thor@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (07/06/90)
I have been arguing with several people on a local network who think CDTV is a computer and should be marketed as one. (They call it a Baby Amiga) Recently a few of them think it would be nice for CDTV to have a keyboard (yuck!) and a modem. But since the CDTV software may be megabytes in length, modems are too slow, and faster ones are more expensive than CDTV itself. I have a better idea! How about a sort of ethernet coax-cable port. This will be used to hook into Cable-TV, and instead of 'downloading' new programs and data, owners will watch the 'CDTV' channel and set their CDTV's to record (in VCR jargon) programs. This strips away the computer jargon of downloading and adds the more intuitive one of 'recording' a program/show. I can see it now. Man: 'Honey, we need to record that program on Home Improvement, check the Cable-TV guide and see what time it shows.' Wife: 'Ok, I'm setting the timer(battery backed up clock) to record at 9pm.' All this idea takes is a cable channel willing to sell air time, a device to decode incoming data from a cable-box, a transmission format for the data. This makes CDTV even more like an 'Interactive' VCR. So instead of downloading a program that takes 10 hours at 2400 baud, you receive a program at video bandwidth speeds in minutes. I can see it now, companies lining up to advertise interactive commercials, producers lining up to make interactive sit-coms, educationial institutions getting their wildest dreams (instead of 'Can you spell this word, say it with me.' , it would be 'spell the word using the remote on your CDTV'. Anyone care to shoot this marvelous dream of mine down? Now more than ever I see CDTV as a NON-computer/not-even-close/machine. -- This is not a .signature...Really, its LIVE! Ray Cromwell, Computer Engineering Major, Techno-Geek and Amiga lover.
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (07/06/90)
In article <9350@life.ai.mit.edu> thor@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: [...] Idea about using cable TV to download 3+ Mbyte software to CDTV deleted [...] > All this idea takes is a cable channel willing to sell air time, a device >to decode incoming data from a cable-box, a transmission format for the data. >This makes CDTV even more like an 'Interactive' VCR. So instead of downloading [...] Well, you only need one more thing: a CD device that can record. CDTV is read-only. -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
lshaw@walt.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) (07/07/90)
In article <9350@life.ai.mit.edu> thor@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >I have a better idea! How about a sort of ethernet coax-cable port. This >will be used to hook into Cable-TV, and instead of 'downloading' new programs >and data, owners will watch the 'CDTV' channel and set their CDTV's to record >(in VCR jargon) programs. This strips away the computer jargon of downloading >and adds the more intuitive one of 'recording' a program/show. Sure, you can make it as easy to program as a VCR, the only problem is that most people don't even know how to program a VCR. ============================================================================ "The machine minded material man Logan Shaw desperately dreams of a brand new sedan. lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Wlll he expect long lasting gain ======================== from a toy that will race then rust in the rain?" - elim Hall, Things Break
dz@lime.ucsb.edu (Daniel James Zerkle) (07/08/90)
In article <9350@life.ai.mit.edu> thor@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >modems are too slow, and faster ones are more expensive than CDTV itself. >I have a better idea! How about a sort of ethernet coax-cable port. This >will be used to hook into Cable-TV, and instead of 'downloading' new programs >and data, owners will watch the 'CDTV' channel and set their CDTV's to record >(in VCR jargon) programs. This strips away the computer jargon of downloading >and adds the more intuitive one of 'recording' a program/show. > .... >a program that takes 10 hours at 2400 baud, you receive a program at video >bandwidth speeds in minutes. I can see it now, companies lining up to >advertise interactive commercials, producers lining up to make interactive >.... >(instead of > 'Can you spell this word, say it with me.' , it would be 'spell the word >using the remote on your CDTV'. Hmmmm. Very interesting idea. With a little bit of hardware, it would be very possible to do this sort of thing. The FCC is now letting cable companies do "interesting" things during the vertical retrace period. It would be possible to come up with some effective way to broadcast software over this sort of medium, if it has not already been done. While doing this, it would be very possible to download small portions of software at the same time a TV program is running. Of course, you would then be able to locally control some of what goes on the screen. This would make for such things as interactive educational programs, etc. Of course, there would be some problems. You would need some sort of _writable_ medium to permanently store software. The massive programs that go on CD-ROM would be the most trouble, since CD-ROM is not (yet) a writable medium. In addition, your storage medium would have to be able to STORE the information at that speed. Hard disks probably could, but floppy disks don't go that fast, especially when you consider that they may well be out of operation for large chunks of time while the operator swaps the floppies. For small programs, however, this system would be very quick and efficient. No need to run off to the store or wait for a mail order to arrive. You could just record your software off of some cable station. You don't even need an (expensive and hard to get) internet connection! It would certainly be much faster and accessible than a BBS (probably cheaper, too, once you count long-distance bills). The biggest problem I can with distribution of small programs is billing -- How do you make people pay for it? Do they just get a subscription to some cable station, the way you get HBO or Showtime or Cinemax or whatever? The scrambling methods can use up a substantial chunk of the vertical retrace, thus nullifying some of the benefits. You can't bill people for only the programs they take, since they get broadcast to everybody... or can you? Perhaps people could dial up requests that can be read only by their particular machine (this can be done with certain encipherment techniques). This is starting to sound like what people could do once the dreamers' fiber-optic network gets installed in everybody's house. | Dan Zerkle home:(805) 968-4683 work:687-0110 | | dz@cornu.ucsb.edu dz%cornu@ucsbuxa.bitnet ...ucbvax!hub!cornu!dz | | Snailmail: 6681 Berkshire Terrace #5, Isla Vista, CA 93117 | | Disclaimer: My fish are stupid. |
lshaw@walt.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) (07/08/90)
In article <5908@hub.ucsb.edu> dz@cornu.ucsb.edu (Daniel James Zerkle) writes: [some stuff about downloading programs to a CDTV box deleted] >Hmmmm. Very interesting idea. With a little bit of hardware, it would >be very possible to do this sort of thing. The FCC is now letting cable >companies do "interesting" things during the vertical retrace period. It >would be possible to come up with some effective way to broadcast software >over this sort of medium, if it has not already been done. I can see only one problem with this: I imagine you're going to want to download things in the form of packets about the size of howevermuch data you can fit between frames. Now, to keep nasty errors out (much more important for software than for video programs), I bet you'll have some type of checksum or some similar way of checking for errors. What do you do when you've found an error? You can't send a packet back to the cable company telling them to retransmit that last packet. So I assume you'll have to just give a little error message saying you couldn't record, cause there was a little error. I supposed you could counteract this a little bit by sending tons and tons of parity -- enough to detect and correct errors, but that may not be enough, depending on how noisy cable TV is. >| Dan Zerkle home:(805) 968-4683 work:687-0110 | >| dz@cornu.ucsb.edu dz%cornu@ucsbuxa.bitnet ...ucbvax!hub!cornu!dz | >| Snailmail: 6681 Berkshire Terrace #5, Isla Vista, CA 93117 | >| Disclaimer: My fish are stupid. | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- My fish (coincidentally named Fred) is _dead_, so there. ============================================================================ "The machine minded material man Logan Shaw desperately dreams of a brand new sedan. lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Wlll he expect long lasting gain ======================== from a toy that will race then rust in the rain?" - elim Hall, Things Break
robin@sabre.austin.ibm.com (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) (07/10/90)
In article <5908@hub.ucsb.edu> dz@cornu.ucsb.edu (Daniel James Zerkle) writes: >In article <9350@life.ai.mit.edu> thor@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> >>modems are too slow, and faster ones are more expensive than CDTV itself. >>I have a better idea! How about a sort of ethernet coax-cable port. This >>will be used to hook into Cable-TV, and instead of 'downloading' new programs >>and data, owners will watch the 'CDTV' channel and set their CDTV's to record >>(in VCR jargon) programs. This strips away the computer jargon of downloading >>and adds the more intuitive one of 'recording' a program/show. > >The biggest problem I can with distribution of small programs is billing -- The biggest problem I see is with receiving the data. How do you verify that the data/program received is correct vs. what was sent. All networks have some sort of error checking, but on a cable T.V. network all messages are broadcast from a single source. If MY CDTV can broadcast back, then we have a serious traffic problem in places like New York City, or L.A. or S.F./Bay area. (But that would solve billing problems.) But then again, I don't really know what I'm talking about.... +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |UUCP: cs.utexas.edu!romp!ibmchs!auschs!sabre.austin.ibm.com!robin | |USNail: 701 Canyon Bend Dr. | | Pflugerville, TX 78660 | | Home: (512)251-6889 Work: (512)823-4526 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (07/10/90)
In article <33522@ut-emx.UUCP> lshaw@walt.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) writes:
--I can see only one problem with this:
-- I imagine you're going to want to download things in the form of packets
-- about the size of howevermuch data you can fit between frames. Now,
-- to keep nasty errors out (much more important for software than for
-- video programs), I bet you'll have some type of checksum or some similar
-- way of checking for errors. What do you do when you've found an error?
-- You can't send a packet back to the cable company telling them to retransmit
-- that last packet. So I assume you'll have to just give a little error
-- message saying you couldn't record, cause there was a little error.
-- I supposed you could counteract this a little bit by sending tons and
-- tons of parity -- enough to detect and correct errors, but that may not
-- be enough, depending on how noisy cable TV is.
How about multiple transfers of each packet? How many copies of
each packet would be required to determine what data is incorrect?
I am not up on error checking/recovery, but it seems that some
form of redundant transfer protocol could be worked out. Also why
does this all have to be done during the retrace period? There
are many whole channels available on most cable networks. Why not
have a dedicated channel for data a transfer service. Use the same pay
for view technology that is in place. Give the users a menu of what
is available for download and set up an automatic receiver to accept
the data when it is sent. Real time receipt would be nice, but this
service should be cheaper than BBS and phone rates so a time lag might
be acceptable.
Just thoughts to mull over, no flames please. :)
Monty Saiejms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) (07/19/90)
Some years back at a West Coast Computer Show (in San Francisco), a company
was selling an FM modem. The idea was to download public domain software
(IBM-PC) from an FM radio station that was part of the NPR network.
I think they went out of business.
--
Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: jms@tardis.tymnet.com or jms@gemini.tymnet.com
BT Tymnet Tech Services | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms
PO Box 49019, MS-C41 | BIX: smithjoe | 12 PDP-10s still running! "POPJ P,"
San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | humorous dislaimer: "My Amiga speaks for me."davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) (07/20/90)
In article <1159@tardis.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes:
Some years back at a West Coast Computer Show (in San Francisco), a company
was selling an FM modem. The idea was to download public domain software
(IBM-PC) from an FM radio station that was part of the NPR network.
I think they went out of business.
I have seen talk/advertisements of HAM radio interfaces for the Amiga for
transmission of everything including graphics. AVT (I think) is one such
system that pops to mind.
At one point, there was talk of the Stargate system. I believe it was an
effort to put out a Usenet distribution on the spare bandwidth in satellite
transmissions for TBS (Turner Broadcasting System). In theory, with the right
equipment, you could pick up a full Usenet feed off the satellite and pipe it
into your computer. This used to be talked about in news.stargate, but its
been eons since I saw anything posted on it.
--
===================================================================
David Masterson Consilium, Inc.
uunet!cimshop!davidm Mt. View, CA 94043
===================================================================
"If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"