Jump to content


Photo

Optus Satellite Vast Stb Certification Plan


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 alanh

alanh

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 12,621 posts

Posted 22 April 2011 - 10:18 PM

Optus Satellite VAST Set Top Box Certification Plan

Consultation
AlanH

#2 DrP

DrP

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 16,740 posts

Posted 23 April 2011 - 05:24 AM

Congratulations on catching up with what everyone has been saying, and discussing elsewhere at length, for some time now.

The document raises points that justify the stated concerns of myself and others - namely, given the size of the market and the costs involved in a) manufacturing and b) certifying a VAST receiver will mean that there will only ever be a small number of manufacturers (probably 3 perhaps 2) and a limited number of VAST receiver models (probably 1 or possibly 2) from each manufacturer.

$20,000 (call it that for ease) certification and then $30,000 yearly fee per model means that a manufacturer will be paying out at least $50,000 to Optus just to be allowed to put a VAST receiver on the market. Add in software licencing and the cost of building the receiver and the base cost ratchets up again. $30,000 a year will quickly eat into any profits made selling the boxes in the first place given the limited numbers that will be sold.

The reality (yes, reality wins again it seems) is that a VAST viewer is going to have a severely limited number of receivers to choose from; only have receivers that have 'freeview' firmware on them*, have a receiver that can only ever be used for VAST and are going to pay a premium for the privilege of facing such impositions. This is something that no terrestrial viewer has to put up with.

What a wonderful plan the apparently brilliant and praise worthy minister has devised. :rolleyes:

*no ad skipping, control of what you can record, control of how long a recording remains present, control how many times a recording can be watched

Edited by DrP, 23 April 2011 - 08:23 AM.


#3 wahroonga farm

wahroonga farm

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 642 posts

Posted 23 April 2011 - 07:33 AM

...The reality (yes, reality wins again it seems) is that a VAST viewer is going to have a severely limited number of receivers to choose from; only have receivers that have 'freeview' firmware on them*, have a receiver that can only ever be used for VAST and are going to pay a premium for the privilege of facing such impositions. This is something that no terrestrial viewer has to put up with. ...

It is entirely bizarre that this validation process exists at all.

The only logical justification is that it 100% ensures the policing of the 'commercially arranged' marriage between the card and the box.

Restricted bouqets, based on viewers location, is controlled by the Irdeto card and over air authorisation (current Aurora).

It has absolutely nothing to do with the marriage of the card and the box.

To be honest; it's the RBA that's imposed this on us and has had it's wicked way with the Government of the day; as it would have had, whoever was in power.

The part that UEC has played in this epic drama; I'm sure we will never know, but I'm certain it was considerable and most sinister.

At least now we have some meat on the bone and some real ammunition to start the revolution. :)

#4 DrP

DrP

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 16,740 posts

Posted 23 April 2011 - 10:42 AM

Dear God. I've just read a comment on Austech that offers further explanation. It seems that a firmware update, such as the ones to fix the numerous problems seen in the current UEC VAST box or to extend the functionality of the receiver (ie, to enable the PVR function of the UEC) requires re-submission for certification (yes, another $20000!) and so long as there are receivers with different firmware versions out there an additional yearly fee of $25000 is required (Optus graciously offers a discount from the $28000 yearly fee for one receiver variant for a total of $50000).

A fee structure like this will certainly tend to disuade fixes for issues that are discovered in released receivers.

Edited by DrP, 23 April 2011 - 10:53 AM.


#5 alanh

alanh

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 12,621 posts

Posted 24 April 2011 - 07:23 PM

Having many complaints about the UEC boxes, I would have thought this certification scheme would have been welcomed to bring in competition as some were pushing.

Instead there is only complaints.

AlanH

#6 DrP

DrP

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 16,740 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 05:49 AM

Clearly a case of cranial-rectal syndrome.

#7 KAKTUS

KAKTUS

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • 60 posts

Posted 26 April 2011 - 03:41 PM

Having many complaints about the UEC boxes, I would have thought this certification scheme would have been welcomed to bring in competition as some were pushing.

Instead there is only complaints.

AlanH

The majority of the complaints seem to be about so defective a box being the only one approved for use on VAST.

In an open competitive market place anyone who had deliberately bought a UEC STB would be too embarrassed to admit it.

#8 viewer

viewer

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 841 posts

Posted 28 April 2011 - 04:03 PM

Having many complaints about the UEC boxes, I would have thought this certification scheme would have been welcomed to bring in competition as some were pushing.

Instead there is only complaints.

AlanH



How's your VAST box going alanh?

#9 alanh

alanh

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 12,621 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 12:55 PM

Current as at the posting date of Certified Satellite Receivers. Their manufacturers must have paid for certification.

 

Altech DSD4142 and DSD 4121RV, DSR4639 http://www.uec.com.au

Humax HDR HDD-1003S http://www.humaxdigi...uct.php?gid=248

Satking DVBS2-800CA http://www.satking.c...ver-dvbs2-800ca

 

Any comments on comparison of performance, reliability etc?

 

Alanh


Edited by alanh, 14 April 2014 - 12:58 PM.


#10 CaptainObvious

CaptainObvious

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • 14 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:42 PM

Congratulations on catching up with what everyone has been saying, and discussing elsewhere at length, for some time now.

The document raises points that justify the stated concerns of myself and others - namely, given the size of the market and the costs involved in a) manufacturing and B) certifying a VAST receiver will mean that there will only ever be a small number of manufacturers (probably 3 perhaps 2) and a limited number of VAST receiver models (probably 1 or possibly 2) from each manufacturer.

$20,000 (call it that for ease) certification and then $30,000 yearly fee per model means that a manufacturer will be paying out at least $50,000 to Optus just to be allowed to put a VAST receiver on the market. Add in software licencing and the cost of building the receiver and the base cost ratchets up again. $30,000 a year will quickly eat into any profits made selling the boxes in the first place given the limited numbers that will be sold.

The reality (yes, reality wins again it seems) is that a VAST viewer is going to have a severely limited number of receivers to choose from; only have receivers that have 'freeview' firmware on them*, have a receiver that can only ever be used for VAST and are going to pay a premium for the privilege of facing such impositions. This is something that no terrestrial viewer has to put up with.

What a wonderful plan the apparently brilliant and praise worthy minister has devised. :rolleyes:

*no ad skipping, control of what you can record, control of how long a recording remains present, control how many times a recording can be watched

 

Three years ago this forum had a thriving community of technically skilled people that could take all the then available information, analyse it, and make forward observations so useful that even now they still remarkably accurately reflect the current situation.

Then it all went horribly wrong and a large number of those people were driven off by the continually blaring foghorn of misinformation that continues to sound to this very day.

Ahh, those were the days.



#11 Malich

Malich

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 2,771 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 07:09 PM

Gee - I was just going to suggest people refrain from answer Alan's questions, just so they're not helping him with 'research' for another poorly-written error-riddled article for SC or submission to AMCA...

 

(If I'm guessing right: welcome back, Captain?)


Edited by Malich, 14 April 2014 - 07:15 PM.