[mythtv] DVB patch

[Joshua M. Thompson]

On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 20:41 -0500, Taylor Jacob wrote:

> The NetworkID/TransportID is actually used for maping the services.. Who cares
> if you get 6 copies of the transponders?  They timeout pretty quickly, and you
> never have to scan again.. (At least when all of this is done..  In the end
> once the satellite is scanned once it will always keep it the database up to
> date)..  I am not aware of spot beams being used anywhere other than
> DishNetwork and DirecTV which you cannot use with MythTV and a DVB card since
> Dish does not support CAMs and DirecTV is not DVB standard..  What are you
> accessing on 110/119W?

It's not a matter of duplicate transponders though...the transponders
are correct. All that happens is when there are say five on one
frequency, it tries to scan them all, but it's actually scanning the
same one five times. So, it creates five copies of the channels, with
each copy mapped as appearing on one of the five transponders on that
frequency.

I'm not actually watching anything at the moment so much as just playing
around because I don't have a spare dish to point at anything FTA yet,
but I do have an extra connection on my Dish dish. :) Hell my little
nova-s card doesn't even have a cam slot.

Anyway I just thought I'd mention it because it's possible it could
affect someone else in the future, if say Dish became cam-friendly or a
cam-friendly provider opened up for NA users.

> I had always thought that the NIT tables would not be verified all the time once
> they were initially populated.. Its not very often that a new multiplex pops
> up.. I.E. Its an edge condition that probbably causes more problems to be
> verified than to just force the user to do a re-scan..  I could be wrong on
> this, but I don't see this being a big deal..

Obviously if it only affects me it's probably not worth fixing, just
like I said it's always possible it could become an issue in the future,
and designing for it now is probably easier than fixing it down the
line. I think a simple, easily verifiable solution is just to allow
flagging of transponders as "do not use". I can whip up a simple patch
for that this weekend.

-- 
Joshua M. Thompson <funaho at jurai.org>