Modular Home Network PVR at CeBIT

Mackus Daddius writes "This ought to give the MPAA a conniption: 'The Lancaster system is modular, consisting of a TV tuner (analogue or digital), a hard disk module and an interface module that ties the system together and connects to your TV. The modules are connected using standard Ethernet connections, giving you flexibility over where the modules are placed and used. Multiple storage and interface modules can be used, increasing the capacity of the system and allowing multiple TVs to be used for watching programmes.' From the ZDNet UK article and here's an article with pics."

Comments

Does it speak TCP/IP?

[drinkypoo]

And does it properly respect the appropriate ethernet specifications? In other words, if I depend on my network to operate my house, will it be safe to plug this thing into it? I would hope the answer is yes, but of course, you never know. I would assume (we all know where that leads, though) that TCP/IP is the only thing that would make sense since they mention the possibility of extending it over wireless networks, but perhaps they are planning a proprietary scheme for that as well? Anyway, maybe someone could shed some light on this, because I'm too busy to go look it up right now :(

Re:Does it speak TCP/IP?

[3ryon]

It might actually be better if it used a standard but non-routable protocol. That would make it *much* more difficult for someone to 0wnz your PVR from the internet.

After all, how many of us are using routers to subdivide our home network??

Oh, I forgot this is /. Here's a better question: How many of us *need* to use routers to subdivide our home network?

This is the future

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Surely this is the future way that these devices would evolve in a free marketplace. Consider the way that you can build up a stereo system by assembling a cd player, perhaps a tape player, perhaps a DAT player, probably a radio tuner, with an amplifier/mixer and some speakers, and whatever else you want to include. All the connectors are compatible (at worst, with a trivial adaptor), you can mix and match as you see fit, the only limit on the capabilities of the system is the imagination.

Of course, this does not stop you from purchasing an all-in-one "black box", but it certainly sets the benchmark of functionality that you can expect.

Contrast this with the MPAA/RIAA/Microsoft view: An "entertainment console" with pervasive DRM, encrypted and incompatible connections between different components, functionality fixed by the manufacturer and not expandable (except perhaps by buying components from the same manufacturer, protected by encryption from compatibility with equipment from another manufacturer).

Given a free market, which product do you think would be most successful?

some clarification

[yawnmoth]

actually, the Hauppage WinTV-PVR 250 can be had for $150 dollars, and it is, in a number of ways, superior to the Hauppage WinTV-PVR - for one, the WinTV-PVR doesn't have, and will never have WDM drivers, according to hauppage.

and while the WinTV-PVR's do have their problems, most of them are because of Hauppage's software... even for the PVR-250, you can get better software out there then what Hauppage uses.

for example, you can get SageTV.

personally, i think the best alternative to this would be a ReplayTV. for $400 dollars, you can have a receiver, tv interface, and timeshifting / recording up to 80 hours. the reason i say ReplayTV over TiVo is because the ReplayTV also has an ethernet port, with which you can transfer stuff to your computer, and burn it on CD / DVD, using software from sites such as this one

-- for news, visit slashdot.org...
-- for community, visit us

Replay doesn't have everything this does

[mrbuttboy]

What this has that Replay doesn't (yet) is direction.

Yes Replay can do most of what the Lancaster can, and better in some cases, the Lancaster is built with the future in mind. A cheap, consumer future.

Each Replay has it's own hard drive, it's own tuner, it's own EVERYTHING. All of this is extra hardware past a certain point. A modular system is just flat out more flexible and SHOULD become cheaper with time. Right now the Lancaster is FAR too expensive but has potential to become far cheaper in the end. A modular model allows for a one-to-one relationship with your needs. Less hardware == Less money. (Well, someday)

There how ever is something the Replay doesn't have (as far as I know): a common pool of space. While each Replay can share it's shows it doesn't share space. If Replay A is empty and Replay B is full, Replay B can not use the empty hard drive on Replay A. Instead it is going to bump one of the shows off to record the new show even thou there is space on the "network".

For your average consumer spending $400 dollars all at once is a lot. But if I could spend $150 for a 20 hour PVR and then add another 20 hours for $100 later that is ALOT better choice. I can test drive the PVR,I can give it as a gift and then let THEM upgrade the space, if they need it. Choices are always A Good Thing.

Again, right now, the Lancaster sucks. I can envision some people using it but for most people a TiVo or Replay is a FAR better choice. However this is pointing towards the future.