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

Expert

 • 

9.4K Messages

11 years ago


@gregzoll_1 wrote:
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.

 

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.

 


@gregzoll_1 wrote:

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.


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).

 


@gregzoll_1 wrote:

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


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:

 

  • You have invoked a straw man argument (creating a different argument that wasn't ever mentioned, i.e. "Microsoft invented IPTV" and then refuting that)
  • You have invoked a false attribution argument (citing Cisco documents as "evidence" when they don't mention anything regarding playback of DVR-recorded content and the requirement for an authorization server)
  • You have invoked a false analogy argument (citing inability of streaming devices such as AppleTV, Roku, etc. to display content without an authorization server as evidence that a DVR, with prerecorded content, cannot do the same, when the two are not comparable in the first place).
  • You have invoked a faulty generalization argument ("Regardless, if you do not have a connection to the servers, regardless what the device or service is, it is not going to work." -- proven incorrect by citing the DirecTV, Dish Network, and cable box DVR examples)
  • The main argument is your original faulty generalization argument (Microsoft Mediaroom doesn't allow playback of recorded content without an authorization server, therefore all IPTV systems don't allow playback without their authorization server).  <-- This is where you are flat wrong.

 

In addition, you have been asked several questions to further explain and back up your position, and you have yet to answer them:

 

  1. What is the technical reason that an IPTV system would require authorization to playback previously recorded content?
  2. What is the technical reason that YouTube easily allows saving and then subsequent playback of content without a network connection?

 

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.

 

 

New Member

 • 

25.7K Messages

11 years ago

Within five years Chris, we should start seeing 4k delivered across IPTV platforms, since the sets will be out by then. About five years is average on change of technology.

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

ACE - Expert

 • 

34.7K Messages

11 years ago


@gregzoll_1 wrote:
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.

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.

 

 

Expert

 • 

9.4K Messages

11 years ago


@JefferMC wrote:

 

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.


 

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.

 

 

New Member

 • 

25.7K Messages

11 years ago


@JefferMC wrote:

@gregzoll_1 wrote:
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.

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.

 

 


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.

New Member

 • 

25.7K Messages

11 years ago


@SomeJoe7777 wrote:

@JefferMC wrote:

 

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.


 

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.

 

 


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.

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:

 

  1. YouTube doesn't enforce DRM for video content delivery.
  2. DVRs from other providers like DirecTV employ DRM just the same as U-Verse does, but allow content playback from the DVR with no authentication server connection.
  3. I have shown you that IPTV is a delivery mechanism, whereas DRM is a content-protection mechanism, and they are not connected.  We have examples above that show IPTV delivery without DRM (YouTube), and DRM without IPTV delivery (DirecTV).

 

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.

 

 

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.

Expert

 • 

9.4K Messages

11 years ago


@gregzoll_1 wrote:

Never stated that Youtube enforces DRM, so do not really know where in the world you pulled that one from.


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.

 

 


@gregzoll_1 wrote:


DVR's from other providers, can enforce non-playback when the network is down if they choose



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?

 

 


@gregzoll_1 wrote:


@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 ... [snip]



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:

 

  1. The encrypted video stream is sent from the satellite to the box via the satellite cable.  Along with the encrypted video is a low-bitrate stream of commands, authorization packets, and requirements for the customer's box (known in the satellite world as an Integrated Receiver-Decoder, aka IRD) to decode this video.
  2. The authorization packet contains a required tier number that the customer must be subscribed to, a program rating, zip code blackout restrictions if any, a date/time stamp, and a digital signature.  The authorization packet itself is also encrypted.
  3. The IRD decodes the authorization packet, checks all the particulars, and determines if the customer should be allowed to view the video or not.  If so, the IRD (with the help of the smartcard) deduce a decryption key for the video itself.
  4. The IRD uses this decryption key to actually decrypt the video and send it via HDMI, component, or other connections to the customer's TV.
  5. If the IRD is a DVR, the IRD also begins to write the video stream to the hard drive, but re-encrypts it prior to writing using a locally generated key.  This prevents the video from being read off the hard drive if the hard drive is removed from the IRD.
  6. To playback pre-recorded video from the DVR, authorization is done through the smartcard by just checking the required subscription tier.  The required tier for the program is on the hard drive as part of the video stream, encrypted with the local key, while the tiers that the customer is subscribed to is on the smartcard (with a date/time limit).  Thus, no authorization server is required.

 

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.

 

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.