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 ...

[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 ...

[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 ...

[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 ...

[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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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: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.

The FCC standard.

[AltGrendel]

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

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