The facts:

U-Verse is a IP based video system from AT&T that uses multicast IP instead of legacy means to stream video. Literally all modern home networks use TCP/IP. The Internet uses TCP/IP. Multicast is part of the IP spec, it's been around for like 20 years. (There's nothing really new in U-Verse.) Any home network can also support multicast. In fact, any Ethernet card running TCP/IP can listen to multicast packets. So, logically, any Vista based computer should be able to listen to U-Verse multicast IP packets.

AT&T's Set Top Box is built on Microsoft's Mediaroom. Mediaroom is a basically a sealed computer running on low-power, low-cost hardware that turns multicast IP streams into RF signals capable of being displayed on a TV. Microsoft has been doing IPTV using multicast for something like 10 years. They also have a project called ConferenceXP that uses multicast over Internet2.

The questions:

Why does Vista Media Center not support U-Verse in software? (Why can't I just plug my current home network into the U-Verse Residential Gateway, configure a few things in VMC and have IPTV on my computer?)

Since Microsoft created Mediaroom, Media Center and ConferenceXP, is this just another example of one Microsoft hand not talking to the other (this happens all the time), or did AT&T specifically request MS not support U-Verse without an STB? If so why? (And don't pull the DRM card here, everyone knows Vista is loaded up with DRM tools that could easily be used to protect content pulled from U-Verse streams.)

Is this perhaps just unannounced stuff that's going to appear whenever VMC v.next comes out?

The discussion:

I was really looking forward to U-Verse entering my area because it's an IP based video solution. I figured by now there would be native support for U-Verse in Media Center but there was literally no mention of anything like this at CES. In fact, the only IP based stuff I saw was the brief mention of 360's being used as STB's somewhere in the EU and something irrelevant about Mediaroom.

This should be so simple. The computer doesn't even need a "tuner" card, the video streams should be able to enter Media Center over the computer's Ethernet device without using any type of STB. Requiring an STB for U-Verse on Media Center is silly. Basically, you start with a packet-based digital stream, then you convert it into RF using the STB, then you convert it from RF back to digital using a tuner card where it's displayed on the computer screen or stored later for viewing. This is almost as silly as an LCD monitor having only a VGA port. (Computer generates digital signal, converts it to analog VGA, signal goes into LCD monitor, signal gets converted from analog VGA back to digital.)

Think about how the HDHomeRun works. This would work very similar to the HDHR except that the HDHR box is the RG and the HDHR software is some yet-to-be-released software that talks to both the Ethernet device and Media Center.

Am I maybe just missing something obvious here? It sure feels like MS/AT&T are "pulling a fast one" on us. It feels like they know we all know this and are hoping they can get us to buy/use an STB even though there's really no technical reason why we'd need one when we already have computers capable of doing way more than Mediaroom could ever do.

It may have been cool in the past to have a huge stack of STB's and other video nonsense in your living room to impress people who come over or whatever but in this age of green living I think most of us want fewer dongly boxes in our lives rather than more. My ideal setup would consist of a single VMC computer plugged into a U-Verse RG with a handful of Media Center Extenders scattered throughout the house. (I wouldn't mind having SoftSled on the other PC's in the house as well but that's a different topic.) The way U-Verse and VMC currently work, this simply isn't possible. It's a shame too because the setup would be hella suave and way more impressive to visitors than a stack of STB's and messes of wires all over the house.

The solution:

It's looking a lot like DirecTV is going to be the only solution for nonsense-free home setups. No CableLABS OEM nonsense, no STB needed. I assume their VMC plug-in will work over Extenders. The only problem is that, heh, it's DirecTV and the fact that it seems to come with its own remote leads me to believe it's not going to work with Extenders very well, if at all.

The ironic thing is that at least one of these companies would have me as a customer now if they would start supporting HDTV the way we want it instead of the way they think we should want it. I currently don't subscribe to U-Verse even though it's in my area now because I'd need an STB. I don't subscribe to DirecTV or Dish because they haven't come out with their VMC boxes yet and still rely on STB's. I haven't subscribed to Comcast yet because they require a CableLABS certified PC's and I'm pretty much constantly changing out hardware in my VMC's which effectively makes them incompatible with CableLABS stuff.

That leaves me with ATSC OTA stuff which is free. None of those companies is making money off me because their systems aren't compatible with my hardware and more importantly they're not compatible with my lifestyle. And since I'm tech support (aka The Geek) for my family, the families of the people who work for me and my friends and their families, these people aren't paying for HDTV yet either. And you know, they're telling their friends and those people are telling their friends...

The conclusion:

As a system builder and programmer, the future that I see consists of computers everywhere doing everything. Why buy a TV with a bunch of somewhat-useless tuners on it when you can get an LCD screen that looks better and use a VMC based PC to send content to the LCD? Not only can you watch TV on the thing but it also plays your entire music collection, shows all of your photos and in a pinch can run a PowerPoint presentation or heck, if you find you want to do something that no one's thought of yet, you can write your own software!

The future that's being presented to me, however, is really just a bunch of sealed black-boxes that we have no control over. How is this any different than 10 years ago when everyone had a CD player, a DVD player, a cable-box-thing and whatever other single-purpose devices were popular back then? I don't want to live in a future that's just a rehash of the past. We're supposed to be eliminating single-purpose or several-purpose boxes in the future, not generating more of them... right?

Don't get me wrong here, I love Media Center and I even almost sorta like Vista. Granted it's nothing like the original Longhorn stuff we all saw in 2002-2004 but it's better than the Win9x/ME era. What I don't like is where it appears that Microsoft is heading. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Windows 7 isn't even available to the general public for installation on user-assembled PC's and that scares me. A lot.

Anyway, this turned into a much larger post than I had intended. I ended up somewhere other than where I wanted to be at the end of the post but I've decided not to trim anything (though I have edited the text quite a bit) because I do think this stuff is important. The lack of U-Verse support, the lack of DirecTV/Dish support going on three years after it being announced and CableLABS requiring everyone to be rich is really sort of a microcosm for the direction the media companies seem to be taking the entire next generation of technology.

I think it's important for Microsoft to listen to their customers and not to the media companies because, as I've illustrated with my "social network" example above and the HD-DVD/BluRay stalemate, people are eventually going to wise-up and not buy stuff if it's not compatible with their lifestyle. Vista/Win7/whatever and Media Center could end up being the hub of a truly digital lifestyle but if the current trend continues, we'll be living in a future where we all have fond memories of the connected-digital-future that never happened.

There is no conspiracy here. The simple answer is, Media Center works with a subset of all available TV signal types. We prioritize and go after new TV standards as our business dictates. I believe we'll have support for IPTV solutions such as MediaRoom in the future, just as I believe we'll have support for other TV standards we don't support today (ask anyone in Europe or Japan, they'll have the same things to say - why doesn't Media Center support DVB-S, DVB-C, or any ISDB?).

Jess, IPTV shouldn't differ from supporting cable or sat via analog outputs.  The only different is the EPG, everything else is already there.  Kind of sad though, considering U-Verse is built on Microsoft's platform in the first place.

Chris - Moderator:

Jess, IPTV shouldn't differ from supporting cable or sat via analog outputs.  The only different is the EPG, everything else is already there.  Kind of sad though, considering U-Verse is built on Microsoft's platform in the first place.

I think it has become obvious that Microsoft doesn't create technologies that work well together even if it is between their own products! Hopefully one day during my lifetime they'll get it right but hope hasn't proven sucessful so far!

 

 

Well, a few things you need to understand about Mediaroom.
1) Their team has nothing to do with the MC team..I mean nothing. Mediaroom (formerly MSTV) was aquired by Microsoft a few years back, to let MS jump on the growing IPTV bandwagon, especially in Europe. Note that most Mediaroom/MSTV deployments in the world today are in Europe..or AP.

2) The Mediaroom team is based out of silicon valley. They are quite distant from Redmond..in both thought process, and geographically
3) Mediaroom is currently based on obsolete 32-bit Windows Server 2003 sp1 technology...and quite frankly, they're so busy chasing bugs, they have not had time to do the absolutely necessary rearchitecture of their product. Integration with Media Center is probably the last thing on their minds.
4) Finally, Mediaroom is deisigned, and marketed towards CLECS and other tradition phone carriers. Thats right....You thought CableLabs or the cell companies were bad, with their insane bureaucracy? Remember, we're talking about the likes of AT&T here..the company that tried very hard to insist that only AT&T wireline phones were "safe" for th enetwork. Do you really think that they're going to let you plug an 'uncontrolled" device into their precious network? Also realize that IPTV is NOT internet TV. While the protocol is TCP/IP, its completely isolated from the internet. Works a lot like digital cable actually....

5) don't forget the MPAA, RIAA, and all the other dinosaur groups trying to "protect" their "content". Again...no way will they let you feed an IPTV signal directly into your media center. Of course, their content is freely available, in HD, on Usenet, Kazaa, Torrent, etc. But, they must still insist on "control".

Bottom line, ALL these groups want it to work as much like a "black box" as possible. Of course, there is the final point...that the majority of users need it to work this way, as they are completely clueless about technology. This is why Apple is doing well....

Chris - Moderator:

Jess, IPTV shouldn't differ from supporting cable or sat via analog outputs.  The only different is the EPG, everything else is already there.  Kind of sad though, considering U-Verse is built on Microsoft's platform in the first place.

It all boils down to number of users. uverse has a very small user base compared to say DirecTV. That is the main thing that drive priorites.

Yes, it may be MSFT technology, but ti running on a close box and must be ported over. There are securtity issues (on an open PC) etc. It's just not and never is that easy.

iank:

Chris - Moderator:

Jess, IPTV shouldn't differ from supporting cable or sat via analog outputs.  The only different is the EPG, everything else is already there.  Kind of sad though, considering U-Verse is built on Microsoft's platform in the first place.

It all boils down to number of users. uverse has a very small user base compared to say DirecTV. That is the main thing that drive priorites.

Yes, it may be MSFT technology, but ti running on a close box and must be ported over. There are securtity issues (on an open PC) etc. It's just not and never is that easy.

I'm not talking about native support, I'm just talking about analog out and IR blasting.  Media Center already does this, so assuming the U-Verse STB has IR Media Center should be able to do it without too many problems.

The big problem here is that the EPG data has not been complied by Tribune and put up in a Media Center format.

So I know a little about Mediaroom and what all of us need to remember is that currently it is the Mediaroom providers that will drive the integration with MCE.

AT&T is hard at work trying to rollout the service to customers. Supporting the STBs is fairly simple as they are "black boxes" which either work or do not.

I don't imagine AT&T is currently concerned or prepared to troublehsoot your PC/U-Verse issues. And believe me they are a Telco in the truest form, with PC/Server knowledge being probably the least of their talents.

However, as noted earlier, once customer demand is such that AT&T sees the value in supporting MCE then we assuredly will see a solution.

iank:

Chris - Moderator:

Jess, IPTV shouldn't differ from supporting cable or sat via analog outputs.  The only different is the EPG, everything else is already there.  Kind of sad though, considering U-Verse is built on Microsoft's platform in the first place.

It all boils down to number of users. uverse has a very small user base compared to say DirecTV. That is the main thing that drive priorites.

Yes, it may be MSFT technology, but ti running on a close box and must be ported over. There are securtity issues (on an open PC) etc. It's just not and never is that easy.

What if instead of coming up with a new platform, media room, Microsoft would have included the IPTV function into the Media Center. The set top boxes would have worked as extenders. Maybe is harder tham I think. I do think Microsoft should create the market instead of passively reacting to it. Show a strong platform that streams all media to the living room and force other cable companies to see the benefits of media center.

Jess,

Thanks for the reply, so I guess it's just a waiting game now? Meanwhile AT&T still doesn't have us as customers. ;)

iank:

It all boils down to number of users. uverse has a very small user base compared to say DirecTV. That is the main thing that drive priorites.

Yeah I guess. They'd have a lot more if I were selling VMC boxes that worked with U-Verse though.

iank:

Yes, it may be MSFT technology, but ti running on a close box and must be ported over. There are securtity issues (on an open PC) etc. It's just not and never is that easy.

Maybe, but all of the components are there. Vista has the DRM subsystems needed, right? IP Multicast is supported by every Ethernet device that Windows supports, right? The Zune player comes with the codecs AT&T uses, right? So logically it seems all that's missing is a piece of glue code that listens to the Multicast stream, invokes the required codecs and then finally sends it to the PC screen via some Media Center interface. Oh and applies DRM to the file that gets saved to the drive.

I am a developer myself so yeah I do realize that it's always more complicated than it seems but MS is the biggest software development machine in history, surely you guys can afford to put a few people on a project like this? It's a win for everyone: MS sells more copies of Vista, AT&T gets new customers, small outfits like mine gets to sell hardware to the people in our communities, the customer gets a better STB than Mediaroom. Who doesn't win here?

Heh, the funny thing here is that if AT&T published the specs for their Multicast system the community would come up with a solution. There's already a ton of plugins that use Unicast to get streams from places like YouTube and whatnot. Unicast isn't much different than Multicast. Yeah YouTube uses TCP instead of UDP but the code to handle stuff like that is almost exactly the same.

I agree with Ogre. Any possibility of getting a media extender into the STB?

At present, at least getting SD out into the tuner card works, and the MCE guide recognizes Uverse (as cable provider !!) and training the HID and setting the IR Blaster at least gets an experience like a standard STB.

But the interop promise of DLNA isn't transparent with this method, since the extra analog step between the STB and MCE is unnecessary in theory.

Cheers.

Well...in an sense, the logicial step is to combine the whole set-top box idea, VMC.

Hmm...I wonder if Microsoft currently ships a closed, yet highly popular platform, tightly integrated with Vista Media Center, that also ensures DRM and control for the providers. I'll bet it comes in black, and plays games too!

 

Ogre:

So logically it seems all that's missing is a piece of glue code that listens to the Multicast stream, invokes the required codecs and then finally sends it to the PC screen via some Media Center interface.

Ogre:

Heh, the funny thing here is that if AT&T published the specs for their Multicast system the community would come up with a solution. There's already a ton of plugins that use Unicast to get streams from places like YouTube and whatnot. Unicast isn't much different than Multicast. Yeah YouTube uses TCP instead of UDP but the code to handle stuff like that is almost exactly the same.

While I am an avid Media Center enthusiast, I am also a network engineer for Alcatel-Lucent and provide extensive support for IPTV network solutions, with AT&T being our biggest customer.  With that said, I have some insight with regards to the design, operation, and functionality of the uverse architecture.  While it is true that multicast is indeed TCP/IP and the fundamental operation of multicast is only slightly different than unicast, it is not quite that simple.  Even if AT&T were to release the specs for their multicast channel lineup, you would not simply be able to put your media center on your network and attempt to send an igmp join for a specific multicast address.  Regarding to the set-top box, when it is booted for the first time, it downloads files and an image from its gateway server.  Prior to the STB being able to download these files, the STB must be provisioned and authorized on the gateway server.  Only if the STB is authorized will you ever be able to receive any video.  This is just for authorization.  The DRM keys are an entirely different issue.

Simply having access to the multicast specs is of no good.  And that doesn't even take into account the instant channel change feature, which utilizes unicast.  After a short, initial unicast burst of 5-10 seconds for any given channel, the STB uses a synchronization algorithm to seamlessly blend the unicast video stream for the first 10 seconds with the multicast stream that provides the video after the unicast burst ends. 

I just don't see AT&T authorizing some frankenputer that a subscriber put together.  If anything, I can see something along the lines of having to purchase a certified machine from an approved vendor, a la the CableCARD media centers.   

Proteus7:

Do you really think that they're going to let you plug an 'uncontrolled" device into their precious network? Also realize that IPTV is NOT internet TV. While the protocol is TCP/IP, its completely isolated from the internet. Works a lot like digital cable actually....

The uverse network is not completely isolated from the internet.  The high-speed internet traffic  travels over the same network as the video traffic, up to the entry/exit point between the local video office and the AT&T POP.  The uverse network is completely IP and is nothing like an RF-based cable network. 

Wouldn't AT&T be able to overcome the "fear" of authenticating frankenputers by instead releasing an IP based tuner that acts much like the HDHomeRun? They could provision that unit and then release drivers for mediacenter's to be able to talk to just the tuner.

Media Center will not need any tuner to be Mediaroom capable. Rumor is that there will be a client for Media Center much like the Xbox Mediaroom client.

We'll see.