Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: "analog" cable switching to digital

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA (Metrowest actually)
    Posts
    1,666
    you guys should read the stuff that sub posted about the ATI OCUR stuff, freaking Microsoft/Time warner/ engadget cant get it to work... sigh
    Quote Originally Posted by sub View Post
    Are you trying to make sure I get nothing done today?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Louisville, KY, USA
    Posts
    7,870
    Quote Originally Posted by zaphod7501 View Post
    Cable companies, however, decided to encrypt everything they legally could (even encrypting illegally local stations in some cases). This will require a set-top-box and a "blaster" of some sort.
    Cable companies are required to carry the locals in the clear as part of their basic tier. Currently, they have the option to carry either the digital or the analog version in the clear, but once the locals go digital, it would be cost prohibitive to convert the feed back to analog before transmission.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Louisville, KY, USA
    Posts
    7,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted the Penguin View Post
    you guys should read the stuff that sub posted about the ATI OCUR stuff, freaking Microsoft/Time warner/ engadget cant get it to work... sigh
    I've read it. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I don't expect OCURs to have the bugs worked out before CableCard 2.0 is available. But I can't really lay the blame on MS with this one. Cable companies offered cable card in order to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 so that they can say "See, we offer an alternative to renting our box" but they have no real interest in making it work properly. That will change when they are required to use boxes that require CableCard. I cannot remember when that goes into effect though. I believe it's 2010.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Louisville, KY, USA
    Posts
    7,870
    Quote Originally Posted by zaphod7501 View Post
    Something to be aware of; the typical tuner hardware in a HTPC will capture the output of a 'box just fine. The software and Operating System in use may override the capture ability however. MCE will apply DRM to captured input and may/will prevent recording: use GB-PVR instead. Vista also has methods that can disallow recording (and XP also?). Vista seems to be able to even disallow third party applications from recording and it is unclear if those methods also exist in XP and can be turned on by an "Auto Update".
    Typical tuner hardware will only capture the output of a box in SD, not HD. A card like the DeckLink is required to capture the HD but it is in an uncompressed format and well beyond the means of the typical HTPC.

    I wasn't aware of the ability of Vista to prevent third party apps from recording. If this is true, I'm still not worried... I give it three days after they "throw the switch" before someone "fixes" it.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by zaphod7501 View Post
    Something to be aware of; the typical tuner hardware in a HTPC will capture the output of a 'box just fine. The software and Operating System in use may override the capture ability however. MCE will apply DRM to captured input and may/will prevent recording: use GB-PVR instead. Vista also has methods that can disallow recording (and XP also?). Vista seems to be able to even disallow third party applications from recording and it is unclear if those methods also exist in XP and can be turned on by an "Auto Update".
    What are they trying to accomplish? If they are trying to protect DRM content at the OS level, they how can this be enforced in Linux or other open source OS's. M$ would be foolish to try this. They'll "protect" content from typical PVR users (unless of course, it's MCE), but the more technically inclined would flock to other OS's or apply whurlston's "fix". I don't see the motivation for M$ doing this, unless, of course, they get a cut in some sort of "DRM subscription fee".
    GBPVR Media Center: 2 TwinHan DTV 3250's (OTA HD), 1 PVR150MCE U-Verse STB), AMD 3200+, 1 GB RAM, 250/300 GB HDDs, ATI x800
    2 MediaMVPs

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    NextPVR HQ, Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    91,155
    Quote Originally Posted by flyswatta View Post
    What are they trying to accomplish? If they are trying to protect DRM content at the OS level, they how can this be enforced in Linux or other open source OS's. M$ would be foolish to try this. They'll "protect" content from typical PVR users (unless of course, it's MCE), but the more technically inclined would flock to other OS's or apply whurlston's "fix". I don't see the motivation for M$ doing this, unless, of course, they get a cut in some sort of "DRM subscription fee".
    Its not really just Microsoft involved here though. CableLabs has defined what they think is a secure mechanism only provide the unencrypted video stream to clients it trusts, and I think Microsoft have had to introduce a whole lot of stuff to meet CableLabs requirements for this trust.

    Thats not to say it wont be cracked one day, but I dont think you'll see Linux able to use CableCard for a while.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    677
    Ahh, I get it now. I didn't understand whole CableCard thing. I quick trip to Wikipedia cleared it up
    GBPVR Media Center: 2 TwinHan DTV 3250's (OTA HD), 1 PVR150MCE U-Verse STB), AMD 3200+, 1 GB RAM, 250/300 GB HDDs, ATI x800
    2 MediaMVPs

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA (Metrowest actually)
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by sub View Post
    Its not really just Microsoft involved here though. CableLabs has defined what they think is a secure mechanism only provide the unencrypted video stream to clients it trusts, and I think Microsoft have had to introduce a whole lot of stuff to meet CableLabs requirements for this trust.

    Thats not to say it wont be cracked one day, but I dont think you'll see Linux able to use CableCard for a while.
    I am going to have to agree with sub on this one, CableLabs is the true reason for all the DRM problems with digital cable streams
    Quote Originally Posted by sub View Post
    Are you trying to make sure I get nothing done today?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Louisville, KY, USA
    Posts
    7,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted the Penguin View Post
    I am going to have to agree with sub on this one, CableLabs is the true reason for all the DRM problems with digital cable streams
    ditto.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Peoria Illinois USA
    Posts
    199
    CableLabs is the main stumbling block, but don't let the content owners off the hook (movie studios, TV networks, broadcasters, etc). They were never happy with the "BetaMax" ruling and are trying to use technology to circumvent "Fair Use" this time around.

    They have not achieved it yet but there was a push about 2 years ago to include copy control hardware within CPUs and Hard Drives and embedded in the motherboard BIOS.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •