Cable Industry to Standardize Under Tru2Way

smooth wombat writes "In a move to stave off the FCC, cable operators have now agreed upon one standard to allow TVs and other gear that will work regardless of cable provider. This standard should allow the development of new services and features that rely on two-way communication over the cable network. The core of the matter is this: there are tvs and other devices which can receive digital programming but cannot talk back to the network. As a result, subscribers must rent out boxes from cable companies. This new standard should, in theory, do away with having to rent a box. There are two downsides to this standard. First, Sony has not signed onto the cable industry's idea and second, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to put forth a proposal for a more open and competitive environment using a completely different standard."

Comments

For a moment ...

[overshoot]

I thought this was about CableCard, which was the last plan that would have rendered company-specific set-top boxes obsolete and brought universal interoperability.

Now remind me how that turned out.

Re:For a moment ...

[dreamt]

So the question is, is this just CableCard 2.0 rebranded? The article mentions that this has been in the works for a long time, etc, etc, so maybe it is? One can only hope.

Re:For a moment ...

[amigabill]

Yea, CableCard 2.0 should have done the same thing. Will my Tivo HD still work with this new standard, or will I have to buy everything all over again?

Re:For a moment ...

[spartiums]

It can only be good if it renders all the set-top-boxes obsolete - and cuts down on the number of remote controls I need to have

Re:For a moment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would help if CableCards actually worked. They don't.

Talk to any CableCard installer. I've met an installer tech who has a 0% success rate installing the stupid things. They just don't work.

From what I gather, it's really a problem with the third party device manufacturers - they just don't implement the standards properly. The problem isn't with the cards themselves - cable companies have been mandated to use them in all cable boxes produced since July of last year. These boxes work. So the problem is obviously with the third party devices.

It just goes to show that, yet again, attempting to regulate the free market just doesn't work. Tru2Way may have a chance to succeed because it isn't being forced by the FCC, but given just how poorly consumer devices work with CableCard, I wouldn't count on it.

Personally I don't understand why people care about renting the box. They're rented WAY under cost. Would you want to be forced to pony up $400 up-front to use their cable? Or would you rather continue to pay $4/month for it? (That's 8 years before you'd catch up buying it up front!)

Re:For a moment ...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

That, and CableCard v.2 was supposed to handle 2-way communications. I think v.1 was just one way.

Re:For a moment ...

[A Cheese Danish]

Actually, that's how all your new cable boxes *are* working.

As of June-July of this year, all cable boxes sold are now required to be OCAP-compliant ie. they need a cablecard. You can still receive a non-OCAP box from your cable store, but no new ones can be purchased so once the existing supply runs out, all boxes will have cablecards in them. Most of these boxes have the cards locked into them, but the cards are there.

Re:For a moment ...

[edwdig]

From what I gather, it's really a problem with the third party device manufacturers - they just don't implement the standards properly. The problem isn't with the cards themselves - cable companies have been mandated to use them in all cable boxes produced since July of last year. These boxes work. So the problem is obviously with the third party devices.

You get a box and CableCard from the same source and they work together fine. Get the two products from different sources and have issues. I'd take that to mean the problem could be on either end.

If you take a CableVision CableCard and stick it into a Comcast cable box, does everything work? How about the reverse? If you throw a random other box in the mix, what combos work?

My understanding has always been that the cable companies never wanted CableCards (or anything similar) and have been doing the minimum necessary to get the FCC off their backs.

Re:For a moment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Using your argument people would never buy their cable modems. Of course the cost is closer, but how long do most people plan on keeping TV? And if you move and take the box with you, this would be considerable over your life. Also those prices would fall drastically if they were standardized and could be sold directly to end-users. You would find TVs with built-in tuners that actually worked, and you would find places selling a wide-range of set-top boxes from current players (Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, etc.) and from new players as well.

Re:For a moment ...

[KingSkippus]

That, and CableCard v.2 was supposed to handle 2-way communications. I think v.1 was just one way.

Does that make v.3 the one where the NSA also gets to watch what you're watching in real-time?

Re:For a moment ...

[EdelFactor19]

neither; we pay them for cable tv. if they create a barrier such as a needed box to provide themselves with security they should have to shoulder the burden and provide the box for free. Do you have to pay the phone company for a special box to use their phone lines? do you have to pay the power company for special box? do you pay the water company for a special box? no you dont.

as long as you need the box to obtain all of the features that they provide and advertise as part of their offering the box should free. That they charge for the box and seperately for the remote is even more absurd.

I won't buy it because I have no guarantee that they wont change the boxes out the next day. And oh wait who decided that those boxes were 400? oh right the cable company gets to, because they have no competition and no one buys them. How is it that this stupid cable box is 400 when for that same amount you could buy a basic desktop computer? You could buy a PS3 for that price; and last I checked the PS3 was significantly more complicated to produce, and more powerful.. And they are often 6 a month, and then another dollar a month for the remote... and then another chunk for them to come out and give you the box, and then another box for everytv in your house.

This is only made more assanine by the extremely outrageous rates they charge for setup and installation of service. I moved into an apartment complex that was already wired for cable; all the had to do was flick a switch, hand me the cable box and cable modem. If i could have done it myself I would have; instead i have to wait till they can come out; and pay them about 150 dollars to do nothing which took about 45 minutes. Why is it that a "cable guy" who 9 times out of 10 hasn't even been to college is providing me with roughly an hours worth of work that is somehow "more expensive" than an hours worth of my work at my job; which I had to attain a top tier college degree for?

Its not just the box; its the box and the other crapload of fees they associate with it. Oh you want us to hook up the box? more $ please. oh you want a remote for it? well you can buy a universal which wont have every feature of our remote since we have some special buttons, or you can rent ours for yep more $.
Thanks to cable boxes the channel labelling features of tv's are useless. honestly having cable my tv remote is basically never used; the only thing i programmed my universal remote to use from it is power on / off, menu, up/down/left/right/enter for the settings, and input switch.

a cable card installer? whats the training for that? "this is the slot, you put the card here"?... why do you need someone to put a card in a slot for you? a friend just got an hdtv and a cable card for it; it has a slot on the front face. Worked like a charm; i was even able to watch the infamous cowboys/panthers and pats/giants games on the "NFL NETWORK" on the darn thing.

I dont think it proves a damn thing; because the cable companies have been going at great length not to comply with that theyve been asked to, and doing so as slowly as humanly possible. "It just goes to show that, yet again, attempting to regulate the free market just doesn't work" this is statement couldnt be more invalid. The cable companies dont exist in a free market. In a free market the cable company would provide one thing; the cable. Anyone could create a device to be used to connect to it; they dont allow that. in fact they formed a monopoly of sorts because the user has no choice, and there is no competition. what can you choose other than the one cable provider in your town, the non existent other cable provider? not renting or buying a box from them? renting or buying a box from someone else? and that isnt what makes a monopoly anyhow; its the practices for exclusion. "lets create a box and legally not allow anyone else to make them" "lets make it so that cable ready tv's cant be cable ready anymore" "lets offer only a crippled version to those who look to third party

Re:For a moment ...

[AndersOSU]

I hear the plans for v.4 actually allow the NSA to watch you in real time.

Re:For a moment ...

[LMacG]

> Do you have to pay the phone company for a special box to use their phone lines?

Well, yes. At least up until relatively recently, you had to pay a monthly rental fee to "Ma Bell" for each telephone that you wanted. Now you get to go buy your own from WalMart or newegg.com or whatever, although I understand that there are some people still happily paying for the black Model 500 deskset.

And hey, I'm not in the least supporting cable companies here, but their model is pretty much based on "The" Phone Company of yore.

Re:For a moment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I hear the plans for v.4 actually allow the NSA to watch you in real time."

The v.4 card is available in Soviet Russia?

Re:For a moment ...

[Scaba]

It just goes to show that, yet again, attempting to regulate the free market just doesn't work.

That's a ridiculous assertion. It's like saying every crime committed is further proof that laws just don't work. Citing an example of someone not following the rules as proof that the rules themselves are flawed is just specious. If you stopped chanting the conservative party line for a minute, you'd realize you benefit more from regulations on free markets than you think. Your food is required to meet certain standards of safety, your children aren't allowed to work in sweatshops, and in fact, you aren't allowed to have sweatshops, your place of work is required to meet a threshold of safety, your automobile is required to meet a certain threshold of safety, etc. Free markets can only regulate themselves if everyone always acts in perfect enlightened self-interest and if all actions have zero consequences. This is where your Ayn Rand and reality sharply diverge.

Re:For a moment ...

[cayenne8]

"Personally I don't understand why people care about renting the box. They're rented WAY under cost. Would you want to be forced to pony up $400 up-front to use their cable? Or would you rather continue to pay $4/month for it? (That's 8 years before you'd catch up buying it up front!)"

Well, for one thing...one less remote with out a settop box. For many of us, with homebrew DVR's (MythTV), or more related here, Tivo HD units....you don't want to have to have it control a separate STB...there is no need for it, as that these dvr's and most tv's have perfectly good tuners in them, no need for a kludge for IR setups to change the channel on the STB.

Not to mention, you're already paying a small fortune for cable programmin....why should you pay an additional monthly fee for a STB that gets in the way?

Re:For a moment ...

[Ilgaz]

With MS popping up in story and saying "It will be supported on NEXT generation of WINDOWS", they will likely use some joke format MS provides.

Intel and MS on same story gives a very bad clue: Windows (Media)

I have no clue how many times a format must fail before MS gives up sinking billions of Dollars. Industry decided: It is either MPEG4 or H264.

Whole planet is running TCP/IP (over DOCSis cable comms) mixed with DVB-C for 2 way cable and these idiots are "inventing" things. In fact, by the time this standard takes off, people will ask why they should get "Trusomething" signal to their boxes while their computer can stream H264/HD content on demand over web over ordinary TCP/IP, not UDP even. I think cable "box" will actually be something like Apple TV, an ordinary computer using very standard protocols. That is in case you want a remote control and old fashion channel zapping. No need for "Tru" things, there is already a true established standard named ATSC (DVB-C if you are European) and TCP/IP, DOCSIS etc.

Re:For a moment ...

[Ilgaz]

It can only be good if it renders all the set-top-boxes obsolete - and cuts down on the number of remote controls I need to have With a really fast internet connection (e.g. Fiber) and a reasonably designed, easily used computer like Mac Mini or those small form factor dedicated Linux stuff, there is no need for a "cable box". That is what those media moguls don't understand. Or they really understand what is coming and try to convince people to use their closed, locked, overpriced "boxes" which has 2001 technology inside.

You don't have to "pirate" too, as far as I know, there are some great on demand services already established serving to USA.

A wireless keyboard and mouse, there you have 2 remote controls for everything :)

Of course, if Apple had brain to adopt some P2P Torrent technology and serve HD 1080p first class Hollywood/HBO content to Apple TV, things I mention would seem much more realistic now. Not my fault :)

Re:For a moment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like saying every crime committed is further proof that laws just don't work.

Why the need to drop into metaphors? If you have a point to make, then make it.

If you stopped chanting the conservative party line for a minute, you'd realize you benefit more from regulations on free markets than you think. Your food is required to meet certain standards of safety, your children aren't allowed to work in sweatshops, and in fact, you aren't allowed to have sweatshops, your place of work is required to meet a threshold of safety, your automobile is required to meet a certain threshold of safety, etc.

I'm not a conservative, but I think your argument is as bunk as his.

Restaurants that aren't good go out of business; restaurants that served poisonous food would be out of business in a day, even without health codes. We've got private certifications for quality in other arenas; I see no reason to believe they wouldn't work in food, as well. That's essentially what the government does today, except the government pretends it's above corruption.

I don't care if my children are allowed to work in sweatshops or not, because I wouldn't let them. Don't forget that business is a deal between two people: if it was in our interest for my kids to work in a sweatshop, why is it the government's business to tell me my family should starve instead?

Right now I work at a tiny startup (2 of us), so my workplace doesn't happen to have any safety standards. In a small business like this, it just isn't an issue. (Fire? There's the door.) The places where it does become an issue tend to be big monopolistic companies that were created by government regulation in the first place.

My automobile is fairly safe, because I bought a safe one. I know people who bought deathtrap cars. (In the pre-Nader 1960's, this was pretty much everybody driving an American car.) The Japanese and Europeans have been building safe cars for decades, even when it wasn't required by the American government. And then there's the Peltzman Effect: net safety actually got worse, because they seemed safer. In recent years, there has been a surge of big SUVs, which are decidedly less safe for everybody outside the vehicle (and possibly those inside it, too). I'm not seeing a clear-cut benefit here.

Free markets can only regulate themselves if everyone always acts in perfect enlightened self-interest and if all actions have zero consequences. This is where your Ayn Rand and reality sharply diverge.

I haven't read Ayn Rand, so maybe I'm missing something. If "all actions have zero consequences", then *nothing* matters. I think advocates of the free market assume that actions have consequences. To speak of the "market" otherwise is meaningless.

You have a very strange view of the benefits of regulation, to be sure.

Re:For a moment ...

[Mr2001]

Restaurants that aren't good go out of business; restaurants that served poisonous food would be out of business in a day, even without health codes. We've got private certifications for quality in other arenas; I see no reason to believe they wouldn't work in food, as well. Here's one reason: we tried it before and it didn't work. That's why we have regulations now.

Regulation is a handy tool when consumers don't have perfect information, which they usually don't. How clean is the kitchen at your local Chinese restaurant? Who knows! All you know as a customer is that it tastes all right and you haven't gotten sick from it yet. But are they letting ingredients sit out just a little too long? Are they keeping their vegetables in a bin on the floor with raw chicken juice dripping down onto them? Are they smoking while they work and putting the butts out in the vat where the meat is marinating?

Re:For a moment ...

[MidnightBrewer]

By your examples, it might be better to say that those free markets that don't impact people on a significant level are more easily regulated (food poisoning kills, and sending children to sweatshops for 14 hours a day can't be good for them, either). The criminality runs rampant in those, too; sweatshops still exist, they're just offshored to become someone else's problem. Food safety standards are also coming into question, as illustrated by the manipulation of expiration dates of foods sold in Japan. You could even cite the recent scandal of toys covered in lead-based paint as an example where regulation has failed miserably.

I agree that regulation is necessary, or things would be far worse than they already are. It's just a fact that unscrupulous people will work dilligently to find a way around such regulations for the sake of their bottom line.

Re:For a moment ...

[DCTooTall]

I actually work for one of the major US cable companies (not gonna say which cause it honestly doesn't matter), in the department that controls the overall "brains" of the cable video network in our region. As such, I tend to see some of the issues, and can maybe hopefully contribute to the back-end knowledge of the cable video platform for the /. users.

First off, in direct response to your question. To the best of my knowledge, currently most set top boxes in use are made by 1 of 2 companies. Scientific Atlanta, or Motorola. These are also the companies who pretty much are the 2 "big boys" in the Cable headend game. Our region actually has systems which run on both platforms (they are not interchangeable since both companies do things on the backend differently.

In order to kind of understand the way the cable-cards work, you kind of need to know the way the entire system works...sorta. So let me try and explain the makeup of the cable headend. I deal primarily with the Scientific Atlanta systems in our area, so I'm more familiar with it (and where to find the references online which I can share.). Keep in mind that both systems do the same thing, the way in which they do it is just a little different. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns457/networking_solutions_solution_category.html the figure here is kinda basic, and includes stuff not really needed...but may help as a visual aid.

In the Scientific Atlanta platform, you have your primary controller. This system, running off Solaris, Pretty much "controls" the entire cable video network. It contains the configuration information for all the modulators which send the video over RF to your home. It also contains all the conguration information for your settop box, package information, security information, Channel Map configurations, etc. When the video source is configured on the QAM (Modulator) it can be encrypted. On the SA system, there is a special server connected directly to the DNCS responsible for maintaining the encryption keys and information. This encryption helps to prevent unauthorized access to the digital signal. The most obvious (without getting into conspiracys or opinions on greed and whatnot) reasoning for encrypting a channel is so that little johnny doesn't stumble across hardcore sex in the clear with his QAM tuner TV.

In the Cable-Card enviroment, the cablecard is responsible for the decryption of this signal. The encryption is done via a public/private key system. When a cablecard is loaded on the controller initially, the DNCS at this point knows the Secure Micro of the cablecard. When the card then gets authorized for the encrypted feed, it at that point is sent the information it will need to be able to decrypt the video feed. This process tends to work without many problems. The REAL complication with cable-cards tends to be a bit more involved with the pairing process.

From what I understand.... the pairing tends to be pretty much the DRM of whole mess. no wonder it causes so many problems. But then again, nobody can avoid it these days it seems. Anyways, there are primarily 2 Id's that come into play here. The CableCard's ID, and the Host device ID. This is pretty much where you are pairing up the 2 devices and getting them to play nice to each other and know who the other person is. It's this item that pretty much tends to be the real pain in getting a cablecard working. (personally.. I hate TIVO's.. ). The unfortunately thing about standards, is while they are there to tell you how things are supposed to work, talk, and act together. They don't always go into the nitty-gritty of how to implement those standards, user interfaces, or procedures. For instance, especcially in a dual-turner TIVO, they can be a bastard to set up. Why? First you must make sure that just the primary card is

Re:For a moment ...

[Addict-09]

July 07 know as 707 in the industry was the infamous deadline that mandated all new stb's have separable security (cablecards). OCAP is something different and DCAS is the likely replacement for crappy cablecards. The only one that liked cablecards was the FCC and the companies manufacturing them (they are very expensive).

Re:For a moment ...

[billcopc]

By the time this standard takes off, the average non-techie still won't be able to tell the Internet apart from a chia pet, and they will still pay $5.99/mo for that cable box "game package" where you can play Solitaire and Minesweeper using your clumsy TV remote.

People don't know, don't care, but most importantly they don't want to work for it. Setting up an HTPC is far more effort than the common fool cares to invest, when it is so much easier to pay the cable company their monthly tithe and drown your misery away with a zillion reality shows.

Re:For a moment ...

[jedidiah]

...except these shenanigans are an attempt to foil all of that. With conventional SD TV we have
very well understood and very open standards that ANYONE can implement. There is no guesswork.
You don't to be concerned with "which revision" of the given interface you are using. You just
plug it in and even the equipment built in your neighbor's garage with breadboards will work
with it.

      Not so with HDTV.

      American Gladiator in good enough clarity that you can see the sweat on the shoulder
of the gladiator chick just isn't worth the degredation in recording freedom.

Re:For a moment ...

[HTH NE1]

I understand that there are some people still happily paying for the black Model 500 deskset. Can you still get them? In rotary, please?

Re:For a moment ...

[jedidiah]

> Restaurants that aren't good go out of business; restaurants that served poisonous food would be out of business in a day,

McDonalds
Jack-in-the-Box
Odwalla

People will put up with crap if it's cheap enough. This is why Walmart is so successfull.

2 of those companies have KILLED PEOPLE with their crap and are still in businees.

The other one is constantly defended for it's gross negligence and contra-indicated food prep procedures.

Infact, the most prevalent business model is to sell "crap to millions" that is just barely above the level that will keep you from getting sued or arrested.

Getting lynched isn't even in the equation.

This notion that the invisible hand will somehow ensure quality products simply extreme naievete or extreme crassness on the part of people who's primary interest is taking advantage of the ignorant sods that only care about the pricetag.

Re:For a moment ...

[jedidiah]

Their box is CRAP. I don't want it. If necessary, I will have a box of my own choosing control it. Of course all of this cablecard stupidity makes it less likely that some 3rd party is able to build a usable solution. STB's are really not a problem. They are easy enough to deal with if the output is unencrypted.

Re:For a moment ...

[darkpixel2k]

So the question is, is this just CableCard 2.0 rebranded? The article mentions that this has been in the works for a long time, etc, etc, so maybe it is? One can only hope.

Damn cable companies. There is already a standard that allows equipment to communicate bi-directionally over a network. It's called TCP/IP. I have some amazing things on my small home network that all 'interoperate' on this basic principle. VoIP phones, computers, printers, porn boxe^H^H^H^H network attached storage.

Maybe I'm over-simplifying it a bit though--most of those devices have protocols that work on top of TCP/IP for communication, SIP for the phones, jetdirect for the printers, and ssh for everything else. Woot!

Re:For a moment ...

[jamshid]

Thanks for the post. I just got screwed by SDV -- bought a TivoHD, bought a 3 year subscription, got TimeWarner to set up the cable card, only to find out I can't get several channels like MTVHD and CNNHD because they are transmitted with SDV. Now I have to wait for CableCard 2.0 or some other standard, and buy all new hardware?

So in your opinion what is the problem? Is the technology really that hard to get right, or are cable companies just not interested in getting it right because it's not in their financial interest? Why didn't the FCC foresee this problem, did they have any say over the CableCard spec?

Re:For a moment ...

[cheater512]

I will never pay to use p2p technology to get content.
If I'm paying then I demand a dedicated connection to a server to give me the content.

Of course if its free then I cant complain. ;)

Re:For a moment ...

[Kashgarinn]

"It's like saying every crime committed is further proof that laws just don't work."
- You know.. it's kind of true..

the laws only work if everyone agrees to use them as guidelines and accept the conditions of following/not following them.

Same with regulations and procedures for that matter. It's a group effort, and you can't have one tyrant (or a few small tyrants arguing amongst themselves) going against the common sense.

It's the the only real law of nature at work.. if I can take it from you, then it's mine.

- Marketing people know this rule well, they just modify it to "If I can make you buy the crap, then your money's mine"

K.

Re:For a moment ...

[illumin8]

Thanks for the informative post.

For instance, especcially in a dual-turner TIVO, they can be a bastard to set up. Why? First you must make sure that just the primary card is in slot 1. Pair the 2 devices (usually will involve giving the card and host id to the cable provider so they can pair them in the controller). Then you may need to force the TIVO to re-scan the channels so that it can attempt to make sure it's now seeing and can decrypt those video feeds. ONCE everything is working perfectly with the first card, THEN you can put the second card into slot 2 and try and get it working by repeating the previous steps. The problem here is that if you start with both cards in the device, the TIVO doesn't like it.

I have an HD Tivo, and I can tell you've had to deal with them before... ;) Anyway, what amazes me the most is the complete and total incompetence of the cable TV installers. When I had mine installed (I'm on Cablevision), I had to setup the appointment in advance. I got rescheduled because they wanted a "senior" tech to assist because of the complexity involved. Tivo has tried to make the process as easy as possible, by including a "cheat sheet" that you're supposed to give to the cable installer when he shows up. Well, genius boy shows up and says "I don't need to read that, I've done 20 of these before." After spending 2 hours and going through 4 cable cards and having no success, I was like: "How about we follow the instructions on the page?" Well, I was able to get it working where he could not. The problem was that he was loading both cards at once (first problem). The second problem was that after the card authenticates with the encryption server, it downloads a firmware update and you have to wait about 5-10 minutes for the card to reboot. He wasn't waiting this long and just thought the card had died because it was in the middle of the firmware update process.

Anyway, it shouldn't surprise me that the cable companies don't want to train their people on how to install CableCard. If they had their way we would be forced to buy shitty SA or Motorola STBs and our superior quality Tivos would be SOL.

Personally, I don't think the Tivos suck that much. I think the installers don't know wtf they're doing.

Re:For a moment ...

[DCTooTall]

Honestly I can't say for certain when it comes to the FCC. I'm still pretty new working at this level of the system, so I don't know much of the history of cablecards.... but I'll let you know what I think part of problem was, Just from what I can see.

In Typical fashion... I think a large part of the cablecard issue is typical washington politics. The FCC was complaining about wanting to seperate the security of the cable system from the settop box. As a result, they pretty much said that after 7/07 all systems must use cablecards. The problem is that between the time they decide on the cable card standard, set the rules, and the deadline comes, the technology and the market has changed dramatically. HD is a MUCH bigger thing today with many more options than were available even 5yrs ago. Interactive services like VOD were cutting edge 5 years ago and has pretty much become a standard. VOIP has matured meaning cable-co's now have the ability to easily offer a triple play. Phone companies have started rolling fiber to the home and have started offering TV. (Interestingly enough, I know that Scientific Atlanta offers a version of their DNCS designed to control an IPTV settup). All this change in the marketplace means that the cable-co's need to evolve the technology and bandwith is at a premium.

SDV is at this point one of the easiest to implement, and overall best current option for reclaiming some RF bandwith while still allowing customers to have the services they both expect and have become used too. It may also allow for cable-co's to free up some bandwith to allow for them to finally upgrade the digital signal from mpeg2 to mpeg4 encoding. Because you have some older devices that simply can't decode a mpeg4 codec on the system, during the upgrade there will be a period when simulcast of the 2 different video signals would be required to limit customer impact. That means more bandwith for just the existing video services, but improved quality and compression allowing for again, more services in the future.

I think in some ways the FCC's overall problem is the same you see in Washington on a lot of issues. The people involved in making the decisions tend to be more reactionary than they should be. They don't consider the advances in technology or market when they set a rule, and deadline, so many times the market may already be beyond the point they've ruled on when it comes time to implement. And often they make a half-assed attempt at a rule in order to try and make the loudest parties happy politically, even if it's obvious due to the current direction of the marketplace and tech that by the time things are in place, it would cause more hassle and confusion for the common consumer.

I think I remember hearing that when the cablecard spec was ruled on by the FCC, the cable-co's were already saying that it would cause more problems because the spec couldn't handle the way the tech was going, and they therefore were already working on the opencable specs as a next-gen replacement. The problem was that everybody just assumed they were fighting cable-cards because of the monopoly power and it wasn't very politically wise to listen to the people you are trying to force to do something.

Re:For a moment ...

[DCTooTall]

It's a bit of both IMHO. I won't mention the number of times I have to deal with installers for issues when it's a simple RF issue. Ultimately I think that the problem may be related to the fact most installers these days are contractors. why? Well... for one.... do you really need a guy with brains to do a standard setup? or to run a line from the pole to the house? can you blame the cable-co's for getting the idiots to fill out the numbers to do these tasks so you get your service and they don't have to pay the same number of smart people for the same role?

:-) A Tivo may not seem THAT hard to set up... but when you factor in the shear number of different ways to set up different cable card devices, it can be a bit harder. The thing which is the most anti-intuitive for the Tivo is the fact you can't install both cards at once and then set them up one at a time.

As for the firmware update.....most installers aren't really aware of the fact these things run software/firmware. All the boxes and most cable-cards are staged at the warehouse prior to going to the customer. It's during this staging that the code downloads take place. Firmware on the system isn't updated that often, so the possibility of someone running into a card firmware download during a setup isn't a regular occurance. the complication also comes that I don't believe the TIVO gives any input that the card is actually downloading code. With the Moto or SA settop boxes you'll see a countdown on the LED's as it downloads, so you can at least tell it's doing something.

Couple things I wouldn't mind seeing in a new version of the TIVO that I think would make things easier....1. allow a tech to install both cards at first without screwing everything up. often they just want to install the cards, then place it in the entertainment center where it will stay and deal with getting it to work. 2. create some software menu options to allow you to reset the cable cards, or even turn on/off the slot. 3. Make the cable-card diags a bit easier to access.

Re:For a moment ...

[Trashman]

Relatively Recently!?! Try 1968, 40 years ago.

What the parent is refering to is the Carterphone Rules for Telephone. I also want to state that there is no Carterphone Rule equivalent for Cell Phones and Cable which is why we have the nickel and dime/rental situation we have now. I for one believe that there should be such a rule.

Re:For a moment ...

[Monchanger]

You forgot the recent Taco Bell incident:

* http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/11/e.coli.outbreak/index.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_E._coli_outbreak

Didn't stop me from eating there permanently, only for a little while. Taco Bell has no competition due to its size, so where else could I go for a taco? The free market does nothing for me, as it doesn't influence monopolies.

Re:For a moment ...

[zrk]

Couple things I wouldn't mind seeing in a new version of the TIVO that I think would make things easier....1. allow a tech to install both cards at first without screwing everything up. often they just want to install the cards, then place it in the entertainment center where it will stay and deal with getting it to work. 2. create some software menu options to allow you to reset the cable cards, or even turn on/off the slot. 3. Make the cable-card diags a bit easier to access.

Couple things I wouldn't mind seeing in cable tech installers... 1. Come with more cards! The tech that came to me had two cards for me, and NO spares. One of the cards did not work, and the rest of the cards he had were destined for other customers. He had to return later in the day with another card. 2. Have patience. He didn't want to wait for the firmware update, and I believe he caused the second card to go bad. 3. Come with more cards! My friend had to make her installer leave because he ruined the two cards he brought (no spares yet again), and refused to listen to her when she suggested reading the directions...turns out she was right and he was doing the two-at-a-time thing. Why is that so hard to remember? You'd figure that the techs would know 4. Offer dual tuner cards. That would've solved a majority of the issues that TiVo users have complained about over on tivocommunity.com, but Cablevision customer service got snotty when I asked about getting a dual tuner card.

I'm not saying TiVo's setup is good, but the installer I dealt with was furious with TiVo, and practically insisted that TiVo shouldn't be allowed to use Cablecards. I have not had a problem with them once they were configured, 8 months ago. I hope the newer standard is better, and TiVo plays nicer with it.

Re:For a moment ...

[DCTooTall]

I know that multi-stream cablecards are now out there and we have them in our region. I think I read the spec that they can actually handle up to 4 or 5 streams at least. (they are designed to work with the multi-room DVR's that are coming out). Unforuntately it's a case of having to wait for them to propagate around the different systems and to the customers.

I can definately understand your frustration with the techs you've dealt with. Unfortunately there are bad ables in every group. I do know from my experience that the techs I talk to on cable-card issues in our region do tend to have spares just due to the weird issues we have run into. I think that in some ways, we may have a semi-unique way of doing things in our region. Because within our region we have both cities (College towns, State Capital, etc), and rural farm communities (People more likely to go to local shop than call the 800 number...), I think that has in some ways helped the way we work with the techs to resolve some issues, especcially cable-cards. Normally a tech will deal with Dispatch for any home-office type of troubleshooting and/or assistance. Think of it as a dedicated call-center for techs on the road, as well as the people responsible for getting techs to respond to outages. Since I am on the engineering side working with the controllers, it's pretty much a non-customer facing position. We do however make ourselves available to the techs when they need assistance....often for cable-card issues. This means that if a tech is having a problem with a cable-card install, or other issue, and can't quite figure it out, they can call us and we can work with them directly off the controller to bypass any weird billing issues. It also means that certain things that sometimes will cause issues, like the decryption keys we can try and resolve from the controller. Not to mention that we tend to see some of those weird issues more often and are generally more knowledgeable about the issues that exist than your average install tech, so we can help get them (and the customer) working quicker that way.

I honestly can't speak for other companies... or even other regions within the same cableco I work for, but I do think that the fact we do make it pretty easy for the install tech (basically the lowest man on the totem pole) to talk directly with us for those complicated issues (My boss is the regional director) does help a lot in resolving those issues people traditionally have with clueless techs or cable-co's which can't seem to fix a problem.

Re:For a moment ...

[Cramer]

CableLabs, the cable industry's research and development arm, which Roberts leads, was to announce Monday that its OpenCable platform, first developed in 1997, will now be branded as "tru2way."

Is it too much to ask people to actually read the article before asking stupid questions that are already answered? Oh right, this is slashdot.

It's "OCAP" -- basically a JAVA engine running what ever your cable provider sends it. And the CE (Comsumer Electronics) industry doesn't like it. Nor is the FCC particularly fond of it either since the cable industry has been constantly reinventing this wheel as a means to push back the "integration ban" -- which the FCC finally stopped doing... cable providers have had to use "seperable security systems" (a.k.a. cableCARDs) sine July 1.

Re:For a moment ...

[Cramer]

Here we go again... The cableCARD specification has been bi-directional since day one. Put another way, ALL CABLE CARDS ARE BIDIRECTIONAL; and they always have been. It's the host (the thing you plug the card into) that's only licensed for one-way communications. There wasn't an two-way license or standards track until very recently -- and it's f'ing OCAP.

Re:For a moment ...

[Cramer]

Because we're the USA. The whole world is expected, and required, to bend over and do our bidding. Or that's how US industries think and act.

Think about it. If the US adopted DVB-C/DVB-T, then the rest of the world -- already manufacturing equipment to those standards -- would have an advantage over our own hometown businesses. This, of course, ignores the fact that almost none of this crap is even remotely "made in america".

Re:For a moment ...

[Cramer]

Do you have to pay the phone company for a special box to use their phone lines? do you have to pay the power company for special box? do you pay the water company for a special box? no you dont.

You used to... a few decades ago, nobody owned their own phones. You don't directly pay the power company for and "special box", but included in your bill are costs associated with the meter on your house and the trained squirrels reading that meter. And YES, I DO pay the city (water company) for a "special box" -- there's a direct line-item for the water meter.

The whole point is, you don't need the cable company's box. They KNOW that. And they see the revenues they've been collecting on rented boxes over the past decades withering away. 90% of the issues MSOs have today with capacity are directly attributable to all the d***ed OnDemand crap. DVRs mean you don't need that crap... I've used tivos for a decade; I've never wanted or needed any ondemand content. I can watch whatever I want, whenever I want, because I have hundred (thousands?) of hours of previously recorded content. I schedule things from the future, not from the past.

You seem to be unaware of the economics of game consoles... almost all of them are sold at a loss. They games are where the money is made. But yes, the buy-it costs of cable and sat hardware are insanely over the top.

Cable card installer? It's not about putting a card in a slot. It's all about making sure you're putting the card in the certified device you said it's going in. And taking more of your money. Btw, I've yet to meet a TW tech who's had any training at all on cable cards... plug it in, call a number, read 'em back the numbers; it either works or it doesn't. (most of the time it doesn't) They have zero issues with their own hardware -- a) it's bidirectional, and b) it doesn't have to cable labs certified; that's right, they are free to use what ever non-standard, proprietary crap they want.

Re:For a moment ...

[Cramer]

This encryption helps to prevent unauthorized access to the digital signal. The most obvious (without getting into conspiracys or opinions on greed and whatnot) reasoning for encrypting a channel is so that little johnny doesn't stumble across hardcore sex in the clear with his QAM tuner TV.

Simple answer: Channels are encrypted in order to control who receives them - period. In the old analog days, this was done with a notch filter physically attaced to the line. Those are expensive and time consuming to install, remove, and repair. With digital cable, who receives a channel is as simple as giving them the key to decode it -- which changes several times per minute.

The issue with Tivo's is entirely that of impatient installers. The instructions are very simple and easy to follow. And if you follow them, they work. Of course, the tivo falls into the same boat as an other multi-card devices... improper card setup where each card is authorized for a different set of channels. That's not tivo's fault; that's your fault over there at the headend.

OCAP is an application environment. It's like saying your STB has to run linux vs. windows ce vs. beos... The CE manaufacturer provides the hardware and an "OS" to run applications provided by the MSO. The UI, features, and functionality of the STB depends entirely on what the MSO sends it. So, no matter who makes the box, they'll look exactly the same until it's moved to a different cable network and given a different set of applications to run. And there's the blanket "no" to OCAP: zero consumer choice. And with specs being what they are, and cable companies being who they are, I seriously doubt OCAP will be any better. It'll work just fine on their hardware, but random issues will exist on customer owned CE boxes. We see it today despite extensive testing done by Cable Labs in the certification process of both hosts and cards.

There's plenty of capacity in 1GHz -- anywhere from 300 to 1200 channels depending on the amount of HD. Step one, dump the GD analog channels. Most cable operators are still wasting -- yes, WASTING -- over half their spectrum with analog channels. But what about all those people with basic/standard cable? *cough*screw em*cough* Basic cable is ~12 channels, and they pay almost nothing for them. Standard cable is an additional ~50 channels, and people pay ~40-50$ for them. Rent them a STB, which is what most cable companies want anyway; in just over a year, they won't have any other choice... buy a new TV, or live with a "box." I don't know of any cable operators willing to risk losing any customers by dropping analog channels; that will change in '09 when consumers have no other analog TV choice. And as soon as MSOs have no analog tier, they'll no longer be allowed to add a surcharge for digital cable -- which is even more lost revenue. Yeah, I know "greed"... walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

If you want to post a useful link, go find the specifications document for the supposedly "open standard" developed by SA and TWC for SDV. I see references to it all over the place (and have for years.) I can even find the document ID. But even the mighty google has not spotted the actual pdf.

Re:For a moment ...

[Cramer]

... they pretty much said that after 7/07 all systems must use cablecards.

You've leaving out almost a decade of the story. (and I'm likely to mis-remember most of it :-)) The FCC demanded a seperable security system in order to open the cable TV market to consumer electronics manufacturers over a decade ago. At which point Cable Labs, et. al., drug their feet for years coming up with the 1.0 cable card specs and certification process. The FCC had to set an implementation deadline just get them to do that. They would have spent several more decades puttering around if a gun hadn't put to their head. Then they asked for a delay of the "integration ban" to finalize the second revision of the CC spec -- multi-stream support. The FCC, being the spinless p***ies that they are, agreed. And once again, as soon as the deadline approached, they wanted more time to work out yet an other set of specs. This time DFAST/DCAS, a software version of the CC so they wouldn't have to change out all their hardware. (and make the CE industry have to redesign everything.) Again, the FCC agrees. Yet again, when the deadline started approaching (07/2007), they wanted more time... this time it's OCAP, and work out "issues" with CC deployment. However, this time the FCC had had enough and they're being made to eat their tainted dog food.

But your right, it's more a political process than a technological process. The FCC is messing in cable's sandbox, and they don't like it. So, they're slow to develop standards, slow to deploy new standards, and generally do everything to make it a huge mess. Most people don't realize cable cards have been around for years; many more years than people have been hearing about them. Only recently (2 years +/-) have they become an advertized option. And yet, very, VERY few cable techs know much about them. Had the cable industry been forced to start using this stuff about 8 years ago, then we wouldn't have the mess we have today. (we'd've had a smaller version of the same mess back then.)

Re:For a moment ...

[Cramer]

All the boxes and most cable-cards are staged at the warehouse prior to going to the customer.

That is indeed an unique operation. From all the reports I've heard, nobody likes doing that because "unpairing a card is a pain in the ass." Which, I'll add, is completely opposite the CC1.0 and CC2.0 specs; the card will (re)pair with any host that asks. It'll only pair with one host at a time, 'tho. I think they were referring to their headend systems being difficult to add, remove, and then re-add a CC. (which might be true, that's not part of the spec :-))

the complication also comes that I don't believe the TIVO gives any input that the card is actually downloading code. With the Moto or SA settop boxes you'll see a countdown on the LED's as it downloads, so you can at least tell it's doing something.

Correct. Because it has no way of knowing. Maybe you should ask Moto/SA how they're showing that status. (they're bidirectional, so they can ASK the headend how much has been sent.) Motorola cards get their firmware via the OOB modem, so the host has no idea what the data means -- assuming the host is even involved. SA gets it's firmware inband, directly from a tuned digital channel; so the host has no idea at all what the CC is doing. This is also why you cannot just shove both cards in at the same time. If a SA card needs to do a fimrware update, it'll take over the system to do it -- it needs "interactive" control of the tuner to tune to (or search for) the firmware channel.

Technically, you can insert both cards at the same time. Sometimes it'll work. A lot of times it won't. Don't blame Tivo, Inc. because you won't follow the (provided) instructions. One would think an installer would be happy to be handed such clear, simple instructions given the hundreds of different certified devices and problems they may face. Also, it's not as if you have to wait an hour before insterting the second card. It only takes a few seconds for tivo recognize the card and take you to the CC screen. From there select the card, and then the host info screen. The tivo can only present as much diag info as the card will give it -- notice all the "RESERVED" lines on the CC screen. The time consuming process is the firmware upgrade; it should only take a few minutes, but a lot of times it cannot find the firmware (headend isn't broadcasting it?) [go look at the tuner diag screen to see what it's doing. if it's searching for a channel, get a new card :-)]

Re:For a moment ...

[Ilgaz]

Because we're the USA. The whole world is expected, and required, to bend over and do our bidding. Or that's how US industries think and act.

Think about it. If the US adopted DVB-C/DVB-T, then the rest of the world -- already manufacturing equipment to those standards -- would have an advantage over our own hometown businesses. This, of course, ignores the fact that almost none of this crap is even remotely "made in america". Of course it is reality but don't forget there is ATSC standard for that purpose. The thing those Intel/MS/Cable Company gang wants is not ATSC/C, they don't even want FEC to be involved. It signals they have a much more closed plan which will even exclude some American players.

They could combine TCP/IP with all-american ATSC if they wanted to.

Re:For a moment ...

[brix]

OCAP (now Tru2Way) and CableCARD are actually two different things, each independent of the other, but working together in some cases.

CableCARD contains the SECURITY component of the equation. The CableCARD decrypts the digitally encrypted QAM channels. As you mentioned, since July 1, 2007, almost all cable settops sold in the United States are required to utilize a CableCARD for the security component.

OCAP/Tru2Way, on the other hand, is the SOFTWARE component. If a device supports Tru2Way, it can theoretically run any application written to the standard. It's a set of Java APIs and specs designed to create a common software environment for cable devices.

Time Warner Cable has written a program guide/navigator for OCAP that it has deployed in some of its markets (not to be confused with the native-code version that they deployed in a smaller number of markets). Other cable companies and third-parties are creating OCAP guides and applications as well. Having the navigator be available to Tru2Way devices means that viewers could use that device to view VOD content (something that just can't happen today).

Another Tru2Way example would be The Weather Channel app (known as an xlet) which could be launched by a viewer to get current weather/traffic information when tuned to the The Weather Channel.

In the US, a TV (or other device) would have to support both CableCARD (to decrypt programming) and Tru2Way to run the software needed for VOD and the program guide. Your cable company will also have to be one that is utilizing Tru2Way software.

Re:For a moment ...

[EdelFactor19]

I am actually extremely familiar with the economics of video game consoles. I am well aware that they are sold at a loss; but I just picked a random article, i could have said a 400 dollar laptop computer.. or a whole lot of other things. That stated it wouldn't seem to be a strange analogy; cable shouldn't be making money on the boxes they should be making money on the cable access.

why do video games take a loss on consoles? several reasons: (the basis of which depends on how you define "a loss")
the amount of money spent developing the consoles is too much for them to reasonably get out of a consumer per console. They recoup this money from software devs through licensing. XBox was the most notorious of all for this as they took 10$ for every single game sold, a new high. ps2 took around 6 from what i recall from my college class that hit on this. That said they usually still have a magic number of sales by which they do recoup their costs. unless you are referring to actual cost to produced the hardware itself is greater than they sell for and they can never recover which I surmise finally happened with the xbox/ps2 generation.

technically you could say that audio cd's from bands are sold at a loss too... until you look at the cost amortized out for the number produced. There is always some magic number of copies they have to sell to break even from the costs of recording/advertising/producing/etc. according to another post iphones are "sold at a loss" since they put "150 million into the research"

if people dont buy the console; they cant and wont buy the software. Video game consoles have competition which is the difference. If you dont want a 600 dollar ps3 you can get a 400 dollar one, or 250 dollar wii (or fall back to your computer). Cable should follow the same model, and sell boxes at a loss, but there is a key difference. Cable knows you don't have a choice: 9 times out of 10 you have one provider in your area for cable. If you dont want OTA or satellite (or cant have satellite) you have no choice.. which frees them to try to collect as much as they want on the cable boxes. the other half is for fake advertising so they can say the price is cheaper than it is; if you are required to have a digital cable box from them and it costs 6.95 monthly for said box; give the box for free and increase the digital price by 6.95.. so instead of having your bill read "basic cable acces = 40; digital cable = 10, equipment = 6.95" it can say "basic cable access = 40, digital cable = 16.95" and now you can hide the cost the same way you hide the digital cost...

this all goes back to the rampant BS and fraud that cable industry is allowed to get away with. i saw a tv spot for TW the other day that asked a satellite guy who was in love with the ice fishing channel how much he pays. he responds "about 30 a month" TW responds that plans start at 20 a month (which is definately BS)... the funny part? on the last frame of the spot TW says "plans starting at 39.95 a month". does the BBB ever watch the ads anymore for crap like this?

(a little bit OT for this blurb but still valid as a good aside here):
complain all you want about similar stuff with cars and cellphones; but i've seen a spot for a $XX lease for a car + xx tax title and license etc and walked into a dealer (in Ma.) and actually gotten that deal. didn't get a "oh yes but the steering wheel costs extra" or "you have to pay through our credit service which surcharges you 6bucks a month". the funniest one in cars is that Toyota doesn't include floormats standard at all; which everyone buys anyways.

at another point, although I've never used the ondemand crap much, there is a difference between that and tivo/dvr. My parents for example started using ondemand to get movies because it got cheaper than blockbuster. they dont buy movie channels, and if you tivo a movie off "movie channels" they are edited for content and have commercials which you have to skip over.. sometimes you dont want to have to fa

Re:For a moment ...

[Cramer]

It's about money first, control second. Actually, that pretty much sums it up nicely.

CC installs really are that simple. They don't want you doing it yourself because a) they can charge you to have a tech do it, b) they want to ensure a licensed device is being used (not that you could build a functional non-licensed device), and c) they want the process to be as big a pain in the ass as possible. However, they will happily let you walk up and get one of there boxes without any of that.

Personally, I'd like to see the FCC go one step further... outright BAN cable operators from providing hardware. While they are now required to use the same cableCARD technology as CE manufacturers, they are still building and using proprietary, custom built -- and NOT Cable Labs tested and certified -- hardware. Make them use the same hardware they make us use and all this bull will stop. But this will never happen because the FCC is too spineless and the cable co's make far too much money renting boxes to let go of it.

Re:For a moment ...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I was just going by what I think I heard on the HT Guys podcast because I have little experience with CableCard. Sometimes they get stuff wrong, but usually they're pretty accurate.

Who cares about sony?

[Freaky Spook]

It's not like they are the only manufacturer to make televisions.

Let them invent their own standard if they want to, with blackjack, and hookers!

Re:Who cares about sony?

[91degrees]

Doesn't the existing cable system already have blackjack and hookers?

Re:Who cares about sony?

[MarkGriz]

Agreed. If anything, lack of Sony's participation sounds like an upside to me.

Re:Who cares about sony?

[Ilgaz]

It's not like they are the only manufacturer to make televisions.

Let them invent their own standard if they want to, with blackjack, and hookers! So, you are speaking about a "standard" with very interesting quotes like:
"CableLabs said it has inked licensing agreements with Intel Corp. (INTC) and Broadcom Corp. (BRCM) to develop chips to run the software. And Microsoft Corp. is expected to integrate the standard into future versions of its Windows operating system for personal computers."

and you are happy that Sony, their professional division has not bought this idea. Why?

Sony in TV broadcast scene has some amazing marketshare but they have always sticked with standards like MPEG, SMPTE even on Betacam HD which they could really, easily make a "Sony format" device.

It is almost funny to watch people having no clue about industry speak about Sony Professional division.

Lets see:
1) They could stick with an already established, documented, vendor neutral standard like ATSC (for Europe- DVB-C) but they aren't planning to.
2) They could use ordinary TCP/IP/HTML/Planned MPEG extensions for 2 way communications but they didn't. Intel and their best friend MS on board, MS says they will integrate it to future version of their WINDOWS operating systems.
3) They don't want FCC (who will likely ask what is ATSC for)
4) Broadcom participation at this case doesn't mean H264, it may really mean VC-1 with Windows Media DRM layer.

If you didn't get the plan and you are very happy that Sony didn't buy the idea, keep that happiness. Sony is evil, much more evil than Windows Media manufacturer right?

Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[DragonPup]

I guess I should point out that I work for Comcast(As a drone in sector 7G), but I honestly find this an impressive device coming next year: http://www.comcast.com/ces/anyplay.aspx

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[glindsey]

I guess I should point out that I work for Comcast(As a drone in sector 7G), but I honestly find this an impressive device coming next year: http://www.comcast.com/ces/anyplay.aspx A device which would kick ass if not for the fact that content providers will be able to choose exactly what you're "allowed" to take on the road, and how long it can sit on your portable box before automatically expiring.

As usual, kickass technology is hobbled by greedy little shits who want to make sure you have to lease all of your content through them, in perpetuity.

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[garcia]

It would have been impressive if it were competing with devices that came out in 2003 and 2004 that did exactly the same thing except without the blessings of the cable companies.

Instead of devices that further lock you into one provider, I think that cable companies should be forced to come up with ways to allow their subscribers to get the content they have recorded onto their devices easily -- no reformatting, no slow downloading (TiVo via wifi), etc.

They want to have lock-in permitted by the government? Well, we should get something in return other than higher rates and ever shittier service.

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[93 Escort Wagon]

Well, that appears to be one of those ideas that looks good until you actually think about it. Unless you live alone - what good is that? My wife and daughter are supposed to not watch television (or at least any recorded shows) while I'm away?

I realize most of Slashdot's membership is relationship-less, but even you guys have to think about how your parents are going to watch TV while you're gone. :-D

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[Anonymous Coward]

So a press release for something Dish Network had 4 years ago?

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[MarkGriz]

"but even you guys have to think about how your parents are going to watch TV while you're gone. :-D"

I have my *own* TV in the basement, thank you very much!

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[plague3106]

Looks neat. Too bad I'd rather slit my wrists than pay Comcast willingly. Thank god my city rolled out some competition.

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[dreamt]

Instead of devices that further lock you into one provider, I think that cable companies should be forced to come up with ways to allow their subscribers to get the content they have recorded onto their devices easily -- no reformatting, no slow downloading (TiVo via wifi), etc. Isn't this the point of this tru2way -- it doesn't lock you into one provider. I think that just because Comcast is part of the announcement, it isn't going to tie you to Comcast.

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[ScrewMaster]

I already have an AnyPlay. It's called a "laptop".

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[DCTooTall]

You might be surprised to learn that if the content providers had their way, you may not even have the ability to record the content on your devices. Some channels feel that recording a program on your DVR, (TIVO, whatever) is already violating their copyrights. Some are simply pissed because you can skip thru the commercials which is their revenue stream. Others like your premium movie channels which you can get a good high-quality full length movie in it's original un-edited for TV glory have put pressure on the cable companies because they in turn are getting presured from the MPAA and movie studios who see a recorded copy from HBO as taking away from their DVD sales. The DRM to restrict the copying is already built into digital video services you get from your cable co on the primary controller level. I just happen to know from dealing with that controller daily in our market, that we intentionally have everything set to copy freely. (You can set to allow someone to copy freely, copy once, or not allow copying).

As some may already know, in the DVR's there is a standard harddrive (IDE), but the DVR software not only encrypts the drive's data, but it also locks the drive to the actual device. Unfortunately this is a level of copy-protection we don't have direct control over since it's more of a vendor issue... but "standard" opperation is that if you attempt to take the drive and plug it into another device (computer)... you won't be able to see the data because it's encrypted. what's more, the first thing a standard settop cable box does when it see's a new HDD in the machine is it formats it with a new encryption key. The idea that unfortunately is to keep you from being able to take a HDD in one device and put it in another.

I think I've heard that the cable-co's have actually already gone to court over the content provider's desires for draconion DRM and won.....hense why you can actually get a DVR from the cable company now. Sadly, I think that the content providers see recorded content as "yours", and therefor don't want you to be able to move it. Being able to see it time-shifted is already more than they'd like.

(if you really want to be pissed... read the DMCA sometime. It's actually illegal to even fast-forward thru the credits or previews on a VHS tape by the way it's written. According to the DMCA, you are not allowed to "view content in a way not originally intended". By that means you can already do more with a DVR than they'd like.....especcially with the MPAA/RIAA view that fair use is non-existant.)

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[jedidiah]

Just think about it for a minute.

It's an "open" interface that requires permission from an all-powerful licensing authority and comes will all sorts of string attached.

It doesn't really matter what the "stated" purpose is. It infact gives the cable providers much more control than they would have had otherwise.

This whole "force them to allow other STB's" notion is a total fiasco.

Mandating STB content coming out in unencrypted QAM would have been far more useful.

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[jedidiah]

Even if you live alone it makes no sense.

What happens if you want something recorded while you're out of town?

Take your PVR with you and you're out of luck.

Cablecard causes this problem. You can't have a free and open cablecard
Archos because that would be too open to hacking. So what you're left
with is these lame cable companies trying to push their own proprietary
ipod/archos knockoff.

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[lenehey]

I have one too. Its called an "archos". :D and no, I can't believe nobody else mentioned these awesome devices.

Re:Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[ScrewMaster]

I checked out the link ... it does look cool. How much did it cost you?

Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe it. Sony never insists on their own standard.

Re:Sony

[jbrandv]

I too, am shocked that Sony wants its own standard.

I wish Canada had this forward thinking idea

[The Faywood Assassin]

I really wish the CRTC would adopt ideas like this.

http://dropthebox.ca/

Re:I wish Canada had this forward thinking idea

[gnuman99]

Canada is behind in HDTV broadcasts as well. And don't even get me started on the inability to get US satellite in Canada, legally. Thank you CRTC - the Canakistan's Radio and Television Censors. That's what they are or think they are.

No, I do not label Canada Canakistan but CRTC deserves that label.

Re:I wish Canada had this forward thinking idea

[techpawn]

YOU SHUT YOUR DIRTY MOUTH! Don't you EVER say that Canada should adopt American ideas for regulation!! Today it's this, but tomorrow who knows?! No child left behind?! Now do you REALLY want that?

Privacy and Cell Phones?

[giminy]

I guess I have two questions. 1) will our devices report what we're watching to our cable companies now, making us all unwitting Nielsen Raters? 2) Will this just serve to lock consumers into a model like cell phones in the future?

That is all.

Re:Privacy and Cell Phones?

[Wesley Felter]

will our devices report what we're watching to our cable companies now, making us all unwitting Nielsen Raters?

Yes, because switched digital video (SDV) technology requires it.

Will this just serve to lock consumers into a model like cell phones in the future?

No, we are in the cell phone model today, and Tru2way gets us out of it. Today you pay $50/month for cable and $10/month for the box, while Tru2way allows you to pay $50/month for cable, $5/month for the card, and $500 upfront plus $20/month for the box.

Re:Privacy and Cell Phones?

[ikono]

Wait -- This new standard means we pay *more*? fuck... Their own excuse to gouge the customers more.

Re:Privacy and Cell Phones?

[onemorechip]

$5/month for the card, and $500 upfront plus $20/month for the box

I'm confused. Was that a typo, or do you really mean we would be paying a monthly rental for the box (in addition to rental for the card) after buying it?

Re:Privacy and Cell Phones?

[ScrewMaster]

I see now that the Max Headroom TV series was more prophetic than most people realized at the time.

Re:Privacy and Cell Phones?

[DCTooTall]

Um..... Your settop box already has the capability to know what you are watching already. Check out Pointer or Retriever on the sciatl.com website for a couple of examples of settop applications that are already out there.

Heh... I actually heard that appearently one of the larger installs of the Retriever program was done by Google. Seems they've paid to have it installed on a local cable Co in Cali in order to use the rating information to know when to place their ads.

Re:Privacy and Cell Phones?

[Wesley Felter]

It wasn't a typo. Tivo charges $13/month for their box in addition to all the fees you pay the cable company. (I exaggerated slightly when I said $20/month; sorry.)

Re:Privacy and Cell Phones?

[TerryMathews]

I wish that would happen; I'm tired of the shows I watch getting cancelled, like Journeyman, 4400, and Jericho.

I believe that if Dr. Who was produced here in the USA it would be done too. Lucky for me the Brits love the good Doctor.

Re:Privacy and Cell Phones?

[onemorechip]

Oh, Tivo. I was assuming one would buy a Motorola cable box/DVR. Last time I checked, though, those were around $700, not $500, but they could have come down since then.

But the advantage of having a two-way cable card is that you can access the cable company's TV schedules, isn't it? If you don't use Tivo's schedules, can you waive the subscription fee, or is it still mandatory?

Re:Privacy and Cell Phones?

[Wesley Felter]

I was assuming one would buy a Motorola cable box/DVR.

Maybe you could, but the whole point of Tru2Way seems to be that you can buy a better box than the cable company offers. Right now the only better box on the market is Tivo, although Moxi is coming.

If you don't use Tivo's schedules, can you waive the subscription fee, or is it still mandatory?

AFAIK Tivo is selling the boxes below cost and making it up on the subscription.

Re:Privacy and Cell Phones?

[onemorechip]

I don't think the point is that you can buy a "better" box; just that you can buy a box of your own, period, without losing some features due to the lack of 2-way communications in the 1st-generation cable cards.

Can you tell me how a Tivo is better than a Motorola box? I've never used Tivo, but my cable company-supplied Motorola works well. Sometimes I wish it had more storage, though.

Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[Scareduck]

Though the proffered reason this is happening is because of FCC pressure, I wonder that the real reason for this isn't advertiser interest in seeing an end to electronic babel. With every major cable system using (effectively) proprietary hardware, detailed viewing habit data acquisition is difficult or at least complex. I would be very interested to see what kind of information will be shipped back to the provider end, and when. For instance, if you watch a time-delayed show on your DVR does it rat on you when you fast-forward past the commercials? That has to be valuable to advertisers by itself, and getting it in a uniform format regardless of provider would be helpful, too.

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[peragrin]

actually i would love a DVR that would tell the advertisers everytime i fast forward through their commericials. Maybe they would get the hint that they don't offer anything worth while.

I watched NBC for the first time in months last night, just for American Gladiators. i could have done laundry, and dishes in between their commerical breaks. In 30 minutes of broadcasting all of 13 minutes was actually spent on the program, the rest was ads. Let's not get started by the in program advertising, brought to you by Subway.

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[MarkGriz]

"actually i would love a DVR that would tell the advertisers everytime i fast forward through their commericials. Maybe they would get the hint that they don't offer anything worth while."

Exactly. I Tivo most programs (ugh, there I go verbing again), and seldom watch any commercials, but mostly because they are crap.
If there was a way to Thumbs down every feminine hygiene, Burger King, and other junk I'm not interested in, and Thumbs up things I like,
pretty soon they'd have an idea of what I like. Then they could insert targeted ads into the commercial break (which could now be shorter
since the dollar value per minutes would be higher since it is target specific). Then I'd only see what I'm really interested in,
and I might actually watch a commercial or 2. Hell, if they really want to capitalize on this, why not let me push a button and get
MORE information on the product (a detailed video clip) or have them send me dead trees if I prefer.

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[ps_inkling]

If there was a way to Thumbs down every feminine hygiene, Burger King, and other junk I'm not interested in, and Thumbs up things I like, pretty soon they'd have an idea of what I like. Then they could insert targeted ads into the commercial break (which could now be shorter since the dollar value per minutes would be higher since it is target specific). Then I'd only see what I'm really interested in, and I might actually watch a commercial or 2. Hell, if they really want to capitalize on this, why not let me push a button and get MORE information on the product (a detailed video clip) or have them send me dead trees if I prefer.

I remember having an original WebTV receiver (Dishplayer 7100) from Dish Network in 1998 or 1999. While you were watching a program, it would occasionally put a green bar at the bottom and ask if you wanted more information about the program you were watching, and it would open the WebTV web browser (and stop displaying the program you were watching). I don't know if it would put up the link for commercials (never did for me). It only showed the banner a few times; I guess I didn't watch the right programs.

I found it intrusive, because there was no way to turn the info banner off, or control how long it stayed on the screen. Fortunately, not many programs had a link to the web. After the hard drive died in it, I bought a new receiver -- never did sign up for the WebTV portion. Never plugged in the phone line.

It would be nice to thumb up or down commercials in addition to programs, but then you have to send the timings for commercial breaks, make sure the local channels don't replace them (where appropriate), and several other technical problems.

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[Blakey Rat]

The problem is that people like you, who give the "thumbs down" to un-targeted ads, are generally the same person who's going to be the first one to erase your cookies, your usage history, anything that will give advertisers a hint of what you're interested in and how to deliver the message.

You can either have well-targeted advertising, or be anal about privacy, but you can't be both.

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[sheldon]

i could have done laundry, and dishes in between their commerical breaks.

I don't see why you didn't. That's what the rest of us do.

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[MarkGriz]

Clearly you have me confused with someone else, or have no understanding of what I'm talking about.

Providing feedback ratings (positive or negative) on untargeted ads is *HOW* advertisers learn to properly target them.

As to being anal about privacy, well, there is certainly nothing wrong with that. The reason people erase cookies and clear usage history is because all too often, advertisers use them to do far more
than simply get a hint of what you're interested in, they use them to track your every move.

There's no reason that your privacy can't be preserved on a set to box, while simultaneously providing advertisers the information they are after. They don't need to know anything more than
USER #23324432894 like to watch shows about Motorcycle racing, football, anything on the Science Channel and hates commercials about feeling fresh.

It's when your set top box user ID becomes associated with who you are specifically that people get pissed off.

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[izomiac]

Sure you can. The DVR could have a program that profiles which shows you watch and stuff, but doesn't send the data back. The program could be updated remotely, and when someone skips a commercial then it could send an anonymous notification of that. Since very little and no identifying data is sent back, there's no breach of privacy and you don't have to watch the same commercial every commercial break. Plus lowering the signal to noise ratio on advertisements for products you actually would want.

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[Blakey Rat]

Well, it's a solution, but you're talking about taking the control of commercials away from the networks and putting it in the hands of Tivo/DVR vendors. Or, you're talking about a way of networks to communicate to Tivo/DVR vendors in a very smart, real-time way... either way, implementation's going to be a bitch.

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[Shotgun]

They do offer something worthwhile...it's called "the programming". Or did you think those shows were created by magical gnomes inside an oak tree?

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[Shotgun]

If there was a way to Thumbs down every feminine hygiene, Burger King, and other junk I'm not interested in, and Thumbs up things I like,pretty soon they'd have an idea of what I like.

Unfortunate for us, their job is to get us to like (or at least make us think we like) things that we wouldn't otherwise.

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[ShadowsHawk]

I really don't care how difficult it is. If they want my eyeballs, they're going to have to figure out a more intelligent to get me to watch. For now, I'll stick to my 'skip 30 seconds' button.

Open source means

[Anonymous Coward]

Free TV! IF they standardize this it also means that there will be only one piece of hardware to hack that will work universally! So, free tv and stuff is getting closer to the masses!

Mythtv guide

[Neil Watson]

Does that mean MythTV could get its channel and program guide direct from the cable feed?

Re:Mythtv guide

[glindsey]

No way. CableLabs would never open up their protocol specifications for open-source use. They're trying to make this a standard so they can totally dominate the market. Interoperability? Please. What they want is for every single manufacturer using "tru2way" technology to pay out the nose to be "Tru2Way Certified" or compliant or compatible or whatever the hell the cute little sticker on the front of the appliance will say. They need complete and utter control over every aspect of the hardware and software, or their DRM won't work, see?

Re:Mythtv guide

[saleenS281]

Just because they standardize, doesn't mean it'll be an OPEN standard. I would guess the answer is "hell no". The cable companies will most likely play nicely with each other, and lock anyone and everyone out that isn't charging a mint for the "privilege" of getting their data.

Re:Mythtv guide

[jddj]

More likely it means MythTV won't interoperate at all - chances are anything the Industry proposes is aimed at locking open standards off of the cable system.

Cable companies want to get to a spot where you pay per-click each time you watch any show.

Re:Mythtv guide

[Uberdog]

The specs are available here. "Tru2way" is merely a rebranding of OCAP.

Re:Mythtv guide

[Synic]

I'll sacrifice true openness for the sake of just getting real TiVo on any box that's compliant. What I'd like to see is third-party boxes at BestBuy or wherever, that compete in terms of features such as HD space, outputs, networking options, etc.

Do you have to ask?

[overshoot]

Will my Tivo HD still work with this new standard, or will I have to buy everything all over again?

That's a trick question, right?

Ah yes, "FCC" and "open"

[Maury Markowitz]

> FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to put forth a proposal for a more open
> and competitive environment using a completely different standard

Like the way we now have a separate HDTV standard than everyone else in the world because they advocated a NTSC replacement even though the existing European standard was perfectly fine?

Perhaps they mean "standard" as in "Imperial Weights and Measures"? It's the "Imperial" part that always ends up being a problem.

Maury

Re:Ah yes, "FCC" and "open"

[Poppler]

There actually is an issue of openness with the existing standards. The Cable industry doesn't allow stand-alone devices to decrypt their signals - which means no CableCard for your home-built PVR.

I don't know what the FCC is proposing, but I would welcome a new standard if it meant opening up the market to third-party hardware manufacturers.

Re:Ah yes, "FCC" and "open"

[squiggleslash]

What existing European standard? ATSC and DVB were developed at around the same time. Arguably, those involved should have worked together, but to claim there was an existing European standard the industry could have adopted is completely wrong.

Re:Ah yes, "FCC" and "open"

[Brett Buck]

Uh, what? There was no established digital standard when ATSC development started. The only existing standard was the Japanese standard and that was analog - which still seems like a completely crazy idea.

          Brett

Re:Ah yes, "FCC" and "open"

[rtechie]

At this point, most people would be willing to settle for ANY standard since it's the cable companies' plan to NOT HAVE ONE. They WILL sabotage "OpenCable" or "Tru2Way" or whatever the fuck they're calling it now, just like they sabotaged CableCARD, and continue to use proprietary equipment. They're already talking about OUTRAGEOUS (on the order of $200 PER DEVICE) licensing terms for "Tru2Way", which will guarantee no consumer electronics manufacturer will touch it (by design).

The FCC spec is being pushed by Sony and other manufacturers, who actually have a business interest in interoperability. Hell, even a Sony proprietary format would be an improvement.

Re:Ah yes, "FCC" and "open"

[evilviper]

Like the way we now have a separate HDTV standard than everyone else in the world because they advocated a NTSC replacement even though the existing European standard was perfectly fine?

The ATSC (HDTV) standard in the US predates DVB by years.

The ATSC organization was created in 1982.
The DVB organization was created in 1993.

The (final) ATSC standard was published in 1995.
The DVB-T standard was finalized in 1997.

So, you should instead be asking why Europe chose to develop their own incompatible standard, "even though the existing American standard was perfectly fine."

Re:Ah yes, "FCC" and "open"

[Anonymous Coward]

don't worry, i'll get in touch with ol' Bail and Mon Mothma and see if we couldn't cook up a little... *rebellion* to counter the imperial problem here... i realise that this joke could be made much, much funnier... but i'm tired, so meh. anyone with funnier punch lines?

Re:Ah yes, "FCC" and "open"

[LordVader717]

This is (regrettably) already possible with DVB-C. You can put on your own proprietary decryption module and only sell licenses to selected manufacturers. BSkyB is most notorious for this practice.

Re:Ah yes, "FCC" and "open"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the numbers speak for themselves... ATSC took 13 years; DVB took 4.

Re:Ah yes, "FCC" and "open"

[evilviper]

I think the numbers speak for themselves... ATSC took 13 years;

At the start, ATSC was looking at all options for HDTV, including numerous and diverse analog options. It's simply that digital came along, and made any HDTV option practical, as opposed to the Japanese analog HDTV solution. If DVB had been around in 1983, they wouldn't have been able to come up with anything for a decade, either. They also had the opportunity to learn from ATSC... it's not nearly as difficult to take someone else's finished product and copy it, as it is to come up with something original yourself.

Smirnoff

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia Television Watches You.

Sigh

[jeremy128]

Here's just one more technology that promises to solve a problem, and indeed might, if it was ever used.

Let's change the name and hope nobody notices!

[glindsey]

Tru2Way is the new name for what was formerly "OpenCable," the standard which is not open as you need to register with CableLabs and sign an NDA just to see many of the specifications.

The protocol involves a sophisticated DRM system which can allow content providers to dictate which content you are allowed to move or copy and when (see section 6, Security, of the OpenCable Unidirectional Reciever Specification, OC-SP-OCUR-I04-060622).

I'm guessing "Tru2Rape" was just too truthful of a name for them to use.

Re:Let's change the name and hope nobody notices!

[Bryansix]

So basically it's the Broadcast Flag for cable.

Re:Let's change the name and hope nobody notices!

[powerlord]

So basically it's the Broadcast Flag for cable.

No. That was in the CableCard 1.0 Spec (CCv1).

All of this business with a new two-way standard is driven by the Cable Companies trying to move to Switched Digital Video (SDV) which requires two-way communication (which the CableCard 1.0 standard can't provide), while at the same time they've been dragging their collective heals about approving/finalizing a CableCard 2.0 spec that would allow two-way communication.

The FCC is getting ticked off (since the Cable Companies deployment of SDV means subscribers require their boxes, since even CCv1 devices can't work with SDV channels), and TiVo has been leading the charge against the Cable companies (since they have the most to gain by a proper spec).

Re:Let's change the name and hope nobody notices!

[Cramer]

It's a matter of "spirit" vs. "letter"... The FCC is mad, but there's nothing they can do about it. (and they should've seen it coming.) The cable companies have implemented a seperable security system as per the FCC mandate. It's not their fault almost every current Cable Labs certified receiver is unidirectional. (actually it is, since at the time cable labs had no other certification track -- UDCP was it.)

Btw, all cableCARDs are bidirectional. They are, however, at the mercy of the host into which they have been placed.

Re:Let's change the name and hope nobody notices!

[brix]

Tru2Way is the new name for what was formerly "OpenCable," the standard which is not open as you need to register with CableLabs and sign an NDA just to see many of the specifications.

Just plain wrong on so many levels, and it's sad that this is modded "informative" at the moment. Tru2Way is the new name for "the OpenCable Application Platform", also known as OCAP. This is a software platform with an open API. All of the specs are freely downloadable from the CableLabs website.

You are thinking of "OpenCable Host" which are the specs related to the encryption of digital channels. Note that this encryption is nothing new -- It's been a part of digital cable since the beginning. What's "new" about OpenCable Host is that it moves the encryption to the CableCARD.

Re:Let's change the name and hope nobody notices!

[glindsey]

A little late for me to be replying, but you are correct, and I apologize for the error. I had not realized the OpenCable name covered such a wide range of technologies. And you're also right about the specifications; the NDA is required for certain DOCSIS and test plan documents. I should have read their website more thoroughly.

Why?

[nonsequitor]

Why do I want my appliances talking back to any service provider? I value my privacy and I don't want my TV reporting my viewing habits any more than I want a smart fridge reporting my eating habits.

What's wrong with the push method of content distribution? I am skeptical as to what value this really adds to my viewing experience. I get the feeling its not about improving the user's experience at all, but more for gathering data on viewing habits to better price advertising time. I guess I'm at a loss as to what compelling technical problem this solves. The only thing the article really mentions is a lack of standardization for how these devices can acheive 2 way communication, but it never states why that is even necessary.

Re:Why?

[duranaki]

Pay Per View, Video on Demand, etc.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast On-Demand doesn't work if you don't have two-way communication.

Re:Why?

[nonsequitor]

Those services exist without this sort of invasive technology. Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't want a device like this in my house phoning home whenever my cable company wants. Service providers have already breached a trust with blanket wire tapping of internet service. Is the NSA going to start monitoring TV viewing habits too?

Re:Why?

[truesaer]

They only exist if you have a box from the cable company. If you read even the article summary you would see the point of this is to integrate the box into your TV set or other electronics equipment. That has a host of benefits...eliminates a piece of equipment, eliminates a monthly rental fee, makes it so you don't need a jerry-rigged system with high latency to switch channels with your DVR, etc.

Re:Why?

[duranaki]

I agree with you in spirit, but without two-way communication it is simply not possible to implement PayPerView. How would you inform the cable company of your consent to purchase a program without an upstream? These services ONLY exist today because of invasive technology.. the difference is that now cable companies have complete control over what your box uploads as they provide both the service and the box. Like you, I'm skeptical. If the standard isn't world readable, we will still have no idea what privacy we are throwing away. I don't trust the cable companies to define anything that is pro-consumer, and I only trust the FCC in those regards a hair more.

Re:Why?

[kebes]

What's the benefit? Well, as usual it will depend on the implementation.

If it truly ends up being an open standard, then end-users will benefit. The two-way interaction will be used to select desired data, for video-on-demand, downloading TV-schedules to various devices, etc. With an open standard, the end-user will be able to select from a wide variety of devices or even "roll their own" (e.g. MythTV). An open standard also means that new kinds of two-way TV interactions may be invented that can't be imagined right now: "social TV" where you exchange recommendations with friends, mash-ups of contents, customized and personalized news feeds, etc.

But, as we all know, the above scenario is rather unlikely. What is likely to be the case is that this will be a closed, proprietary, guarded standard that requires money and NDAs to become involved in. It will thus benefit the networks and advertisers, since it will be used to accumulate data on viewing habits, and to restrict the ways in which you can watch content (DRM, authorization flags, restrictions on transferring content to other devices, etc.).

You're absolutely right: the "push" content distribution method is much better when you can't trust the distribution system (as you rarely can with closed systems), whereas the "two-way" method is usually better when you can understand/control/trust the distribution system (e.g. the Internet).

Re:Why?

[LabRat]

It's obvious you don't grasp how modern digital cable works. This isn't about "phoning home". This is about being able to send command/control signals to the head-end equipment in order to access dynamically provisioned resources. Just as your web browser isn't "phoning home" when you open a TCP connection to slashdot in order to request the index page. Such dynamic resources include Switched Digital Video (sort of like multicast in the IP world..but not quite as granular), VOD, PPV, etc. Yes, it's true that all of those services can be accessed today without 2-way communication capabilities (formally konwn as OCAP, now I guess re-branded to "Tru2Way")..but they required you to rent a converter box from the cable company. Including this functionality into consumer electronics will eliminate the need to rent a second piece of hardware from the cable company...though if you just really like the idea of being charged $10/month or whatever for no good reason other than to have the privilege of having their official box and green LED clock on top of your A/V stack, I'm sure the cable company will be happy to accommodate you. If you are worried about your cable system monitoring your viewing habits, I sure hope you don't have a digital converter box ;)

Re:Why?

[gstoddart]

What's wrong with the push method of content distribution?

Because it doesn't include any sort of on-demand system in which your cable box has to call the mother ship and say "I want this extra stuff".

For some of their stuff, they want to move beyond the constant push model so they can have more on-demand stuff -- cause there's gold in them thar hills. :-P There are probably other reasons as well.

Personally, I'm waiting for any of the technologies they tout to ever come into existence. I thought the Cable Card was supposed to have been shipping by now. It seems like the more they try to standardize this, the more they throw away whatever they've been calling the Next Big Thing and start from scratch.

The TV industry seems really reluctant/incapable of actually adopting any of the new tech they keep harping about.

Cheers

Re:Why?

[Tintivilus]

The AC had the right idea but the wrong link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_digital_video

In an SDV system, not all channels are present on a given segment unless they're being requested. TiVo has announced support for SDV via an external USB dongle for the upstream.

Re:Why?

[plague3106]

Why do I want my appliances talking back to any service provider? I value my privacy and I don't want my TV reporting my viewing habits any more than I want a smart fridge reporting my eating habits.

Perhaps then your favorite show won't be canceled, because current methods to determine ratings are inaccurate?

What's wrong with the push method of content distribution? I am skeptical as to what value this really adds to my viewing experience. I get the feeling its not about improving the user's experience at all, but more for gathering data on viewing habits to better price advertising time. I guess I'm at a loss as to what compelling technical problem this solves. The only thing the article really mentions is a lack of standardization for how these devices can acheive 2 way communication, but it never states why that is even necessary.

Well, I for one like having on demand. I'd rather have more movies to choose from than 30 movie channels all showing something I don't care to watch. Free up the bandwidth for other applications / channels.

Re:Why?

[sponga]

Thank you for making that big point because more sets are coming with the tuner/cable card built into them and even integrate some DVR. Almost be nice to take my cable card over to somebodies house and bring my service to their set.

The DVR service almost becomes pointless after awhile when you have the VOD(Video On Demand) service; the shows are all stored there in the VOD library for access anytime. VOD eliminates a heat generating hard drive to make space for smaller devices.

Re:Why?

[LabRat]

Without the 2-way communication, the cablecard doesn't allow you to access VOD, SDV, etc as you snarkily surmise. Ditto the clear QAM tuners included in recent tv's and dvr's. In addition..yes VOD is probably the "way of the future"..but you'd be hard-pressed to find the variety in any provider's VOD selection that matches what can be found across the breadth of their linear programming that can be recorded. If you ONLY watch recent movies..then you are probably set. But there are many, many magnitudes more hours of content that is available in linear programming that is currently unavailable in VOD format (most sporting events, niche documentaries, etc etc).

Re:Why?

[TooMuchToDo]

So, crap like Wrestling and Sports (Pay Per View) and what Netflix's Watch It Now does (On Demand). My cable company is going to end up just pushing bits back and forth to me, while I get my content elsewhere for cheaper.

Re:Why?

[TooMuchToDo]

Most of that "linear programming" will just end up in the Netflix library, which I can watch either on DVDs from them or using Watch It Now.

Re:Why?

[Detritus]

VOD will never match the DVR for variety of programming. The cable company has to negotiate with the program supplier for the right to put a show or movie on VOD. That doesn't just mean dealing with a cable network, it means dealing with the production company that created the show or movie.

Re:Why?

[LabRat]

really? How many recent sporting events are available from Netflix? All of the college and professional football games that I care about are on my DVR until I watch and/or delete them. Show me equivalent *legal* sources of such content available *right now* in full OTA-quality HD. Didn't think so.

Re:Why?

[mzs]

We had PPV in the '80s. We informed the cable company with a phone call before the show. I imagine today it could be done over http.

Re:Why?

[dreamchaser]

That's fine, and you should be able to opt out of any 2 way communications, but they are talking about things like On Demand and Pay Per View programming here. You can save your tinfoil hat for later. They can *already* tell what you're watching without 2 way communications.

Re:Why?

[nonsequitor]

Cable is dead anyway, I torrent my television. There's is no way in hell I'll invest in this technology even if its the only thing on the market after a few years. This is just another method to sell new TVs. I have no intention of buying a new one for a long time, nor should I have to. I'll be laughing my ass off when this gets hacked and every comcast subscriber sees nothing but goatse for a week. All you would need is a modded surfboard cable modem to get on the network. This is just another point of failure for a television. I'm not worried about them "monitoring" me so much as I feel it to be an invasion of my privacy.

Re:Why?

[DCTooTall]

Honestly... biggest existing issue with the push method of distribution right now is available frequency spectrum/bandwith. The Cable co's can only go to a MAX of 1ghz on their plants right now because of FCC regulations. That 1 Gig of frequency has to cover your internet, all your video services, and any additional services your local cable-co has to provide. Now factor in the bandwith requirements of HD programming, increased internet speeds, and more niche programming... and the push method for video distibution just doesn't quite work anymore.

There's only so much a cable company can do to free up the bandwith/spectrum for new services or increased internet speeds. One is thru interactive services such as SDV (mentioned elsewhere with the wiki link). Another is increasing the spectrum on the plant, but it's neither cheap, or easy to get the FCC to authorize as quickly as the demands are increasing. Then you could always drop programming, but then certain loud-but-vocal group who enjoy said dropped channels start bitching. Then you also have the potential to upgrade from the current MPEG2 standard used for your digitial video feed, to MPEG4.....Problem there is that not all equiptment in the field currently would know what to do with MPEG4 codecs, so you'd have to basically simulcast them for awhile to allow backward compatibility while people upgrade equiptment. There are of course other options... but not really solve both the spectrum availability issue while not adversely effecting your "average" users. you must admit... /. isn't an average user.

Re:Why?

[jedidiah]

That's fine if the cable company offers VOD for EVERYTHING.

Otherwise, it's still not quite there.

With a fat DVR, I can do VOD for ANY show on ANY channel. The only caveat is that I have to wait for a certain "release date". While that may seem like a "problem", it's really no different than needing to wait for some other arbitrary "release date" for PPV or VOD.

Even VOD doesn't require an intrusive Big Brother type cable system. It just requires something that can process customer requests. Qube probably could do that in the 70's.

The requests don't even have to be driven from the TV.

Re:Why?

[jedidiah]

With a good PVR, VOD is redundant and about 10 years late.

Re:Why?

[jedidiah]

Actually, attempting VOD is only going to make bandwidth problems WORSE not better.

There will be more crap that less people are interested in watching being streamed
at the wrong time. Instead of 1 broadcast of "everyones favorite program" there
will be 100.

It makes MUCH more sense to have the customer's STB to the time shifting rather
than the headend cable service. That way, a single broadcast can satisfy many
requests.

Plus, there's already way too much crap on cable like QVC anyways.

DirecTV seems to be doing something right in this regard where they have some
really interesting PPV channels that are more than just the usual "play the
latest release all day long on 4 channels" nonsense.

Re:Why?

[TooMuchToDo]

Show me equivalent *legal* sources of such content available *right now* in full OTA-quality HD. Didn't think so.

http://www.silicondust.com/wiki/products/hdhomerun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdhomerun

The HDHomeRun has two inputs, which can both be used for either an OTA (over-the-air) ATSC antenna connection, or for QAM un-encrypted digital cable. It also has an ethernet connection, a power connector, and an IR receiver, but no TV output. It is then completely controlled over your ethernet network (gets address via DHCP). This is used to tune to channels, and the (pre-encoded) MPEG2[1] video stream is broadcast to the receiving computer over ethernet. This allows you to watch un-encrypted QAM or ATSC over your local network.

The HDHomeRun currently only works with free-to-air (ATSC) over-the-air, or un-encrypted QAM cable television.

You did want full OTA quality, right? And it is legal, as it's picking up radio signals over the air, right? Oh, it also doesn't encrypt the signal when it comes over the ethernet. You can watch it with VLC on your PC or one of several media servers/software packages out there.

Re:Why?

[DCTooTall]

Actually the thing about the way in which VOD and SDV are done is it can very easily free up bandwith. The Way SDV works is say you have 200 channels. Out of those 200 channels, 80% of the people watching tv at any given moment are only watching 20 of those channels. That's 180 channels on the push to everyone idea that not many people are watching. Now say you take 50 of those channels that not many people watch (QVC, Golf, CSPAN, etc) and convert them to SDV. Now, for simple scale here, let's say per NODE on the plant, you have only 1000 people. Out of that 1000 people, because we know 80% are watching the 20 most popular channels, we have only 200 people to throw over the remain 180 channels. So out of that, 100 are watching a local hockey game on the regional sports network. not really a mainstream channel, but not one of the ones who are set up on SDV. that leaves 100 people. 25 decide they want to watch the PGA tour coverage on the golf channel, 3 are watching CSPAN for homework, 22 are people shopping on QVC, 20 are watching VOD programming, and 30 are spread out on the rest of the 110 not in SDV or considered the most popular. So now, instead of using 50 channels of bandwith to broadcast all those SDV channels with a push, you have only 3 channels set up as a multicast. Even with cushions based off usage patterns and whatnot, you still get a SIGNIFICANT savings for additional programming or services.

both VOD and SDV set up the plant into nodes. Basically that means that instead of broadcasting the VOD or SDV programing to everybody in the entire system over the RF, you instead are going to broadcast the requested programming to that one node of users...which can be a town, street.....apartment complex...it depends on the way it was designed. Basically this means you can then reuse that frequency range in other sections of the plant for VOD or SDV, so you can provide more one-on-one coverage to the viewer without wasting massive amounts of frequency range..............and give customers an interactive experience like watching a new release on VOD where they can fast forward/rewind/pause/whatever.....vs the method DirectTV has where they broadcast new releases on multiple channels with staggered start times to give you a sort of virtual VOD...using more traditional PPV methods.

Now... I don't know how they are set up... but you could potentially use a DVR to give you that same functionality with satelite which the system provides to you on a cable VOD platform by default. But again, talking about an average user here... not a /. technical junkie with a MythBox.... If we are talking about the choice between purchasing a $50 plain-jane settop box, or spending $300 on a DVR, some people may prefer the cheaper box and still get their interaction with the movie. Rental fees for box rentals also tend to be a bit cheaper for a standard box vs. a DVR.

In the market i live in, we have 3 PPV channels, which honestly are special events like wrestlemania or boxing matches... otherwise they are porn fair like Girls Gone Wild or Uncensored versions of TV shows like cheaters and whatnot, Playboy, and 2 adult networks. All the standard new releases, as well as all sorts of special programming, network on demand offerings, old school movies that maybe are in demand because of the season or a sequels coming outa.... and a bunch of other random and sometimes interesting programming, is now done thru VOD. The only thing left on traditional PPV honestly is porn....and even that you can get on VOD.

Re:Why?

[LabRat]

Yeah, I wanted OTA quality...and some friggin content. The box is just that: a box. You've made the assertion (based on this thread that you've chosen to become involved with) that you don't want a DVR since between VOD and netflix (don't need no stinkin' linear programming from the cable company)...you have all the content you need. From the link you provided:

"Works with popular DVR software:

        * Pause, rewind, fast-forward live TV.
        * Record all your favorite TV shows by name.
        * Integrated TV guide (provided by the DVR software).
"

Well well well...now we're relying on linear content after all.

As for the bidirectional communication angle: In case you haven't noticed, over-the-air OTA and unencrypted QAM make up a fairly insignificant portion of what is available in the typical digital cable system when one signs up for various premium tiers...and it will dwindle as a fraction more and more as SDV is rolled out and nearly all programming save a few basic channels plus the local broadcast channels are moved to the switched architecture which requires 2-way communication to view.

Wake me up when that box can record 100% of the content offered in the MLB Extra Innings, the ESPN GamePlan, MLS Direct Kick, NBA League Pass, and NHL Center Ice premium sports packages just to look at sports programming. How about all the Discovery Channel HD sub-channels? Etc Etc. Didn't think so either.

But thanks for making my point for me. I'd mod you up +1 for "helpful to LabRat's cause" if I could.

Re:Why?

[nonsequitor]

I also do not appreciate your attack on my technical credibility. How is it that I am the one who doesn't understand the technical issues, yet you're perfectly content to let your cable company control a 2-way communication channel into your home. I should write some proof of concept code that turns one of those TV's into a monitoring device. Speakers can work as microphones. Would you believe me then that its a bad idea? They want to put a virtual machine into your television that runs an application downloaded to your TV from your cable provider. The question is not whether you trust your cable provider not to silently sell you out to the NSA, its whether you are going to allow that sort of hole in your home security. I assume since you're from the slashdot crowd you know enough not to leave your router set to the default password. We've all read the stuff about using the PC speaker as an input to capture the sound from the keyboard and decode that to get which keys were pressed. Privacy is essential for a healthy democracy. Don't trade yours away for shiny toys when you have the choice not to. For the record all my routers run openwrt, and I control what programs run inside my house. Do you know what your computers are running?

Re:Why?

[LabRat]

Um, as I said...this is no different than current digital cable boxes. If you have a problem with 2-way communication, then you shouldn't have digital cable..period. Stick with OTA TV via a pair of rabbit ears. Better stay off the internet too...if you don't think your viewing habits are being monitored/dissected by a number of interested parties, you are fooling yourself.

Appreciate the "attack" or not...you don't get it.

And yes, I know what my computers are running...thanks.

Re:Why?

[gstoddart]

With a good PVR, VOD is redundant and about 10 years late.

Well, there are always going to be PPV movies and events which people are willing to pay for. Think porn, new releases, boxing, or what have you. That market won't ever go completely away.

I have a PVR, but my cable provider has a lot of free VOD stuff. It's part of the landscape, and it's one more option.

VOD may be something you don't use, but it's not something which can be fully replaced with a PVR -- I mean, how else are you gonna rent Milfs in Heat 4 at 3am on a Wednesday? ;-)

Cheers

Re:Why?

[nonsequitor]

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I don't want devices networked over propreitary channels inside my home. With my computers which are on the internet, I control the communications. With my television, they control that, and that is unacceptable. You may point out next that if I have a cell phone that would be hypocritical too, which is correct. This inconsistency with my home security policy I plan on correcting, as soon as I can get a production quality phone running OpenMoko. We have a right to privacy, feel free to give up that right if you want, its no skin off my back. Just stop saying I don't understand the technology, its insulting and you're embarrassing yourself. We obviously have different philosophies when it comes to security and privacy.

Re:Why?

[LabRat]

I don't have much of a different view than you...I just use the correct terminology. You call command and control signals "phoning home". They are not for that purpose. Can they be abused? Sure they can. So can any piece of technology. Should we move away to some log cabin in the mountains lest we be exposed to the *possibility* of someone abusing a piece of technology? You seem to lean towards "yes". I lean towards "no" with the ability to tolerate the small amount of risk that the technology will be abused as you say. It doesn't mean that I necessarily trust the cable companies to have a conscience...rather that I am familiar enough with the technology to realize that there are so many fingers in this proverbial pie that having a massive breach of privacy as you are afraid of would necessitate a massive conspiracy amongst a great number of companies (any one of which could blow the whole thing with a single anonymous phonecall to the press)...one that would be near impossible to keep secret for long. Therefore, it is basically a self-correcting problem for the most part. Hell, even the NSA couldn't keep it's most highly classified project with the telecoms secret for long.

While my observations might be insulting to you, I don't feel embarrassed in the least for pointing out fallacies in your arguments...but thanks for your concern.

Re:Why?

[nonsequitor]

Thank you, all I was asking was for civility. Stating that I don't "get it" is condescending.

You seem to think that a conspiracy is necessary for this technology to be abused, I'm more worried about incompetence. You call me paranoid, yet an acceptable manner of wiretapping is rootkiting a cell phone such that it is always on and listening. With the PATRIOT Act as part of the laws of my nation, I do not trust techology. Trust must be earned and blind faith is ill advised.

When I make engineering decisions involving product development, the questions from my original post are the ones I ask. I don't like the answers to those questions in this case so I am not planning on investing in any device which uses this technology. There are other ways to deliver those features which do not have the potential to violate my privacy, whether it be my viewing habits, or potentially the conversations I hold in my living room. It's not really that far fetched that a secret warrant, protected by the PATRIOT Act unlike the warrantless wiretapping, could accomplish this.

It's like that doctor whose wife and daughters were killed in a home invasion, after he was severely beaten. I don't remember his name but this quote stood out in my mind "I am one of the unluckiest men alive." While this may sound callous, it's not luck that made him unprepared to protect his family. It was the undeserved faith he placed in society to keep him safe. 99.9999% of the time you can get away with that. While it is tragic what happened, and it may have been bad luck that they picked his house, it is not luck that failed to protect his family. Perhaps he should have prayed for their safety, or he could have bought a gun and been trained in how to use it, to best prepare for that 0.0001% of the time. Would he have been safer in a cabin in the middle of the woods, maybe, maybe not.

Let me phrase this another way. Consider this scenario, a hacker roots your television via this protocol. Via the TV speakers, he is able to record all the audio in the vicinity and records you giving your CC# to the pizza place. Will the TV Manufacturer be at all liable for any of this? No. You're S.O.L. Why would you be unable to sue them for damages? Because you made the decision to buy the TV and place it in your living room. The point of all of this is that ultimately no one else is responsible for your security. If they drop the ball, you have no recourse.

I have decided that I don't want devices in my home which transmit data over possibly encrypted channels to those which are undeserving of my trust. Data which I have no control over, which is "supposed to be" innocuous. Am I paranoid? Yes. Am I less likely to have "bad luck" when it comes to privacy? Yes. So "phone home" was a bad choice of words, I still fail to see how my points are invalid. It may be improbable, but they are still valid concerns.

I "get it" you don't much care how you get your pay-per-view. You trust that society will have your back and this would not be abused without you knowing. You're are by all means welcome to do so. I do not trust that the manufacturers have the technical competence to implement this securely, nor do I trust my cable company not to abuse my privacy.

This may not be something you care about at all, however some of us value our privacy and do not take it lightly. We prefer not to trust corporations to have our best interests at heart, nor do we trust our government to protect our interests either. As the Information Age progresses, privacy becomes more important than ever before.

I hope you have good luck with Tru2Way, the other defect it adds is a pluggable DRM mechanism. I hope you trust your cable company to program what your TV is allowed to display.

Great

[DoofusOfDeath]

I can't think of a single good reason that I want my TV talking back to my cable company.

Re:Great

[DragonPup]

Video on Demand requires 2 way communication.

Re:Great

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I can't think of a single good reason that I want my TV talking back to my cable company. Do you have a digital cable converter to get channels beyond the basic 99? If so, then you already are. And probably paying %$10/mo for the privilege. This just eliminates the fee they charge to spy on you, which is good. It's like they're giving free lube before they... well, you get the picture.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

too late, it does..

There are two downsides to this standard......

[icebike]

How is it that an FCC chairman that wants a MORE OPEN standard constitutes a downside?

Why should we have to buy a TV with multiple tuners, picture in picture, dual channel viewing and all sorts of neat capabilities and then be mugged by the cable companies on the way to watch the ball game?

Cable card http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD was supposed to eliminate this, but the cable companies refused the ability to get channel guide info for sets using cable cards.

Personally, I think the FCC should outlawt cable companies from selling set top boxes PERIOD. Take the revenue out of their hands and standards would be adhered to, third parties would arrive, guide info would magically appear on the internet, and every thing would be much more consumer friendly. Mandate only cable card and free the strangle hold. Everybody will be buying a new TV in the next four years anyway, the time is ripe.

Re:There are two downsides to this standard......

[R2.0]

"How is it that an FCC chairman that wants a MORE OPEN standard constitutes a downside?"

Because Kevin Martin has been painted as an industry flack, brown nosing to Big Business and the Bush Regime. The fact that he opposes cable company domination would add depth to a heretofor 2 dimensional character, and that is completely unnaceptable. We need our public figures simple and easy to ridicule, so that we don't need to engage our long atrophied skills at critical thinking.

Who does this guy think he is?

[frankie]

A quick look through recent Slashdot stories involving the FCC turns up a veritable cornucopia of positions from Kevin Martin. Some of them favor megacorps, others favor consumers. It's positively bizarre! No matter who put his name onto the nomination list, it's unlikely that anyone is getting everything they paid for out of this guy.

But I guess that's what happens when you hire someone who's playing two different sports, and music on two continents at the same time he's chairing the FCC...

The infrastructure is already there: www

[Anonymous Coward]

The infrastructure is already there, some call it 'the world wide web'.

Don't we have those already?

[michaelepley]

Good thing you pointed out you are just a shill. The rest of us just prefer to be able to (legally & easily) transfer video from our DVRs to our laptops, and be able to enjoy watching on a 17" widescreen (ok, I've only got a 14" standard...but I'd like a new laptop) in between bouts of work on the 4+ hour plane ride or 10 hour drive to visit family over the holidays.

Re:Don't we have those already?

[DragonPup]

Actually, I openly post that fact I work for Comcast(Provisioning coordinator, which is a part of the tech dispatch office, in case you were wondering) to avoid appearing to be a shill.

And you do have legal options. I suppose you can set up a home theater PC and burn the files to a DVD. This type of box is not for everyone, obviously, but I do think it's quite nice for the proposed ease-of-use factor.

Re:Don't we have those already?

[jedidiah]

That's being rather generous to Comcast. Their attempts at PVR products
are what drive people to building MythTV systems in the first place. This
new thing may not even be any easier to deal with than MythTV (nevermind
Windows MCE, SageTV, BeyondTV or any of the others). It certainly won't
be as robust or as interesting.

Panasonic, Samsung, LG

[GottMitUns]

Sony is so irrelevant. They were a leader in TV sets for many years with the Excellent Trinitron(tm) line. But advances in display technology left them hopelessly behind. Move along, nothing to see here.

The FCC standard.

[AltGrendel]

I believe that Chairman Kevin Martin calls it "No TV left behind".

Building this stuff into the tv is a good idea?

[\\]

Why is building this stuff into a television a good idea? Even if the money grubbing cable companies weren't all about screwing you with their prices, what happens when new legit tech does get created? I'm forced to buy a new tv?

Re:Building this stuff into the tv is a good idea?

[jandrese]

The point isn't necessarily that you need to build it into the TV, but it gives you the option to build stuff like Tivo that doesn't interact well with the traditional cable box model. Besides, Cable boxes tend to suck, universally, and people wouldn't use them if they didn't need to. The worst part is that we got away from them for a bit when TV manufacturers improved their tuners enough to be compatible with cable (Cable Ready TVs), but with the DRM requirements of new digital channels you can't make a simple solution like that anymore.

If it were just a matter of putting a digital signal decoder in the TV we would have had them years ago, but because they need to decrypt and re-encrypt the signal umpteen times between the head end and your TV, the technology is still buggy and badly supported.

Re:Building this stuff into the tv is a good idea?

[cHiphead]

How is the government supposed to watch US from our tvs if they dont have 2 way communications, ala 1984?

cheers.

Re:Building this stuff into the tv is a good idea?

[Buelldozer]

We already DO build all of this stuff into televisions!

Are you not old enough to remember the original cable boxes that had tuning crystals in them? You'd either turn a knob or hit a button on a box seperate from the TV. That box would modulate it's output to TV channel 3 (or 4) and that's the channel you would turn your television to.

As time went on and cable systems standardized televisions started getting cable tuners built into them. This is why most televisions now can tune the first 70 or so cable channels. Those analog channels were standardized sometime back in the 80s and all TVs now have tuners built into them for this.

What people are seeking is a return to this convenience for DIGITAL cable.

Frankly digital should have been deployed like this from the get go and I can't understand why cable companies are blocking a return to A/V equipment with built in tuners.

Re:Building this stuff into the tv is a good idea?

[jedidiah]

You're on crack.

Tivo works WONDERFULLY with the conventional set top box model. You could even do PPV through a separate STB if you really wanted to. It's a very well defined interface and the resulting signal requires no shenanigans to deal with.

STB's are a dream compared to these allegedly open no-stb options.

Re:Building this stuff into the tv is a good idea?

[The Cisco Kid]

Yes, and VCR's got those tuners too (except for some extremely cheap ones). And they didnt allow the broadcaster to set a flag that the device would automatically obey preventing you from recording it.

The way this change is coming out VCR's have no tuners (except for the very expensive ones, which are forced to obey the no-timeshift flag), and all you are allowed to do is watch live.

And cable companies are using the OTA requirement as an excuse to force their proprietary digital, which requires their proprietary box no matter how new your TV is, on their customers.

Standardization of *OPEN* transmission would be a good thing, so that every VCR/Tivo/TV/PCTunerCard could tune the transmitted channelsm without DRM, without forced channels guides and menus and ads, just the simple ability to easily tune any channel. Unfortunately, its not what big cable wants, and big cable has lots of money to use to 'convince' regulators and legislators that what they want is whats 'best for us all'

Re:Building this stuff into the tv is a good idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your missing the point of Tru2Way. This new technology standard is going to give us the ability to get rid of the set-top box, and go back to a TV with a Tuner, only it will work within the guildlines of the FCC's mandate that all signals go Digital by Feb. 17, 2009. For those people who have a hard time working with multible remotes, no more problem, yet you will still have the conveince of having a guilde. I applaud the Cable Companies moving in this direction.

Sony again?

[HerculesMO]

What a surprise?

It's a question mark on purpose people...

you want it so you can get more channels (of crap)

[Anonymous Coward]

Switched Digital Video (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video/ requires your video appliance to talk back to your streaming video service provider.

The question still remains...

[darjen]

"In a move to stave off the FCC, cable operators have now agreed upon one standard to allow TVs and other gear that will work regardless of cable provider.

Why do people subscribe to cable TV? If you are so offended by their closed standards, the solution seems pretty simple to me. All it shows is that the FCC is a completely bogus organization that ultimately hurts consumers. Cable companies shouldn't be forced by the regulators to adopt a common standard any more than consumers should be forced to subscribe.

Personally, I canceled my cable TV service the last time I moved and couldn't be happier. I would rather spend money on internet access and netflix. If I really really want to watch a show, I might download it... but honestly I still haven't even watched the shows I downloaded last year.

It's called DVB-C, but it's NIH.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a standard for digital video broadcasting, which is unsurprisingly called DVB and has three subsections for terrestrial, cable and satellite transmission: DVB-T, DVB-C and DVB-S. The standard includes modular encryption, but unfortunately it is Not Invented Here, so it can't be used.

Re:It's called DVB-C, but it's NIH.

[gordona]

Your comments are not completely accurate. DVB does indeed have the specifications you cite and are standardized by ETSI. However, there are big differences between Europe and North American systems. Cable is the dominant technology in North America while Satellite is the major technology in Europe. North American cable provides an always on return path for 2-way communications between the cable receiver and the headend (for things like Conditional Access, Network Authorization, Viewer Interactivity, etc) while Europe has used a session based return path via the phone line. This makes for huge differences in how the specifications can be implemented. OpenCable (now Tru2Way) through the DVB based GEM specifications, which is a subset of the DVB MHP specification, has extended the DVB subset to enable the use of the North American Technologies. It only recently that the DVB has included things like unbound applications that are not tied to a service (or TV program). This means that the application can run regardless of the program to which the device is tuned. Enabling this required the use of the specific technologies that the North American Cable network provided via the OpenCable initiative. Thus, the only way to make the DVB specifications work would have be to redo the technologies in North America. That the DVB specs were not invented here is patently a bad argument, since a high percentage of the APIs used in the the OCAP specifications are in the DVB name space.

Re:It's called DVB-C, but it's NIH.

[Teun]

There is a standard for digital video broadcasting, which is unsurprisingly called DVB and has three subsections for terrestrial, cable and satellite transmission: DVB-T, DVB-C and DVB-S. The standard includes modular encryption, but unfortunately it is Not Invented Here, so it can't be used. You missed one; DVB-M for mobile devices.

Re:It's called DVB-C, but it's NIH.

[Teun]

Hmm, it is mainly the UK that in majority watches TV via satellite (Sky), in the rest of Europe cable is the leading TV distributer.
DVB-T is especially used by the public (non-commercial) stations and can be had nearly everywhere.
DVB-C is as far as I know not mandated but many cable companies use it.

Oh, for f***'s sake.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are they still pushing cable?

Why is the industry not pushing to get fiber to the freaking premises for broadcast comms? You do that, you remove the frequency and bandwidth limitations that exist on the current cable networks. Sure you may have to have new equipment at the IDF, and at the house, but once the infrastructure is there, it's there. Is the price of copper or coax going down where you are?

Why is there an incessant need for the Broadcast Corp's to put off the inevitability that is fiber optic to the home on mass scale? The longer they wait to do this crap, the more people they are going to permanently push to the web for media entertainment and news. And, the more likely they are never to return to the zombie box.

Re:Oh, for f***'s sake.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had a working, albeit limited, cable network but no fiber network, what would you do? Make some small upgrades to the cable network or build a completely new network? Does that answer your question?

Marketing hype, this is still just Cablecard 2.0.

[fahrvergnugen]

This is just 2-way cablecard, aka Cablecard 2.0, aka Open Cable, rebranded with yet another name. It's all a marketing gimmick designed to shake off the negative connotations attached to CableCard and its failure in the marketplace at the hands of the cable companies. These still aren't the droids you're looking for.

I think every cable customer who has every had to use a shitty digital cable tuner for any period of time knows that they suck mightily. They're some of the worst consumer electronics products put into wide release in the last decade. They have horrible user interfaces, they're slow to change channels, they're riddled with banner ads slapped on every spare square inch of screen real estate, they feature glacial channel guides, and are plagued by forgetful DVRs. The list of ways in which cable boxes suck goes on and on, but cable customers have put up with it because they didn't have a choice.

Really, the customer wants to be able to do the same things with digital cable that they were able to do with analog cable back in the 90's. Namely:

• Use the tuner built into their TV without paying the cable company rental fees for a box or a device
• Hook the cable directly into a recording device for time-shifting without noticeable DRM restrictions
• See open competition in the set-top box marketplace to drive down prices and create innovative new interfaces & services
• Do and have all of the above without sacrificing PPV, On-Demand, other new features, or any channel subscriptions they've paid for.

10 years and an act of Congress later, Cablecard was supposed to do give us all of the above, but the implementations have been so intentionally broken by the cable companies that it's basically useless. Cable companies have intentionally made the experience of using a cablecard-equipped PC with Windows Media Center (a fine device, whatever Slashdot's biases) or a cablecard-equipped Tivo a complete nightmare. Purchasers have to put up with broken installs, untrained technicians, and then once everything is set up, the system is so fragile that without notice the devices just Stop Working for days at a time, and often don't resume function until hours are spent on the phone with Comcast support. Users of WMC or TivoHD also lose access to PPV and On-Demand, even though they still have to pay the cable company for access to those features, and any channels that are deployed on a new back-end technology called SDV are inaccessible as well. Current WMC PC's and cablecard Tivo's are already obsolete, not 2 years into their product lifespan. CableCard is a lousy deal, and the cable companies have gone out of their way to make sure it remains a lousy deal, because the last thing they want to do is open up their network to competition.

CableCard 2.0, or 2-way cablecard, or OpenCable, or (now) True2Way, or whatever they call it, is supposed to be a panacea. These devices will allow 2-way communications with the cable company's network, and let you buy any cable box you want, complete with ppv and on-demand and SDV. But here's the rub: They use a technology called OCAP, with is four-letter-acronym for "Whatever box you buy will download and run the cable company's shitty software in a sandboxed virtual machine, and the box provider can offer no features above and beyond what is deployed by the cable company." There is no real competition under the OCAP model, because when plugged into the cable network and activated, the boxes will all be EXACTLY THE SAME. Maybe they can compete on hard disk space, but that'll be about it. You want a Tivo or WMC interface? If your cable company doesn't offer one (for the low low price of $15 a month, but did I mention that our standard cable box interface is free!) then you're screwed. You want an interface that isn't covered in banner ads? Good luck with that. The cable company remains the keyholder to the gates of the network, and there's no chance in hell they'll open up.

All this announcement means is that y

It's so difficult for me

[bmajik]

to not be this guy right now.

Totally agree

[SuperKendall]

I still subscribe to basic cable, but only because then I can use clearQAM to get at digital feeds of local broadcast stations (our area doesn't yet have broadcast HDTV) and because it's revenue neutral since Comcast cable internet has about the same cost if you have TV service with them or not.

Any shows that were on cable, I can get from Netflix or download from iTunes. It's really a lot nicer way to approach TV.

Re:Totally agree

[darjen]

I used to subscribe to cable just to get their HDTV stuff. I was paying over $100 for tv and internet. Now I use an HD antenna and tuner and am pretty happy with that setup. Luckily I live in a pretty large metro area with all the local channels in HD. Netflix fills the rest of the void pretty well. I would much rather pay $15/month for 768mbps internet and $15/month for Netflix than over $100 for internet and cable! Hopefully you'll get some form of broadcast HD soon.

Tru1Way

[Dachannien]

This "two way" standard is really only one way: straight from our pockets to the cable companies and the content cabal.

Re:Tru1Way

[TCaM]

you don't have to pay for cable.

one CAM to rule them all

[spectro]

FCC should get their head out of their asses and force one CAM for ALL. Satellite and cable STBs should use the same CAM. And while at it:

• Fine ATSC broadcasts without EIT
• Define a unique national tv channel numbering scheme for cable and satellite providers, no matter where in the US and whatever TV provider you use you should find ESPN in channel xyz
• Police satellite uplinks and fine providers that don't follow ID standards. Have you tried to scan DVB feeds with mythtv?, it's a mess, all these feed transponders have the same damm ID and you have to enter them manually or you only get one fsk channel per satellite.

</RANT>

Your HD Tivo will work forever, regardless.

[Viewsonic]

No, you wont have to rebuy your HD Tivo all over again. It's already in law that they need to support Cablecard for pretty much the end of time, regardless if they decide to jump onto some other standard. The devices will still need to require a cablecard slot, and the cable companies will still be required to offer them. Their new standard might turn out to be awesome, cure cancer, bring people back to life, but in the end they'll still need to offer Cablecard support. Which is EXACTLY why you wont have to buy another HD Tivo.

Re:Your HD Tivo will work forever, regardless.

[Anonymous Coward]

I beg to differ, my TiVoHD is already obsolete as my cable company (TWC) has many one way channels "Not Available with CableCard" as you can see:

http://www.oceanic.com/OceanicWebApps/Television/DigitalServices/DCL_Oahu.html

The cable company claims Switched Digital Video is not one-way, and so there is no FCC requirement to support cablecard. Filing comments with the FCC has so far produced silence from the FCC.

Switching Video Delivery

[saikou]

You do, actually. Because otherwise some channels will simply not work any more. One-way communication means all channels are broadcasted _at once_. And your card has means to decode channels A through M (but not N through Z, even though the feed is there). Now with switching video they only broadcast channels that are presently in use (A,E,L...), so in order to watch channel D your box/card/device has to be able to talk back to the node and say "I'd like channel D now" to which it gets back "Ok, it's on digital channel 1342.1" and magically that particular channel is assigned feed from D for some amount of time, after which it will be reused.
That way cable company can offer you virtually unlimited number of channels even though the bandwidth is limited (and in worst case scenario they only need one channel per each consumer's device). Time Warner already started to move some channels to this delivery system, therefore if you have a cable card and you want to see one of those "small" channels you are out of luck. And if you have "digital cable compatible TV" then you may see some channels that keep on switching content.
So yes, you do want a two way communication, even if you never use Video on Demand.

Re:Switching Video Delivery

[TheSkyIsPurple]

> and in worst case scenario they only need one channel per each consumer's device

Seems like a pretty bad worst case. How many cable boxes max hang off the distro points? What is the bandwidth like between those and the head ends?

Re:Switching Video Delivery

[Shotgun]

How many cable boxes max hang off the distro points? What is the bandwidth like between those and the head ends?

Several thousand.
Nearly all cable plants are not HFC (Hybrid Fiber Coax). The best you'll get is OC-12 down to the distribution head. Not nearly enough to handle all the separate requests on a rainy Sunday night. The cable companies will still have to depend on delayed start to implement some amount of multicast, and depend on most viewer watching non-VoD channels.

Re:Marketing hype, this is still just Cablecard 2.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah, anti-cable rhetoric, blah blah, we get it.

Users of WMC or TivoHD also lose access to PPV and On-Demand, even though they still have to pay the cable company for access to those features, and any channels that are deployed on a new back-end technology called SDV are inaccessible as well. How is that the cable companies' fault? What would you have the cable companies do, hold back technology until everyone finally implements the new technology? That's why we're still stuck with analog cable, since cable companies are forced by the government to continue to support ancient TVs.

Besides, if you bought an HD Tivo, you're an idiot. You can rent a DVR from your cable company for under the cost of Tivo's subscription, let alone the cost of the hardware. Plus, when the hard drive crashes (which, as you mention, it will), with a rented DVR you can always return it for a new one. With Tivo, you're stuck with a dead piece of hardware. (Even with that SATA port in the back: don't forget, the Tivo software is stored on the internal drive.) So you're looking at another $800 every couple of years with an HD Tivo. Tivo's dieing not because of the cable companies, but because they're a horrible deal and anyone with an elementary understanding of math can figure that out.

Current WMC PC's and cablecard Tivo's are already obsolete, not 2 years into their product lifespan. And whose fault is that? The cable companies, or the company producing obsolete gear? Are you seriously demanding that cable companies not be allowed to innovate so that companies like Tivo are allowed to stick around, despite otherwise failing in the market? I thought the consensus on Slashdot was that corporate welfare is bad.

There is no real competition under the OCAP model, because when plugged into the cable network and activated, the boxes will all be EXACTLY THE SAME. Sort of like all web browsers are all EXACTLY THE SAME, right? Please. This is almost exactly analogous to a web browser - the set top acts as a browser of the cable's content. There are plenty of features that set top boxes will be able to offer in addition to displaying cable content. (Things like Internet video come to mind.)

You want an interface that isn't covered in banner ads? Good luck with that. I don't know about WMC, but good luck with that with Tivo. They plaster their interface with ads too.

Re:Marketing hype, this is still just Cablecard 2.

[3dge]

You've never used Tivo (or you've never used a cable company DVR), or you'd understand how ludicrous your argument is. It's kinda like saying "Why would I buy this BMW for $40k when I can get a perfectly good Ford Pinto for 3 bucks and a ham sandwich?"

Your logic is flawed.

[dslauson]

"The problem isn't with the cards themselves - cable companies have been mandated to use them in all cable boxes produced since July of last year. These boxes work. So the problem is obviously with the third party devices."

Your logic is screwy here, too. Example: I write a web page and test it in internet explorer. It looks perfect and flawless. I then try to display it in Opera, Firefox, etc. It looks crappy and the layout is all over the place.

According to your logic, the web page must work, because I tested it in IE. So, the problem is obviously with the other browsers.

My point is that you don't take into account the possibility that cable companies are not adhering strictly to the standards. They could easily design a cable card that works in their own proprietary set top boxes, but is total garbage when you try it on a completely standards-compliant third party device.

Re:Marketing hype, this is still just Cablecard 2.

[Tacvek]

There is no real competition under the OCAP model, because when plugged into the cable network and activated, the boxes will all be EXACTLY THE SAME. Sort of like all web browsers are all EXACTLY THE SAME, right? Please. This is almost exactly analogous to a web browser - the set top acts as a browser of the cable's content. There are plenty of features that set top boxes will be able to offer in addition to displaying cable content. (Things like Internet video come to mind.) Sure internet video could be added, but it would use an interface that looks very different than the main interface. It would not be possible for a box to offer a superior DVR scheduling algorithm. For example, if a show cannot be taped due to not enough tuners on a Tivo box (for example two tuners in the box, but three shows to record in that time-block, the lowest priority one will not be recorded), it is possible for it to automatically record that episode the next time it comes on. On many DISH Network DVRs, there is no way to request that. It would require realizing there was a conflict (it will not warn you), manually finding the show, etc. It would not shock me to find out that no cable company would include a good scheduler. But that would be part of the protected section of the system, so the boxes could not change it. If a cable companies system was buggy, you could not fix it with a different box. Etc.

Re:Marketing hype, this is still just Cablecard 2.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used a Tivo. They're buggy pieces of crap.

They randomly disconnect from their CableCARDs, they routinely hide episodes they've recorded ("This group is no longer needed") and they're plastered with ads. The best part it when you hit buttons on the remote and nothing happens for several seconds, until all of a sudden they all occur at once.

Now the rented DVR isn't much better, but it doesn't randomly drop its decoder and doesn't cost $800 upfront plus $15/month afterwards.

Re:Marketing hype, this is still just Cablecard 2.

[fahrvergnugen]

What would you have the cable companies do, hold back technology until everyone finally implements the new technology? That's why we're still stuck with analog cable, since cable companies are forced by the government to continue to support ancient TVs.

No, I would have them publish the specifications for ordering PPV, sending OnDemand requests, and communicating 2-way with the back-end network to anyone interested in making a set-top box. Same with any future cable technologies. Publish API's, publish specifications, and allow other companies to make end-point devices.

And if they can't or won't do that? Then yes, hold them back. Cable companies being forced to continue supporting analog cable is a good thing. They're being held back from technological progress in the name of accessibility, because communication monopolies have been granted to them in exchange for their service to the public good, even if that service comes at the expense of theirp rofit margin. Cableco's want to have their monopolies, and still blatantly serve their own interests above all others.

Sort of like all web browsers are all EXACTLY THE SAME, right? Please. This is almost exactly analogous to a web browser - the set top acts as a browser of the cable's content.

This is nothing like a web browser. To carry your analogy: If my ISP were like a cable company insisting on OCAP, every time I signed on to my ISP, my computer would automatically download a copy of Netscape 4.7. This instance of Netscape would run in a jailed virtual machine, and I would have no configuration control over it. If I wanted to browse the internet or use e-mail, I would have to use this copy of Netscape 4.7, and no other software. The ISP is happy to let me download IE5 for $4.99 a month, or IE7 for $14.99. They do not support IE6, Firefox, Safari, or Opera. The ISP 2 towns over supports Firefox, but due to monopoly rights granted to my ISP by the government, I am unable to purchase service from them.

That's the kind of bullshit environment the cable companies are forcing down our throats.

What customers want is a model exactly like the browser system, content that is retrieved over the wire in a well-documented standard format which can be understood by any end device and interpreted by that device in user- and vendor-configurable ways, regardless of the intent of the original content publisher or the content distributor. We want to rip out their channel guide and use our own, we want to time-shift our content without paying them a monthly DVR fee, we want to disable banner advertisements, and we want to play video back in a window on our PC screens while we type up responses to idiot AC's on Slashdot. These are all things we used to be able to do before cable monopolies leveraged digital cable to take control of the endpoint devices. It's not at all unreasonable as a customer to want that control back.

Re:Marketing hype, this is still just Cablecard 2.

[jedidiah]

Someone get a clue bat.

Tivos are not "plastered with ads". You hit the Tivo button and you get your playlist.

If Tivos have problems working with the industry's attempt to sabotage Tivo then it's hardly Tivo's fault.

Tivos were doing just fine communicating through set-top boxes for a decade before this cablecard nonsense.

An STB with a serial control in it would be more than any sort of PVR would need to do anything that the cable companies could think up.

In other news Sony has

[ChoppedBroccoli]

decided to market its own standard for built0in TV cable communication and DVR capabilities, called Memory Stick PRO-HG-DVR-SUPERDELUXE-3.0. It utilizes the widely successful Memory Stick platform to store your favorite recordings so you can take them on the go with all of your other Memory Stick enabled portable devices. Each time you see your favorite show on TV, simply insert any one of your many Memory Sticks into the slot on the TV and enjoy all the wonderful features of the world of DVR. ----- MSDNA "Memory stick, its in our DNA"

its still a phone call

[Anonymous Coward]

I managed to buy an HDTV before they "cost-reduced" the CableCard slot out of them (yeah, yeah DVRs are the shit but they make for a crappy-looking installation in the bedroom compared to simply mounting a panel on the wall) and to order a PPV I give Comcast an old-fashioned phone call.

Long live BOCA

[heroine]

BOCA sounded catchier, but it not catchy enough. Too bad they couldn't have made up a Web 2.0 name like oo2gle or ooway.

Comcast's DVR's interface is "user hostile"

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can rent a DVR from your cable company for under the cost of Tivo's subscription"

That's true, and on principle, I agree with you. However, if you look at Comcast's DVR implementation, it's so awful in terms of functionality and interface that you come to one of two conclusions. Either (a) Comcast doesn't actually want to deploy DVR's or (b) they don't have a clue what a proper interface looks like.

As bad you think it might be, it's even worse. It reminds me (seriously) of those old MS-BASIC text programs that you used to see on an IBM-PC circa 1984. Functionality-wise, it looks like the business unit at Comcast that is/was responsible was given no budget to develop it, and then farmed it out to some overseas development house that was the lowest bidder regardless of qualifications.

Now, Verizon has the same basic box, and it was slightly less awful, but they at least rolled out something new and looks like it was developed by someone with a little bit of a clue, but it's so buggy that it will often forgot to offer buttons to record programs if the program is on at multiple times (the tyranny of choice).

Even so, why did verizon turn off the external ports? Didn't they want me to add a bigger Hard Drive? Why won't they sell me something with more capacity? Why can't I even get 40 hours of HiDef material in their DVR, even if I'm willing to pay for it?

I also own 2 Tivos. Now contrary to some people, the user interface does need work, but in terms of functionality, Tivo pretty much "gets" it and has built something that is worth paying extra for.

Great-Downloading fear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Food for thought my paranoid friend..

Hold your nose in the air like you just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why is it that a "cable guy" who 9 times out of 10 hasn't even been to college is providing me with roughly an hours worth of work that is somehow "more expensive" than an hours worth of my work at my job; which I had to attain a top tier college degree for?"

I feel the same way about electricians, plumbers, and car mechanics.

Let's change slashdot and hope nobody notices!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm guessing "Tru2Rape" was just too truthful of a name for them to use."

It depends on wheither you belive you're renting or buying the content. Note that "timeshifting" doesn't address this issue.

Can it get worse?

[xoclipse]

I can't stand the current status of cable television in the US. It has been plagued with proprietary software and hardware for much too long. Because of that the quality of products and services has sucked it up. I have to say that my Scientific Atlanta set top box is probably the biggest piece of shit I've ever owned.

Also I think that cable providers hate the idea of losing control of an industry that they have always had power in by adopting an "open platform". Unfortunately they have a lot of leverage when it comes to the CableCard specs and thus will be putting their wonderful '2 cents' into the mix.

Recently I just bought a new Tivo HD w/ cablecard and had it installed by Cox(only took 30 minutes..blah). Now I find out that Cox is bringing 80 new HD channels in 2008...most of which will be SDV. Too bad I probably won't get ANY of those new channels because Tivo HD is NOT compatible with SDV but APPARENTLY there is going to be a dongle available. Now I have to wait for them to finish developing a dongle, for it to get in the hands of Cox, and then for them to take 6+ months to get it working on their system. Oh and then I'll get it installed to find out there is a new compatibility "issue".

On a random note, I was just reading about OCAP, and I found out that is Java-based. That won't be slow at all, will it? Can we PLEASE not make things that are performance sensitive and need to be responsive(GUIs?) in Java. This goes for Tivo too. I love my Tivo but I can't stand the lack of responsiveness in the GUI. We have so much processing power available for so low of a cost, let's use it efficiently and not waste it?

In regards to Java, we need to stop teaching our Computer Science students Java and instead a real language(c/c++). I'm sick of hearing of "programmers" who don't know what a pointer is. Are you kidding me? hahahahah

Re:Marketing hype, this is still just Cablecard 2.

[w9ofa]

Sort of like all web browsers are all EXACTLY THE SAME, right? Please.

Your argument is so ironic, you must be a cable company shill. The important part is not that web browsers use the same protocol, it's the fact that they are controlled by entities separate from the entities who produce and distribute web content.

Do you realize how much web browsing would suck if Yahoo controlled the design of all web browsers? Do you realize in that analogy, Yahoo would stand between all Internet traffic and the consumer?

You clearly have no interest in making sure the best technology gets a chance in the market. You are just defending the greed of an industry grown fat and lazy on the easy money from its government-enforced monopoly.

I do not fear for your fate, however, because I know in the long run, people just aren't going to put up with your shit. After decades of treating consumers like stupid monkeys, they are going to return the favor by flinging your box out the window and using some sort of satellite or wireless service that doesn't rely on your monopoly.