 mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS | Shhhh! Don't say it so loud! | |
|
meskinct
Mad Scientist at Work
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs: | Now they will remove the Drive So now AT&T will simply remove the drive. But nothing says you can't go out and buy a cheap drive and throw it in if they do.  | |
|
|
bcunningh
join:2005-04-01
Seattle, WA | Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' Why do they have the one per home limit anyways? Usually when a company does that it is because they don't have enough DVR boxes to meet demand. Obviously this is not the case since they are still giving people DVRs albeit disabled ones. | |
|
 | chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' Make perfect sense!
Their network lack of capacity. So they want to minimize the DEMAND of video as much as they can. For example, if you go out x days or hours you can only record one show per hour. If they enable all you can record mores shows, thus more traffic on their IPTV network. Technically you will be able to use all the boxes if you are at home…
It just a little help for their network…. | |
|
| | Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX | Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' I think you nailed it. | |
|
| | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by chemaupr  :Make perfect sense! Their network lack of capacity. So they want to minimize the DEMAND of video as much as they can. For example, if you go out x days or hours you can only record one show per hour. If they enable all you can record mores shows, thus more traffic on their IPTV network. Technically you will be able to use all the boxes if you are at home… It just a little help for their network…. I think you hit the nail on the head. They just don't want multiple video streams running all the time due to network limitations.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' These boxes are already limited/only capable of one stream so removing the dvr functionaly would not have any impact on the network load.
However there have been complaints about these boxes being noisy, so that could be a reason for doing this. | |
|
| | | | chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' said by cwh :These boxes are already limited/only capable of one stream so removing the dvr functionaly would not have any impact on the network load. WRONG!!! They are capable of one stream, but, removing the DVR functionality reduce the network load becouse the users can only record one program at a time. Even if the user is at home he can only DVR one. For example if we go out to eat … and I had this service…. my daughter and I will be figithing for what show to DVR… this help the load because the users can not record more than one show if the are not at home | |
|
| | | | | 
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' said by chemaupr :For example if we go out to eat … and I had this service…. my daughter and I will be figithing for what show to DVR… this help the load because the users can not record more than one show if the are not at home Hmm. So this limitation will cause starvation! Oh, no! Eat something! Order take-out! Save yourself!!
-Dane | |
|
| | | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| said by chemaupr :said by cwh :These boxes are already limited/only capable of one stream so removing the dvr functionaly would not have any impact on the network load. WRONG!!! They are capable of one stream, but, removing the DVR functionality reduce the network load becouse the users can only record one program at a time. Even if the user is at home he can only DVR one. For example if we go out to eat … and I had this service…. my daughter and I will be figithing for what show to DVR… this help the load because the users can not record more than one show if the are not at home THe box is limited to one stream. You cant watch it live or watch it live and record it. The only savings is if you turn the box off, but then there are no streams going to the box. I have 3 of these boxes here, I know how they work. | |
|
| | | | | 
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| Are you serious about the network load....LOL. No, what is the diffence between streaming video and watching it. To streaming video, recording it, and watching it. As far as network load nothing. This is so simply people, if they did not want the extra network load, ATT would have not given out the DVR if network capacity was reached. All of you Anti-ATT people will find the dumbest reasons for a simple beta scenario. | |
|
| | 
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| There is 0 difference, as far as demand goes, between recording a showing with a DVR and simply viewing the showing with a dumb receiver. Consider also that most individuals leave their receivers on 24/7 and only turn the TV on/off and there would not be any difference in demand, at any point in time, ever.
If these DVR's were dual-tuner DVR's, capable of recording from more than one stream, buffering multiple streams, or recording one while displaying another, your idea maybe closer to the truth. However, currently these DVR's are not so feature laden, especially when compared with simple off-air series 2 TiVo's.
For now at least, the load imposed on the network by the DVR and the dumb receiver is going to be identical.
My assumption would be simply that they don't want to spend the money equipping households with multiple DVR's, but at present, dumb receivers are in short supply or simply absent from the deployment entirely. But at some point in the future, when dumb receivers are available, they will simply not provide but one DVR per site and dumb receivers for all other TV's in any given household. At present, assuming there is a supply shortage on dumb receivers, in order to stick to policy and not be unfair to future customers who will not receive multiple DVR's, they have to supply disabled DVR's in the stead of these dumb receivers.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
|
| | | chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' Do you even know how this work???
Their IPTV is on demand, thus, if you are not watching ANY TV, there is no signal going thru… the remote control does not work the same as cable…. If you click off it will turn off the signal too… it can be on but not necessarily transmitting a channel. Second, this are not DUMB DVRs…. They are fully operational DVRs with the drive unplugged. So they have enough supply…and are saving ZERO $$$…
The load is not identical… for the load to be identical you have to think this is working as your cable tv signal…but is not. | |
|
| | | | DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' said by chemaupr :The load is not identical… for the load to be identical you have to think this is working as your cable tv signal…but is not. So are you saying that you cannot just select a channel on the STB and watch it live? If you can, then the load is identical because people will almost always turn off the TV, not the STB. This is one of the biggest issues with widespread IPTV - you have to abandon the standard usage models used to calculate required data bandwidth and instead assume full utilization 100% of the time. | |
|
| | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' If the box doesn't have to stream the show live and only receive it for later viewing the network utilization difference is about 500k per program.
There is a difference. | |
|
| | | | | | DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' said by bogey780 :If the box doesn't have to stream the show live and only receive it for later viewing the network utilization difference is about 500k per program. There is a difference. How come? I can understand the bandwidth requirement being lower if the program could be streamed over a longer period of time, but if it's recorded in real time it shouldn't make any difference if someone is watching it or not. | |
|
| | | | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' I don't know. The stats I've seen put streaming at 2Mb/s for live content and 1.5Mb/s for time shifted content. For HDTV it's 10Mb/s for live streaming and 8Mb/s for time shifted.
I assume if you're not watching it it just deprioritizes the stream and doesn't send as many priority request. | |
|
| | | | | | | | bcunningh
join:2005-04-01
Seattle, WA
| Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' said by bogey780 :I don't know. The stats I've seen put streaming at 2Mb/s for live content and 1.5Mb/s for time shifted content. For HDTV it's 10Mb/s for live streaming and 8Mb/s for time shifted. I assume if you're not watching it it just deprioritizes the stream and doesn't send as many priority request. If this is true then AT&T is forcing people to use more bandwidth! This makes the move even less comprehensible. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack' said by bcunningh :said by bogey780 :I don't know. The stats I've seen put streaming at 2Mb/s for live content and 1.5Mb/s for time shifted content. For HDTV it's 10Mb/s for live streaming and 8Mb/s for time shifted. I assume if you're not watching it it just deprioritizes the stream and doesn't send as many priority request. If this is true then AT&T is forcing people to use more bandwidth! This makes the move even less comprehensible. The stream is the same, no matter if you watching it live or recording it. The only way to save bandwidth, is to turn it off. | |
|
| | | |
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| said by chemaupr :They are fully operational DVRs with the drive unplugged. That's one of the most nonsensical statements I have heard.......
Fully operational........with the drive unplugged........ O....K....
Anyway, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I did not say they had a shortage of DVR's, you got it bassackwards. I don't think they have any dumb receivers on hand. As in receivers that are not, never have been, and never can be DVR's. To keep up with their policy of one DVR per household but without the availability of dumb receivers, they have to lobotomize DVR's.
Furthermore, I think there is something you don't understand about set-top receivers in the first place. They have no way of knowing whether or not the TV is on or off. The receiver doesn't magically know that the TV is off and stop sending a signal. If the TV is off or on, the receiver keeps right on cooking.
The dumb receiver and DVR both receive the same stream, only the DVR records the stream. The stream the dumb receiver and DVR both receive is real-time. The amount of bandwidth used is going to be the same if the DVR is recording the stream or a fat head is sitting in-front of the TV is watching it live. The biggest point I can make here is so simple, everyone should be able to understand it. Tomorrow night, the stream carrying Eureka will take up the same amount of space regardless of whether there is a DVR or not, it will be taking place in real time. If you are watching it in one room and recording it on a DVR in another, there will be some savings because there will only be one stream incoming and both receivers will be able to display it where as if the two receivers were displaying two different channels there would be twice as much data being downloaded. But the same holds true if there was no DVR and just two dumb receivers. With just a single tuner, it's basically little more than a dumb receiver and a VCR on a timer and uses no more bandwidth than any receiver would simply tuned to a channel. Keep in mind too that these DVR's are only capable of receiving one stream at a time. What that means is, you can only watch what your DVR is recording at the moment, you will not be able to watch any other program at that instant, but it will be displaying what it is recording. If it didn't, you would have to sit there and watch a blank screen while it downloads and that's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. In order for you to watch the program, and record it at the same time, the stream has to be real-time. The only way it wouldn't be is if some how the DVR had some magical sense to know that nobody is sitting in front of the TV, and I'm sorry to say, they don't do that........ yet. Otherwise, you would not be able to record the show while you watch it, and I don't think ANY DVR is so messed up that you can't watch and record the same channel, at the same time. Just like every DVR ever made, you would get a message to the effect of "The DVR has to change to channel X to record X at Xam/pm" It would then change the channel to the pre-selected channel at the pre-selected time in order to record the program. But when it starts recording, the screen will not just go dark while it downloads for the next 4 hours.
Also, once installed, the bandwidth from the head-end to the customer is of unlimited capacity. Not in speed, mind you, but rather in percentage of capacity used. It's still on their network so there is 0 additional cost in sending down 8MB or 8GB. If there is enough bandwidth to support all receivers simultaneously, which there has to be in order for them to display separate channels, there is NO POINT in arranging this, that, or whatever else in order to save bandwidth and NO POINT in only allowing one DVR. It's the bandwidth to the rest of the world that costs money. From them to the customer though, the cost is the same whether it is utilized at 5% or 100%. Knowing and understanding this, why would they go to such ends at preserving something that essentially has no cost? They wouldn't. The only thing they do save is not having to give out multiple DVR's to every household. When they have these dumb receivers on hand, this lobotomized DVR business will stop, you can bet on it.
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."
Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
William of Ockham
Occam's razor
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
|
| | |
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | I fully agree with that. Owenhome has some common sense. | |
|
| | 
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | wow, the cable and satellite guys don't have the problem 
--
"If PCs are hard, then Macs are flaccid" -bb | |
|
| Tom517
join:2006-07-13
Greenville, SC
| Probably a throwback to the old "Ma Bell" days...we disabled telephone features by unplugging bulbs, connectors, and putting blocks in so you couldn't push buttons. AT&T (or should I say "at&t"?)certainly wouldn't want to give you anything free.  | |
|
Toadman
How do you like these Apples
join:2001-11-28
Medina, OH
| I would of loved to be part of that meeting I can see it right now. We need to figure out a way to make sure that only one DVR is available per house. One engineer - we could disable it by software. The manager - No. Someone will get around it, they are all hacker types... . 2nd Engineer - Well we could always disconnect it, no one will ever remove the "don't remove" label on the box!
Genius, pure genius. | |
|
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| Re: I would of loved to be part of that meeting as the meeting rages on about how to disable a DVR things get curiouser, and curiouser.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
|
| | 
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17
| Re: I would of loved to be part of that meeting 'But i don't want to walk among mad men.' Alice remarked.
'Oh, You can't help that.' said the Cat: 'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad'
'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
'You must be,' said the Cat, 'Or you wouldn't have come here.' -Alice in Wonderland | |
|
| | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: I would of loved to be part of that meeting Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin,' thought Alice; `but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!'
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
|
| | Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | I fixed it to be more topical...*grin*
 | |
|
| | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: I would of loved to be part of that meeting you did just what I wanted to do  | |
|
58483323
Gurt me
join:2003-06-23
Normal, IL | How dumb.. That's dumb... if it's already a DVR why not just let them use it as a DVR? Makes no sense. | |
|
| DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| Re: How dumb.. said by 58483323 :That's dumb... if it's already a DVR why not just let them use it as a DVR? Makes no sense. But that sums up U-verse perfectly - the entire implementation makes no sense. If it didn't have the AT&T name attached to it, it would have been laughed out of town by now. | |
|
tthnow
join:2006-06-07
Oakland, CA | 1 Only? 1 Per house hold makes no sense to me? | |
|
| 
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA | Re: 1 Only? The copyright holders probably have established the rule. | |
|
| | |
| 
Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17
·Comcast
| said by tthnow :1 Per house hold makes no sense to me? Do they charge extra for an additional DVR? If this is the case, then that explains it. Still boggles the mind that they'd do it this way, though.
--
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. | |
|
|
CrzyCrakr
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Edgewater, MD | Stupid. If they limit one DVR per household then they should only give them one per household. If you give people disabled boxes they will find away around it. You are better off giving them a box without the functionality at all. | |
|
| 
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | Re: Stupid. yes, but that would require them to think. | |
|
| |
CrzyCrakr
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Edgewater, MD | Re: Stupid. Yeah and thinking is what got them into this mess. LOL | |
|
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH | Software update for set-tops Emergency firmware update to be released soon that will disable the hard-drive functionality in these boxes. | |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | Billing enhancement They are probably waiting for an enhancement to their billing system to give them the option to bill for more than one DVR per account? | |
|
Mr Anon
@il.us
| As with the Uverse server I too do not know why ATT would take the time to do this, maybe because to lessen the number of peole complaining about the confusion of only one stream per box right now. Meaning no record and watch at the same time. The tech would be sure to explain that to whomever was home but if the only person home was the teen (18 so it legal to have them sign) but the partnes weren't. WOuld the parents listen to them about the box in their room?
I think the hack is nice but I want tsomeone to go further, to see if perhaps A loger drive, if so what. Etc etc. Other gray area stuff like... retreiving shows, place shifting, can come later I'm just interested in throwing some ungodly large Drive in there... if I could even get the service. | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| so many glitches with all the iptv glitches, that's the only way you can view tv (without all the glitches, freezes, lockups):
download it to the hard drive to play back!
Hahahahahahah! This is what happens when you get RETARDS over in research and development! | |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
1 edit | I am surprised... no one has imaged the hard drive yet and put it on a bit-torrent site. Then it would not matter what drive you stick in there. Not saying to do this, but It would not suprise me if it was done already now seeing this. | |
|
| tthnow
join:2006-06-07
Oakland, CA | Re: I am surprised... My directv Tivo is linux based. I can't image my drive :-( easier said then done. Not everyone knows Linux. | |
|
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: I am surprised... You don't need to know. There's a program that can be run from a CD-ROM that will clone the drive. Just set the TiVo drive to your master drive then set the new drive as slave and power your computer up. It'll automatically copy the OS. You'll lose all the saved recordings but it'll run like a breeze.
Did it to my Directv Tivo. | |
|
| | |
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
 ·DIRECTV
 ·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: I am surprised... said by bogey780 :You don't need to know. There's a program that can be run from a CD-ROM that will clone the drive. Just set the TiVo drive to your master drive then set the new drive as slave and power your computer up. It'll automatically copy the OS. You'll lose all the saved recordings but it'll run like a breeze. Did it to my Directv Tivo. I was about to say BartPE with the acronis true image plugin will image anything you give it.
With the machine I imaged last week I even surfed the internet with it.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
| |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | This hack has been killed by AT&T If they see multiple "record streams" you lose all access. | |
|
gatzdon
join:2002-10-25
Lake Zurich, IL
| keep the hard drive so for those with these "DVR Disabled" boxes, what is to stop them from taking the hard drive out and keeping it. If it's "Disabled", it's not like anyone will notice, and if they do, it's not like they can pin it on the user who can simply claim it came that way.
--
$100 placed at 7 percent interest compounded quarterlyfor 200 years will increase to more than $100,000,000 --by which time it will be worth nothing.- Lazarus Long | |
|
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Re: keep the hard drive said by gatzdon :
so for those with these "DVR Disabled" boxes, what is to stop them from taking the hard drive out and keeping it. If it's "Disabled", it's not like anyone will notice, and if they do, it's not like they can pin it on the user who can simply claim it came that way.
This is true, unless there is a little sticker at one of the seams like the Sony Playstation. So they know if you opened the box or not. | |
|
bwalker25
join:2005-12-20
Durham, NC
| ..... I simple hair dryer will cause the glue on that sticker to come loose! be careful though you can burn that sticker really easy! I know this from experience when I modded my xbox and some other things around here! my xbox crashed used the hair dryer method and boom took my modchip out and got some tacky glue and tacked that thing back down and sent it to M$ and got it back free under the warranty!
a simple hair dryer will get around the sticker problem! | |
|
|
|
|
AT&T U-Verse DVR 'Hack'
