Page 22 of 85 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 848

Thread: Microsoft Playready and DTCP-IP implications For PS4 and XB1

  1. #211
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    5,010
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff_rigby View Post
    I didn't address it because it's a bogus out of context quote. Consumers just want it to work, they don't care about faster unless it impacts what they are doing. The DOCSIS 3.1 - 10 Gb/sec down speed will never be seen by a consumer because It's shared between about 254 nodes with each node a family home that may have 3 IPTV TVs one of which might be a 4K TV, the others 1080P. If you add up the bit/sec use in such a model, 10Gb/sec for the last mile copper serving 254 homes is enough.

    While boom's LTE broadcast might eliminate ATSC Mobile M/H it doesn't have enough bandwidth to serve more than 15 unique 720P IPTV streams per tower which in rural areas might have more than 100 homes in a 25 mile area (Tower radius of 5 miles). Cable can serve 254 homes/node with 3 unique streams each, one 4K and two 1080P. Whitespace (using unused TV channels) to Internet serve Rural areas without cable can work.
    I paid for hulu plus. I just want to watch XYZ season 2. Nope, my devices aren't licensed. Nope, the last season is timed delayed for exclusivity. Nope, the episodes are time bombed by content creators. Nope, my OS isn't supported. etc. etc. Yet none of that BS is coming to your "future entertainment utopia." You'll be able to pass around content to all devices and world peace will happen.

    Cable "just works" yet people are dumping it in droves. Cable 2.0 isn't going to fix the systemic issues with DRM IPTV.

    4K red herring keeps coming back. Might as well upgrade it to 8K.

    Rural is getting dropped like a bad habit by telco and cable. ATSC M/H was DOA.

  2. #212
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    5,010
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff_rigby View Post
    And the new DRM models try to allow Play anywhere on any device registered to a user with a limit of 3-5 devices. It's part of the Ultraviolet model. The user purchases the right to use content and DRM insures the content is used according to the contract and if done correctly the consumer isn't aware of DRM unless they try to violate the contract.

    DTCP-IP limits the use to the home network but allows recording that content on any platform that supports DTCP-IP properly. It allows viewing on multiple platforms that supports DLNA and DTCP. This is an expansion of our "use" ability.

    Playready - Ultraviolet limits the use to Internet platforms that support Playready and are registered to the user. Cable IPTV VOD uses Playready and it's allowed inside and outside the home.

    Does anyone object to how Netflix manages protecting their content, does it get in the way...does anyone notice DRM? You can stream Netflix on any device you own up to a limit of three with auto log-on. At 4 you are forced to manually log-in again to insure you are the owner/user.
    Marketeer-like typing detected.

    Your future isn't describing Netflix-like DRM. You are describing a completely separate, highly walled off garden; one of which can now extort money from competition or just completley block it. You see no way how terrible that future can be? If customers have a choice, they will completely reject everything you have described so far outside of faster DOCSIS 3.1 internet speeds.

  3. #213
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,744
    I agree. 4K/HD IPTV is fine in theory, but what will happen in rural areas already starved of bandwidth ? You can't just pluck more bandwidth out of the air ? It requires infrastructure investment first. Where is it coming from ? The payments the mediacorps will be making to 'reserve' bandwidth ? I'll believe that when I see it...

    Not having read the FCC ruling I don't know the particulars, does anybody know if there is a clause that forces the extra payments to be used for infrastructure upgrades ? If there is, great. Fine and dandy.

    If not, oh dear...
    To find the right answers you must ask the right questions.

  4. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuckey View Post
    I agree. 4K/HD IPTV is fine in theory, but what will happen in rural areas already starved of bandwidth ? You can't just pluck more bandwidth out of the air ? It requires infrastructure investment first. Where is it coming from ? The payments the mediacorps will be making to 'reserve' bandwidth ? I'll believe that when I see it...

    Not having read the FCC ruling I don't know the particulars, does anybody know if there is a clause that forces the extra payments to be used for infrastructure upgrades ? If there is, great. Fine and dandy.

    If not, oh dear...
    Your question is vague. If you are talking about rural areas served by a cable company, DOCSIS 3.1 cable modems are plucking more bandwidth out of the available frequencies. 50% more and frequencies that previously couldn't be used because of the S/N ratio.

    In 2017 everyone world wide starts the move to ATSC 3.0 to support 4K TV. ATSC 3.0 will use a modulation scheme and channel allocation that is incompatible with previous broadcast schemes. For Cable, rather than replacing all cable adapters, front end equipment...nearly half their infrastructure, they will serve premium channels (read 4K, 1080P, multi-stream sports, S3D) as IPTV slowly moving consumers to Smart TVs and eventually moving all TV to IPTV streams. It's a more efficient use of the available bandwidth than traditional broadcast 8VSB or Cable 256QAM TV. (DOCSIS 3.1 cable modem uses 4096QAM).

    After June 2014 cable DVRs must provide for the FCC mandate (DLNA CVP2): DLNA serving IPTV streams with DTCP-IP encryption/DRM (Windows Media DRM 10 which is a subset of Playready) able to be recorded and/or viewed on any CE platform that is certified. This allows for a consumer transition to all IPTV to occur after 2017. The difference between CVP1 and CVP2: CVP1 works with the DLNA server using WMDRM, CVP2 works with the DLNA server and direct IPTV streaming from the Cable modem using Playready (Playready supports DTCP-IP WMDRM as a subset) thus CVP2 can support the transition to all IPTV after 2017.

    During this transition period Game Consoles and STBs which support DLNA CVP2 can be paired with older 1080P TVs.

  5. #215
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    7,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuckey View Post
    I agree. 4K/HD IPTV is fine in theory, but what will happen in rural areas already starved of bandwidth ? You can't just pluck more bandwidth out of the air ? It requires infrastructure investment first. Where is it coming from ? The payments the mediacorps will be making to 'reserve' bandwidth ? I'll believe that when I see it...

    Not having read the FCC ruling I don't know the particulars, does anybody know if there is a clause that forces the extra payments to be used for infrastructure upgrades ? If there is, great. Fine and dandy.

    If not, oh dear...
    There are solutions upcoming that could solve that.

    However, as I have stated, broadband providers expressed NO interest in trying them it for free.

    -Q
    -Q

  6. #216
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    5,010
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff_rigby View Post
    ...
    In 2017 everyone world wide starts the move to ATSC 3.0 to support 4K TV. ATSC 3.0 will use a modulation scheme and channel allocation that is incompatible with previous broadcast schemes. ...
    Everyone?

    4K red herring never dies.

  7. #217
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    5,010
    Verizion extorts netflix now:
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...eo/?comments=1

    Can't wait for the last mile paywall to show up. Maybe ISP's can go back to billing by the hour (or minute). These are the same people who are going to usher in the new digital utopia.

  8. #218
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,744
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff_rigby View Post
    Your question is vague. If you are talking about rural areas served by a cable company, DOCSIS 3.1 cable modems are plucking more bandwidth out of the available frequencies. 50% more and frequencies that previously couldn't be used because of the S/N ratio.

    In 2017 everyone world wide starts the move to ATSC 3.0 to support 4K TV. ATSC 3.0 will use a modulation scheme and channel allocation that is incompatible with previous broadcast schemes. For Cable, rather than replacing all cable adapters, front end equipment...nearly half their infrastructure, they will serve premium channels (read 4K, 1080P, multi-stream sports, S3D) as IPTV slowly moving consumers to Smart TVs and eventually moving all TV to IPTV streams. It's a more efficient use of the available bandwidth than traditional broadcast 8VSB or Cable 256QAM TV. (DOCSIS 3.1 cable modem uses 4096QAM).

    After June 2014 cable DVRs must provide for the FCC mandate (DLNA CVP2): DLNA serving IPTV streams with DTCP-IP encryption/DRM (Windows Media DRM 10 which is a subset of Playready) able to be recorded and/or viewed on any CE platform that is certified. This allows for a consumer transition to all IPTV to occur after 2017. The difference between CVP1 and CVP2: CVP1 works with the DLNA server using WMDRM, CVP2 works with the DLNA server and direct IPTV streaming from the Cable modem using Playready (Playready supports DTCP-IP WMDRM as a subset) thus CVP2 can support the transition to all IPTV after 2017.

    During this transition period Game Consoles and STBs which support DLNA CVP2 can be paired with older 1080P TVs.
    I wasn't thinking of cable providers as such, more ISPs in rural areas who supply ADSL. Either way, if said game consoles, and more particularly the online games they support, suffer a drop in QoS (along with other 'free' services not involved in the supply of paid content, viop, youtube etc) due to a larger proportion of available bandwidth being reserved for paid content, then I think it's the start of a very slippery slope.

    The extra money paid to ISPs to carry paid content needs to be re-invested in infrastructure. And imo the FCC should have made that a caveat of breaking net neutrality in the first place.

    @testbug00- Not surprised, this way they get to sell the same bandwidth twice ? Without having to invest anything ? Sweet deal.
    To find the right answers you must ask the right questions.

  9. #219
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    5,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuckey View Post
    I wasn't thinking of cable providers as such, more ISPs in rural areas who supply ADSL. Either way, if said game consoles, and more particularly the online games they support, suffer a drop in QoS (along with other 'free' services not involved in the supply of paid content, viop, youtube etc) due to a larger proportion of available bandwidth being reserved for paid content, then I think it's the start of a very slippery slope.

    The extra money paid to ISPs to carry paid content needs to be re-invested in infrastructure. And imo the FCC should have made that a caveat of breaking net neutrality in the first place.

    @testbug00- Not surprised, this way they get to sell the same bandwidth twice ? Without having to invest anything ? Sweet deal.
    Jeff pays $150+/month for cable and lives in an area with 100Mbps internet. He lives in a bubble where his future makes sense. $50/month for terrible 1Mbps DSL doesn't exist.

    Everything is a slippery slope now.

    Twice? "Internet" is now just their local intranet of paid content and supported corporate sites. The internet is extra. AOL is back.

  10. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuckey View Post
    I wasn't thinking of cable providers as such, more ISPs in rural areas who supply ADSL. Either way, if said game consoles, and more particularly the online games they support, suffer a drop in QoS (along with other 'free' services not involved in the supply of paid content, viop, youtube etc) due to a larger proportion of available bandwidth being reserved for paid content, then I think it's the start of a very slippery slope.

    The extra money paid to ISPs to carry paid content needs to be re-invested in infrastructure. And imo the FCC should have made that a caveat of breaking net neutrality in the first place.

    @testbug00- Not surprised, this way they get to sell the same bandwidth twice ? Without having to invest anything ? Sweet deal.
    To move to all IPTV (which Cable is doing by 2017) requires 1) DOCSIS 3.1 modems to support the last mile Copper and 2) Local city/region server farms to cache content for DVR, VOD, Netflix, Hulu, Youtube.... This reduces internet traffic outside - region to region that the Cable company has to pay for. It's only fair that Netflix, for instance, pay the region to region traffic they incur as they are 38% of the cable companies region to region bill. When server farms are in place a formal arrangement would have Netflix cached locally. In any case, region to region traffic or server farm, Neflix should pay for their use/costs.

    I suspect Netflix's arrangement with Comcast and Verizon is for bandwidth used and when they move to HEVC (h.265) and half their bandwidth, their payment to Comcast and Verizon should decrease.

    Your concern about other services suffering in the short term is valid

    DSL (using the phone line) for internet is the least desirable as the FCC push to move voice/telephone to IP will eventually result in the elimination of traditional Phone lines. Whitespace WiFi internet is a good fall back.

    ATSC 3.0 discussions consider broadband internet a integral part of TV and some are looking into combining support for both in multiple models.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux