# C51 Reciever Info



## cbiggers (Nov 20, 2008)

Anyone notice the RVU alliance posted the Directv C51 reciever was a certified product a few months ago?

http://www.rvualliance.org/products

Anyone know whats different?


----------



## inf0z (Oct 16, 2011)

Even if they knew they couldn't talk about it here.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

inf0z said:


> Even if they knew they couldn't talk about it here.


 :up:


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If you dig around the FCC's site, you can probably find some information about it, like dimensions, types of wireless it uses, etc. so you could figure out some of the "different" about it - but maybe it is just redesigned to be cheaper but doesn't include any new capabilities.

One would think there's a HR54 coming to pair with it, and that would either be cheaper to make than the 44 or include new features like 4K support. If the latter they'd need a 4K client, too.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DIRECTV announced last December that the Genie was coming to Latin America in 2014 so it looks like Brazil and Mexico (the DIRECTV LA divisions that kept the SKY name) could be getting some love soon.

Still no approved RVU servers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> If the latter they'd need a 4K client, too.


4K is an extension of RVU 2.0. These guys are RVU 1.0.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Why don't I remember the C30 ?


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

damondlt said:


> Why don't I remember the C30 ?


It was never released, only used for internal testing (and maybe BETA testers?), replaced by the C31. I think it was shown along with the HMC30 (which turned into the HR34) at CES back in like 2008 or something like that.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

If I recall the prototype was about the size of an H24.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> DIRECTV announced last December that the Genie was coming to Latin America in 2014 so it looks like Brazil and Mexico (the DIRECTV LA divisions that kept the SKY name) could be getting some love soon.
> 
> Still no approved RVU servers.


That's what the SC51 is - a C51 for Sky.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> It was never released, only used for internal testing (and maybe BETA testers?), replaced by the C31. I think it was shown along with the HMC30 (which turned into the HR34) at CES back in like 2008 or something like that.


Okay that's makes sense, I remember seeing it with HMC30


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> DIRECTV announced last December that the Genie was coming to Latin America in 2014 so it looks like Brazil and Mexico (the DIRECTV LA divisions that kept the SKY name) could be getting some love soon.
> 
> Still no approved RVU servers.


You do realize you are the only one on the planet that has any concern abut RVU servers right?


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> You do realize you are the only one on the planet that has any concern abut RVU servers right?


No he's not. I'd love to see some more RVU servers announced/produced. Imagine being able to buy one ROKU or AppleTV RVU server that could stream to any of the TVs in your house. Imagine a Blu-Ray jukebox that could hold your entire collection and play to any TV in the house, etc.

I'd also like to see some more RVU clients. Maybe instead of an AppleTV or ROKU RVU server, just make them RVU clients so they could be used instead of C31/C41 or RVU TVs. Or build RVU client software into Blu Ray players, etc.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't build an RVU client into the xbox one. They want this system to be on "input 1". In fact there's HDMI passthrough, IR blasting and overlay for that reason. But if they had RVU client, it could be the box that did DirecTV, OTT, and games all in one... finally living up to its name the xbox "one". 

Also instead of relying on tricky overlays, IR blasting and HDMI passthrough, for cable customers they should of made it be able to talk to silicon dust hd home run cable card tuner, or even the ceton cable card tuner and then you have a box that can do premium cable, direcTV RVU, AND all the other xbox internet stuff / games.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

cypherx said:


> I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't build an RVU client into the xbox one. They want this system to be on "input 1". In fact there's HDMI passthrough, IR blasting and overlay for that reason. But if they had RVU client, it could be the box that did DirecTV, OTT, and games all in one... finally living up to its name the xbox "one".
> 
> Also instead of relying on tricky overlays, IR blasting and HDMI passthrough, for cable customers they should of made it be able to talk to silicon dust hd home run cable card tuner, or even the ceton cable card tuner and then you have a box that can do premium cable, direcTV RVU, AND all the other xbox internet stuff / games.


can they over lay on top of RVU? What about copyright / DHCP issues?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JoeTheDragon said:


> can they over lay on top of RVU? What about copyright / DHCP issues?


This is no different of what ids being done now


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> can they over lay on top of RVU? What about copyright / DHCP issues?


It overlays on top of HDMI, so it can overlay on anything that outputs HDMI.

Whether the overlays look good/fit well with the native GUI on the device is another matter :rotfl:


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

cypherx said:


> I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't build an RVU client into the xbox one. They want this system to be on "input 1". In fact there's HDMI passthrough, IR blasting and overlay for that reason. But if they had RVU client, it could be the box that did DirecTV, OTT, and games all in one... finally living up to its name the xbox "one".


Yeah, I'm kind of suprised they haven't included it either. Especially since they seem to be almost giving up on Windows Media Center on their PCs.

I still don't think Sony has released the update for the PS3 or included RVU on the PS4 yet either have they? They said they were going to add it to the PS3 over a year ago.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Beerstalker said:


> Yeah, I'm kind of suprised they haven't included it either. Especially since they seem to be almost giving up on Windows Media Center on their PCs.
> 
> I still don't think Sony has released the update for the PS3 or included RVU on the PS4 yet either have they? They said they were going to add it to the PS3 over a year ago.


Probably because RVU isn't really a standard, as Directv is only the one who uses it in a "server" role. It is easy to suggest "they should support everything" like cypherx wants, but there are costs attached to doing it, and making sure it works in the future. If the Xbox One supported third party apps then Directv could make a RVU client if they wanted, but why would Directv bother? From their perspective the clients already exist and it costs the customer the same to use one as it does to use a Xbox.

Microsoft's whole idea with the HDMI passthru was explicitly NOT to have to support all the million different types of TV watching devices, and try to make them all controlled by the Xbox. I think the whole HDMI passthru strategy is stupid, but they aren't exactly known for coming up with user friendly solutions.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> No he's not. I'd love to see some more RVU servers announced/produced. Imagine being able to buy one ROKU or AppleTV RVU server that could stream to any of the TVs in your house. Imagine a Blu-Ray jukebox that could hold your entire collection and play to any TV in the house, etc.
> 
> I'd also like to see some more RVU clients. Maybe instead of an AppleTV or ROKU RVU server, just make them RVU clients so they could be used instead of C31/C41 or RVU TVs. Or build RVU client software into Blu Ray players, etc.


Yes he is. Your concern is identical to mine and has validity and matters. He is harping on, as he has been since the hr34 was introduced, that the hr34 and hr44 are not listed as certified rvu servers on the rvu web site. That really is meaningless at this point and is simply his way of continuing to be negative in a directv forum. That's it.

I completely agree with you about getting more servers and clients form all manufacturers, but I think the reality is, tvs need to be clients and almost everyone else needs to become servers in the long run to make this a viable option. I am not sure if making an xbox a client will propel the technology, but if it was a server, that would be huge. Problem is XBOX wants to control everything instead of the tv,, and I don't see them becoming both, although that would then allow them to control everything in the system on every tv someone has in their house if you think about it...

And if Samsung made their blu ray players servers, that would be great for the consumer, in some ways, but it would likely cut sales for them too, so I am not sure we will ever see companies really go that route, unless its cable and sats companies, which is what is happening right now with all of them.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Well the thing with putting an RVU client in an Xbox, or Roku, or Apple TV, or whatever... means less switching inputs. The company who put the RVU client in their box (lets use Microsoft as an example), has the advantage of their box being on the primary input an on all the time. That means more likelyhood of the user venturing out into xbox OTT apps or content, or games, because the devices is already on, and the input is already selected. Plus who knows, Microsoft could theoretically determine what your watching on TV and sell that data to advertising companies. Thats extra revenue and extra data about you they have. Valuable stuff.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Probably because RVU isn't really a standard, as Directv is only the one who uses it in a "server" role.


The RVU Alliance has done everything that is necessary to prove that RVU is a standard:

1. A published standard that includes other standards by reference
2. A governing body that ratified and advances the standard
3. A formal third-party testing regimen for standard compliance

Where they've failed is in getting anyone (DIRECTV) to bother with server approval. How can they be taken seriously if there's a question that the business end of the standard isn't forthcoming or it may fade away much like the old DIVX conditional viewing standard did.

Recently the alliance has brought Panasonic and Sharp on board, so they must be presenting a compelling case to the industry that they have something to shoot for.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> The RVU Alliance has done everything that is necessary to prove that RVU is a standard:
> 
> 1. A published standard that includes other standards by reference
> 2. A governing body that ratified and advances the standard
> ...


By "standard" I guess I meant a successful standard - something that is used by more than the one who invented/helped invent it. It is easy to decide you want something of yours to become a standard, what's hard is getting others to accept it over something that they've invented and fits their needs or business model better.

I doubt getting Panny and Sharp on board require so much "a compelling case" as it cost very little to add support for it. The required hardware is already there on any TV that includes a network interface and can play MPEG2/MPEG4 videos (which is just about all of them these days) The RVU Alliance no doubt supplies reference code, all you have to do is the work required to integrate and test it. It is probably no more difficult than to add a Netflix or Youtube player into your TV's "apps".


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

IMHO, the real "issue" is that (outside of the satellite companies) RVU is a solution in search of a problem. For television entertainment the trend is away from local boxes and towards cloud based servers with simple IP client apps on the TV. The platform for these apps is *slowly* moving toward an HTML5 standard. So, in a few years, you'll subscribe to FiOS or Comcast, give them the address of your Smart TV and they will download an app to the TV (and charge you an "outlet fee"). The only local devices will be for older TVs without downloadable app support. Everything will come in via IP, including DVR service. It is a lot simpler to build an app than build an RVU server.

RVU only matters to DirecTV (and perhaps Dish) since they don't control the IP pipe.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> IMHO, the real "issue" is that (outside of the satellite companies) RVU is a solution in search of a problem. For television entertainment the trend is away from local boxes and towards cloud based servers with simple IP client apps on the TV. The platform for these apps is *slowly* moving toward an HTML5 standard.


You say that there's no pressing need for RVU and then follow it up with an established need for what RVU promises. Which is it?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

HTML5 is fine for streaming, but RVU needs to be capable of pausing, rewinding, interfacing with playlists and so on.

The problem is that RVU is still a pretty simple protocol, easy for others to develop their own version for their own needs. In addition, there's little reason for other providers to jump in on the standard. Cable companies don't really want to eliminate the boxes as they're a source of revenue. Dish and Tivo already has their own solution. Who else could potentially need a RVU server?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> You say that there's no pressing need for RVU and then follow it up with an established need for what RVU promises. Which is it?


RVU is designed to provide a pixel accurate presentation of a user interface on a remote device. It assumes that there is a nearby (i.e. low latency) server to provide said interface. Placing a RVU server in El Segundo, Ca (to pick a place at random  ) feeding a RVU capable TV in Salem, OR (picking another place at random) won't work very well because of the high latency of that connection. Therefore, the RVU server will have to be on the client premises if any sort of interactivity is needed.

The trend in the industry is to put EVERYTHING server related at the provider's location. The best current example is Cablevision's cloud DVR. Trick play is difficult as it is with that solution, using RVU would have been impossible. For the satellite providers the idea of putting the server at the provider end of the connection is totally out of the question since satellite links, even if they were 2 way, have very high latency.

A pure IP based system, on the other hand, requires only an app at the client end. While latency can still be a problem, it is can at least be partially mitigated by buffering and event queuing, not to mention that you can add a fair amount of proprietary code to an app to handle pausing, jump back, etc. You can't do this with RVU since, at least on 3rd party devices, the RVU client IS the app and the RVU server can only send screens.

AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and most cable providers are headed towards IP delivery. AT&T is already there, and they have the scars to prove they were the trailblazers. The rest will take from 5 to 10 years to get there, but it will happen eventually. This is not an option for DirecTV or Dish because they don't have a low latency pipe to the user. Using the public internet puts them at the mercy of a cable competitor (look at the Netflix/Verizon battle going on right now). So DirecTV adopted RVU, Dish did something proprietary, as did TiVo and Verizon. Having used a DirecTV RVU client for over a year, and now having used a TiVo Mini for 6 weeks I can say that the TiVo proprietary solution works far more efficiently and reliably than DirecTV's RVU solution.

As Slice1900 points out, the cable companies, TiVo and Dish all have their proprietary solutions. Who else in the multichannel delivery business needs what RVU supplies? If only one company uses a protocol, can it really be called a standard?


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

When you say RVU is sending screens, is it sending a bitmapped image, or a pre-rendered video stream with GUI on top like how Active Video solutions plans to implement Comcast's X1 or Tivo on older Motorola DCT-2000 (Server rendered screen mpeg encoded and sent to set top just like VOD).

Or is RVU sending instructions like draw window here at X,Y. Ok you pushed a button, then move window 1 from X, Y to Y, Z, at a speed of X. Ok push exit.. "Take window 1 and fade out at a rate of Z alpha transparency levels per second until gone".


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

cypherx said:


> When you say RVU is sending screens, is it sending a bitmapped image, or a pre-rendered video stream with GUI on top like how Active Video solutions plans to implement Comcast's X1 or Tivo on older Motorola DCT-2000 (Server rendered screen mpeg encoded and sent to set top just like VOD).
> 
> Or is RVU sending instructions like draw window here at X,Y. Ok you pushed a button, then move window 1 from X, Y to Y, Z, at a speed of X. Ok push exit.. "Take window 1 and fade out at a rate of Z alpha transparency levels per second until gone".


There seems to be a mix of the two.
An old expert graphics person pointed out you can tell which is supplying the screen by the fonts, as the server uses a different one from the client.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Who else could potentially need a RVU server?


Anyone who is currently suffering a Motorola or Cisco based system and is looking to go client-server?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> There seems to be a mix of the two.
> An old expert graphics person pointed out you can tell which is supplying the screen by the fonts, as the server uses a different one from the client.


There's indeed two things in play:

1. The program stream from the Genie
2. Bitmaps generated by the Genie that are mixed or overlaid.

I suspect any differences in fonts come from the Mini interfaces being rendered in software and the Genie interface being rendered using the hardware character generator of the Genie chipset.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I guess if they would want to change the fonts, they would download a font package to the RVU client?

I was just curious how flexible RVU is. If you want to say animate the guide fading in or out of screen, instaed of the few second delay and then appear / disappear... would that be possible by telling an RVU client "Fade in at this rate and this degree of alpha". Or if they would want something like the info bar or mini guide to slide on screen, could they tell the client "draw window here at X,Y and then animate to X,Y at this rate of speed and this direction".


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

cypherx said:


> I guess if they would want to change the fonts, they would download a font package to the RVU client?
> 
> I was just curious how flexible RVU is. If you want to say animate the guide fading in or out of screen, instaed of the few second delay and then appear / disappear... would that be possible by telling an RVU client "Fade in at this rate and this degree of alpha". Or if they would want something like the info bar or mini guide to slide on screen, could they tell the client "draw window here at X,Y and then animate to X,Y at this rate of speed and this direction".


With DirecTV the client is simply showing what the server is sending, so the info bar/mini guide comes from the server.
The different fonts come from the server [one type] and the client [second type] "but" these are on the client internal screens/menus "like system status" etc.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> So, RVU discussion?
> Each time the thread is marked as has new posts, it been off-topic posts
> 
> What's about C51 ?


Something has to fill the vacuum, so get used to a lot of off topic in this thread.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> With DirecTV the client is simply showing what the server is sending, so the info bar/mini guide comes from the server.
> The different fonts come from the server [one type] and the client [second type] "but" these are on the client internal screens/menus "like system status" etc.


Exactly, the "different" font is in the local configuration screens (like video format) that are not applicable if the RVU client is a TV. Those different fonts are, I believe, in the firmware in the client. The RVU Protocol does not include a screen drawing language, per se, but neither does it send bitmaps. Conceptually, RVU is sort of like HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) that MS developed for Windows. It provides a standard API via which a display can be built/manipulated and messages exchanged.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> The RVU Protocol does not include a screen drawing language, per se, but neither does it send bitmaps. Conceptually, RVU is sort of like HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) that MS developed for Windows.


If you read what the RVU alliance has to say about it, your assessment is largely wrong.

http://www.rvualliance.org/about_rvu

They say that there is the streaming data and bitmap data along with the control channel.

This implies, as VOS observed, that the characters are rendered on the server and delivered as bitmapped images.

HALs are low-level software devices that adapt executable code to a particular hardware platform. There really isn't any HAL involved in the client; it just streams the stream and overlays the bitmaps as a downstream key. Of course there's also some transport control logic mixed in but that is probably fairly trivial (SHEF perhaps) and certainly doesn't rise to the level of a HAL.

BTW, HALs are a *nix thing. Microsoft calls them (DirectX, DirectPlay, Direct3D) APIs which is probably a gross understatement.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> If you read what the RVU alliance has to say about it, your assessment is largely wrong.
> 
> http://www.rvualliance.org/about_rvu
> 
> ...


I'm sure we could piss back and forth over whether a bitmap, video overlap, or ...., but the point is that this part comes from the server and not native to/in the client.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> If you read what the RVU alliance has to say about it, your assessment is largely wrong...


You can't read what the website and believe the marke-tecture. I've looked at the API...it is all XML based. Static backgrounds passed as device independent bitmaps but menus and overlays, including font, color, position, highlight and background are passed as XML directives. The idea I was trying to convey with the HAL comparison is that the developer does not have to worry about screen aspect ratio, processor capabilities, graphics engine, etc.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Diana C said:


> The idea I was trying to convey....


Diana, let me introduce you to a brick wall: meet Harsh. !rolling


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> Diana, let me introduce you to a brick wall: meet Harsh. !rolling


When doing jokes like these there must be a warning, I spilled my coffee all over my desk!

But as an after thought, I don't think is a joke at all.....


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Diana, let me introduce you to a brick wall: meet Harsh. !rolling


 !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

So let me ask this... Is this why they got rid of Game Lounge? Would RVU have been able to keep up with playing a game? I know there's services like OnLive where games are streamed (and really good graphics too, far surpassing Game Lounge). Also Comcast is in trials with EA to deliver console grade games to their X1 platform via streaming. 

But if RVU is a lot of XML and text back and forth, and some exchanging of bitmaps or static compressed graphics (think like a simple webpage), maybe it didn't have the ability to do more interactive things. I hope thats NOT the case though because I would hate to see any company back themselves into a corner with some kind of unavoidable architecture challenge.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

cypherx said:


> So let me ask this... Is this why they got rid of Game Lounge?


I would not think so. If that were to be the case they could of left the game Lounge a Genie only feature, just like PIP


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

cypherx said:


> But if RVU is a lot of XML and text back and forth, and some exchanging of bitmaps or static compressed graphics (think like a simple webpage), maybe it didn't have the ability to do more interactive things. I hope thats NOT the case though because I would hate to see any company back themselves into a corner with some kind of unavoidable architecture challenge.


Dead end architectures are the norm.

RVU is designed to be lightweight (cheap to implement). Which guarantees it is severely limited. Just like its cousins VNC, RDP, etc.

X11 was the only technology that did a fairly good job with this kind of thing. Its definitely not lightweight. 25+ year old technology. Obsolete for the kind of graphics expected today.

So there is the rub - there are *no* technologies available today that do advanced graphics over a network. The graphics needs to be implemented entirely on the client which requires a heavier (more expensive) client. Which will force a rewrite of lots of software on both ends.

After a couple of years using a C31 I have decided that I really like having the DVR/storage someplace other than my viewing location. But I don't like the wonky trick play and other inconsistent behavior. So much so that I'm going to replace the C31 with an HDMI/IR extender this fall. I could care less about a C51... C61... whatever next piece of junk they come out with.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I have come to the same conclusion after using TiVo Minis now for about 7 weeks. The Mini is a much heavier client than the Cx1 clients from DirecTV. They do all their own menus and cache guide data locally. The only thing they stream from the DVR is video. Trick play is smooth and consistent with the performance at the DVR.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Well then there's Onlive and the EA/Comcast video game trials.

Though I think that is just encoded video stream and your input is sent back to the server. Kind of how Active Video networks plans to bring advanced true color visually appealing guides to low end, low memory set top boxes like the Motorola DCT-2000.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Could DTV have VOD replace the DVR and all DTV would need is just something like the H-25?

Also could they ever do dishes with Ethernet instead of coax? That way they could replace the boxes with APPs and the cloud.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> Also could they ever do dishes with Ethernet instead of coax? That way they could replace the boxes with APPs and the cloud.


Then you wouldn't need a dish, wouldn't you?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

peds48 said:


> Then you wouldn't need a dish, wouldn't you?


Duh, I forgot that would be IPTV. Having tuners is better then IPTV right? Or is IPTV the future?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> Having tuners is better then IPTV right? Or is IPTV the future?


Depends who you ask...


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

IMO, while IPTV is certainly growing, the death of linear broadcasting has been exaggerated. It will be quite a few years before everyone in the country has sufficiently high speed broadband to move fully to IP. The larger cable operators will be the first to transition, but they have the issue of MANY set top boxes that would need to be replaced. For the next 10 years IPTV will be a growing niche, and most worrisome for broadcasters it will siphon off many of their most profitable customers and/or erode their most profitable offerings (e.g. pay per view), but the systems we have today will still be in use by the majority of viewers.

Some form of IPTV is the future, but it may be a somewhat distant future.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Diana C said:


> IMO, while IPTV is certainly growing, the death of linear broadcasting has been exaggerated. It will be quite a few years before everyone in the country has sufficiently high speed broadband to move fully to IP. The larger cable operators will be the first to transition, but they have the issue of MANY set top boxes that would need to be replaced. For the next 10 years IPTV will be a growing niche, and most worrisome for broadcasters it will siphon off many of their most profitable customers and/or erode their most profitable offerings (e.g. pay per view), but the systems we have today will still be in use by the majority of viewers.
> 
> Some form of IPTV is the future, but it may be a somewhat distant future.


Maybe this is why ATT wants to keep both IPTV and DTV for now? I wonder if they see IPTV as the future and not the dish? ATT's CEO says they want to built out more FTTH using DTV's cash flow. Or does ATT see DTV as the future?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> IMO, while IPTV is certainly growing, the death of linear broadcasting has been exaggerated. It will be quite a few years before everyone in the country has sufficiently high speed broadband to move fully to IP. The larger cable operators will be the first to transition, but they have the issue of MANY set top boxes that would need to be replaced. For the next 10 years IPTV will be a growing niche, and most worrisome for broadcasters it will siphon off many of their most profitable customers and/or erode their most profitable offerings (e.g. pay per view), but the systems we have today will still be in use by the majority of viewers.
> 
> Some form of IPTV is the future, but it may be a somewhat distant future.


Well the question is, who delivers the IPTV? A lot of people get their internet from their cable company, and may or may not get their TV from their cable company. If they get IPTV, it is pretty much the same story. They will have a couple realistic choices for their internet, and one or both of them will be a cable TV company.

I'm skeptical of a future where people are streaming shows directly from the networks, unless someone brings some order to the chaos of all the different sites, different login/passwords, different streaming formats, and so on. That someone would be an intermediary just like the cable/satellite providers are today, and it is hard to see how it would be any different from the perspective of the networks.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Well the question is, who delivers the IPTV?


U-verse


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

cypherx said:


> Well then there's Onlive and the EA/Comcast video game trials.
> 
> Though I think that is just encoded video stream and your input is sent back to the server. Kind of how Active Video networks plans to bring advanced true color visually appealing guides to low end, low memory set top boxes like the Motorola DCT-2000.


It is certainly possible to have graphics that appear just as wonderful in a client/server setup. After all, the video we watch is just a stream of bits. All one needs is enough bandwidth and low enough jitter.

VNC and RDP are examples that work ok when the client and server are nearby (higher bandwidth and lower jitter). They don't work well when the client and server are separated by the internet.

Putting rendering on the client reduces the dependence on bandwidth/jitter.

However, that is just from the "output" perspective. When one includes "input" things get a lot more complicated. Then latency between input action and output response is directly visible to the operator. We can see that this is an issue even with simple trick play.

One would think that the latency is so low in current networks that nobody should notice within a home. My 19 year old son recently relocated his PS3 because he noticed a difference in playing games over the internet between a 20' wireless connection vs hard wired. (There is nothing wrong with our wireless nor is it heavily used by something else.) I'm still surprised by this.

I am impressed by how well PS3 games over the internet work. But then the client is very heavy.


----------

