or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Recorders › Moxi HD DVR
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Moxi HD DVR - Page 120

post #3571 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan_CoxPHX View Post

It is interesting how the HAVES feel the need to belittle the HAVE-NOTS.

Your attitude would probably change if/when your third tuner ceases to function. Just be thankful you are in the "Bonus" tuner group and try to imagine it from the "Non-Bonus" group perspective. The Moxi is the closest DVR bang for my buck, and I may just purchase one at some point anyway.

No it wouldn't. I knew going in that thanks to the technologically backwards attitude of TWC that I most likely wouldn't have the third tuner.

It didn't matter. Why? Because TWC never offered a three tuner version of their supplied boxes so I was never losing something I previously had.

If you are looking for a replacement for your cable issued box the Moxi has no disadvantage other than VOD. Which is why I keep saying that if you don't own a Moxi by now then you don't hate your cable provider solution enough, because there is no detriment to choosing a Moxi if you have the money. It will replicate all the features of the cable IPG and then some.

It's one thing to post a few questions prior to purchase to investigate options but another to keep on posting with nothing to contribute other than complaints and negative speculation about a product you don't own and won't be buying. Especially when those complaining most about the lack of Moxi interaction have no vested interest in the product to begin with.
post #3572 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post

It's one thing to post a few questions prior to purchase to investigate options but another to keep on posting with nothing to contribute other than complaints and negative speculation about a product you don't own and won't be buying. Especially when those complaining most about the lack of Moxi interaction have no vested interest in the product to begin with.

Sorry if I have exceeded my allotted investigative postings. Please feel free to ignore me if you feel I am way out of line. Just because I do not currently own a Moxi does not mean my posts are any less relevant. I am a very serious prospective customer.

Hopefully, my postings do contribute to an eventual solution to the disabled third tuner, If more people spoke up and were not so complacent, perhaps it might be solved sooner rather than later. Simply ignoring the current Cisco TA issues and being satisfied with a 2/3rd's functional product is not a position I am willing to accept at the moment. Now, and only now, while the FCC is still considering an IP option is the time to be speaking up.

I would seriously consider a factory refurbished 3-tuner Moxi at $499, with a full warranty, to compensate for the loss of the third tuner. Surely Moxi has a few returns lying around. MoxiGuy, please contact me if one is available.
post #3573 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyer57 View Post

So if you want the best multi-room consumer owned DVR system available for the cable market, get in line for a Moxi. If it doesn't meet you needs then wait until something that does comes along. But it would be nice to stop with the childish rants.

Ridiculous.
I don't see any childish rants here - people are just frustrated that Moxi doesn't have a regular online presence and about the tuner limitation issue, among other things. The posts have been reasonable and direct, not ranting.
So if you don't like the message, move on - this shouldn't be a Moxi fanboy thread any more than the Tivo threads are.
post #3574 of 6199
If you do not connect a TA to the Moxi and your cable provider does indeed use SDV on selected HD channels, how does this 'appear' on the Moxi? Do the non-available SDV channels display as if they are available in the program guide? Or do they show some indication that they are not available? Simple question - would it let you setup a future recording on a SDV channel without knowing it is SDV?

This would be helpful info. I'm thinking of adding a Moxi to my SA8300HD rather than replacing the TWC provided box. The Moxi would be used only for non-SDV channels and the SA8300HD for anything else (SDV, OnDemand, etc.) needed. This would possibly be fine for our needs. It simply means the Moxi couldn't handle everything - and we'd end up with 5 tuners available with some restrictions. My question above relates to whether the program guide will be able to assist in knowing whether the Moxi can tune specific channels without a TA installed. IOW, do you know whether specific channels are SDV or do you have to try each and build your own 'cannot receive' list?

Perhaps one of you helpful folks who already have a Moxi could shed some light on this. Info would be appreciated.
post #3575 of 6199
Some people have asked how to tell whether they would have this problem if their cable company starts using SDV. If you or somebody in your neighborhood has a device with a cablecard (could be a Moxi, Tivo or cable company DVR/set top box), see if it's a Motorola or SA card (do a search on images.google.com to see what different cards look like).

If it's a Motorola cablecard, then your cable company is using a Motorola headend and you should get a Motorola tuning adapter. If the card is SA, you'll probably get the Cisco TA with the 2-tuner limitation.

If you're checking a cable company set top, you might be able to see the cablecard through the vents (assuming it's mounted inside and not accessible).

Cisco could update it to support 3 tuners through a software update, but the cable companies aren't going to give their competition an advantage
post #3576 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk521 View Post

If you do not connect a TA to the Moxi and your cable provider does indeed use SDV on selected HD channels, how does this 'appear' on the Moxi? Do the non-available SDV channels display as if they are available in the program guide? Or do they show some indication that they are not available? Simple question - would it let you setup a future recording on a SDV channel without knowing it is SDV?

This would be helpful info. I'm thinking of adding a Moxi to my SA8300HD rather than replacing the TWC provided box. The Moxi would be used only for non-SDV channels and the SA8300HD for anything else (SDV, OnDemand, etc.) needed. This would possibly be fine for our needs. It simply means the Moxi couldn't handle everything - and we'd end up with 5 tuners available with some restrictions. My question above relates to whether the program guide will be able to assist in knowing whether the Moxi can tune specific channels without a TA installed. IOW, do you know whether specific channels are SDV or do you have to try each and build your own 'cannot receive' list?

Perhaps one of you helpful folks who already have a Moxi could shed some light on this. Info would be appreciated.

As soon as you plug in a cablecard the moxi defers to the channel listing provided by the cable company which has the channel numbers and the associated frequencies. The moxi then uses this information to create the channel guide that it presents to the user. It is wholly up to the cable provider if they want to include "placeholder" entries for sdv channels in the cablecard information or just omit those channels that are not accessible via a bare cablecard.. The cable company should be able to provide you with a list of sdv channels on demand either by calling them, on their website, or by sending you a list in the mail. Worst case you can map out the list yourself with the moxi after it gets a cablecard by tuning to each channel and verifying that it works. deselect any sdv placeholders that you come across from the moxi menu and they won't show up anymore.
post #3577 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by acaoacao View Post

Some people have asked how to tell whether they would have this problem if their cable company starts using SDV. If you or somebody in your neighborhood has a device with a cablecard (could be a Moxi, Tivo or cable company DVR/set top box), see if it's a Motorola or SA card (do a search on images.google.com to see what different cards look like).

If it's a Motorola cablecard, then your cable company is using a Motorola headend and you should get a Motorola tuning adapter. If the card is SA, you'll probably get the Cisco TA with the 2-tuner limitation.

If you're checking a cable company set top, you might be able to see the cablecard through the vents (assuming it's mounted inside and not accessible).

Cisco could update it to support 3 tuners through a software update, but the cable companies aren't going to give their competition an advantage

From what I have heard that last part is incorrect as it is a hardware limitation (lack of memory in the device) not a software issue that has created the 2 tuner limit. It's possible that those sources might be mistaken but given the state of the overall situation I am inclined to believe them until hard evidence is presented to the contrary. After working with Cisco gear day in and day out I am, quite frankly, amazed that the tuning adapters work at all. Cisco is the new Microsoft.
post #3578 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan_CoxPHX View Post

Sorry if I have exceeded my allotted investigative postings. Please feel free to ignore me if you feel I am way out of line. Just because I do not currently own a Moxi does not mean my posts are any less relevant. I am a very serious prospective customer.

Hopefully, my postings do contribute to an eventual solution to the disabled third tuner, If more people spoke up and were not so complacent, perhaps it might be solved sooner rather than later. Simply ignoring the current Cisco TA issues and being satisfied with a 2/3rd's functional product is not a position I am willing to accept at the moment. Now, and only now, while the FCC is still considering an IP option is the time to be speaking up.

I would seriously consider a factory refurbished 3-tuner Moxi at $499, with a full warranty, to compensate for the loss of the third tuner. Surely Moxi has a few returns lying around. MoxiGuy, please contact me if one is available.

the problem is that you are tilting against the wrong windmill. The sdv operation of the 3 tuner moxi works great. What is broken is Cisco's TA. And as long as CableLabs is allowed to have the power to axct as gatekeeper for all softtware AND hardware that connects to a MSO network, don't expect much of a change. Your energy would be better spent lobbying the FCC and your Congressional representatives to neuter CableLabs under the anti-trust provisions and to specify and mandate the implementation of an IP based out of band signalling system for sdv.

You spoke earlier of the haves belittling the havenots in regards to the third tuner issue. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Moxi providing a product that has additional capabilities which; depending on what third party equipment is involved, might or might not be available for use. The capabilitity is there regardless as advertised. My computer has a gigabit ethernet adapter yet my cable modem only has a 100 mbps port. Should I rail against the computer manufacturer for providing functionality that I can't possibly use with my internet provider (and charging me extra to boot)? What you seem to be suggesting is that the only equitable situation is that Moxi only release hardware that is designed to the least common denominator...thus depriving motorola sdv markets and non sdv markets such as fios the availability of a three tuner device. At best this seems to be shortsighted and at worst childishly selfish. Bottom line is if the moxi does not meet your needs at the price point it is offered...don't buy it. Perhaps a windows media center setup with a Ceton cablecard adapter would be better suited. And if you want to effect true change in the current situation, write your Congressman.
post #3579 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk521 View Post

If you do not connect a TA to the Moxi and your cable provider does indeed use SDV on selected HD channels, how does this 'appear' on the Moxi? Do the non-available SDV channels display as if they are available in the program guide? Or do they show some indication that they are not available? Simple question - would it let you setup a future recording on a SDV channel without knowing it is SDV?

This would be helpful info. I'm thinking of adding a Moxi to my SA8300HD rather than replacing the TWC provided box. The Moxi would be used only for non-SDV channels and the SA8300HD for anything else (SDV, OnDemand, etc.) needed. This would possibly be fine for our needs. It simply means the Moxi couldn't handle everything - and we'd end up with 5 tuners available with some restrictions. My question above relates to whether the program guide will be able to assist in knowing whether the Moxi can tune specific channels without a TA installed. IOW, do you know whether specific channels are SDV or do you have to try each and build your own 'cannot receive' list?

Perhaps one of you helpful folks who already have a Moxi could shed some light on this. Info would be appreciated.

Here, at least, they do not appear in the guide at all. It's like they don't even exist. As soon as you plug in the TA, the channel list refreshes on the Moxi and those channels appear.
post #3580 of 6199
Has anyone used a Hauppauge HD-PVR 1212 (Record your high definition TV programs to your PC, using high quality H.264!)?

thank you,
post #3581 of 6199
Thank you KzY. Perfect... It is nice to at least know what my options are...and yes, I realize that TWC _could_ work different in my area. I'll hope for the best.

Am going to give the TWC office a call and see if I can learn anything about the actual SDV channels and future plans here in the Piedmont Triad area.
post #3582 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlo_one View Post

Has anyone used a Hauppauge HD-PVR 1212 (Record your high definition TV programs to your PC, using high quality H.264!)?

thank you,

No experiance with it but looks good. It's varied ratings on Newegg could be a concern.

Here is another option that will be out later this summer - Cablecard ready 4 tuner card by Ceton. If you have a Win7 based HTPC this is suppose to be awsome.

Dave
post #3583 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by dronning View Post

No experiance with it but looks good. It's varied ratings on Newegg could be a concern.

Here is another option that will be out later this summer - Cablecard ready 4 tuner card by Ceton. If you have a Win7 based HTPC this is suppose to be awsome.

Dave


I currently have a Tivo HD and have flirted with the idea of a Moxi and some Mates. I won a contest and will be getting one of the Ceton InfiniTV cards soon. I will report back here with my experience as soon as the whole thing is set up. They are supposed to ship either this week or next, according to rumors. Since mine is from a contest I'm not sure if that means I'll get mine before or after the people who actually paid for them.

The plan now is to have the HTPC with the Ceton card in the basement and all the TVs in the house using either Xboxen or Linksys extenders to watch and record all TV.
post #3584 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by dronning View Post

No experiance with it but looks good. It's varied ratings on Newegg could be a concern.

Here is another option that will be out later this summer - Cablecard ready 4 tuner card by Ceton. If you have a Win7 based HTPC this is suppose to be awsome.

Dave

There are 2 threads on the HD PVR in the HTPC section. I am very happy with mine and have recorded ~ 1.2 TB of movies etc.
post #3585 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by dronning View Post

No experiance with it but looks good. It's varied ratings on Newegg could be a concern.

Here is another option that will be out later this summer - Cablecard ready 4 tuner card by Ceton. If you have a Win7 based HTPC this is suppose to be awsome.

Dave

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaslabrat View Post

the problem is that you are tilting against the wrong windmill. The sdv operation of the 3 tuner moxi works great. What is broken is Cisco's TA. And as long as CableLabs is allowed to have the power to axct as gatekeeper for all softtware AND hardware that connects to a MSO network, don't expect much of a change. Your energy would be better spent lobbying the FCC and your Congressional representatives to neuter CableLabs under the anti-trust provisions and to specify and mandate the implementation of an IP based out of band signalling system for sdv.

You spoke earlier of the haves belittling the havenots in regards to the third tuner issue. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Moxi providing a product that has additional capabilities which; depending on what third party equipment is involved, might or might not be available for use. The capabilitity is there regardless as advertised. My computer has a gigabit ethernet adapter yet my cable modem only has a 100 mbps port. Should I rail against the computer manufacturer for providing functionality that I can't possibly use with my internet provider (and charging me extra to boot)? What you seem to be suggesting is that the only equitable situation is that Moxi only release hardware that is designed to the least common denominator...thus depriving motorola sdv markets and non sdv markets such as fios the availability of a three tuner device. At best this seems to be shortsighted and at worst childishly selfish. Bottom line is if the moxi does not meet your needs at the price point it is offered...don't buy it. Perhaps a windows media center setup with a Ceton cablecard adapter would be better suited. And if you want to effect true change in the current situation, write your Congressman.

Nearest I can tell the Cisco TA uses IP to communicate to the headend. (So close but yet, so far.) Nevertheless, does Cisco envision the TA market to be so large that their recalictrance as demopnstrated by the dumbing down of their TA to be worth it? I think the Motorola TA can handle 4 channels, if my memory serves me well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KzY View Post

Here, at least, they do not appear in the guide at all. It's like they don't even exist. As soon as you plug in the TA, the channel list refreshes on the Moxi and those channels appear.

TWC NYC was to have instituted SDV nearly a month ago but I haven't noticed one whit of difference regarding channel availability dispite the fact that I haven't as of yet picked up a TA for my Moxi. Of course, when I return from my West Coast spin, I may be in for an unhappy surprise.
post #3586 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Operon View Post

Nearest I can tell the Cisco TA uses IP to communicate to the headend. (So close but yet, so far.) Nevertheless, does Cisco envision the TA market to be so large that their recalictrance as demopnstrated by the dumbing down of their TA to be worth it? I think the Motorola TA can handle 4 channels, if my memory serves me well.



TWC NYC was to have instituted SDV nearly a month ago but I haven't noticed one whit of difference regarding channel availability dispite the fact that I haven't as of yet picked up a TA for my Moxi. Of course, when I return from my West Coast spin, I may be in for an unhappy surprise.

yes the TA's communicate over IP. But there is additional logiic that consumes resources above and beyond what a simple cable modem haas to deal with...channel mappings and stateful session management for example. So yes, knowing that going into the solution Cisco could have picked a better suited box rather than the bargain bin model they chose for the purpose. And you are correct regarding Motorola TAs can handle four streams each (and perhaps six, as I've seen various sources quote both numbers though I haven't seen anyone personally
verify the six number via use with a ceton 6-tuner oem adapter yet as the only person I know of who had one was in a cisco market).
As for Cisco's motives...I can't speak for them of course but if I had to guess they picked something that would fill the immediate need that was causing acute political pain (tivo series 3 and tivo hd which each have 2 tuners and there were no 3+ tuner products on the market yet) while spending the absolute minimum in R&D and capex for deployment. Anyone who has worked with their enterprise gear will recognize this attitude.
post #3587 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Operon View Post

TWC NYC was to have instituted SDV nearly a month ago but I haven't noticed one whit of difference regarding channel availability dispite the fact that I haven't as of yet picked up a TA for my Moxi. Of course, when I return from my West Coast spin, I may be in for an unhappy surprise.

TWC only has 4 channels (I think) in SDV and they all "belong" to an extra cost tier, so for many, they have yet to even tune an SDV channel no matter what box they have.

When 76 HD channels (total 240 some odd per Berk32's analysis) go SDV, we'll see what happens
post #3588 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by texaslabrat View Post

yes the TA's communicate over IP. But there is additional logiic that consumes resources above and beyond what a simple cable modem haas to deal with...channel mappings and stateful session management for example. So yes, knowing that going into the solution Cisco could have picked a better suited box rather than the bargain bin model they chose for the purpose. And you are correct regarding Motorola TAs can handle four streams each (and perhaps six, as I've seen various sources quote both numbers though I haven't seen anyone personally
verify the six number via use with a ceton 6-tuner oem adapter yet as the only person I know of who had one was in a cisco market).
As for Cisco's motives...I can't speak for them of course but if I had to guess they picked something that would fill the immediate need that was causing acute political pain (tivo series 3 and tivo hd which each have 2 tuners and there were no 3+ tuner products on the market yet) while spending the absolute minimum in R&D and capex for deployment. Anyone who has worked with their enterprise gear will recognize this attitude.

Quite right about session management and the like. If they used some other protocol other than IP, then finding an ex-Cisco solution would be a nightmare. Now, however, presumambly, a third party might reverse engineer a solution, (less likely), or Moxi, might reasonably easily and with minimum cost accomodate TA issues in future models. Notwithstanding the total number of Moxi, Tivo and Ceton/HTPCs, its a relatively small share of the STB user base, and unless the FCC makes some sort of broad declaration vis-a-vie, third party devices speaking to CC's head ends, this Cisco box is all we'll see for quite some time.
post #3589 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Operon View Post

Quite right about session management and the like. If they used some other protocol other than IP, then finding an ex-Cisco solution would be a nightmare. Now, however, presumambly, a third party might reverse engineer a solution, (less likely), or Moxi, might reasonably easily and with minimum cost accomodate TA issues in future models. Notwithstanding the total number of Moxi, Tivo and Ceton/HTPCs, its a relatively small share of the STB user base, and unless the FCC makes some sort of broad declaration vis-a-vie, third party devices speaking to CC's head ends, this Cisco box is all we'll see for quite some time.

The situation is actually worse than you surmise due to the cartel organization known as CableLabs. Basically, it's literally going to take an act of Congress to fix this (I'm not sure that the FCC currently has the legal power to mandate what is needed, though they are certainly welcome to try).

Reverse engineering a TA is a near-impossibility due to the fact that CableLabs would never certify a resulting device, thus rendering it useless for the market. It's doubtful that Cisco or Motorola would license their tech since that would mean less revenue for them and they aren't having any issues meeting current demand. Even if, in some dream world, Moxi/Arris *did* manage to get permission to implement TA functionality into their offerings...we would still be stuck with an external dongle/box most likely since the TA tech for Cisco head-ends is not compatible with with Motorola headends, and vice-versa. Even within the same vendor..there are individual market differences in the software revisions that the TAs/head ends run for the SDV communication that would have to be taken into consideration and kept updated market-by-market similar to guide data. I just don't see Arris taking that on even *if* they were legally and technically able to do so...especially given the ramifications of a screw up.

So again, we circle back to the SDV-over-IP thing whereby each consumer device communicates directly with either the head end or some proxy/gateway device that is provided by the cable company (eg a single stand-alone "TA" that your gear would speak to over your home LAN rather than being connected via USB). In the first case (least likely IMHO due to security/stability concerns over 3rd party communication stacks) the existing TA's could be re-flashed with a gateway software and re-used as basically special-purpose cable modems to provide an IP-based out-of-band signalling channel for consumer devices like Moxi and Tivo. Even the Cisco TA boxes that we all know and love currently would be fine in this case (with the addition of a usb-based ethernet and/or moca adapter for LAN communication) as the channel guide and session info would be off-loaded to the consumer gear, and the TA's would only be providing a communication conduit so session/stream limitations would not be an issue for the TA.

In the second case (more likely, but likely more expensive and with a much longer timeline for rollout) a beefier gateway device would be placed into each home that needed SDV functionality and it would function basically as today's TA's do...though it would only communicate with our consumer devices over ethernet/Moca rather than USB and there would only need to be a single one per household rather one per consumer device needing SDV access. I think this is the "middle ground" that CableLabs and the FCC/Congress will ultimately settle on..as it addresses the CableLabs concerns about letting end-user gear talk directly to their head-end equipment...and it gets rid of the per-device TA fiasco that we are currently languishing in. The Motorola TA's might actually be strong enough to use as-is for the purpose with new software (again, with the addition of a usb NIC of some sort)...but Cisco would definitely need to bring something new to the table hardware-wise to pull this off. The reason I keep harping on the re-use thing is that the solution might be more palatable to the vendors if they don't have to trash their investment they've already made in TA adapters...thus speeding up deployment of the new system.

The third option (favored by the FCC though sure to meet with very stiff resistance) is a universal gateway that would replace all cable boxes, TA's, satellite receivers, etc...and abstract the provider from the consumer by providing a standardized interface for consumer electronic devices (such as our beloved Moxi) to pull down channel information, request channel changes, and participate in 2-way services such as on-demand content. The home gateway would disperse content in standardized DLNA-based streams over the customer's LAN which the gateway would have transcoded on-the-fly as required. That's the FCC's wet dream....and I agree it would be nice to have all consumer equipment such as Moxi and Tivo be able to work with any video content provider similar to how your landline phone works with all telcos....but I just don't see it happening in the reasonably short-term future. But I think "option 2", as I said previously, is do-able and probably something that might happen in the next 3-5 years.
post #3590 of 6199
ARRIS filed a new comment to the FCC today, Can someone explain what they are proposing and how that will impact/improve the current Cisco 2-Tuner limitation. Does this even have anything to do with the Moxi?

BTW I have yet to find any comment from anyone that addresses the Cisco 2-Tuner limitation. Anyone interested in participating in an open letter to the FCC that will address this?

Filing by ARRIS GROUP INC in 97-80 on 07/13/2010 >> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/commen...?id=6015666633

"The subscriber client component of the ARRIS IP Video Architecture is the ARRIS Whole Home Solution. The ARRIS Whole Home Solution includes a family of Gateway and Media Player products to support hybrid and full IP architectures. These Gateways and Players combine simultaneous use of feature-rich video and telephony services, multi-room DVR, 802.11 b/g/n Wi-Fi, DOCSIS 3.0 data rates, and other services. This solution provides multi-room subscriber access to unicast and multicast contentwhether via cable, over the top, or the subscriber's personal media on their home network."

"The ARRIS Gateway provides the functionality that the Commission is seeking - delivery of MVPD services using open / standard interfaces to both retail and ―leased‖ devices."
post #3591 of 6199
From their description, it appears their gateway would be either a replacement or an enhancement for the Moxi, as well as including a cable box, internet cable modem and also hosting a DLNA server. The way I would see it, you would put this gateway in your garage or closet, and use Moxi Mate type devices to access the content on the gateway as well as being able to access media from computers on your own network, or externally through the internet. This sounds very much like your own personal tv\\media (video, music, photos) server.

Quote:
The ARRIS Gateway will provide the functionality that the Commission is pursuing, including enabling the delivery of multichannel video programming distributor (―MVPD‖) content, Internet, personal media, and other content to any device in the home, including devices provided by the MVPD as well as subscriber devices purchased at retail. These devices purchased at retail will not need a CableCARD and will require no understanding of the cable network. The ARRIS Gateway achieves this through the use of currently available open interfaces such as digital transmission content protection over Internet Protocol (―DTCP-IP‖) and Digital Living Network Alliance (―DLNA‖). The Gateway also supports remote software updates to adapt to changing market requirements.
post #3592 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by texaslabrat View Post

The situation is actually worse than you surmise due to the cartel organization known as CableLabs. Basically, it's literally going to take an act of Congress to fix this (I'm not sure that the FCC currently has the legal power to mandate what is needed, though they are certainly welcome to try).

Reverse engineering a TA is a near-impossibility due to the fact that CableLabs would never certify a resulting device, thus rendering it useless for the market. It's doubtful that Cisco or Motorola would license their tech since that would mean less revenue for them and they aren't having any issues meeting current demand. Even if, in some dream world, Moxi/Arris *did* manage to get permission to implement TA functionality into their offerings...we would still be stuck with an external dongle/box most likely since the TA tech for Cisco head-ends is not compatible with with Motorola headends, and vice-versa. Even within the same vendor..there are individual market differences in the software revisions that the TAs/head ends run for the SDV communication that would have to be taken into consideration and kept updated market-by-market similar to guide data. I just don't see Arris taking that on even *if* they were legally and technically able to do so...especially given the ramifications of a screw up.

So again, we circle back to the SDV-over-IP thing whereby each consumer device communicates directly with either the head end or some proxy/gateway device that is provided by the cable company (eg a single stand-alone "TA" that your gear would speak to over your home LAN rather than being connected via USB). In the first case (least likely IMHO due to security/stability concerns over 3rd party communication stacks) the existing TA's could be re-flashed with a gateway software and re-used as basically special-purpose cable modems to provide an IP-based out-of-band signalling channel for consumer devices like Moxi and Tivo. Even the Cisco TA boxes that we all know and love currently would be fine in this case (with the addition of a usb-based ethernet and/or moca adapter for LAN communication) as the channel guide and session info would be off-loaded to the consumer gear, and the TA's would only be providing a communication conduit so session/stream limitations would not be an issue for the TA.

In the second case (more likely, but likely more expensive and with a much longer timeline for rollout) a beefier gateway device would be placed into each home that needed SDV functionality and it would function basically as today's TA's do...though it would only communicate with our consumer devices over ethernet/Moca rather than USB and there would only need to be a single one per household rather one per consumer device needing SDV access. I think this is the "middle ground" that CableLabs and the FCC/Congress will ultimately settle on..as it addresses the CableLabs concerns about letting end-user gear talk directly to their head-end equipment...and it gets rid of the per-device TA fiasco that we are currently languishing in. The Motorola TA's might actually be strong enough to use as-is for the purpose with new software (again, with the addition of a usb NIC of some sort)...but Cisco would definitely need to bring something new to the table hardware-wise to pull this off. The reason I keep harping on the re-use thing is that the solution might be more palatable to the vendors if they don't have to trash their investment they've already made in TA adapters...thus speeding up deployment of the new system.

The third option (favored by the FCC though sure to meet with very stiff resistance) is a universal gateway that would replace all cable boxes, TA's, satellite receivers, etc...and abstract the provider from the consumer by providing a standardized interface for consumer electronic devices (such as our beloved Moxi) to pull down channel information, request channel changes, and participate in 2-way services such as on-demand content. The home gateway would disperse content in standardized DLNA-based streams over the customer's LAN which the gateway would have transcoded on-the-fly as required. That's the FCC's wet dream....and I agree it would be nice to have all consumer equipment such as Moxi and Tivo be able to work with any video content provider similar to how your landline phone works with all telcos....but I just don't see it happening in the reasonably short-term future. But I think "option 2", as I said previously, is do-able and probably something that might happen in the next 3-5 years.

This is an extrememly cogent analysis. Nevertheless, all this makes me want to open the oven door and take the proverbial gas pipe. Though, if the FCC wins out, then I'd prefer the UPnP rather than its more restrictive offspring, DLNA. My understanding is that the FCC has a great deal of leeway in this particular arena notwithstanding your understandable cynicism. I am actually thinking of sending letters to the FCC board of governors in support of your latter scenario. I wonder what would be the broad support of such a campaign outside of our Moxi community. Obama is still pres for the next 2+ years before any wholesale shakeup at the FCC can be effected. As I suggested before, the heretofore legal rulings give the FCC a great deal of power within this narrow realm of the cable TV business. It would take an act of Congress to limit the FCC's control here.
post #3593 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan_CoxPHX View Post
BTW I have yet to find any comment from anyone that addresses the Cisco 2-Tuner limitation. Anyone interested in participating in an open letter to the FCC that will address this?

EDIT: Final Draft is Posted for your convenience:

The Closing date for comments is rapidly approaching, As of today 08-11-10 the Proceedings are still open for comment

You have an excellent chance of having your voice heard there have been only 391 total filings to all 3 Proceedings:
Proceeding Number: 10-91 - 70 filings since Notice on 04/21/10 -08/11/10 >> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/procee...iew?name=10-91
Proceeding Number: 00-67 - 118 filings since Notice on 04/21/10 -08/11/10 >> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/procee...iew?name=00-67
Proceeding Number: 97-80 - 203 filings since Notice on 04/21/10 -08/11/10 >> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/procee...iew?name=97-80

You can Submit Comments Directly to the FCC in Word or PDF here: >> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin?filedFrom=E
Reference Proceeding Numbers: 97-80, 00-67 & 10-91, you can put all 3 proceedings in the same submittal.

You can Submit Comments Directly to the FCC as Text at the Express Filing here: >> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload...e=&filedFrom=X
Reference Proceeding Numbers: 97-80, 00-67 & 10-91, you will need to submit 3 separate Express Filings.

BEFORE
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
Proceeding 00-67: In the Matter of Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment

Proceeding 10-91: In the Matter of Video Device Competition Implementation of section 304 of Telecommunications Act of 1996 Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices Compatibility between Cable system and consumer electronics equipment.

Proceeding 97-80: Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Commercial Availability of Navigation

 

 

FCC Filing Comments Final.doc 103k . file

 

 

 

FCC Filing Comments Final.pdf 26.29296875k . file
Edited by Bryan_CoxPHX - 6/21/12 at 2:53am
post #3594 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan_CoxPHX View Post

First rough draft stating objectives and comments, please feel free to add and comment on the document.

You should read one of their (Arris) latest comments from 7/13/2010 - there were 3 comments to the FCC.


Clipped from one of the Arris comment:
:The ARRIS Gateway will provide the functionality that the Commission is pursuing, including enabling the delivery of multichannel video programming distributor (―MVPD‖) content, Internet, personal media, and other content to any device in the home, including devices provided by the MVPD as well as subscriber devices purchased at retail. These devices purchased at retail will not need a CableCARD and will require no understanding of the cable network. The ARRIS Gateway achieves this through the use of currently available open interfaces such as digital transmission content protection over Internet Protocol (―DTCP-IP‖) and Digital Living Network Alliance (―DLNA‖). The Gateway also supports remote software updates to adapt to changing market requirements.




I still think it is in our best interest not to push for a small step correction to the Cisco issue but go for the gold and eliminate the need for "any" additional hardware required to get content from providers including CableCARDS and TA's. Use the 2 tuner limitation of the Cisco TA as an example.

The option Arris is pursuing DTCP-IP & DNLA and I think it is what the FCC would prefer.

Dave
post #3595 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by dronning View Post

I still think it is in our best interest not to push for a small step correction to the Cisco issue but go for the gold and eliminate the need for "any" additional hardware required to get content from providers including CableCARDS and TA's. Use the 2 tuner limitation of the Cisco TA as an example.

The option Arris is pursuing DTCP-IP & DNLA and I think it is what the FCC would prefer.

Dave

+1.

The Arris comments basically lay out "option 2.75"...more than my "option 2", but not quite reaching "option 3" aka AllVid due to the fact that it only applies to content delivered by cable providers. Still, it would be a big step in the right direction. I still see that as being a 10-year sort of thing for mass adoption, while the "option 2" is a more reasonable expectation in the short term (though certain markets could begin deploying the AllVid-lite gateways immediately if they were able). Unless, of course, the FCC does indeed step in and mandate a time schedule. As long as the FCC mandates a shopping list of *minimum required features* and not a blueprint for an overall solution...then it might work. And that's where I disagree with Arris' comments...they state that more regulation is not necessary as it will impede innovation by the private sector. I say that slightly more regulation is necessary to create a mandated framework within which private industry can fill the need by the best solution that they can engineer. It's this middle road that we should pursue...the FCC giving a firm list of requirements and a solid deadline for deployment..but not so far as to give an engineering requirement that precludes companies from innovation and improvement.

As for the gateway solution that Arris is talking about...very cool stuff if it ever sees the light of day in actual homes. Intel demo'd a similar device at a trade show about a year ago (limited to 3 streams for the whole household, but it was only a prototype) which was streaming to a Moxi as well as a PS3. The technology is there...and has been there for a while. What's needed is for the FCC to take CableLabs out of the equation so something actually gets implemented in our lifetimes.
post #3596 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by dronning View Post

You should read one of their (Arris) latest comments from 7/13/2010 - there were 3 comments to the FCC.


Clipped from one of the Arris comment:
:The ARRIS Gateway will provide the functionality that the Commission is pursuing, including enabling the delivery of multichannel video programming distributor (―MVPD‖) content, Internet, personal media, and other content to any device in the home, including devices provided by the MVPD as well as subscriber devices purchased at retail. These devices purchased at retail will not need a CableCARD and will require no understanding of the cable network. The ARRIS Gateway achieves this through the use of currently available open interfaces such as digital transmission content protection over Internet Protocol (―DTCP-IP‖) and Digital Living Network Alliance (―DLNA‖). The Gateway also supports remote software updates to adapt to changing market requirements.

I still think it is in our best interest not to push for a small step correction to the Cisco issue but go for the gold and eliminate the need for "any" additional hardware required to get content from providers including CableCARDS and TA's. Use the 2 tuner limitation of the Cisco TA as an example.

The option Arris is pursuing DTCP-IP & DNLA and I think it is what the FCC would prefer.

Dave

I did read them and posted it above your posting: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post18902690
Actually there was only one (1) submittal to three (3) Proceedings, 00-67, 10-91 and 97-80

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan_CoxPHX View Post

ARRIS filed a new comment to the FCC today, Can someone explain what they are proposing and how that will impact/improve the current Cisco 2-Tuner limitation. Does this even have anything to do with the Moxi?

BTW I have yet to find any comment from anyone that addresses the Cisco 2-Tuner limitation. Anyone interested in participating in an open letter to the FCC that will address this?

Filing by ARRIS GROUP INC in 97-80 on 07/13/2010 >> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/commen...?id=6015666633

"The subscriber client component of the ARRIS IP Video Architecture is the ARRIS Whole Home Solution. The ARRIS Whole Home Solution includes a family of Gateway and Media Player products to support hybrid and full IP architectures. These Gateways and Players combine simultaneous use of feature-rich video and telephony services, multi-room DVR, 802.11 b/g/n Wi-Fi, DOCSIS 3.0 data rates, and other services. This solution provides multi-room subscriber access to unicast and multicast content—whether via cable, over the top, or the subscriber’s personal media on their home network."

"The ARRIS Gateway provides the functionality that the Commission is seeking – delivery of MVPD services using open / standard interfaces to both retail and ―leased‖ devices."

Mandating an IP SDV solution could very easily, facilitate a much quicker road to the eventual gateway.

At the very least if the FCC maintains that Cable Provider supplied Tuning Adapters are still to be allowed, That the Tuning Adapter requirements must be changed to specify that they support the same number of tuners that the CableCard is capable of supporting. But someone must first Comment on the fact that the current Cisco STA1520 Switched Digital Video Tuning Adapter (“SDV-TA”) has a 2-Tuner limitation and cannot accommodate all 3 Tuners in the ARRIS/Moxi 3-Tuner HD DVR design. I have searched the documents and there is no mention at this time.

And allow Unidirectional Digital Cable Ready Products (“UDCP”) customers to self-install their CableCARDs if the Cable Provider allows its subscribers to self-install operator-leased set-top boxes.
post #3597 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by teeitup View Post


Here is an interesting PDF highlighting the convergence of ARRIS AND MOXI:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...xUeXBlPTI=&t=1

The Arris Gateway has been in the works for some time now. The above PDF references.
post #3598 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan_CoxPHX View Post

Sorry if I have exceeded my allotted investigative postings. Please feel free to ignore me if you feel I am way out of line. Just because I do not currently own a Moxi does not mean my posts are any less relevant. I am a very serious prospective customer.

That was a collective "you" reference I was making not a direct address.

In the scheme of things the only people who have the right to feel short-changed by their interaction with Moxi are those who don't get the support for the product they own. Whether Moxi posts here or not is so trivial that it doesn't concern the majority of actual owners because they are too busy using their equipment. Anyone who is concerned about lack of representation on a private forum and doesn't own a box should move on, because that's not how the rest of the consumer electronics world works either.
post #3599 of 6199
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post

That was a collective "you" reference I was making not a direct address.

In the scheme of things the only people who have the right to feel short-changed by their interaction with Moxi are those who don't get the support for the product they own. Whether Moxi posts here or not is so trivial that it doesn't concern the majority of actual owners because they are too busy using their equipment. Anyone who is concerned about lack of representation on a private forum and doesn't own a box should move on, because that's not how the rest of the consumer electronics world works either.

No hard feelings here.
It spurred me on to start drafting my open letter to the FCC. Feel free to suggest any additional info you think should be stated. The Cisco TA though must be addressed, and ARRIS' lack of mentioning it.


As for Moxi's interaction on this forum, I really have no opinion one way or the other, and have never made it a priority issue. I simply noted TheMoxiGuy's history of interaction. Actually, there is no proof TheMoxiGuy is actually authorized to speak for Moxi, could be just some Bloke (though I suspect he is an actual employee).


Edited by Bryan_CoxPHX - 6/21/12 at 2:57am
post #3600 of 6199

Final Draft is Posted for your convenience:

The Closing date for comments is rapidly approaching, I think it is Tuesday July 20th, 2010.

You have an excellent chance of having your voice heard there have been only 358 total filings to all 3 Proceedings:
Proceeding Number: 10-91 - 62 filings since Notice on 04/21/10
Proceeding Number: 00-67 - 110 filings since Notice on 04/21/10
Proceeding Number: 97-80 - 186 filings since Notice on 04/21/10

You can Submit Comments Directly to the FCC here: >> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=s62ck
Reference Proceeding Numbers: 97-80, 00-67 & 10-91, you can put all 3 proceedings in the same submittal.


Edited by Bryan_CoxPHX - 6/21/12 at 2:57am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Recorders
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Recorders › Moxi HD DVR