settopboxing's posts

30 search results, most recent first

SE
settopboxing

C&W/NTL/Telewest Box Revival

May I ask, considering the closure of TVF, if you'll continue your commentary on somewhere like TV Live's forum when that launches? I find this very interesting. Thank you


Feels a bit cheeky posting a skeleton thread, but I've started one anyway over at https://www.tvliveforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=50.

I hope to have something to fill it with in the coming weeks, progress has been stagnant due to lack of motivation in these "interesting times", but efforts will be made to push on regardless.
SE
settopboxing

…and finally

Well... bugger. I managed a rather unimpressive 9 months as a member, with a grand total of two threads to my name.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the opportunity to have posted here at all, some good, interesting members and pleasant discussion.

Cheers, and all the best in your future endeavours.
SE
settopboxing

C&W/NTL/Telewest Box Revival

May I ask, considering the closure of TVF, if you'll continue your commentary on somewhere like TV Live's forum when that launches? I find this very interesting. Thank you


Blimey, I wasn't aware it was closing until I read your comment there, just popped over and saw the "...and finally" post.

Yes, I will be continuing my work on this, hopefully quite soon, but I don't know where yet given this thread was where I'd planned to put any new news. I'd say keep an eye on my website, but I've done a very poor job of keeping it updated, I tend to be a lot more casual about stuff like this until it's "done" and I can write it up properly, plus there's no way to discuss anything there at the moment.

I'll see if I can update this thread with info on a new place before the closure.
SE
settopboxing

Internet on your TV

With ONdigital I remember they launched an email client first (onMail) that had a dongle that plugged into the STB with a keyboard remote. There was a software update than enabled the guide button on the remote which was used for Onrequest and Onmail. They never launched a EPG within the Ondigital boxes, instead relying on MHEG Teletext/ONview guides that took ages to load. i wonder if the onNet pages are on archive.org?

The Sega Dreamcast had a web browser back when it launched which was my first experience with browsing the internet on the TV. The PlanetWeb browser it used wasn't built into the console, and had to be loaded off a separate disc like a game.

Didn't Sky also had something similar with talk21 and open?


I'm yet to have experienced the ONmail stuff, I don't know much about it, but it makes sense to look at it, given it ties all this together.

Trouble is, that MHEG stuff you mention, that'll sadly all be gone now, unless somebody happens to have a mux dump that contained it, which seems fairly unlikely these days. Would've been nice to have been able to bring that back too. Also, having used some MHEG apps on older ONdigital boxes (after they went bust), the dialup boxes almost felt a bit like that. Slower than the MHEG, and obviously recognisable to anybody who ever used dialup, but still a similar experience of waiting for the thing to render.

The ONnet web content is partially archived on archive.org's Wayback Machine, that's how I got hold of the pieces of web page to display them on my box, but there are sadly large pieces (most obviously images) missing, so it's quite incomplete. Likewise the Bush internet portal, it's sort of there, but with chunks missing. Could perhaps be reassembled by hand, but would take somebody who's good at art to recreate it accurately, and there's not a lot of source material to recreate it from.

The Dreamcast stuff isn't quite my scene personally, but what is interesting is that they too have been using the methods I used to get these boxes online for some years now, to play online games and use the Dreamcast's browser, via the dialup modem (as the broadband adapters are now expensive and hard to find), which is pretty cool.

Sky did apparently have an email portal via BT and Open..., which I hadn't been previously aware of, though again it would've suffered a similar fate to the MHEG applications on ONdigital in terms of whether it could be brought back. I do have a couple of Open.../Sky keyboards, but as Sky never had a web browser on their boxes it had always made me wonder how useful they would've been. I guess email would be one big use of them, that'd make sense (to whatever extent people ever actually used set top boxes for email at least).
SE
settopboxing

Internet on your TV

The advantage of the Bush STBs were that they ran RISC OS - and it was possible to get them to an OS prompt and then into BASIC. If you had a Parallel Port Zip drive you could load additional RISC OS modules via that route and get a full RISC OS desktop ISTR.

You could reprogram the ISP number too - I remember I had Freeserve (0845 local call rate) as an ISP for a while and persuaded a Bush box to switch to that from whatever they wanted you to use.

One of the big advantages of the Bush RISC OS based approach was that RISC OS handled nice anti-aliased font rendering (long before other OSs did) and was also interlace aware - so you got quite a nice flicker-free high-res display - better than you'd expect an SD 576i display to render)


Indeed, I've had a bit of a poke about in the RISCOS prompt and a little bit of trying to recall my dim memories of BBC BASIC. I dunno if I'd have much practical use for a full RISCOS desktop on it (what with emulators and the Raspberry Pi being quite capable), but it's something I've always thought was rather a neat bonus feature, that ZIP drive desktop loading.

It's quite apparent that the Bush boxes and its predecessors (the NetStations and whatnot) were basically Acorns in a different box, which is quite impressive really. I never thought of them as being that sort of machine at the time (A30x0/A5000 era, some years before these boxes), but it says something that they found a use in that space, still making good use of the power of ARM and the vastly underrated (by many, especially those who didn't grow up with it) RISCOS.
SE
settopboxing

Internet on your TV

Joe posted:
Once again you’ve brought back some memories.

I was growing up at a time when the World Wide Web was really taking off in households – well that was my perception anyway. It was being actively plugged as a ‘normal thing’ on the CBBC shows I was watching, it was just beginning to be used during the new ICT lessons at school (and the library had lost some bookshelves to make way for 10-15 computers; a few years later they moved the library to a brand new extension next door and the computers took over the whole room). This was at a time when the kid who had a colour printer at home was the talk of the school.

The problem was that our home didn’t yet have a computer – it was a little out of reach financially, and I was aware enough not to push the subject!


I also remember that time, when computers in general (typically beige box PCs as far as I recall) and then the internet becoming "a thing" in kids TV, outside of the usual suspects like Bad Influence, GamesMaster, et al. I'm a little bit too young to have seen the likes of The Computer Programme and Micro Live first hand, but it was a all a lot more varied, before the PC crushed everything.

We'd had BBC Micros and then Acorn Archimedes series machines at school, later fizzling out with the A7000 and RiscPC machines which just about held on whilst PCs had overtaken the older machines. I tried to make the most of whatever time I could get on those as I also didn't have a computer at home until quite late. Prior to getting access to the internet I found that plenty to keep me busy with the school computers whenever I could. Likewise when I finally managed to persuade my parents that a computer was something "we" could make good use of (albeit a second hand one and no longer contemporary; an Amiga 500, which in hindsight I especially appreciate). Didn't have the internet at home until quite some time after that, but it didn't bother me as I'd not had it to miss, and later still I took to using the public library's computers, taking a large stack of floppies with me to bring back fun new treats for my Amiga.

I spent quite some number of hours learning how to do things offline, to be creative, to find enjoyment in games because I couldn't afford to get new ones, to gain an understanding of the technology. I was just happy to be able to use a computer. These days I don't know what I'd do without the internet though, how times change, eh?

Joe posted:
I was using any available opportunity to explore the internet. As a much younger child I remember misunderstanding the purpose of those old AOL CDs. Some of them promised something like ‘100 hours of internet free!’ Naively, I thought that if I could only get hold of one of these discs, I could take it over to my older brother’s house (he had a PC but with no network connection) and use it there. If I used it for, say, an hour a week, the CD could last me over two years! It wasn’t until later that I realised the disc didn’t in fact contain the entire contents of the World Wide Web, and that my plan wouldn’t work. As a result, when I did manage to get hold of a stack of AOL discs I used them in a craft project, and they didn’t come anywhere near a computer.


I don't think I ever really thought that, not to the extent that I imagined I'd be able to use it, but it was definitely something that sounded tempting. It sounded so easy, didn't it? With this one CD, or with this piece of software on a magazine disk, the internet can be yours! I don't suppose I really quite understood ISPs then either, but it sure did sound enticing.

Joe posted:
Another potential method for me to try the internet was in one of those fancy BT phone box replacements, that offered free email sending. I was pretty excited to try it – it wasn’t until I got my opportunity to try it, as I waited outside a shop for one of my parents, that I realised I didn’t know any email addresses to try sending a message to other than some CBBC shows – and that I wouldn’t see any replies anyway.


Yeah, unless you were a frequent user of them, or perhaps a temporarily internetless enthusiast, I imagine a lot of people would've had a similar series of thoughts. Sounded like a good idea, but I'm not entirely convinced they were quite as practical as they appeared on the surface. Never used one myself though.

Joe posted:
Thus my main breakthrough in using the World Wide Web on my terms came (and you’ll be pleased to see this, as now my rambling comes back on topic for this thread) when we eventually got cable television. It was a few years before we got a computer with an internet connection, and exploring the Cable and Wireless interactive menus whiled away many hours. I believe there were, as indicated above by similar services, games, news, sport, travel and kids. I would have loved a web browser, as that would just have afforded free reign - but I was happy enough with those options for now. Most exciting to me was the email function, as touched upon above!

This time I was ready with some email addresses I could use. I think I was still pretty limited though – probably the same CBBC shows, my older brother and a school friend, probably. But it was incredibly exciting to be able to feel connected, and through the TV of all things. I do remember once winning a CBBC good bag, and I can’t tell you how amazing that was at the time, being awarded as it was simply for getting in touch and being declared the sender of the best email they’d received that day.


Since I didn't have cable, and only had Sky Digital much later on (and then only briefly, as far as me personally having full ownership of it), I didn't really experience that. I imagine it would've been like teletext was for me though, being able to navigate around all this information and "stuff" from other people, right in the living room. Sounds a bit odd to be saying things like that in 2020, I'm sure, but given I didn't have the internet (or any real experience of it when I was discovering teletext) and interactive TV wasn't really a thing yet, it was the closest thing I had.

Must've been like that for people fancy enough to have had modems and had discovered BBSs, it was all text after all, same as teletext, and still data transmissions from some mystical unknown location(s) that could've conceivably been anywhere or from anyone.

Joe posted:
Another memory is the annoyance of having to type everything on the ordinary cable remote. It meant everything took an age, but that rather adds to the nostalgia of it all I think. I remember that Cable and Wireless, and I think later NTL, really plugged the option of a wireless keyboard to use instead. Sadly I could never convince my parents to buy one.


I have a few of those in my collection, but I haven't had much of an opportunity to try them out. I think they're similar to the ONnet keyboard in terms of quality though, which isn't half bad (for a TV internet box keyboard - it's no clicky mechanical keyboard any means). The Bush's keyboard, in contrast, is bloody awful.

I've got a couple of Sky keyboards too, but having more of an idea of what was available on Sky than cable I'd question why anybody would've bought one at the time, I can't imagine they'd have used them much.

Joe posted:
After what seemed an age, though probably really wasn’t, our family got a computer and an internet connection. That brings back its own memories, which I won’t go into, save to mention a panicked engineer returning to our house at 8am the day after installation worrying that he’d not told us to disconnect the connection when not in use to save a huge phone bill. Luckily we’d read that somewhere already, but I smile at the concern he showed.


How far we've come, eh? These days you can leave your internet on 24/7, even on your phone, and not end up with a huge bill (that you'd no doubt get a severe "talking to" about). Even working on these boxes last night gave me a slight sense that I needed to hang up the line as soon as I'd finished each test.

Joe posted:
I look back on that time fondly. Technology moved very quickly (it still does, but the changes seem that bit less exciting) and though it always felt we were a step behind I realise now that we were fortunate.


I can't disagree. It did seem more exciting back then, I think partly because there was so much scope for improvement, so many directions to go, and because a lot of technology was still so primitive then it wasn't insanely difficult to make a big step forward from "this is quite good" to "this is absolutely bonkers". These days it's much harder, we've been pushing things to the limit for half a century now and computers have reached a point where everything's already so fast, so powerful, so graphically impressive, it's a lot less eye-catching going from "quite shiny photorealistic 3D game" to "slightly more shiny photorealistic 3D game" than it is going from 2D primitives to detailed sprites to textured 3D models in about 10 years or so.

I mentioned above being thankful in hindsight about having an Amiga, but I mean that in several senses. Of course I was glad to have a computer, many people didn't, but I'm also glad it was an Amiga. As a side-effect of that scrappy "whatever I can get, even if it is 10 years behind the curve" I feel like I've had the opportunity to experience a broader spectrum (ahem) of machines, operating systems, approaches to computing, and it taught me patience too, back when I had to make do with slow machines and be glad about it. Acorn and Amiga machines were both very good, they made the PC look like a joke, and it was (and is) a pleasure to be familiar with them.

Joe posted:
Apologies for this recollection that is only slightly on topic - and indeed for any inaccuracies in my retelling which are a result of my childhood understanding.


Now you'll not have to feel quite so self-concious about having rambled, given I have too... But to tie everything up in a nice little package, I think that's perfectly fine. After all, I can take all the screenshots and videos I like of all this stuff, but the human element of having experienced this stuff is just as important. I have my own experience with some of it, but I didn't experience all of it, so the more the merrier.

If it weren't for that context, this stuff would all be worthless, computationally deficient waste, and long forgotten and buried. It's the memories and the things they made us feel that make people like me (and thankfully others) do this stuff.
SE
settopboxing

Internet on your TV

Videos:

Bush box dialling up (no audio, unlike the ONnet box, as these Bush boxes had no audio capabilities):



Bush box browsing:



ONnet box dialling up:

SE
settopboxing

Internet on your TV

Since my previous (now a bit old and neglected) thread about reviving set top boxes seemed to gather interest, I thought it might be nice to do the same for their internet-enabled counterparts whilst I'm taking a break from the main part of the project.

So I did. Remember the Bush Internet TV boxes? or ONdigital's own ONnet service? I wanted to see how they looked back in the day - there are surprisingly few screenshots online - so I set up a fake phone line, a local server, and argued with Linux for 12 hours or so, and...

*

*

...it worked! Eventually.

The Bush box can freely browse, to the extent you'd expect a slightly dodgy 20 year old embedded web browser to be able to browse (which, it turns out, isn't very great). I wouldn't suggest anybody does, but it functions about as well as it ever would've, minus the broad availability of Geocities-class websites to view on it.

The ONnet box sadly can't freely browse (yet), it seems to require initial registration with ONdigital's back-end system, which... erm, hasn't existed for well over 15 years, so that's a bit tricky. In the meantime I've bodged it to show what it would've looked like (as best I can) by redirecting the initial registration setup page it expects to a slightly modified copy of an archived ONnet homepage from around 2000.

Unfortunately neither service's content pages are especially well archived, so they're not quite as "just like it was back in the day", but it's a nice taste of roughly more-or-less kinda-sorta what it would've looked like.
SE
settopboxing

C&W/NTL/Telewest Box Revival

Joe posted:
I don’t think I’ve posted in this thread yet but apologies if I have!

I have no interest in doing this stuff, but I’m fascinated reading about it, and especially in seeing the screenshots. It’s been great to learn a little more about the history of the UK’s cable networks etc. Thanks for the interesting conversation!


No problem, that's the idea!

The broadcasters don't seem to care much (or if they do then at least not often publicly), and to most people it just becomes landfill of no value other than maybe scrap metal, so that's exactly what I want to do - make sure it doesn't just disappear into landfill, both physically and in terms of records like screenshots, videos, etc of boxes in action, even if the original services are gone.

Glad you're enjoying the screenshots, hope I can bring more soon!
SE
settopboxing

C&W/NTL/Telewest Box Revival

Here's the dump of the transport stream. It's 60 seconds-worth of data. Hopefully will be useful! -

https://fil.email/rgiRNLPr


Much appreciated, thanks! As I noted above I've been a little distracted with "other types of receivers" of late, but I'll definitely have a look at this dump to see if I can use it to better understand the cable stuff. There's a lot of general DVB stuff I've learnt recently, so that's helping too, as I hop between the transmission media (cable, aerial, dish) I'm picking up stuff that'll help me with the others, so when I get back around to cable I should be able to put the knowledge to better use.

Still flailing in the almost-dark with all this DVB and MPEG stuff, but bit by bit, it's coming together. Hope to have more interesting things to report in the near future!
Last edited by settopboxing on 7 September 2020 6:05pm
SE
settopboxing

C&W/NTL/Telewest Box Revival

Interesting! Not sure when I'll be able to do it, but I will try and get a mux-dump of the "home" DVB-C multiplex when I next see my parents (ex-NTL Stafford network area: Frequency: 826.250MHz - S/R: 6.887 - NID: 00015). They used to have cable and the connection to the network was seemingly never disconnected when they left a few years ago.

Some of the stuff on the network is actually unencrypted (The main five channels in SD, plus a couple of others and some Virgin Media static info screen channels), but pretty much everything is MPEG4 these days so you'll have to generate your own multiplexes containing MPEG2 for the old boxes like you have otherwise for your OnDigital ones etc.

The transmissions do have standard EIT schedule data transmitted (see: https://digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=C078&pid=2703&live=209&sec=0&lang=en ) but only a limited amount. I've had a look at the code of TVHeadend, which has an EPG grabber for Virgin Media cable. It looks like the full EPG is EIT data but all on a single PID - 700, I guess a little like Freesat but without the Huffman encoding. Presumably this is on the home transponder.

Here's some analysis of the current home transponder (the network here is one of the Liverpool ones I think) - https://digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=C070&liste=1&live=209&lang=en

PID 700 with the EPG is probably hidden in there somewhere. I will get a mux-dump when I next have a chance Smile


If you could that'd be super useful, cheers! It may not necessarily require all of the data in order to get the box to do its thing, but I suspect it's looking for quite specific stuff in quite specific places (as it's only designed to work with NTL/Virgin, so they'd be in full control of the infrastructure), so getting an idea of what the real thing looks like seems like it'd be fairly important.

I'll take a look at the TVHeadend stuff, thanks for the tip, it might give me some idea of the format of the EITs and how standard it is. I still don't know quite how to get the box to accept the mux I'm transmitting so I may not be able to test if what I give it is working properly, but it all helps. When enough right pieces are there, I'm hoping the rest should "just work" as long as it's fairly standard DVB stuff. Could be handy to know that PID too, if things do have to be in precisely the right place, to match some specifically hardcoded firmware, that's all good info.

Having said that, I wonder if there's any region/network-specific IDs and stuff which have to match the box. As I understand it you can't just pick up one of these boxes and take it anywhere you like, but I don't know if that's a measure enforced by the back end, or the box, or the card. I should probably look at these boxes and figure out where they came from, just in case.

Since I'm here, a selection of screenshots of the DiTV1000 that does boot to the EPG without a feed, for those of a nostalgic disposition:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

The version number is "P1.Build 53.25h.CR1", so it's a classic, effectively a slightly updated version of the initial turn of the century EPG software. The build date is 17 April 2003, so as far as I can tell it must've been a London area box which was never updated to CR2?

Edit: Forgot to mention, you'll note the clock is still roughly correct. It's some minutes out, but it's managed to retain the correct date and more or less the correct time. Impressive, really, several other boxes seem to have managed the same. As I don't know which regions these boxes came from or when they were last used I'm not sure how long they've been sitting around, but I've had them for a while myself.


Not ex-NTL Stafford, but I’ve just moved to Gloucestershire, and the temporary accommodation I’m in has a pretty old-looking Telewest wall plate (which seems to be connected on the outside to the VM cable).

Provided it is connected I will try to get you a home multiplex dump from the VM Cheltenham & Gloucester (ex. Telewest/Cotswold Cable) network in the next couple of days. Smile


No worries if it's not connected, but if you could, that'd be interesting, thanks! Doesn't need to be terribly long, just enough to get some of the technical basics. I don't know what the compatibility is like with old boxes these days, as I gather they're unsupported now, but it might give a rough idea of what the system looked like somewhat recently.

Also I should say I've not abandoned this thread, I've just become distracted working on some boxes rather less ground-based. Wink
SE
settopboxing

C&W/NTL/Telewest Box Revival

Here’s a random one for you, we had NTL Digital installed in December 2000 (we had Analogue with them and C&W and NYNEX prior) and were provided with an NTL branded Pace 1000 box with NTL card. A year later we got a second box installed in my bedroom, same Pace box but branded Cable & Wireless with a C&W viewing card. Whilst I don’t have any photographic evidence all I remember was the card was yellow, and had the white d in a blue circle logo they were using for Digital. The set up/boot screens also had the C&W logo instead of NTL’s.


Yeah, I guess they had a bunch of old/refurb boxes, I've wondered how they went about that though, I have some boxes here which have newer logos than they should have. One, for example, is a Virgin box (according to the front face logo) but the underside had a stack of serial number/spec stickers on the bottom, the topmost of which was unbranded, but the numerous ones underneath it have NTL logos. I'm not entirely sure why they decided they needed to keep replacing that sticker as nothing much about it seemed to differ between the extra stickers they put over the top of the first, except the last one not having an NTL logo.

I feel like I may have heard something about there being a yellow card at some point, but nothing more about it, something I must've read on a forum somewhere. I assume they must still be out there, somewhere, even if there's only a few of them, but I've never even seen a picture.

As others I'm really enjoying seeing the work going in to bringing these old boxes come to life, and I applaud you on your work so far.

It just so happens DVB coding is something I know a lot about, so I might be able to help, not that I know anything about the cable network.

You may already be using it, but if you haven't found it TSDuck is an excellent tool for building and manipulating DVB transport streams. Combined with FFmpeg to encode video you should be able to generate a TS stream in real time with it, which you could feed to the boxes with live video and all the additional data required. You could even receive a TS stream from DTT or satellite, and rewrap it to feed in to the boxes.

As a side note, but I mention it as it's in your first post, you say Sky is quite tricky but in theory it shouldn't be. It should receive any standard DVB-S multiplex which you could tune in via 'Other Channels'. Making channels appear on the EPG is harder as they don't use EIT, but the Sky EPG has been reverse engineered and is used in projects such as TVHeadend to receive the channel lineup and TV guide, so it should be possible to work out how to transmit the EPG from that.


Cheers! I'm not using TSDuck at the moment as I had some issues trying to get it installed, I'm using OpenCaster at the moment, but I hear TSDuck is better so if I have any issues I might go back to trying to install it. Thanks for the suggestion though, it's a handy second option if I get stuck. I am using ffmpeg for video encoding although I'm not doing live video right now, I'm just generating a TS that broadcasts over an over in a loop. That does have some minor issues, like the clock never changes, it's perpetually 5pm on Friday 14th August, but the boxes don't seem to mind and it gives me a non-moving target to write the EPG data for.

The thing with Sky isn't so much the actual data as the data rate. Because their boxes will only accept two (quite high) symbols/second it requires a higher spec radio. I do have such a radio but it's a bit awkward to use as it's miniPCIe so I can't easily connect it to my transmission virtual machine. I can use it in a laptop but the best laptop I have that it'll go in is pretty old so data rates are an issue, I can use it in my desktop (via an adapter) but that requires booting natively into Linux. So it's doable but much less convenient. I might be able to stretch the USB radio I have far enough out of spec to just about manage to satisfy a Digibox's symbol rate requirements, but I'm not confident it'll manage it as it's limited by USB 2.0 bandwidth. If they hadn't had the Digibox firmware restricted to two specific and quite high symbol rates then it would've been much easier, I could've done it the same as analogue/ONdigital/this cable stuff.

Mute posted:
Here are a few more random recollections based on the last few posts.

Cable and Wireless and ntl built their networks separately from each other, so ended up with very different technology. I recall someone mentioning that Telewest hired the same consultants that Cable and Wireless used and asked them to help them build an identical digital TV network as they were expecting to eventually get taken over by Cable and Wireless.

--snip--

I believe that all three networks used boxes from Pace that were very similar, but had some differences, so there were some subtle variations in the model numbers of the boxes.

--snip--

I believe that the engineering menus on all of the boxes are incredibly similar across all of the different models. Even the TiVo boxes have the same style of engineering menu that's accessed in the same way, it's just the V6 boxes that don't

--snip--

Not long after the merger they carried out a major upgrade of the head ends (in a project called Next Generation TV) which saw a single super head end feeding the entire network, rather than having separate networks for the three legacy companies, although some technical differences remain.

--snip--

The rapid changes that have happened to the network in recent years have mostly been due to the older boxes being removed. Whilst I can appreciate the technical nostalgia of getting the boxes to work, especially the ones running software from before the Virgin Media era, they were clearly holding back other technical advancements on the network. I think that all of the digital TV platforms have had problems with having to remain compatible with the oldest and least capable box that is still in use, so it been interesting to see Virgin Media being able to make some big changes (such as channels going HD only and switching SD channels to MPED4) since these older boxes have been removed.


Yeah, the Telewest/C&W thing would tally with what I thought I'd heard in the past, so I guess that makes sense. It's kinda handy in a way though as it means a lot of the old network ID/region lists specify whether a region was pure NTL, ex-Telewest, or ex-C&W. Not that I've yet written down which of my boxes are which type, but it might be useful to know in future. Incidentally, several boxes have the net ID "99999" which I gather means they've been reset at some point, it seems to work if I target my transmissions for net ID 99999 so it's a literal ID and not just a non-functional placeholder, does make it difficult (impossible?) to establish exactly where they came from though.

(Edit: Not necessarily impossible to narrow down where they might have come from as the firmware versions, in particular the newer (Virgin) ones, seem to have stuff like BROM or KNOW in them, so it's fairly obvious which bit of the network they were probably intended to be used on.)

The boxes as far as I can see (not yet having done any investigative digging) do seem to be very similar across the board, they're all similarly styled, I believe most of them use very similar internals architecturally (other than the modems, as you mention). One of my boxes is more modern than the rest and it has a newer engineering menu, not like the blue screenshots I've posted above, but a sort of pastel purple menu, which is what I saw on the Samsung box I used to have. Given that, I assume they were all either based heavily on the same code, regardless of manufacturer, or almost identical other than some minor manufacturer-specific tweaks. Sky, in comparison, seems to have more diversity in the underlying architectural stuff, it doesn't seem to matter what they run underneath as long as the Sky EPG can sit on top of OpenTV. Since there's no equivalent to engineering mode on a Sky box though it's a bit difficult to compare in the same way you can on the cable boxes, there's no obvious signs of a UI or anything that don't involve booting into the EPG, which looks identical on all boxes regardless of what's underneath (as is the ideal point of middleware, of course).

I don't know much about the differences between DAVIC and DOCSIS, it's not something I've looked much into yet, but thankfully it seems not to have any bearing on the DVB-C portion of their functionality. As I hinted at earlier in the thread, it would be neat to be able to get that functionality up and running too, but it's a bit beyond me at the moment and I think it would require a more complex radio setup as it'll need to operate on multiple frequencies and in presumably in duplex. Does make sense that they would've had to have kept both systems running for customers though, unless they were going to replace all the set top boxes of a given system type, which I suppose they've kinda done now that they've consolidated things and no longer support these old boxes. I guess it was bound to happen eventually, even if it took an entire new communications standard. Not sure what the current system uses though, I assume DOCSIS, as that's more widely used? They operate from Bromley and Knowlsey now, right? Those would've been the C&W and Telewest headends according to Wikipedia, so those would be the DOCSIS systems? Must've been pretty awkward before the integration though, operating two different networks like that, it's funny you mention the channel numbers not even being the same, that seems like a relatively simple thing to fix.

The boxes all seem to respond to the signal I'm currently generating in some way or another, such as being able to get the current time via the TDT packets, but not necessarily the channel names and stuff like that. So it seems the very basics of "here is a DVB-C transmission with your network ID" as pretty universal at least, but not necessarily the position and format of some of the data in it. I'm unsure at the moment whether that's an architectural difference or whether some are just more tolerant than others in the sense that they'll fall back to getting data from another portion of the stream or more generously interpret data that isn't quite what it should be.

Good bit of history though, thanks for that. Smile
Last edited by settopboxing on 16 August 2020 2:24pm