[opendtv] Re: This from another (open) thread - IPTV on LinkedIn
- From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:38:37 -0700
Dan Grimes wrote:
"The STB has been many things over the years: an RF processor (shifting
frequencies), a demodulator, a DRM control box, a D to A, and a whole lot
of other things."
Bert wrote:
"The "demodulator" role is accomplished, in essence, by the modem. Yes,
you do need a modem most of the time, because the physical link to the ISP
infrastructure is not going to be standard Ethernet. It's going to be
perhaps a PON, perhaps DOCSIS over a coax, perhaps a satellite RF band. So
you would expect to need that modem, to convert the ISP infrastructure
signal into standard Ethernet or WiFi, or both. From there, if you're
using IP, the individual appliances do the rest of the functions you
listed."
So basically, one of the roles of the STB has moved to the modem. That
doesn't really replace the STB, but it does get it away from the TV. And
since we all usually already have a modem, then we wouldn't really
complain about it. Of course, satellite would still be a separate box,
even if an IP output.
"...using methods other than IP, for delivering video to consumers, is
becoming more and more a case of wanting to erect a deliberate obstacle."
Isn't there a long history of using that as a strategy and won't it
continue in the future?
"The answers lie in the ISO/OSI layers, conceptually..... Future needs are
addressed by updates."
But there are developments at every layer occurring constantly, and often
hardware changes, not just firmware and software, and often at a rate
faster than we are willing to replace our appliances.
"No doubt, a point will come when the appliance can't keep up.... At that
point, depending on the appliance, you either throw it away and buy a new
one,..."
But "appliances" that use IP often need to be refreshed every 6 months to
a year, maybe 2 at the most. Perhaps that seems like an exaggeration but
the developments are accelerating. Particularly difficult to take is when
a change in one layer breaks the entire device. Why not be able to update
that one piece of the system?
"... or PERHAPS the manufacturer has devised an upgrade path (e.g. a
replaceable module)."
Thus the need for an "STB". This has often been the reason why an STB was
added when none was needed previously. Of course, a replaceable module
might push an STB function to the TV but now it is simply mounted to the
TV rather than sitting beside it. So it turns a "set-top" into a
"mounted" box. And in my history with modules, they are usually
proprietary, use limited development, overly costly, and become obsolete
very quickly.
"But the particular upgrade path for a given appliance should be up to the
manufacturer of the appliance, not up to someone looking to create costly
obstacles on purpose.
"Funny thing is, TV used to be that way too. Until MVPDs appeared. IP
brings us back some sanity."
IP certainly provides some tools to help answer some STB roles. However,
historically, we have seen the CE industry answer past challenges in the
television only for the MVPD to change the role or for technology
enhancements and features to change it for them. Thus, if there have been
brief moments in time where an STB was not needed, it wasn't long before
the need showed itself yet again. I don't think IP and the modern CPU and
GPU are so complete that they will answer future functions.
I wrote: "Why do we have to have everything built into the TV?"
Bert responded:
"Appliance. The "TV" is simply another appliance."
Can you elaborate on the significance of calling a TV an "appliance"?
"If you can't rationalize attaching an STB to your tablet, then you
shouldn't have to rationalize attaching an STB to your TV either."
At face value, this statement sounds reasonable, but when you dive into
the differences between a TV and a tablet, there are some big differences.
I started to make a list of points but realized it would be so long and
so debatable, I decided not to spend the time on it. Rather lazy of me, I
realize.
"But again, each individual manufacturer can and does decide just how much
to build in. For example, my PC-STB uses WiFi, at home. The WiFi is not
built into the motherboard. I use a USB dongle. But that's not up to my
ISP. A "connected TV" product should be designed along these lines too.
It's up to Dell, or Samsung, or whoever, to decide."
Agree. The CE industry and an MVPD can get together and work out a
solution to get rid of the STB. Historically, they certainly have tried
and failed (e.g., CableCard) or provided a very short term solution (e.g.,
built-in tuners). At the very least, turning the connected devices into
consumer commodities would be nice, perhaps even possible (probably not
able to do that with mounted modules).
I am certainly for disconnecting the need for an MVPD to require their
appliance to be the STB. Perhaps the real key is to disconnect the STB
from the MVPD, not just eliminating the STB. That, and making the STB
compatible with the TV, the bigger problem in my opinion!
Dan
Other related posts: