For the Future
of CE Networking, Look to IEEE 1394, not DVI
James Snider, Director, 1394
Trade Association
Throughout
2001, despite the recession in the electronics and semiconductor industry, the
IEEE 1394 multimedia standard made significant progress.
It emerged
as the definitive bus for audio and video connectivity, and gained a foothold
in the auto market as the backbone for the networked vehicle. Many new CE
and PC peripherals emerged with 1394-FireWire-i.LINK. These included Apple’s
iPod, scanners from Hewlett-Packard, Umax, and others, and high capacity hard
drives from Maxtor and other leaders.
There was
even good news from the entertainment industry -- Apple Computer won an Emmy
for its leadership on FireWire.
But a small,
dedicated group of engineers still insists that DVI provides more benefits
than the 1394-FireWire-i.LINK standard for Digital TV. They continue to
advocate the Digital Video Interface (DVI) as the best answer for moving from
analog to digital transmission of video and audio.
DVI has a
long history, moving through several design changes before it achieved some
design successes in monitors. It really wasn’t conceived as a digital TV
interface. It suffices as a point-to-point connector to deliver uncompressed
video streams from a single source, such as a set top box to a display. But
to hook more than one digital consumer device to a TV, that TV requires an
interface for each device. Each time a user changes the entertainment source,
connected devices must be switched. And until recently, the audio section of
the DVI specification has been proprietary.
As a result,
DVI’s not very useful in new PCs. In consumer electronics products, DVI is a
reasonable first step in the long-term goal of a fully networked home, but to
succeed in this exciting ultimate network, IEEE 1394 is the answer.
Still, DVI fans make a couple arguments
for it. First, only DVI safeguards against ‘copying digital content for
profit’ that major studios want protected. They say the studios all love it,
and of course they do: DVI’s copy protection is really a ‘copy-never’ scheme
that deprives users of the basic right to make a personal copy of video and
audio for their own, non-commercial use. DVI is not a friendly technology if
you’re a strong supporter of the user’s rights to make non-commercial copies.
1394 is the
standard that does protect illegal copying – without denying user
rights. The Digital Transmission Copy Protection protocol (known as 5C) was
developed by the leading advocates of 1394, protects copyrighted video and
audio over 1394. It enables three options -- "copy once," "copy never" and
"copy freely." Major studios led by Warner Brothers and Sony Pictures have
endorsed it. Others are expected to follow this year.
Users should
be their focus, and many of them are insisting on the ability to record
digital video in their systems, for their own use – not for profit.
It’s difficult to conceive of users truly trying to profit from digital
copying – the really profitable or undesirable copying goes on long before new
content is released and well before the general public gets a chance to see
them. The bottom line question about the new generation of TVs is this: how
many consumers will pay $4,000 or more for a next-generation digital TV that
is not equipped to record in digital format. My guess: not many, and
not for long. That makes 1394 is clearly a better choice for the consumer.
A second argument from DVI’s supporters is
that the cable industry supports DVI. But last year, there emerged a clear
statement from the Society of Cable Television Executives (SCTE) that the 1394
standard has emerged as the preferred tool for interconnecting A/V signals on
a common network – including the link between STBs and digital TV. 5C and
1394 appear to have the confidence of this group.
Beyond the
copy protection issue, DVI backers also say that only uncompressed video
provides optimal, non-distorted images. They also maintain that DVI has the
ability to deliver uncompressed video -- and that the compressed video
streamed by IEEE 1394 provides much lower output quality and also may obsolete
expensive HDTVs due to format changes.
The 1394 Trade Association’s view is that
compressing digital signals does not distort output in any way that affects
the user. Compare the limits of DVI with 1394’s universal, network-creating
connectivity. Because 1394’s role is to enable many different devices to share
high-definition video, audio, IP traffic and other information for display and
recording devices, it is a better solution for the user.
This ongoing
‘debate’ leaves CE manufacturers in a quandary. A few want to use both
interfaces in at least some of their systems. They are doing these designs
that HDTVs can and should have both DVI and 1394, which they call
‘complementary.’ But the idea of co-existence lacks some logic. Two
interfaces might satisfy studio executives who want to keep as much control as
they can over content. But it’s not an optimal engineering solution, costs
extra, and carries with it the unnecessary restriction on consumer copying
that we in the 1394 Trade Association believe is a right.
There is no need for CE manufacturers to support dual interfaces, when 1394
offers everything DVI does, and more. It allows set-tops, personal video
recorders and DVD players to be connected instantly to everything, forming a
"network" with no switching. IEEE 1394 moves us efficiently into the future
networked entertainment center.
