Contributor
•
2 Messages
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
SomeJoe7777
Expert
•
9.4K Messages
11 years ago
Adamant about what? I have never stated or claimed anywhere in this entire thread that Microsoft invented IPTV. You're the one who brought that up out of nowhere for no purpose.
No it's not. It's video, much of it in standard MP4 SD or HD format, that is delivered over an IP network. That's the exact same way AT&T U-Verse does it (it just so happens that the network is private, i.e. not connected to the Internet).
It explains the concept and how the service can work (i.e. what features are supported), but not how it must work. Cisco only builds the hardware that is compatible with Microsoft's Mediaroom (and several other IPTV providers), they don't provide any software at all, and they don't do implementation. The particulars are up to the implementor, in this case Microsoft and AT&T.
Your arguments here are classic for someone who cannot defend their position:
In addition, you have been asked several questions to further explain and back up your position, and you have yet to answer them:
This is my last attempt to continue this discussion with you. Either prove you know what you're talking about by supporting your position with evidence, or admit that you're incorrect.
0
0
Anonymous
New Member
•
25.7K Messages
11 years ago
0
0
Anonymous
New Member
•
25.7K Messages
11 years ago
What more do I have to prove, that regardless what software is on the DVR, the device still has to be able to communicate with the servers, to authenticate the data stored on it for playback.
Without that authentication, the box is nothing more than a doorstop. What more do you want me to say, than what I have repeated in so many different ways already, that your argument is just that, an argument with no water to hold it.
Where as I can pull the information to back mine up. Oh look, something to back my side up http://www.htrends.com/report-1928439-Content_Protection_for_IPTV___Multi_Screen_Converged_Services.html
0
0
JefferMC
ACE - Expert
•
35.3K Messages
11 years ago
The box had to be authenticated to retrieve and record the content in the first place. Because Microsoft or AT&T decided it was so, it must reauthenticate to play the content. Nothing about IPTV vs CATV/DBS means that IPTV must reauthenticate where CATV?DBS does not. CATV/DBS can (and does) have DRM built into it as well, but doesn't require this reauthentication.
What I am still waiting for from you is a citation of a reputable source where it says that an IPTV DVR must reauthenticate for playback. International Standard, US Code, anything.
0
SomeJoe7777
Expert
•
9.4K Messages
11 years ago
Exactly correct, Jeffer. He just can't get it into his head that DRM/reauthentication can be used, but is not required to be used. And he also doesn't get that DRM and IPTV are two separate things that have no interaction whatsoever.
I'm done arguing with him, he's so arrogant that he can't conceive of any situation where he's wrong.
0
Anonymous
New Member
•
25.7K Messages
11 years ago
Again, it has nothing to do with Microsoft or ATT, it is how the IPTV system is built for the DVR systems connected to them, regardless what you and SomeJoe777 somehow think otherwise.
0
0
Anonymous
New Member
•
25.7K Messages
11 years ago
The only reason you even started this argument is because you had nothing to back up about your statement that it is Microsoft and ATT that decided this, when it wasn't. The whole authentication scheme has been around since the beginning of time with IPTV delivery systems, which actually started in hotels & motels for content delivery to the rooms.
If you disconnect the receiving device from the network, or it can no longer communicate with the authentication server at the head end, it becomes a dumb device, or in other words a door stop.
You have nothing to back up your claims SomeJoe, so I am going to keep proving my point that you are creating a pointless argument about something that you are pulling out of nowhere, and continuing to blame Microsoft & ATT how the system works, when it is not them that came up with this method in the first place.
As for the link to Cisco, sorry, but it is not marketing, it is how the system works, and oh, they included a pretty graphic layout of the system from start to finish, how contet is delivered, along with authentication back from the customer.
Case in point, you have nothing to back up, and I can keep arguing this that you are making empty claims that again, it is Microsoft & ATT that came up with not allowing the DVR to communicate when offline. To let you in on something, this is also the case with other providers on CATV, that if the DVR does not authenticate with the head end, it will not playback any content on the DVR.
0
0
SomeJoe7777
Expert
•
9.4K Messages
11 years ago
"Hello, pot? This is kettle. You're black."
Don't sit there and tell me that I have nothing to back up my statements when you haven't offered a shred of evidence supporting yours. Your entire argument here is "Nope, that's not how it works. You should just take my word for it, because I'm Greg."
I, on the other hand, have cited numerous real-world counterexamples that disprove your theory:
Until you refute, in technical terms, these counterexamples, your entire argument is disproven. And citing some Cisco marketing material whose purpose is to sell their equipment to IPTV providers is not a counter-argument.
Face it Greg, you're wrong, and you simply won't admit it, and everyone here knows it. That is the very definition of arrogance.
0
0
Anonymous
New Member
•
25.7K Messages
11 years ago
Never stated that Youtube enforces DRM, so do not really know where in the world you pulled that one from.
DVR's from other providers, can enforce non-playback when the network is down if they choose, and there are some that actually do this, so that if the DVR is not connected to the network, the content is not going to be played back, along with to lock the device out when it is not able to communicate back to the head -in. Most choose 24 hours, some choose 48 hours, that if the device does not authenticate with the head-in, it is locked out, and the consumer that has the device in their ownership/lease, have to call in to have it unlocked.
As for the delivery mechanism, I have already linked the information from Cisco, and also linked another if you wish to pay for the White paper @ $30, if you wish.
he Encryptonite ONE System is today’s proven multi-format, multi-platform CA/DRM software solution that provides the highest levels of digital content security while offering operational efficiencies and extended value. Approved by all major film studios and TV broadcasters, the Encryptonite ONE System allows telcos and broadband operators to acquire distribution rights to the most compelling broadcast channels and VOD programming. Its unique system design features an ultra-light, processor-efficient client that can be deployed on virtually any consumer media appliance to allow ubiquitous secure content distribution on current and future set-top boxes, PCs, portable players and mobile phones. Employing a patented, common encryption scheme for both broadcast and VOD content and through its exclusive EverLock™ process, the Encryptonite ONE System is the only solution available today that enables persistent and efficient protection of content at all times in distribution and storage including in DVR and nDVR applications. Newest innovations include exclusive platform extensions that allow for selectable digital forensics to track, identify and deter piracy of valued content (IdentiFind™), rapid middleware integration to speed time-to-market (CodeConnect™), and configurable security parameters for diverse quality content (TrustAdjust™).
http://moto.arrisi.com/Video-Solutions/US-EN/Products-and-Services/Software/SecureMedia-HLS/The-Encryptonite-ONE-System-US-EN
http://www.tech-source.co.za/pdf/brochure.pdf
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/ns341/ns524/ns610/current_analysis-cisco_iptv.pdf
There are many ways that the content can be secured, and as linked, you can see that it is again, not a Microsoft thing how they designed the MediaRoom platform at the beginning, it is how ATT decided to secure the DVR's, so that content could not be played back, while the boxes are offline from the system.
If you want, you can go out and research this stuff, because personally I am tired of having to go dig out the facts to prove an argument that others seem to want to drag on.
Sorry, but I see that you are going to continue this pointless argument, and have already seen that you lost on this one SomeJoe.
0
0
SomeJoe7777
Expert
•
9.4K Messages
11 years ago
You can't even follow what's going on here. My point #1 above is MY reason that your argument can't be correct. It is not something I claim you said. Good Lord.
That is exactly the point. If other DVR providers can choose whether or not to apply DRM, why couldn't AT&T and/or Microsoft choose whether to apply DRM? You can't have it both ways. Why would DirecTV/Dish Network/Comcast be able to choose DRM enforcement, but AT&t/Microsoft are forced to apply DRM enforcement?
Where in any of that does it say that DRM is required? It doesn't. It only says that it's supported should the distrubution provider WANT to use it. Dude, the Cisco stuff is an advertisement to the distributors -- it's purpose is to make a sale. Of course Cisco will highlight everything the boxes are capable of, but the distributor doesn't HAVE to use every feature. You know, Cisco makes models of their IPTV boxes that also take an antenna input. Does that mean that the distributor is REQUIRED to support the antenna input? They also make the boxes' USB ports with the ability to use external hard drives. Does that mean that the distributor is REQUIRED to enable the use of external hard drives? Hint: No. The distributor can use or not use whatever features they want to.
Microsoft and/or AT&T have chosen to use the DRM feature to prevent pre-recorded DVR content playback. But they didn't HAVE to. They could have just as easily made it so that you could playback the pre-recorded DVR content.
THAT is my question to you, and is the exact reason that you have not proven anything. Prove to me that pre-recorded DVR content playback is technically impossible on an IPTV system. CIte any document you want that states that outright. (Hint: there is no such document or statement, because it isn't true.)
Walk me through the technical scenario where it becomes impossible. Tell me what's happening in the software code, tell me what's going on inside the box. Describe to me why you think this is a technical impossibility. Don't show us another sales flyer from some company or a generic description of a DRM system. I know how they work, I don't need some pretty sales graphic. YOU describe to me how the system cannot possiby do this, from a techincal level. Put your money where your mouth is and prove to everyone here that you are more than a poser with some sales flyers and technospeak.
To give you a head start on the technical description, I'll first describe to you exactly how DirecTV does it:
Now, you tell me why this same type of functionality is a technical impossibility in AT&T/Microsoft's system. You prove to me that it isn't a design choice (by someone), but is instead a technical impossibility.
I'm listening.
0
0