA channels but also some low end cable programming. It is scrambled and has been for many years. I think the issue is that BASIC cable includes OTA and other NON OTA channels so you are getting more than just OTA and hence it is scrambled. I needed a cablecard for my TV just to get the basic service and it cost me a monthly fee. Something like $4. Then you add on a DVR and if you want more TVs you need a box and the fees add up just to get the basic package. Once again it included OTA NY plus others.

I am saving quite a bit with plain OTA and the PHD-VRX (and DTVPAL).
LenL is offline  
post #1447 of 2299 Old 04-26-2013, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dattier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago IL, Northwest Side
Posts: 2,895
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithdoor View Post

Low cost remote works great from walmart http://www.walmart.com/ip/RCA-5-Device-Learning-Universal-Remote/14554642 wink.gifwink.gifwink.gif
The page states explicitly that it's out of stock on-line and doesn't have the usual links for finding out whether it's in stock in stores, implying that Walmart sells it only on-line, where it's out of stock.
dattier is offline  
post #1448 of 2299 Old 04-26-2013, 03:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Smithdoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
You can find this remote on Amazon.com and you can use the learning part for all the keys works great. I have mind program with the DVR & TV with codes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dattier View Post

The page states explicitly that it's out of stock on-line and doesn't have the usual links for finding out whether it's in stock in stores, implying that Walmart sells it only on-line, where it's out of stock.
Smithdoor is offline  
post #1449 of 2299 Old 04-26-2013, 09:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
HDTV1080P24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Complete privacy with non-subscription based ATSC tuners


Satellite receivers use the phone line or Ethernet Internet connection to report to the satellite providers database the channels that consumers watch and the video on demand programs that were ordered.

In the past cable companies needed to use a digital cable box with a RF return path to keep a database at the central office of the channels that one watches on their account. However now with the newest smart amplifiers used by cable companies they can measure the signal loss of each analog or digital channel a customer watches on any one way TV tuner in the home. It makes it possible for cable companies to keep a database of what each customer is watching in their home.

On Blu-ray players when a consumer logs into their BD-LIVE account some movie studios keep a database record of each Blu-ray movie that one has watched (The list is even viewable on screen in the Warner profile section). One does not even have to login to use BD-LIVE most of the time. Some Blu-ray discs with the BD-LIVE feature are designed to automatically pop up the local weather on the main menu screen when the Blu-ray disc is inserted since the customers IP address was sent to a movie studio in order to pull up the local weather information. So it’s possible that some studios are using BD-LIVE to automatically collect a database of Blu-ray movies and IP addresses when the Blu-ray disc is inserted.

With non-subscription based ATSC tuners that contain no return path its impossible for a database to be collected on what local broadcast channel one is watching. So one has complete database privacy when using a non-subscription based ATSC tuner.
HDTV1080P24 is offline  
post #1450 of 2299 Old 04-26-2013, 10:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 289
A person's Blu-ray viewing habits are also kept completely private by disabling BD-Live and not connecting an Ethernet cable to the Blu-ray player. BD-Live is unnecessary to view the main feature and bonus content stored on the disc, anyway. Blu-ray security isn't particularly relevant to DVR security, though, as they are two different sources of entertainment.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #1451 of 2299 Old 04-28-2013, 01:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
HDTV1080P24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Yes your correct the BD-LIVE feature can be disabled in the Blu-ray player menu. The main movie or documentary is disc based and most of the bonus features are also disc based. However, some Blu-ray discs have bonus features like streaming commentaries and features that are exclusive to BD-LIVE (Internet based material). In addition, many consumers like having their Blu-ray player connected to the Internet for firmware updates and for streaming services like VUDU and Netflix. The streaming providers also keep databases of the movies their customers watch. I always leave BD-LIVE on since I do not care about databases being collected by some studios when a Blu-ray disc is inserted. My main point was there are several technogies that are used to collect and build customer databases. There is complete privacy with subscription free ATSC tuners, however one day maybe the broadcast TV spectrum within a few decades might disappear.
HDTV1080P24 is offline  
post #1452 of 2299 Old 04-28-2013, 05:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frackville, PA
Posts: 796
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post

Apparently I didn't make myself clear. I certainly wasn't arguing that encryption wouldn't provide essentially perfect security against cable theft. Nor do I believe that cable theft wasn't a serious problem for Comcast overall. Where we differ is that I believe there was no compelling reason to encrypt OTA channels also, if the goal was only to stop cable thieves.

I note that your links rely on Comcast as their primary source. But that only reveals Comcast's public perception of these issues. I'm skeptical they're being fully honest with the press about all their motives, though.

I realize there are some who will steal cable even if all they can get is local OTA channels. For some, cable theft looks attractive compared to the hassle of putting up an antenna. Some have recalcitrant HOAs, a few live in poor OTA reception areas, and sometimes cable theft is just easier. I bet there are even some who steal cable just for the thrill of "getting away with it."

But regardless of how Comcast perceives the issue, I simply don't buy that theft of OTA channels alone is a serious problem for them. Few thieves who would get only OTA via cable would become cable subscribers if they lost it, so as a business decision it made little sense to encrypt OTA if "OTA-via-cable" theft were truly the issue. But if you also consider the additional monthly charges from legitimate subscribers who lose the use of clear QAM tuners, and the additional valuable info about how many devices in subscribers' homes are tuning in Comcast's signals, it starts to make more sense. Unfortunately, those additional factors also apply to providers like Fios, for whom cable theft isn't an issue. So, while I'm pleased that Fios is not encrypting OTA (or other basic cable channels, since cable theft isn't an issue), I simply can't be as confident as you that they will never do so.

I think you are forgetting one big thing. I have to pay a monthly fee to each of the local broadcasters because they all waived must carry and opted for retransmission agreements, which is costing each subscriber in my system about 4 dollars per month. The broadcast channels are not free on cable tv systems and have not been since the 1990's, so I do not see any problem with encryption. Besides, just like Dish and Direct TV, cable tv systems are privately owned closed looped systems. I never hear about anybody complaining that you need some type of company owned device to veiw satellite tv, especially the local channels, so why can't cable operators do the same thing.

Besides since cable operators receive the content from the same source owners as the two sat companies, there is now a move to MPEG 4 encoding on cable tv systems, which means any device that does not have the ability to decode a encrypted MPEG 4 QAM 256 stream will be useless in the coming future. The only device that a consumer can buy right now with those capabilities is the Tivo Premeires. Even Ion Broadcasting is trying the Air box system in certain markets and is broadcasting encrypted MPEG 4 content on their over the air feeds. According to the ATSC standards the only feed that the broadcasters must make free to the air is their standard definition digital feed. The rest can be encrypted and the consumer can be charged a fee to view it. This includes the HD feed as HD is considered a premium product by the broadcast and content industry. This is why there is strict rules regarding the recording and copying of HD content in the United States.

What also gets lost in this arguement is that the broadcast networks, cable and sat channels, and movie and music studios are mostly owned by about 6 large corporations. They are Disney Corp, Fox News Corp, CBS Corp, Comcast, Time Warner, and the very anal Sony Corp. If you have any complaints as to what you pay for content and why you can't record content then you must complain to these corporations. Sony even goes the extra mile because the own rights to HDMI, SPDIF, Bluray, AVC HD, to name a few so they have a real big say in what is allowed in consumer devices and what those devices can and can not do.
Even most local broadcast affiliates are now owned by a handful of corporations like Nexstar, Sinclair, Hearst, etc.
Because of the shellacking my cable tv operator took recently from a local broadcast station over retransmission agreement, they broke thier silence over these deals and printed this letter to let the subscribers know how all this started and who is responsible for all this mess.
http://www.sectv.com/PDF/RETRANSMISSION.pdf

I apologize for the rant but if you keep blaming the wrong entities then the problem will just get even worse that it already is.

"You lose it in here you're in a world of hurt"
Jed1 is offline  
post #1453 of 2299 Old 04-28-2013, 06:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Smithdoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
To save $4.00 a month try a antenna it is free and works better that cable That was the straw that broke the back for me I had U-Verse this year they started changing for local tv Now I save $79.00 a month for that charge. biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jed1 View Post

I think you are forgetting one big thing. I have to pay a monthly fee to each of the local broadcasters because they all waived must carry and opted for retransmission agreements, which is costing each subscriber in my system about 4 dollars per month. The broadcast channels are not free on cable tv systems and have not been since the 1990's, so I do not see any problem with encryption. Besides, just like Dish and Direct TV, cable tv systems are privately owned closed looped systems. I never hear about anybody complaining that you need some type of company owned device to veiw satellite tv, especially the local channels, so why can't cable operators do the same thing.

Besides since cable operators receive the content from the same source owners as the two sat companies, there is now a move to MPEG 4 encoding on cable tv systems, which means any device that does not have the ability to decode a encrypted MPEG 4 QAM 256 stream will be useless in the coming future. The only device that a consumer can buy right now with those capabilities is the Tivo Premeires. Even Ion Broadcasting is trying the Air box system in certain markets and is broadcasting encrypted MPEG 4 content on their over the air feeds. According to the ATSC standards the only feed that the broadcasters must make free to the air is their standard definition digital feed. The rest can be encrypted and the consumer can be charged a fee to view it. This includes the HD feed as HD is considered a premium product by the broadcast and content industry. This is why there is strict rules regarding the recording and copying of HD content in the United States.

What also gets lost in this arguement is that the broadcast networks, cable and sat channels, and movie and music studios are mostly owned by about 6 large corporations. They are Disney Corp, Fox News Corp, CBS Corp, Comcast, Time Warner, and the very anal Sony Corp. If you have any complaints as to what you pay for content and why you can't record content then you must complain to these corporations. Sony even goes the extra mile because the own rights to HDMI, SPDIF, Bluray, AVC HD, to name a few so they have a real big say in what is allowed in consumer devices and what those devices can and can not do.
Even most local broadcast affiliates are now owned by a handful of corporations like Nexstar, Sinclair, Hearst, etc.
Because of the shellacking my cable tv operator took recently from a local broadcast station over retransmission agreement, they broke thier silence over these deals and printed this letter to let the subscribers know how all this started and who is responsible for all this mess.
http://www.sectv.com/PDF/RETRANSMISSION.pdf

I apologize for the rant but if you keep blaming the wrong entities then the problem will just get even worse that it already is.
Smithdoor is offline  
post #1454 of 2299 Old 04-28-2013, 09:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jed1 View Post

HD is considered a premium product by the broadcast and content industry. This is why there is strict rules regarding the recording and copying of HD content in the United States.

HD content isn't protected because it's considered premium; it's protected because the content providers have finally found cheap ways to prevent people from exercising their fair use rights and haven't faced any opposition to it. In Japan, many Blu-ray players can also burn discs, and archiving HDTV to discs is commonplace. In the United States, people jumped on board in droves to the cable companies' restricted DVRs, and now there is almost no market for anything else. When people don't stand up to defend their rights, they get taken away. The only thing that prevented this from happening sooner was the lack of technology to support it.

DRM didn't work as well with DVDs, since people were using analogue outputs to connect their devices, and the DVD DRM scheme couldn't be updated without bricking all DVD players manufactured prior to the updated standards. Now that video and audio transmission is done digitally and devices can receive software updates over the Internet to enable new DRM schemes, copy protection is much easier to implement.
videobruce and JHBrandt like this.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #1455 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 03:38 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
videobruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Buffalo NY
Posts: 14,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
it's protected because the content providers have finally found cheap ways to prevent people from exercising their fair use rights and haven't faced any opposition to it.
Deregulation at work. Again. When will it stop?

Abundant OTA television is what makes this country different from all others. Lets keep it this way.
The Internet is no place for streaming video.
videobruce is offline  
post #1456 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 10:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
LenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Randolph, NJ, 725' above sea level, 30 miles west of ESB
Posts: 1,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by videobruce View Post

Senior Citizen;
Go into "Upcoming Recordings" and press the 'red' button at the bottom of the remote. Then 'yes' on the confirmation box. If you don't want it to record, but want to leave it in the schedule, uncheck 'Active'.

Remember, this is "very easy and intuitive to use". biggrin.gif

I have one of these issues now. I did everything you say but it won't allow me to delete the scheduled recording because I get a message that it is in progress. Doesn't matter if I make it active or inactive either. This shows a big red "R" next to it in the upcoming recordings. Scheduled for Sat at 7 PM.
LenL is offline  
post #1457 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 12:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frackville, PA
Posts: 796
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithdoor View Post

To save $4.00 a month try a antenna it is free and works better that cable That was the straw that broke the back for me I had U-Verse this year they started changing for local tv Now I save $79.00 a month for that charge. biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

Due to the geographical nature of northeast ans central Pennsylvania, it is practically impossible to use an antenna here. This is why my home is the birth place of cable tv. Besides I only watch three programs on broadcast television, The Good Wife, NCIS, and Frontline. I can not receive the CBS affiliate at all because it is in the high band VHF range and depending on the weather and how many of the giant government subsidized spinning pinwheels are running getting a stable lock on PBS is really tough.

I was just reading that out of about 130 million homes, a little over 110 million homes have cable or satellite tv subscriptions. That number is going up so there isn't really this big move by the nation to cut the cord. If you figure the amount of homes that are empty in the US, it doesn't leave a large amount of prople who use an antenna. Right now in my small rural hometown about a third of 1200 homes is empty and about 100 of them are slated for demolition if and when my munincipality gets state or federal money to tear them down. I do not see any body in my area putting up antennas as you would figure this would be the place because of the severe economic problems we have here. My area is still trying to recover from the great depression of the 1930s. I guess all this proverbial cord cutting is taking place in large metropolitan areas.

"You lose it in here you're in a world of hurt"
Jed1 is offline  
post #1458 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 01:19 PM
Thread Ender
 
WS65711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Covington, LA OTA & Charter CableCard
Posts: 4,133
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jed1 View Post

.... I was just reading that out of about 130 million homes, a little over 110 million homes have cable or satellite tv subscriptions. That number is going up so there isn't really this big move by the nation to cut the cord. If you figure the amount of homes that are empty in the US, it doesn't leave a large amount of prople who use an antenna.....

I don't know about cord cutting, but Cable and OTA are not mutually exclusive. I use both. When I want to watch a top quality image (always) from the Networks, I watch OTA. When the show I want to watch is only on Cable, I watch Cable. When the Cable goes out, I watch OTA. I may be the only one doing this, but it works well for me. tongue.gif

Don't ever make the MISTAKE of buying a Samsung TV..
They consider THIS
normal on a two month old set..
WS65711 is offline  
post #1459 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 01:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frackville, PA
Posts: 796
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post

HD content isn't protected because it's considered premium; it's protected because the content providers have finally found cheap ways to prevent people from exercising their fair use rights and haven't faced any opposition to it. In Japan, many Blu-ray players can also burn discs, and archiving HDTV to discs is commonplace. In the United States, people jumped on board in droves to the cable companies' restricted DVRs, and now there is almost no market for anything else. When people don't stand up to defend their rights, they get taken away. The only thing that prevented this from happening sooner was the lack of technology to support it.

DRM didn't work as well with DVDs, since people were using analogue outputs to connect their devices, and the DVD DRM scheme couldn't be updated without bricking all DVD players manufactured prior to the updated standards. Now that video and audio transmission is done digitally and devices can receive software updates over the Internet to enable new DRM schemes, copy protection is much easier to implement.

I disagree as it is the stringent copyright protection laws we have here in the US that disallows consumers the ability to make copies of what the content owners deem as protected content. Europe and Asia have much more lax laws regarding copying of content so this is why these types of devices are sold there. Since the content owners deem anything HD as premium content they have used some pretty stringent schemes to prevent the consumer from doing anything with it other than watch it. I suspect things may get worse if Charlie Ergen losses his battle with the content owners over the Dish Hopper. It is possible if they win that we maybe forced to watch commercials on DVRs as the industry can make the DVR manufacturers disable any feature that make it possible to skip over the ads.

As for the so called cable company DVRs there is only three major players who produce DVRs that will work with cable tv infrastructure Arris, Cisco, and to a lesser extent Pace. The cable tv industry doesn't make these devices they only can buy what these companies make and offer to them. The restrictions on the DVRs are put in place by the content owners and not the cable company. The customers use them because they are convenient and come at a small monthly fee. If there was such a product sold at Walmart for 30 dollars with all the same features people will buy them as they did with VCRs but the reality is the average cost to produce a properly functioning DVR is around 600 dollars. Very few people I know will ever shell out that much money for an electronic device that requires a one time cash payment.
Tivos are sold at Walmart for about 130 dollars. I seen one being returned as the consumer did not understand he had to pay a monthly fee for the guide and rent a cablecard from the cable company. He thought he can buy it and hook it right to his cable and get all the channels for free and record them. This is the biggest reason why you will see no change in this country because 95% of the population of this country is clueless about how the broadcast industry works and who has all the clout. This is why even Tivo will remain a niche product.

"You lose it in here you're in a world of hurt"
Jed1 is offline  
post #1460 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jed1 View Post

I suspect things may get worse if Charlie Ergen losses his battle with the content owners over the Dish Hopper. It is possible if they win that we maybe forced to watch commercials on DVRs as the industry can make the DVR manufacturers disable any feature that make it possible to skip over the ads.

Thankfully, this will only apply to pay-TV DVRs. Our OTA DVRs will continue to function, since they don't "call home" to the mothership and give the manufacturer the opportunity to force "updates" on us that remove key features, like jumping and fast-forwarding/rewinding.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #1461 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 02:27 PM
Senior Member
 
andydrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tijuana, Mexico
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post

Thankfully, this will only apply to pay-TV DVRs. Our OTA DVRs will continue to function, since they don't "call home" to the mothership and give the manufacturer the opportunity to force "updates" on us that remove key features, like jumping and fast-forwarding/rewinding.

So instead they will trick you into updating your DVR firmware for bug fixes and/or new features and the surprise will be that something is disabled that used to work! Of course you can always buy a DVR that no longer is supported and no more firmware updates eek.gif
andydrew is offline  
post #1462 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 02:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 289
That's one reason to never update anything unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In the case of a DVR, don't update the firmware until someone else on this forum has tested the latest version. wink.gif When it comes to most of the OTA DVRs, the firmware updates all too often break more things than they fix, anyway.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #1463 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 02:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frackville, PA
Posts: 796
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post

Thankfully, this will only apply to pay-TV DVRs. Our OTA DVRs will continue to function, since they don't "call home" to the mothership and give the manufacturer the opportunity to force "updates" on us that remove key features, like jumping and fast-forwarding/rewinding.

I hate to be the bringer of even more bad news, since ePVision had to obtain a few licenses from the all seeing and all knowing Sony Corp to build this player, Sony will require them to remove the offending features or lose thier licenses or even face a lawsuit if they do not comply. Since this player is riddled with numerous bugs it will be inserted in the next firmware update so you will have to make a choice of never updating the player for much needed fixes or just give up the feature. This is what us OPPO owners have and are still facing with the BDP 93 and now the BDP 103 models. OPPO even had to remove the possibility of the consumer to roll back the player to previous firmwares to use the banned features. So now if you try to roll back the firmware it will brick the player. Decisions, Decisions, Decisions........
Sony will not want to lose that ad revenue from Wheel of Fortune.biggrin.gif

"You lose it in here you're in a world of hurt"
Jed1 is offline  
post #1464 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 03:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 153
I think what the content owners are alleging in their lawsuit is that the Dish employees who watch the shows (and flag where the commercials are) are creating a "derivative work," so Dish needs permission from the owners (which they're not going to give, of course) to distribute that info. (Anyone familiar with the lawsuit's details, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

The concept of a "derivative work" was intended to keep would-be authors from using another author's characters or plot (to write and publish their own spin-offs, for instance), so methinks the content owners are stretching things a bit. But you're right; the courts may very well buy the content owners' argument that "meta-data" about the locations of commercials is a derivative work (and isn't "fair use," which would make it OK anyway).

Luckily, even if that happens it would only block Dish from distributing data about where the commercials are. It wouldn't prevent DVR users from doing what they do now: recognize a commercial and hit the "skip forward" button themselves. So while nothing's ever certain, owners of other DVRs are quite likely safe. Even Hopper owners would lose only that one (admittedly unique and attractive) function.

Nor would an adverse ruling block A.I. programs like ShowAnalyzer, which try to flag commercials "automagically." If the content owners win, look for Dish to buy something like ShowAnalyzer and throw some development $$ at making it better. In fact, I'd bet they're considering it already.
JHBrandt is online now  
post #1465 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 03:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Smithdoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I can see why you need cable or dish. I am looking for day we can get just the channel you or I want over the internet for a low fee per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jed1 View Post

Due to the geographical nature of northeast ans central Pennsylvania, it is practically impossible to use an antenna here. This is why my home is the birth place of cable tv. Besides I only watch three programs on broadcast television, The Good Wife, NCIS, and Frontline. I can not receive the CBS affiliate at all because it is in the high band VHF range and depending on the weather and how many of the giant government subsidized spinning pinwheels are running getting a stable lock on PBS is really tough.

I was just reading that out of about 130 million homes, a little over 110 million homes have cable or satellite tv subscriptions. That number is going up so there isn't really this big move by the nation to cut the cord. If you figure the amount of homes that are empty in the US, it doesn't leave a large amount of prople who use an antenna. Right now in my small rural hometown about a third of 1200 homes is empty and about 100 of them are slated for demolition if and when my munincipality gets state or federal money to tear them down. I do not see any body in my area putting up antennas as you would figure this would be the place because of the severe economic problems we have here. My area is still trying to recover from the great depression of the 1930s. I guess all this proverbial cord cutting is taking place in large metropolitan areas.
Smithdoor is offline  
post #1466 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 03:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frackville, PA
Posts: 796
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithdoor View Post

I can see why you need cable or dish. I am looking for day we can get just the channel you or I want over the internet for a low fee per year.

I agree. I would even pay per episode using the internet. I have been considering a Tivo becasue it has Amazon Video service on it and I am a big Amazon shopper so maybe I can benefit from this.

"You lose it in here you're in a world of hurt"
Jed1 is offline  
post #1467 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 04:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frackville, PA
Posts: 796
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post

I think what the content owners are alleging in their lawsuit is that the Dish employees who watch the shows (and flag where the commercials are) are creating a "derivative work," so Dish needs permission from the owners (which they're not going to give, of course) to distribute that info. (Anyone familiar with the lawsuit's details, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

The concept of a "derivative work" was intended to keep would-be authors from using another author's characters or plot (to write and publish their own spin-offs, for instance), so methinks the content owners are stretching things a bit. But you're right; the courts may very well buy the content owners' argument that "meta-data" about the locations of commercials is a derivative work (and isn't "fair use," which would make it OK anyway).

Luckily, even if that happens it would only block Dish from distributing data about where the commercials are. It wouldn't prevent DVR users from doing what they do now: recognize a commercial and hit the "skip forward" button themselves. So while nothing's ever certain, owners of other DVRs are quite likely safe. Even Hopper owners would lose only that one (admittedly unique and attractive) function.

Nor would an adverse ruling block A.I. programs like ShowAnalyzer, which try to flag commercials "automagically." If the content owners win, look for Dish to buy something like ShowAnalyzer and throw some development $$ at making it better. In fact, I'd bet they're considering it already.

Good points. I do not know the details of the lawsuits but I worry about two things.
1. Charlie Ergen never won any lawsuits and
2. If the content owners do win what precedent will it set. Will they have free will to take this to the extreme and stop anybody from skipping commercials. Will it become a negotiating tool to extract more subscriber fees from cable and sat customers. The possibliities are endless.
Things will become more extreme if we lose optical media then we are stuck with electronic storage and all this cloud based crap I'm being constantly asked to start using. I sometimes wish we can return to the good old VCR days but I know that will never happen.

This discussion makes me realize that even though we buy and own our devices, we never really own them as they are constantly in need of updates in order to work properly. So do we really own the products or are we paying one time lease payments to have the illusion that we own and control our stuff. It is the same concept as home ownership in Pennsylvania, you can own your home but if you do not pay the property taxes then the local government can sell your property out from under you for the past due taxes. Consumer Electronics are now the same way.

"You lose it in here you're in a world of hurt"
Jed1 is offline  
post #1468 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 08:23 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
videobruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Buffalo NY
Posts: 14,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
since ePVision had to obtain a few licenses from the all seeing and all knowing Sony Corp to build this player, Sony will require them to remove the offending features or lose thier licenses or even face a lawsuit if they do not comply.
And you know of this how?? Exactly what does Sony have to do with this?

Abundant OTA television is what makes this country different from all others. Lets keep it this way.
The Internet is no place for streaming video.
videobruce is offline  
post #1469 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 09:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by videobruce View Post

And you know of this how?? Exactly what does Sony have to do with this?

You beat me to it.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #1470 of 2299 Old 04-29-2013, 09:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
HDTV1080P24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 27
I still know family members that use the discontinued JVC D-VHS system with a built in ATSC tuner and IEEE-1394 connections. In that system a perfect bit for bit 1080i HD recording onto a blank D-VHS tape can occur under the 5C copy protection system as long as the program is marked as copy always or copy once. I was hoping that standalone Blu-ray recorders that used the 5C copy protection system would be introduced into the United States someday. However, the only Blu-ray recorder option in the United States is PC based versions with a ATSC/QAM tuner card. The Blu-ray format is now 7 years old and the USA still has no standalone Blu-ray recorders.

It was interesting to read Jed1 post about ION Broadcasting testing the MPEG-4/AVC codec over an encrypted ATSC system. Possible in 10 years or sooner consumers will be required to pay a subscription fee for all or some over the air broadcast channels. One will need to purchase or rent an ATSC 3.0 tuner so that the consumer can subscribe to over the air ATSC channels. The ATSC 3.0 specification most likely will allow for 1024QAM with support for up to 8K resolution (4K and 3-D are suppose to be supported also). The ATSC 3.0 specs are not even finalized yet and in theory it will be at least 10 years before first generation products launch. Of course ATSC or ATSC 2.0 tuners that require a subscription for special MPEG-4/AVC channels might become popular in 5 years or so.

I have no problem with encrypting premium over the air ATSC channels like Fox News, CNN, and HBO, etc. What will upset the consumer is if local channels like NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, and PBS are encrypted and require a subscription with a special ATSC 2.0 or ATSC 3.0 tuner. The problem with ATSC 3.0 is it sounds like it will not be backwards compatible with existing ATSC tuners (ATSC 2.0 is backwards compatible with ATSC). The physical TV broadcast spectrum keeps shrinking. Years ago with NTSC we had channels 2-83, then the FCC took TV spectrum away and we had channels 2-69 in the USA. Then when the ATSC digital conversion took place the TV spectrum was shrunk to channels 2-51. ATSC increased virtual channels because of digital compression but consumers still lost the physical bandwidth between channels 52-69. I am afraid that the new improved ATSC 3.0 system will just be another excuse for the FCC to decrease the TV spectrum even further. Decades from now we might not have any over the air TV channels. Consumers better hope that subscription based premium ATSC channels becomes popular since it would be harder for the FCC to decrease the physical TV bandwidth if there is a big demand for those channels 2-51.

The following information needs verified for accuracy. Somewhere I read that when a low power NTSC channel that is located on VHF channels 2-6, summits paper work to the FCC to become a full power ATSC channel, the FCC has been approving the conversion to either VHF 7-13 or UHF 14-51.

Most the outdoor and indoor antennas now being sold are designed to only pick up channels 7-51. Yes there is still channel 2-51 antennas being made and VHF channel 2-13 antennas being made, however the signs are pointing to the possibility that the broadcast TV spectrum might shrink again with only channels 7-51 being used for TV reception.


HD Radio has been a big disappointment, since built in HD Radio tuners are still hard to find in many new radios being manufactured (Its getting only slightly better in 2013). I wish the FCC would mandate all consumer electronics manufactories by a certain date would be required to offer a built in HD Radio tuner for all new products that have standard AM/FM radios. The reality is unless the FCC was allowed to take away some physical AM and FM radio spectrum, consumers will most likely not see HD Radios mandated. HD radio compression system increases the virtual bandwidth and allows for extra radio channels. AM radio sounds like FM and FM is near CD quality sound with HD radio.
HDTV1080P24 is offline  
Reply HDTV Recorders

Tags
Epvision Phd Vrx

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off