mderoy's profile

Contributor

 • 

2 Messages

Sunday, April 21st, 2013 7:16 PM

Watching pre-recorded Uverse content while disconnected from Uverse

Hi,

 

I have moved to a new place and would like to watch pre-recorded shows while getting my new service in place.  Is it possible to move the STB/Receiver and Gateway to the new place, run stand alone and still be able to watch the shows recorded in the STB?

 

Thanks,

Roy

New Member

 • 

25.7K Messages

11 years ago


@JefferMC wrote:

@gregzoll_1 wrote:
All IPTV services require a connection back to the server, in order to work. It has nothing to do with Microsoft, since they are not the only ones that deaign IPTV platforms.

There is nothing inherent in an IPTV solution that would require it to connect back to a server to play already recorded content.  The content is on the device.

 

 


Show me any device that is not a dvr, that the contect is saved on the device for iptv.

New Member

 • 

25.7K Messages

11 years ago


@oufanindallas wrote:

@gregzoll_1 wrote:
All IPTV services require a connection back to the server, in order to work. It has nothing to do with Microsoft, since they are not the only ones that deaign IPTV platforms.

Once a show is recorded to the DVR, there is not a requirement to have a connection to the server.  It's all in the way Microsoft designed the system.


Again, Microsoft did not create the IPTV platform.  They just created the platform that ATT and other providers use.  It has nothing to do with how they designed the system, to make people lives miserable, it is the nature of the IPTV infrastructure as a whole.

 

Any system that uses IPTV, even if it uses a recording device in the system, has to authenticate back to the servers, to that the equipment is going to communicate with, to state that it is authorized to play back the material saved on the hard drive.  Without that certificate, the equipment is no better than a doorstop, until the system comes back online.

 

Yep, DRM at its finest.

 

This http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns723/networking_solutions_solution.html#~architecture  This is the best info that goes into more detail how the system works http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns1043/ns1106/ns1110/white_paper_c11-637031.html

Expert

 • 

9.4K Messages

11 years ago


@gregzoll_1 wrote:

Again, Microsoft did not create the IPTV platform.  They just created the platform that ATT and other providers use.  It has nothing to do with how they designed the system, to make people lives miserable, it is the nature of the IPTV infrastructure as a whole.

 

Any system that uses IPTV, even if it uses a recording device in the system, has to authenticate back to the servers, to that the equipment is going to communicate with, to state that it is authorized to play back the material saved on the hard drive.  Without that certificate, the equipment is no better than a doorstop, until the system comes back online.

 

Yep, DRM at its finest.


 

Greg, stop claiming this, because it is completely untrue.  Either you're not reading the descriptions given here by everyone, or you're just being stubborn for who-knows-what reason.

 

We are NOT talking about live content.  Obviously, live content requires a connection to the servers to stream.  We are talking about content that has been recorded on the DVR and is sitting on the hard drive in your living room.  There is no technical reason why there needs to be a connection back to the servers to play back that content.  None whatsoever.  Other DVRs from other manufacturers allow playback of content in this fashion -- DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast cable DVR boxes, etc.  Only AT&T U-Verse (via the Microsoft Mediaroom platform) has chosen to restrict the DVR's pre-recorded content playback when there is no technical reason to do so.

 

It is not inherent in IPTV that this is a requirement.  It is an implementation choice by Microsoft.

 

Stop claiming otherwise.

 

As far as the Cisco documents, those are completely irrelevant.  Cisco has manufactured components that are Microsoft Mediaroom-compliant.  In other words, they are not Cisco's inventions or design choices -- they built them according to Microsoft's specifications.  And, just because the Cisco units (like any other Microsoft Mediaroom-compliant boxes) have the ability to enforce DRM, does not mean it's required.

 

New Member

 • 

25.7K Messages

11 years ago

I know we are not talking about live content. And as for untrue, what part is not true, when it is the fact that remains, no matter what the device is that is IPTV, it has to connect regardless who manufactured the software for the device, in order to play back the content.

You can keep going the direction you want SomeJoe, but what I have posted and stated, is fact, about the fact that if a IPTV device regardless who made it, or made the software, if it has recorded info on it that is DRM coded, it will not play back. Plain and simple.

 

The other providers you listed are not IPTV providers, and if they wanted to do so also, they could make it, so that their dvr's could not play back content, if not able to communicate with the head end or certificate server.

Expert

 • 

9.4K Messages

11 years ago


@gregzoll_1 wrote:

I know we are not talking about live content. And as for untrue, what part is not true, when it is the fact that remains, no matter what the device is that is IPTV, it has to connect regardless who manufactured the software for the device, in order to play back the content.

You can keep going the direction you want SomeJoe, but what I have posted and stated, is fact, about the fact that if a IPTV device regardless who made it, or made the software, if it has recorded info on it that is DRM coded, it will not play back. Plain and simple.

 

The other providers you listed are not IPTV providers, and if they wanted to do so also, they could make it, so that their dvr's could not play back content, if not able to communicate with the head end or certificate server.


 

That right there is exactly the point that disproves your argument.  You do understand that DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, etc. all record onto the hard drive in a DRM-protected format also, right?  If they are able to play back DRM-protected content without an authentication server connection, then the inability for Microsoft Mediaroom to do it is a policy/design choice, not a technical requirement.

 

Your problem is that you are somehow connecting together IPTV and DRM.  They are not bound at the hip, greg.  They are separate animals.  IPTV is the delivery system, DRM is the content protection system.  You can have DRM with any other type of delivery system (like DirecTV and Dish Network, with satellite delivery), and you can have an IPTV delivery system without DRM (like YouTube or Roku boxes with some feeds).

 

Be hard-headed if you want, but your argument is patently false.  DRM is never a requirement, regardless of the delivery system.  Microsoft has simply made a policy choice, not a technical one.

 

New Member

 • 

25.7K Messages

11 years ago

I am not being hard headed about this. Again, if the other providers wanted to lock the boxes down, they could do it, with changing one bit during the recording process.

And again, using Microsoft as the argument in this does not hold water, since they did not come up with the IPTV delivery platform, or the technology behind it. All they did, was create a platform to be used by providers, for their end users, to be able to watch the content delivered over the IP network.

Do believe that the info from the Cisco link holds more water as to how this process works, than you repeating that Microsoft is the culprit here.

And as for the mediaroom platform, it was announced on April 11th this year, that Microsoft has sold it to Ericsson. http://resources.made-in-china.com/article/industry-view/zJxnVhjrFQiU-Microsoft-Sells-IPTV-Platform-to-Ericsson/
http://informitv.com/news/2013/04/08/ericssonacquiresmicrosoft/
http://www.digitaltveurope.net/46891/ericsson-plans-to-develop-next-gen-iptv-platform-following-mediaroom-acquisition/
So with that, big changes are in store with what we will see coming our way, for those of us on various providers that use the mediaroom platform.

Expert

 • 

9.4K Messages

11 years ago

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Greg, why do you continually state that Microsoft didn't invent IPTV? What does that point have to do with ANYTHING we're dicussing? Who cares who invented it? That doesn't matter in the slightest.

Explain to me how YouTube, a platform where video is delivered via IP, is not subject to the same restriction that Microsoft Mediaroom is. (i.e. I can save a YouTube video on the computer using one of several different Firefox browser plugins, and play it back later on that computer, even if that computer has no network connection).

Again, your Cisco links only explain how the system operates. They don't explain why.

I don't know if I'm not explaining it right, or if you're just stubborn. Why aren't you listening to reason? You just keep repeating the same irrelevant stuff on each post instead of answering my questions and explaining my counterexamples? Are you incapable of backing up your assertions?

New Member

 • 

25.7K Messages

11 years ago

I am only stating that it they did not create the IPTV delivery platform, because you are so adement about it, when it comes to the platform that ATT chose to deliver the service to their customers.

As for Youtube, different type of service, and is apples & oranges, to how IP delivery is done to the consumer to the set top box platform.

As for the Cisco link, it is there, because it explains the concept and how the service works from the start to the finish.

ACE - Expert

 • 

34.7K Messages

11 years ago

It does not matter that Microsoft did not invent IPTV.  They did invent the implementation used by AT&T.  This implementation requires that the DVR contact some security server before playback.  A different implementation could have been chosen and still been every bit as much IPTV.

 

The Cisco documents are marketing-rich, content-free fluff pieces that don't address this issue in the slightest.

 

Expert

 • 

20.4K Messages

11 years ago

I liked these little nuggets from gregzoll's links:

 

On Friday, it was also announced that Korea Telecom will work with Ericsson to test Ultra-High Definition TV -- or 4K -- and High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC). The latter is a compression technology that promises to reduce the bandwidth requirements for video delivery by more than 50% compared to the best H.264/MPEG-4 AVC implementations, according to Ericsson, which last year launched a TV encoder compatible with the technology.

http://resources.made-in-china.com/article/industry-view/zJxnVhjrFQiU-Microsoft-Sells-IPTV-Platform-to-Ericsson/

 

What we plan to do is take the best of the Ericsson multiroom solution and take the best of Mediaroom and evolve them towards a next-generation solution. That really will be done in tight discussion with customers – especially Mediaroom customers,” said Frost. He said the two companies’ TV technologies were “complementary”, with Microsoft’s platform being “focused on the TV” while Ericsson had developed expertise in delivering IP video to different screens as well as in mobile TV.

Frost said that Microsoft Mediaroom customers had expressed satisfaction that the platform would now be in the hands of a company that is committed to the service provider market. “All the feedback we have had from key customers is very positive because we are very committed to this customer base,” said Frost. He said Ericsson’s ability to offer a combination of technology and a “very large service organisation” would be appealing to service providers.

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/46891/ericsson-plans-to-develop-next-gen-iptv-platform-following-mediaroom-acquisition/

 

 


Definitely looks like we're going to get some changes for the better (hopefully) soon.  Sorry it's a little off-topic, but thought these things should be pointed out. 😉

 

Chris


Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
Need Help? 1-800-288-2020, After he gets acct info, press # a bunch of times, get a menu from Mr. Voice recognition
Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
I Call It Like I See It, Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

Not finding what you're looking for?
New to AT&T Community?
New to the AT&T Community? Start by visiting the Community How-To.
New to the AT&T Community?
Visit the Community How-To.