Why can't an stb's EPG simply be transferred to a dvdr?

telmapS · 24-01-2008, 20:43

Hi all,

A newby question which may sound daft to afficionados, but, if we have zillions of standards for interconnectability of just about everything else, why is it not possible to simply access my Virgin stb's EPG fom my dvdr and use it to set the recorders timer?

You may appreciate the background, that I have been making very good use of the posts in this and the AV forum (which seems to have a near identical 'front end') in order to try to understand how best to set a new HDD/DVDR, and get it to receive Guideplus info.

Thanks to this advice, I now have the Guideplus selection of channels loaded into the DVDR, but of course, would have liked to be able to simply 'tap off' the ones already in the stb. Why is what would seem to be a simple file transfer and update exercise that would be nothing to a pc made impossible to do on a new piece of equipment with a much bigger hard drive?

Is this just bloodymindedness on the part of the 'AV industry' or what?

Anyhow,

Thanks for a very excellent forum: one which ought to be available at the click of a remote while watching!

Cheers,

Spamlet

grabbi · 24-01-2008, 21:46

I guess one thing stopping this would be that 2 seperate companies supplying equipment, and getting them to work in harmony would be hard work.

Im not too savvy on stuff like that though. As long as my V+ works, thatll do for me.

popper · 24-01-2008, 22:43

two main reasons, the main one, NTL:tw:VM didnt see fit to include the software in the STBs to allow you direct access to the transport streams.

this is were all the data is kept, be it video,audio,EPG,sub titles etc.

second, the fact most DVD recorders in this country dont have TCP:IP rj45 interfaces to connect onto the ethernet rj45 plug of any DVB* device that does have such software included.

its mostly a simple exercise to include a html web interface inside such devices (they are just simple SOC [SysyemOnaChip]based PCs doing a single job after all) to gain access to the transport streams and control/save/stream the content inside.

much the same as your generic BDA driven DVB-T and DVB-S cards today , but as i said thats VMs fault for not including it.

ShadowTD · 25-01-2008, 14:10

We love standards - that why we have so many.

To be fair, in the States where they have Cablecard and your cable tuner is built in to the recording device that brings its own problems to the party.

In summary, all manufacturers hate each other.

popper · 25-01-2008, 15:17

yes thats true for the US markets shadow, however it doesnt stop VM taking the long term view and selecting several 3rd partys to provide said DVB-C card and matching CI CAM while VM supply the security card for the slot.

but iv said all this for a very long time now,this kit exists today, no specially made kit needs producing, just pick some off the shelf vendors kit and let the VM end user have it....

even the current VM STB vendors will have such kit already produced but being sold in other countys as VM dont currently allow this basic kit on their cable.

they could have eather the 3rd partys sell these units or VM themselves could sell or rent these advanced kit as their own OEM re-badge and make good profits in the process.

not to mention grow their customer base by a lot as PC users can then take these units as their first or second cable service to name but two simple options.

theres no real reason for VM not to do this and infact lots of reasons they should if long term profit growth is their aim, the end users will like it as it gives them far more options than they currently have now.

not least access to the direct mpeg2 data for streaming to the LAN or TV if you happen to have an STB device that has that option, again its a shame the VM STB doesnt do this already.

---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 16:00 ----------

ohh i forgot to mention , theres even a free interactive set top box firmware being developed now, and like me they are advocating the use of PowerPC SOC as the STB engine as its powerful ,cheap and low energy requirements.

http://www.cineca.tv/labs/jtv/

telmapS · 26-01-2008, 19:40

Thanks for all the feedback everybody.
Good to know there are really some people out there who know how it all works!

Cheers,

ShadowTD · 28-01-2008, 08:33

@Popper: The problem VM have is support. They have a hard enough time supporting a locked down platform with their 'cheap as chips' lowest bid outsourced callcentres. I can sort of see why the existing strategy makes sense.

However, it's the 'illegality' of connecting non-vm kit to the network. If they'd just let us do what we want to and say 'it's not supported, but here's a couple of cablecards to use with whatever PVR you want' I'd have a series 3 TiVO faster that you could blink.

Stuart · 28-01-2008, 08:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowTD

@Popper: The problem VM have is support. They have a hard enough time supporting a locked down platform with their 'cheap as chips' lowest bid outsourced callcentres. I can sort of see why the existing strategy makes sense.

Which, I suspect is why Sky have abandoned their old distrubution system that allowed you to buy pretty much whatever box you wanted, and insisted you use their Amstrad boxes..

popper · 28-01-2008, 10:52

Actually in the sky case it turns out they didnt like loosing the box profits the 3rd partys were making and thats why they took amstrad off sugar at a good price, so as to corner the now large market with lower cost stbs.

and as a bonus, their BOM is the lowest market cost price , not to mention it puts them in full control of the plan to introduce AVC/H.264 accross the board in uk markets , that AVC DVB-T transport stream plan is still in full effect, just waitng on the side lines for approval etc.

i take your points about the way VM are throwing pennys around were they should be spending the pounds now, but they seem blind to the bigger sky plans for long term setting standards for their long term profits etc.

ShadowTD · 29-01-2008, 08:20

@StuartC: Yes, I remember flogging satellite in the 'good' old analogue days. Remember the all-singing Pace receiver with the built in Pro-Logic decoder? About Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£400 when it first came out!

It's certainly a better model for the consumer where the receivers are available on the high street and have to compete at that level. If *I* worked for OFCOM I would have mandated CI modules for all multi-channel TV platforms, thus giving the customer some *real* choice in the market. Alas, the only platform where this was available in the UK (On/ITV Digital) died on its backside. Oh well.

popper · 29-01-2008, 15:12

OC shadow , there are already the Rules and regulation of the EU directives on Broadcasting.

they cover across the board mandatory inclusion of working CI CAM slots in all equipment, and it appears the UK/vendors are breaking these rules, although im not sure if anyones ever bothered to bring a case to court to force the UK vendors of 'multi-channel TV platforms' equipment and/or broadcasters to fully comply with the EU directive.

http://search.virginmedia.com/result...regulations&cr=

spiderplant · 29-01-2008, 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by popper

they cover across the board mandatory inclusion of working CI CAM slots in all equipment, and it appears the UK/vendors are breaking these rules, although im not sure if anyones ever bothered to bring a case to court to force the UK vendors of 'multi-channel TV platforms' equipment and/or broadcasters to fully comply with the EU directive.

That only applies to IDTVs. See Article 24 and Annex VI of http://ec.europa.eu/information_soci...s/03673en1.pdf

Besides, what has it done for the consumer? Hands up every IDTV owner who has used their CI slot. Or have you been just forced to pay for something you'll never use?