The end of the Dish 5000/Modulator Panasonic Recording System? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 35 Old 11-20-2001, 02:51 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
RDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cleveland, OH /USA
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Widescreen Review Issue 55 (December 2001) Editor's Couch -News Changes/Component & IEEE 1394 p.22 Video Technical Editor Greg Rogers Comments: Just as we are going to press with this issue, a broad group of satellite and cable TV providers (including DirecTV and Echostar DISH network), consumer electronics manufacturers, and content providers, have agreed to use the Digital Visual Interface (DVI) standard for transmission from HDTV set-top boxes to displays, and high-bandwith digital content (HDCP) for HDTV content.

RDave
RDave is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 35 Old 11-20-2001, 09:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 596
They still have got to provide some way to record content, if only rebroadcast OTA, and DVI/HDCP ain't it. Even Silicon Image, sole maker of DVI/HDCP chipsets, recognizes that (or at least they did). In the diagram at the top of the last page of this whitepaper, they show recording devices connected to a DVI/HDCP equipped STB with 1394/DTCP, which is how Echostar has talked about doing it.

They're not going to get around Sony v. Universal--the high-court gave us the right to timeshift free OTA broadcasts, and 85% of viewers receive these through cable and DBS STBs.

While your DISH 5000+Modulator works, I can't see how they can stop you from recording (unless, somehow, they can stop it from receiving the HD broadcasts altogether). Since the Modulator has to be tapping the MPEG stream before decoding, it should proof against downrezzing. Of course, they won't service these anymore.

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #3 of 35 Old 11-20-2001, 10:08 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
RDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cleveland, OH /USA
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mike,

where does this leave the DTCP (5C) group? Since the systems are incompatible, will we just end up with incompatible equipment? A copy protection format war?

Also wouldn't the Dishnetwork signal be eventually encoded with the DVI copy protection, even though it is received through the Dish 5000/modulator?

Dave
RDave is offline  
post #4 of 35 Old 11-20-2001, 11:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:
Originally posted by RDave
where does this leave the DTCP (5C) group? Since the systems are incompatible, will we just end up with incompatible equipment? A copy protection format war?
DVI/HDCP and 1394/DTCP are only "incompatible" in the sense that they cannot plug into each other. I've voiced the thought many times in these forums that they could be made to work quite elegantly together, preserving the best features of both, by placing a single DVI/HDCP output on the STB which contains the only MPEG-2 decoder in your system, and feeding all digital video through it with coax (from your cable headend or satellite dish) and 1394/DTCP connections from VCRs, PVRs and DVD player/recorders. The MPEG decoder in the STB could decode video for every other device. Placing MPEG decoders in everything just to have DVI/HDCP outputs just raises the price of everything without reason. It also perpetuates the rat's nest of cables behind your system, which 1394 interconnection works to clean up. However, using DVI as the video connection standard allows STBs for proprietary transmissions to support arbitrary compression standards (though of course they'd still have to translate them into MPEG for recording).

1394/DTCP is layered on a set of standards for connecting your A/V network with FireWire that is hugely useful and fully endorsed by the CEA (they helped to develop it). I can't see them omitting it from the video stream. I don't know how much significance I'd read into that print article--it must have been ready for press two or three months ago. Things are changing constantly. In mid-May, a little over six months ago, the CEA announced their whole-hearted support for DTCP--just a few weeks ago they announced that they'd finished the logos for marking 1394/DTCP capable products--certainly since that article was written. We hear these announcements from the press all the time. Until we actually see announced product specs with DVI/HDCP connections, I'm going to take everything anyone claims with a grain of salt.

There has been some talk of making DVI/HDCP networkable, so that it could replace all the functionality offered by FireWire--this is a great plan, but it could take years to spec out.
Quote:
Also wouldn't the Dishnetwork signal be eventually encoded with the DVI copy protection, even though it is received through the Dish 5000/modulator?
The signals come to the box encrypted with DISH Network's proprietary system. Encryption of the DVI/HDCP transmission to the display must be done in the STB. It uses secret information unique to the chipsets in both devices--the same is true of 1394/DTCP. So, the decrypted form of the data must exist in memory buffers in the box waiting to be reencrypted into the home A/V network copy-protection system. The licensing agreements for the copy-protection systems specify standards of physical "robustness" (tamper-proofness) that devices which employ them must live up to to prevent all but the most clever and well equipped hacker from accessing that internal information. (TI's chipset for 1394/DTCP actually decodes DIRECTV as well, so the decoded information never exists outside of the chips--similar things could be done with DVI/HDCP chipsets for DIRECTV and Echostar).

The DISH 5000's HD Modulator option obviously accesses the decrypted stream--the only other way it could work is by re-encoding the analog HD outputs into MPEG-2, and it was far too inexpensive for that (it would also be a silly-assed design). Now, unless they've made some specific prearrangement to disable that access, which would make them owe new equipment to the few people who bought these, this should continue to work.

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #5 of 35 Old 11-20-2001, 12:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 217
This subject comes up every now and then and is a valid concern. Look at the facts:

1) All components have been off the store shelves for at least a year. (yeah, there still may be a few lost in the stock room that people continue to find).

2) It is claimed Dish will not service a 5000 modulator. They still provide replacement receivers. This could be challanged under product laws.

3) There are probably less than one thousand of the systems alive.

4) Dish has always had the ability to shut down any receiver. They know who has what because serial numbers must be registured upon activation.

5) While they could change the data stream for HDTV channels that leaves them with a far larger problem then the 5000s. All the 6000s would also need to be upgraded as well.

I think it's not worth the effort to do anything about it. I don't think the program suppliers care either otherwise they would have pushed for some relief by now. These systems will die off and once a protected home recording system arrives, these devices will probably be forgotten about.

All I can say is that if you have one, build a library now while you still can. Those tapes can never be "shut off". Don't spend three times the retail price on EBAY either. It's not worth it.

There will be pre-recorded HDTV material available soon. Tapes at first followed by HD-DVD in a couple of years if not sooner. If the same SDTV model is followed, the stuff will be reasonably priced and rentable. Once that happens, the need to record premimum material will not be improtant. What the MPAA needs to realize and perhaps they have is the average HT person is not trying to steal from them. They just want more material to watch. Now the way to do that is record it and build up a library. AS HDTV moves forward, this will not be an issue.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #6 of 35 Old 11-20-2001, 02:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:
Originally posted by Glimmie
2) It is claimed Dish will not service a 5000 modulator. They still provide replacement receivers. This could be challanged under product laws.
People have actually posted that Echostar have refused to service them. Their service contract states that they have a right to choose to replace it with another product, or pay for it in lieu of servicing it. Will anyone actually take them to court over this, and risk having to pay Echostar's cost of defending themselves if they lose? It'd be cheaper to buy all new equipment built to conform to whatever copy protection emerges--no matter how costly your current system, it's nothing in comparison to the potential legal fees and court costs of such a suit.
Quote:
4) Dish has always had the ability to shut down any receiver. They know who has what because serial numbers must be registured upon activation.
But do they have a database linking Modulator owners with their DISH 5000s? There must have been many, many more DISH 5000s sold than Modulators--it was their top-of-the-line product, before the 6000. Disabling and replacing them all would be economically unfeasible, and would probably piss a huge number of customers off.

Unless they built something into the DISH 5000 specifically to turn off the Modulator's access to the decrypted MPEG, I think that these devices are safe, for as long as they last. Of course, I could be wrong :).

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #7 of 35 Old 11-20-2001, 05:59 PM
Senior Member
 
hmoazed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Glimmie
[...] There will be pre-recorded HDTV material available soon. Tapes at first followed by HD-DVD in a couple of years if not sooner. If the same SDTV model is followed, the stuff will be reasonably priced and rentable. Once that happens, the need to record premimum material will not be improtant. What the MPAA needs to realize and perhaps they have is the average HT person is not trying to steal from them. They just want more material to watch. Now the way to do that is record it and build up a library. AS HDTV moves forward, this will not be an issue.
I totally agree. I'd much rather not do the silly monkey dance with my $3000 worth of equipment (Dish5000+HDadapter+HTPC+bunch of 80Gigharddrives) and not have to constantly buy $200 hard drives, and instead either rent the HD-DVD for like $4 (and not copy it - how many times do i want to watch the same movie anyway?) or buy it for $30.

Regards
Moaz
hmoazed is offline  
post #8 of 35 Old 11-21-2001, 08:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
trbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Gainesville FL USA
Posts: 10,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am not suggesting they will do this but I would not be at all surprised if Dish had the capability to download software that could disable the modulator. This could probably be done such that anyone who did not receive the update would eventually not be able to receive certain broadcasts.

But for those who did receive the update then certain broadcasts might not be available through the modulator.

This is just speculation on my part but I don't see any major technical reason why they couldn't do it if they really wanted to.

- Tom

Why don't we power our electric cars from greener, cheaper
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
?

Tom Barry - Find my video filters at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
trbarry is offline  
post #9 of 35 Old 11-21-2001, 09:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Huh. Not ever having been a DISH subscriber, I didn't realize that they could upgrade the software of their boxes dynamically (though that makes sense). I'm no longer so sure that the Modulator is safe.

Disabling them completely (except for CBS for a subset of customers, what do they offer in HD except stuff that would probably be protected?) would make them have to refund the cost of at least the modulator, or refund or replace the 5000+Modulator for people bought them together for HD, but they may be few enough that they'd be willing to shoulder that financial burden.

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #10 of 35 Old 11-22-2001, 02:31 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,004
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 192 Post(s)
Liked: 134
The whole discussion is stupid, IMO. I really think DN has more important things to think about than working on putting changes to a data stream to sabotage a few of their customer's HDTV modulators on DISH 5000s. In business, work projects and results are usually ROI based. What is the ROI of sabotaging ones own paying customer base? Really! some of you people need something more important to occupy your time. I'm back to enjoying my HT and viewing my HDTV on the DN5000/modulator. I'd bet that we stand a greater chance of DN going out of business than suffering through some attempt of Charlie sabotaging his own HDTV customers.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is offline  
post #11 of 35 Old 11-22-2001, 06:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
h2ofun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: auburn,ca usa
Posts: 3,662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Don, I agree 100%. I just just saying this to Todd on the phone last night. Why give dish ideas anyways?

Don, you going to get a DTC100? It works great. How about
a UM? Go uma.

dave
h2ofun is offline  
post #12 of 35 Old 11-22-2001, 12:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:
Originally posted by Don Landis
I really think DN has more important things to think about than working on putting changes to a data stream to sabotage a few of their customer's HDTV modulators on DISH 5000s. In business, work projects and results are usually ROI based. What is the ROI of sabotaging ones own paying customer base?
You're right--there's no direct ROI here, Don. Businesses regularly do lots of things with no direct ROI, to maintain good relations with their customers, suppliers and the communities that they operate in. DISH decided to "sabotage" all of their DISH 6000 customers by building in a downrezzing capability. If they actually do disable the 5000+Modulator combination, they'll be doing it for the same reason--because the members of the MPAA have made it a precondition for reselling their content. If they were no longer allowed to carry HBO or any of the other subscription movie channels or sell pay-per-view movies, DISH would be, as you said, out of business. Hollywood doesn't need them--if people can't view movies through DISH, they'll view them some other way.

The DISH 5000+Modulator is a much bigger security hole than all of the HD analog output devices from DISH and the DIRECTV OEM partners that have already been booby-trapped, because it emits an 8 VSB remodulation of the broadcast MPEG-2 stream. This can be and regularly is easily captured and stored on computers by people who've obtained inexpensive products for this purpose, in the precise digital form in which it was delivered to the 5000, sans encryption. That is Hollywood's worst nightmare.

The other devices have been partially disabled when there's no easy or inexpensive way to capture their HD output and digitize it--just a potential to do it. It's being done with the DISH 5000 today, every day, by people, many of whom have archived extensive collections of films at this point, in original broadcast form that will practically never degrade. Any and all of these people are free to further compress that content in a way that produces little objectionable loss and post those files on Gnutella. No one can stop them.

If I was on the MPAA committee (or whatever) that's hell-bent on preventing the easy pirating of digital content, the DISH 5000+Modulator would loom large in my sights. I can't imagine that they're not aware of it.

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #13 of 35 Old 11-22-2001, 12:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
tmitchmd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: watsonville,ca
Posts: 926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
There is also this longstanding nonsense that DISH is no longer servicing faulty HD modulators.

They no longer SELL them; that much is true. But yes, they are quietly replacing the rare faulty ones.

In fact, one such replacement occurred last month.


If anyone needs the 5000/HD mod please pm me.

I have sold several on ebay but still have a few left.

"Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not an engineer."
tmitchmd is offline  
post #14 of 35 Old 11-22-2001, 01:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:
Originally posted by tmitchmd
They no longer SELL them; that much is true. But yes, they are quietly replacing the rare faulty ones.
If that's true, then fine--I was referring to the experience described in this thread from a month ago, where a forum participant was told in no uncertain terms by DISH that they wouldn't service his 5000, just replace it with a 6000. He never posted that he'd gotten any satisfaction from them, so I'd assumed that that was their official policy.

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #15 of 35 Old 11-23-2001, 05:22 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,004
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 192 Post(s)
Liked: 134
OK, Mike. You have your gloom and doom theories. But, since you said what you would do if you were in charge of the MPAA. I will say what I would do. I would increase the size of the pie for the MPAA core membership. I would enlist the expansion of first run movies in a PPV premium form and have that be run by the local theaters in a community. The basic difference between the way you would run a company is you would concentrate on ways to piss off the customer base while I would work on ways to make them happier with more options to spend their money for stuff they want to buy.
I do believe that Charlie is just doing what his customer base wants. Don't know whether you have ever talked to him or his upper management but I have and I can assure you that Charlie and company is very much interested in making their subscribers happy with DishNetwork. I suggest you attend trade shows where you will have the opportunity to speak with DishNetwork management and express some of your concerns and get some direct answers. Obviously, I can't tell you your ideas will never come true but maybe after talking to the people who make these decisions you will come away with a more positive outlook and positive theories.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is offline  
post #16 of 35 Old 11-23-2001, 05:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
h2ofun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: auburn,ca usa
Posts: 3,662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As usaual Don, you are right on. I second.

Lets make the pie larger!!!!

dave
h2ofun is offline  
post #17 of 35 Old 11-23-2001, 05:54 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,004
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 192 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Don, you going to get a DTC100? It works great. How about
Dave- I have had a DTC-100 since they first came out. Why you ask? Don't have any reason to track down the UM receiver. No interest.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is offline  
post #18 of 35 Old 11-23-2001, 06:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Don --

You may think of my theories as "doom and gloom", but I don't see them that way. Of course, I haven't bought any of the equipment that won't be able to view premium content when they turn copy protection on, so I can't share you point of view. Once the copy protection issue is resolved, all equipment will be built to those standards and almost all people who buy it will be able to do all the things they're doing with the non-copy-protected equipment now.

I'm not speculating that the Echostar or DIRECTV or any of the providers wants to incorporate copy-protection in their new products or to partially disable any of their deployed products. I'm speculating that they won't be given any choice. Did they or did they not build downrezzing capability into DISH 6000, as it's been reported that they did? Do you suppose that they did that in an effort to make the customers who bought them happy?

I don't think that the studios care about pissing the 150,000 or so people who've bought HD tuners off, or even about pissing off the buyers of the 1.5 million DTVs sold without copy-protected connections. Except for their probable inability to watch premium prerecorded content in HD, I don't even think most of those people will be pissed off. The MPAA members didn't sell any of that equipment, and they spoke up, asked for and were promised copy-protection by the FCC and the CEA long before any of it was manufactured.

Your PPV-out-of-local-theaters concept has merit, I guess, but it doesn't solve the MPAA member's problem with digital media theft. Without copy-protection, people would simply copy those films and trade the copies around and few people would ever buy them. (First run yet--they wouldn't even want those timeshifted; possibly not even temporarily rewind-buffered by a PVR). There's just no way to make it secure enough.

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #19 of 35 Old 11-23-2001, 09:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
h2ofun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: auburn,ca usa
Posts: 3,662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Don, was wondering if you are going to convert your DTC100 to
a record machine from 169time. I didnt ask the question right the first time.

dave
h2ofun is offline  
post #20 of 35 Old 11-24-2001, 02:07 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,004
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 192 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Mike- I think you need to realize that the MPAA is NOT a regulatory agency. They simply propose ideas that they feel is representative of their core membership. They are only in power when the membership follows their guidelines and when the broadcasters do the same. The NAB is a similar situation. My complaint has always been that the NAB allowed the MPAA to step in and muscle their way in the NAB's turf. When the NAB began to go in a different direction than what some broadcasters wanted, these members pulled out. Didn't mean they were off the air, just that NAB became a lesser representative of the industry. IF the MPAA starts to ruin the profits of its core membership by being able to control issues in the industry the same will happen to them and, as an organization, will wither and die. I agree with you that the MPAA does not concern itself with the few HDTV consumers opinions yet. However, they will not do anything that will piss off their membership on a large scale. If you consider that organizations like the MPAA and NAB are about Power and control and that the only way they have this is that it is granted to them by their members, voluntarily then you may see their rise to power in a different light.
You are not the first to proliferate the gloom and doom theories at a time when it is not a current event. This stuff has been talked about ever since I became a member of AVS. It's the same line of thinking that had everyone of your mindset scared to death that our Dish5000/mods would stop working because all the broadcasters would switch to COFDM and DN would shut us down. That didn't happen either, won't happen and the whole argument was just stupid yet many wasted much of their lives worrying over it. Others, like myself, simply enjoyed our HT's with HDTV and had some fun rebutting the gloom and doomers pessimism and fear of something that was akin to preparing for the Y2K disaster by moving to the hills.

Dave- I told Richard that I would be a candidate for the DTC-mod once it was able to record to the PVHD1000 any and all DirecTV HD channels and that it could be retrofitted by me so I would not have to send in my DTC-100. Since that statement, based on the track record of 169Time, I would add that they would need to establish credibility and track record as a normal shipping company before I would do business with them. Just curious- Are you working for them as a sales arm of the company now? I haven't kept up with 169 in the last month so my knowledge of where they are at is dated.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is offline  
post #21 of 35 Old 11-24-2001, 09:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
h2ofun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: auburn,ca usa
Posts: 3,662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Don, nope, dont work for 169. Just believe that someone
has to stick their neck out to help Richard.

They are shipping UM's and DTC100's with record now.
Since he has no funding support, he is doing the best he can.

I always like to work on and support something that is a up hill effort.

dave
h2ofun is offline  
post #22 of 35 Old 11-24-2001, 11:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:
Originally posted by Don Landis
I think you need to realize that the MPAA is NOT a regulatory agency. They simply propose ideas that they feel is representative of their core membership. They are only in power when the membership follows their guidelines and when the broadcasters do the same.
I fully realize this--I've pointed it out to others in these forums myself. That's why I generally use phrases like "the members of the MPAA". If the MPAA had the power to control their members, they'd present a much more united front on the issue of copy protection mechanisms. Some of them wouldn't be publically endorsing DVI/HDCP while Sony Pictures Entertainment, their Columbia-TriStar Motion Pictures Group and Warner Brothers have licensed DTCP, and five other major studios hedge about DTCP, trying to pressure the DTLA into adding features to prevent the retransmission of OTA television. But the one thing that they do seem united in is their fear of the implications of digital media and their determination to take firm and sometimes drastic measures to protect their profits in the face of this.
Quote:
IF the MPAA starts to ruin the profits of its core membership by being able to control issues in the industry the same will happen to them and, as an organization, will wither and die.
Like I said, its not the MPAA insisting upon copy-protection, but its individual members--all of the "major" motion studios. They've all made statements in support of one standard or the other, and I haven't heard a single one of them say "Oh, I don't care about the threat of digital IP theft--I want to give the consumer the ability to copy and recopy my digital media any way they want because I think that that's the way to make a profit today."

The number of people who've purchased DTVs to date are a tiny portion of their market--many more people buy analog sets in two months (at least 30% more) than have purchased DTVs in three years. That number of DTVs sold continues to grow, but if DTCP gains acceptance (pretty much the only thing on the horizon which will let us record DTV at all, legally and at consumer prices), many of those people will be convered, having bought 2002 Sony and Mitsubishi integrated sets. Even the significant percentage of the market to date who've bought Mitsubishi's older upgradeable models will be covered (for an additional fee, of course).

Not all of the people who won't be able to watch premium content in HD on those monitors will care. I've personally explained this issue to several people who were in the market for widescreen HD sets, and most of them have decided that they're sufficiently satisfied with the increased PQ of progressive-scan DVDs on such sets that they're going to make their purchases when they're ready anyway, and accept image constraints for premium HD content. I don't understand this attitude, but it's true. These are intelligent folks, too--one of them, one of my closest friends whom I've known for 20 years holds an MD and a PhD in Biochemistry and researches metabolic diseases of children. I went over this issue with him (and an EE friend of his that I'd just met who owns a widescreen set) while I was at his home for Thanksgiving dinner, and he still mostly doesn't care, though he seemed a bit more alarmed about the prerecorded media issue. The only people I've managed to really concern are techies and A/V salespeople who've already bought sets (and I'm sure that the A/V salespeople continue to sell the non-copy-protected stuff with equal enthusiasm).
Quote:
I agree with you that the MPAA does not concern itself with the few HDTV consumers opinions yet. However, they will not do anything that will piss off their membership on a large scale. If you consider that organizations like the MPAA and NAB are about Power and control and that the only way they have this is that it is granted to them by their members, voluntarily then you may see their rise to power in a different light.
So many of their individual members have all voiced sufficient fear of losing control of distribution of digital media in the press that I don't believe that any action that the MPAA recommends to prevent unauthorized and uncontrolled copying of their IP will be against any of their members wishes. Reduced profits are better than no profits at all and that is the threat that they're up against. And I don't think that they face any reduction of profit--can you tell me that, if your DISH 5000+Modulator is disabled and they try to trade you a DISH 6000 for it, you're going to stop watching feature films altogether?
Quote:
You are not the first to proliferate the gloom and doom theories at a time when it is not a current event. This stuff has been talked about ever since I became a member of AVS. It's the same line of thinking that had everyone of your mindset scared to death that our Dish5000/mods would stop working because all the broadcasters would switch to COFDM and DN would shut us down. That didn't happen either, won't happen and the whole argument was just stupid yet many wasted much of their lives worrying over it. Others, like myself, simply enjoyed our HT's with HDTV and had some fun rebutting the gloom and doomers pessimism and fear of something that was akin to preparing for the Y2K disaster by moving to the hills.
By all means, enjoy your HD equipment! I'm only pointing out that the DISH 5000+Modulator is the largest security hole in the currently deployed distribution of subscription and pay-per-view digital media. They must have sold at least a few thousand of these things--DBS has to this point been the easiest way to get premium HD content. I initially believed that there was no way for Echostar to disable this combo--if there is a way, I personally think that pressure will be brought to bear by the content providers to make them use it. Your opinion may differ--so be it. Peace.

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #23 of 35 Old 11-24-2001, 06:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kei Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, US
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
It's being done with the DISH 5000 today, every day, by people, many of whom have archived extensive collections of films at this point, in original broadcast form that will practically never degrade. Any and all of these people are free to further compress that content in a way that produces little objectionable loss and post those files on Gnutella. No one can stop them.
Now, why user of PC based and other HD recordable devices in their right mind would work so hard to compress their library for other people's use is beyond me. Why waste your time downgrading the picture quality when there's a large affordable DVD market? How many people really want to break the law and waste their time making files for distribution over the internet? It's a stupid notion and only the overly paranoid would concern themselves with such far out scenarios.

Kei Clark
Digital Connection


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Kei Clark is offline  
post #24 of 35 Old 11-24-2001, 10:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Kei --

Download a copy of BearShare and run it--it's a popular Gnutella client. Another forum participant told me about it in another thread. Do a search for Movies/Video named "*divx*.*"--you will get thousands of hits. Not all of them will be popular films, but hundreds of them will. Some of them are DVD rips, some of them are films still at the theater which were copied with DV camcorders (I'm assuming), some of them are recorded DVB from cable and DBS. None that I've seen are copies of HDTV yet, but it's only a matter of time--every other form of digital media is being shared around through this mechanism. All we need is more bandwidth to the home, which is coming fast, and cheaper and cheaper diskspace, which we get more of everyday--you can get 160 GB for under $300 now. Note that DivX 4.11 claims to support realtime decoding of 720p and up, though I haven't found any samples of that to try.

There were estimates early in the year that nearly 400,000 copies of films were being downloaded each day. They expected the count to be over a million a day by the end of the year. Of course, these were only estimates, and they were made by people working for the MPAA. :)

I too thought that this was a bit far fetched and that very few poeple knew about and used Gnutella before I started looking into it--when I voiced that here I was told that I was just old, and that pretty much everyone under thirty with a computer knew about these things.

So--there are already people willing to share their DVD collections (or, more probably, Blockbuster's) over the net. Why wouldn't they be willing to share HD recordings? Even compressed, they'd probably look better than STD DVD. Why would they do it? To encourage others to do it so that they can download and enjoy stuff that they haven't seen. Participants in these very forums have reportedly shared things that they taped from HD pay television with one another.

(Note: if you do decide to play with BearShare, be very careful about how you set it up--it automatically makes everything in the directory you specify as the default download destination uploadable, unless you set it properly. Of course, if you're running firewall software, it'll stop that, but if you don't let it use a TCP port through your firewill, you probably won't be able to download anything--not necessary for checking the list of what's available, anyway. You have to let it run for some hours to discover thousands of files, but most of its users probably let it run continuously while their computers are up).

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #25 of 35 Old 11-25-2001, 01:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kei Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, US
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Mike,

Actually known about Gnutella for quite a while, although it still escapes me as to why when you can go rent a disk for a low price, would anyone waste their time downloading a low quality movie off the internet, much less uploading it. As for such frivolous use of bandwidth, last time I checked, many of the telecomms were actually shrinking, not growing. I could be just one of those rare people that just don't "get it", but what a royal waste of time.

Quote:
Participants in these very forums have reportedly shared things that they taped from HD pay television with one another.
If the participants of the forum are able to copy pay service HD and speak about "sharing" these files, well, then they are in dire need of a tool sharpener, and will be the major contributing factor in the loss of our privileges.


Kei Clark
Digital Connection


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Kei Clark is offline  
post #26 of 35 Old 11-25-2001, 08:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:
Originally posted by Kei Clark
Actually known about Gnutella for quite a while, although it still escapes me as to why when you can go rent a disk for a low price, would anyone waste their time downloading a low quality movie off the internet, much less uploading it. As for such frivolous use of bandwidth, last time I checked, many of the telecomms were actually shrinking, not growing. I could be just one of those rare people that just don't "get it", but what a royal waste of time.
I'd known about Gnutella, too. I just didn't realize how popular it was and how much it gets used for sharing things as big as compressed movie files. Even compressed, these things come in at 750MB or larger sometimes.

With Gnutella, you don't "waste time uploading it"--maybe you rented it from Blockbuster and ripped it for your personal collection. To make your disks hold many more films, you run DivX to compress the ripped copy first. DivX is supposed to be not horribly "lossy" and many people find it to be more than acceptable. You're running BearShare or one of the other Gnutella clients, because you use it as a source of free copies of feature films to watch, as well as other things. You configure BearShare to make the directories where you store the films you've ripped uploadable. Other Gnutella users will find it because Gnutella will let them know that its there, if they search for files of that type. Your Gnutella client will handle requests to upload them--after telling your Gnutella software where you keep the files that you allow to be uploaded, you don't do anything. You ripped, compressed and stored them for your own use. BearShare even lets you control how many simultaneous users can upload things from your machine and the maximum aggregate bandwidth that will be used for uploads (which might be necessary--many ISPs have a daily upload bandwidth quota).

As for the low cost of renting discs, I agree with you, but I've heard people here several times put forth the argument that Hollywood wouldn't have to worry about theft if they'd just lower their prices. If you're going to have a high-speed Internet connection at home anyway, and the quality of DivX reductions doesn't bother you (I haven't check them out, but I've seen DivX video that was excellent, and I'm sure they're a lot better than second generation VHS--people trade that around all the time), then anything you get from Gnutella is "free", and you save the money you would have spent either buying a copy or renting it.
Quote:
If the participants of the forum are able to copy pay service HD and speak about "sharing" these files, well, then they are in dire need of a tool sharpener, and will be the major contributing factor in the loss of our privileges.
I don't know how much they "talk" about sharing recordings. I've heard people ask whether anyone taped such-and-such. One participant, while declaring that his own extensive compilation of such recordings was "Fair Use" (which it isn't, not by any codified or case law I can find--the Supreme Court ruling which lets us record free OTA television explicitly does not extend the same right to pay television), stated that he'd been invited by forum participants to share around recordings of HDTV and declined because he thought that it was wrong. So it apparently does occur. Not really surprising, since the making and sharing of analog copies of pay television and rental tapes and discs is endemic--anything participants here are doing doesn't particularly aggravate the problem.

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #27 of 35 Old 11-25-2001, 05:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 217
Mike,
Once again you are painting picture of "Farenheight 451" where the MPAA firemen will barge into ahouse and spray kerosene on a tape collection. Let's be realistic here.

Like I said before there are probably less then 1000 functioning 5000 modulator system into DVHS decks. Now out of those 1000 users, how many have the means and will to comit a criminal act and mass duplicate these recordings. Most owners have only one deck. Some have two, very few have more. I can't see a profitable duplicating operation with two machines.

I'm not saying the 5000 system would never be disabled. But for that to happen, something will have to trigger it such as a mass outbreak of black market HDTV material. Big companies and governments are notorious for ignoring potential problems until they cost them money.

This simply is not a pressing issue for anyone who has the power to do something about it.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #28 of 35 Old 11-25-2001, 07:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:
Originally posted by Glimmie
Like I said before there are probably less then 1000 functioning 5000 modulator system into DVHS decks. Now out of those 1000 users, how many have the means and will to comit a criminal act and mass duplicate these recordings. Most owners have only one deck. Some have two, very few have more. I can't see a profitable duplicating operation with two machines.

I'm not saying the 5000 system would never be disabled. But for that to happen, something will have to trigger it such as a mass outbreak of black market HDTV material. Big companies and governments are notorious for ignoring potential problems until they cost them money.

This simply is not a pressing issue for anyone who has the power to do something about it.
Glimmie, as I pointed out there's already a vast market for analog copies of SVHS and digital copies of DVDs. What would prevent that trend from continuing with HD video? And did you read what I wrote about Gnutella? You don't have to mass duplicate anything--all you have to do leave your HTPC online with your Gnutella client running. The public will "mass-duplicate" it for you. Even at the best broadband datarates to the home, it could take days to finish downloading an HD movie, but who cares? Certainly not the people who share stuff this way. Lots of people don't think that this is a crime, and those that know that it's a crime don't think that it should be. A read a forum participant proclaim recently (about six weeks ago) that if he had broadband, he'd download movies all the time (here). This is the type of attitude that the industry is dealing with.

There have been three HD D-VHS decks produced to this point--each and every one of them could record HD only through a 1394 connection on which copy-protection could be applied (though Panasonics very early implementation of this may have been flawed). I'm willing to bet that you will not see any video recording device with a non-copy-protected HD input or any future STB, recorder or player with an HD analog output which won't be image constrained for playback of copy-protected material.

And where do you get that "less than 1000" number for the modulator from? DISH must have many millions of subscribers--between them, they and DIRECTV service 15% of television viewers in this country. And I'm willing to bet that that 15% is a fairly affluent slice--many of these people will have bought DTVs before and or during the sale of the modulator. I'd really have thought that more than 1000 modulators would have been sold--at least a few times that.

I've got no idea whether they'll disable DISH 5000+Modulator or not. But it is a huge security hole. One of the reasons they want copy-protection is to enable content providers, like DISH, to sell titles at pay-per-view on the same day that the title is offered for sale and rental in prerecorded hard media forms (BTW, there's your ROI for DISH, Don). They cannot do this if anyone can make recordings of the digital stream, at all.

I completely disagree with you about the last statement. Copy-protection of all digital media is a very pressing issue for the content providers. Maybe you trust the DISH 5000+Modulator owners, but they have no reason to.

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #29 of 35 Old 11-25-2001, 08:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
But it is a huge security hole....

-- Mike Scott
If this is true, then why do they still work? I'm sorry Mike, your position is eroded by the mere fact that we've been discussing how to make these things work for years now; the discussion continues and the product works just like it did when introduced.

Any discussion beyond this point is complete speculation. Besides, if we're right about the MPAA, who could predict their next move? Not me.

And at best, reminding those who are at stake will only give them ideas not in our best interest.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #30 of 35 Old 11-25-2001, 09:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 217
Quote:
Originally posted by michaeltscott


And where do you get that "less than 1000" number for the modulator from? DISH must have many millions of subscribers--between them, they and DIRECTV service 15% of television viewers in this country. And I'm willing to bet that that 15% is a fairly affluent slice--many of these people will have bought DTVs before and or during the sale of the modulator. I'd really have thought that more than 1000 modulators would have been sold--at least a few times that.

I've got no idea whether they'll disable DISH 5000+Modulator or not. But it is a huge security hole.

-- Mike Scott
Your points are all very valid. But you speak as if the 5000 system is available at every Target Store. All clear HDTV recording devices have been off the market for at least a year. Did you ever look at the prices they go for on EBAY. This is clearly very rare equipment.

1) The modulators are no longer sold.

2) As per the latest news on this post, they will be repaired so it looks loike Dish will support them but make no more.

3) I am a hardware engineer. I have peeked inside the 5000 modulator. Like most devices today it has a FPGA. Most current serial EEROMS that load these FPGA's have anti-sequential read blocking built in. So even if one was to copy the MULTILAYER PC board and get the LICENSED 8vsb chip from Zenith, they still would not be able to duplicate the device.

4) As per the 1000 max I predict in existance, thats 1000 SYSTEMS with either Hipix or the Panny combo. Now out of those people, how many will try to load this stuff on the WEB?

5) These systems will begin to fail from age and lack of interest once new protected, but easier to use systems come into the market.

If this is a problem at all, it is diminishing, not growing. I fully agree Dish has better things to do with their time. They can't even keep up with the current list of software bugs.

P.S. You may be up on all the latest encryption systems but you are way off on this one...

Quote:
One of the reasons they want copy-protection is to enable content providers, like DISH, to sell titles at pay-per-view on the same day that the title is offered for sale and rental in prerecorded hard media forms (BTW, there's your ROI for DISH, Don). They cannot do this if anyone can make recordings of the digital stream, at all.
I work in this industry and know the business models. This ain't gonna happen. The distribution ladder is very carefully implemented and fine tuned for profit. Sale, rental, and PPV are three seperate distribution channels in that order. And FWEIW, this is one area where the MPAA does have control under the wishes of the studios.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Recorders

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