Lauren Weinstein writes "The day after the issue of cable system incompatibilities with the new HD TiVo and similar devices was discussed on Slashdot, the cable television industry has responded with a workaround proposal in a new FCC filing, though key issues remain to be fully resolved."
However, I do like the way the summary is written as if the cable companies were responding to the discussion on slashdot. Oh, hell yeah! Those companies don't want to rile up the mighty slashdot community! If they hadn't done something quickly, we just might have sat on our fat asses and vociferously complained some more! FIGHT the POWER!
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday August 26 2007, @09:52AM (#20362069)
Yes. The cable companies would love to own the devices allowed on the network. That's why in 1996 the FTC ruled that they *have* to allow cable card standards to exist, so customers can use off-the-shelf set top boxes in the name of competition. Ten years later, and we still can only *barely* do this -- the cable companies have dragged their feet at every turn. It's frustrating.
I wonder if there are grounds for a Class Action lawsuit, the Class being everyone who has had any problems using a third party box with their cable?
Yes, a class action lawsuit is just what is needed here. A law firm getting millions of dollars while the chumps that signed on for the lawsuit get a coupon for $5 off their next cable purchase.
My favorite tech related class action lawsuit was against Iomega where Iomega agreed to pay legal expenses of at least $650,000 while the losers that signed up for
Yes, a class action lawsuit is just what is needed here. A law firm getting millions of dollars while the chumps that signed on for the lawsuit get a coupon for $5 off their next cable purchase.
My favorite tech related class action lawsuit was against Iomega where Iomega agreed to pay legal expenses of at least $650,000 while the losers that signed up for the lawsuit got product discount offers, free dedicated technical support. Oh yeah, Iomega also paid a $1,000,000 charitable donation to someone but I di
The purpose of the class-action lawsuit statutes is not to compensate millions of people for small losses, it's to make the cost to corporations high for making small but widespread violations of consumer rights, misleading marketing, etc. Making the cost to corporations higher will encourage them to fix problems rather than just see that it will cost less to stonewall than it would to do the right thing.
Maybe in theory, but every time I read about a class action lawsuit in the papers, it seems designed t
Maybe in theory, but every time I read about a class action lawsuit in the papers, it seems designed to generate millions in billable hours for the law firm filing the suit. It seems to be getting to the point where it's all about the billables and less about helping the consumer.
Yes, the lawyers filing the suit make a bunch of money. That's what encourages them to file the suit. Class actions are about basically using free market principles to enforce regulations -- provide a huge financial incentive to
And they still own the cable cards, and in many cases have managed to charge almost as much for the card as they used to for a set top box...
Most people aren't going to pay for an off-the-shelf set top box when they still have to pay the fee to rent cablecards. People should be able to buy the cablecards too.
I don't think that would stand up. It would more likely be narrowed to a select group of set top box manufacturers.
What I don't get though is why none of the manufacturers has really pushed things in order to get access to the market. I seem to remember boxes being advertised in the late 80s which would do the trick.
That doesn't make sense; Microsoft allows you to buy a device to steal software (ie, a computer), why should the cable company be in the hardware business *at all*?
In comparison to the Conditional Access Modules [wikipedia.org] used in Europe with all (terestial, cable and satellite) DVB versions, CableCARD seems to be a rather broken standard, trying to do everything in the card, and therefore too complex and inflexible. CAMs on the other hand just perform the key exchange part of the decryption, everything else is handled in the receiver. There's no "multi stream" version of CAMs, because the receivers that can receive multiple channels at once can also decrypt multiple channels. P
Why doesn't the FCC mandate real open standards, that are easy and cheap to implement?
Because then it would be doing its job and protecting the consumer, which would involve effort and foresight. This way, they can just do what the cable companies ask them to, and everyone who matters goes away happy and rich.
(Okay, I'm not normally this anti-establishment, but the FCC has convinced me that it doesn't give a flying fuck about the American people.)
You've basically hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately the cable company have succeeded in convincing almost everybody, even some very smart people with relevant domain knowledge, that VOD, SDV, and the like can't be done any other way. There is no good reason any of these services require anything but a simple decryption module and some sort (STB vendor's choice) of access to a public packet network.
The cable company's response to the integration ban in the US is to move the entire cable box inside the ca
Just like a cable modem allows you to steal cable Internet access? I can buy my own modem and not have to pay the lease fee from the cable co, but they still have to authorize it and provide access. Why should the TV aspect of it (cablecard) be any different?
For about 100 years, the phone company wouldn't allow anyone to connect their own equipment to their network. You had to lease your phone. That ended around 1969, when the government ruled that they had to allow people to own their own phones, etc. They ruled this after a company called Carterphone sued... because they provided what was basically an acoustic coupler modem for people to use with their phones.
If it had gone the other way, there would be no internet as we know it. Sprint followed Carterphone, letting people "steal" long distance calls by paying them rather than ma bell.
Openness drives innovation, which creates new industries and technologies - which corporations then try to own completely and milk every last cent out of, while killing any competing technology.
It was a boon for AT&T to have a stranglehold on communications, they were the wealthiest company on earth. But it held technological progress back by decades. Hell, they didn't even introduce phones in colors other than black for over 50 years.
While I'm certain that this won't lead to the death of the cable company, it will almost certainly ensure that a lot of people will begin going online to get some/more/all of their video needs. In many cases, and increasingly more, the content of each network is making it to the internet in legal channels...and that's disregarding the illegal methods which happen to serve up greater quality.
Compare the ease of ANY method where the user goes online to get a video to the complications that are coming alon
Oops, I started responding and forgot to emphasize a main point, that unlike cell phone carriers, people have the choice to leave the cable companies behind. No real alternative exists to the cell carriers since WiFi-based phones aren't realistic in a huge percentage of the country yet, and any form of satellite phone is still largely hopeless.
As for Cable Providers, so goes the rule of competition...if people can find it cheaper, better, and more reliably; they will eventually buy elsewhere
but I'm pretty sure that STBs are seen as part of the cost of doing business, not a profitable part of the business.
If that's the case, then the benefits of monopolizing the user interface must be sufficient to justify these costs.
I think they want to own the box for a few reasons. First, they want as much control over the CA as possible.
But they should be allowed only the control they need to ensure efficient delivery to customers according to the terms of the service agreements with those customers.
You don't seem to realize that these features are either custom software on the STB, or network features that are accessed by . . . custom software on the STB. If that doesn't clarify why they want to control the STB for you, I don't think anything will!
I realize that. What I also realize is that there is a significant number of people out there who, given the choice of 'features' that they don't really want anyway and a STB which interferes with the operation of some more advanced features that their syste
I think they want to own the box for a few reasons. First, they want as much control over the CA as possible. Second, there's always concern (justified or no) about having third party hardware on any private network. Additionally, they want to control the software so they can change the experience in a controlled way.
I have problems with most of these reasons. One of the main reasons that someone would buy something like a TiVo is to get the TiVo experience, not the cable company experience. The cable co
That said, any industry wide standard (in any fast-moving industry) is going to be shot by the time it hits the street.
Ethernet, USB, FireWire, 802.11, PCI, and a host of other standards would seem to argue otherwise. I also have a little trouble with the Cable industry being depicted as a "fast-moving industry", but maybe that's just me. Do you know long there was between the FCCs ruling and any kind of CableCARD deployment? Here's the Wikipedia entry to refresh your memory [wikipedia.org] DVB, which is used in Europ
In its comments to the FCC Friday, the NCTA opposed the CEA's proposal, saying it would "strip away the most exciting interactive services and features that distinguishes [sic] cable from its competitors."
Dear Cable Companies,
Features which are implemented in a set-top-box are not features of your network. You do not have some "right" to charge for features implemented in a device that is attached to your network unless that device is: A) Creating traffic on your network, and B) you charge the customer per unit traffic. Your proposal would strip away the most exciting services (the ability to pay once for things your company charges a recurring fee for) and features (the ability to skip commercials, and other crap that you haven't thought of) that distinguish the makers of competing set-top-boxes from you and each other.
Nobody with more than half a brain is fooled into thinking you have anybodies best interests but your own in mind, but the FCC's job is to look after the public's interest, not yours.
Whether or not your "trapped" depends on your ability to handle not watching TV. Perhaps you should look at why you "need to watch TV".
You've missed the point entirely.
You're trapped whether you discontinue (or never sign up for) cable company service or not. Cutting the cord and discontinuing service doesn't magically make you able to manipulate and timeshift television signal in whatever legal methods you might choose... It just means you're not watching TV. The only way it would make you not "trapped"
I don't remember the shows being better, but I do remember TV having fewer competitors for my attention. Now, with the addition of cheap postal rental of DVDs and the Internet, broadcast TV has a hard time competing for the time I have for entertainment. The only thing it ever really had going for it was convenience, and it doesn't really have much of that anymore.
They shows may or may have not been better. Just assume that they were the same. Now shrink down the number of channels dramatically. What you are left with is a better quality "density". It's hard to percieve anything but a massive quality drop on TV because there's so much drek that you have to wade through if you want to get to anything interesting.
You need the DVR just to help you sort it all out for you.
Now, with the addition of cheap postal rental of DVDs and the Internet, broadcast TV has a hard time competing for the time I have for entertainment.
And yet they insist on doing everything they can to further antagonize me. Random schedules, reality shows, more advertising per hour, advertisements _during_ the programs... I cancelled my satellite subscription years ago and with Netflix and my own personal collection (including The Simpsons, MST3K and plenty of other nerdy shows), I don't miss network TV at all.
Most of the problem is centered around Motorola and SA spreading FUD in the industry about signal theft. Instead of using standard encryption techniques (like your bank and just about every secure web site), they put together a system that is just about as closed as you can get. Then the.gov comes in and says they have to open it up. Rather than scrap the existing system and use something that will be secure and open to other manufacturers, they continue to try to adapt their encryption to the new rules, without letting too much information out there, hoping to avoid the hacking that went on in the satellite industry.
The other big problem is that the cable billing systems were never intended to deal with customer purchased equipment that requires authorization, and most of that code was hacked on at the last minute and doesn't work very well. The customer service people have minimal training on the system (they are there to provide customer service, not enter data), so they end up making a lot of mistakes. The billing systems make it much harder than necessary, and the screwy way cablecards interface makes it much more difficult.
Finally, the cablecard spec is still only 1 way. The real spec will be the 2.0/ocap system, but there still seems to be some work to do. This will allow 2 way services to be implemented but there is a lot of back office stuff that needs to be addressed, some of which has never been tried outside of a lab. The 1.0 cablecard slot is not compatible with the 2.0 cards (it is not a firmware upgrade).
It is going to require a lot of training and attitude change from the entire industry. In the long run, if the industry adopts the standard and actually uses the features available to them, it will be a great system. Imagine picking up a set top at Best Buy, taking it home, entering you WiFi key and getting on your home gateway. Your set top will autoprovision with services based on your subnet, and will share data with any other set tops in your home network. All this stuff is possible today, but will require a lot of rethinking by the cable companies. Motorola showed off the DVRs that share data, and Cisco/Scientific Atlanta has the home networking tech.
Disclaimer: My personal opinion, not that of the company I work for. Actually, the big part of it is that Motorola and SA know that with a fully open encryption system, cable operators wouldn't have to continue to purchase their equipment, operators could choose to integrate competitors' equipment in the mix more easily. Working for an upstart competitor, one problem that we see is that cable operators just spent a ton of money on Mot/SA equipment, and don't want to lose that "investment".
Again, I am forced to post in a Cable Industry thread.
Finally, the cablecard spec is still only 1 way. The real spec will be the 2.0/ocap system, but there still seems to be some work to do. This will allow 2 way services to be implemented but there is a lot of back office stuff that needs to be addressed, some of which has never been tried outside of a lab. The 1.0 cablecard slot is not compatible with the 2.0 cards (it is not a firmware upgrade).
Regarding CableCARDs, please know your stuff before posting consumer FUD. CableCARD 1.0 has always been 2-way compatible, provided you have a 2-way TV. With the exception of one model from Samsung which isn't on the general market anymore, NONE of the consumer electronics companies have built this feature into their sets.
"The media has frequently reported that first-generation CableCARD 1.0 modules are one-way devices1. This is simply not true.
"rolandsgirlfriend"??? Come on taggers. This is offensive. You know perfectly well that Lauren Weinstein is a man. He has been making a real contribution in the security field for many years.
I used to find hooking up TV equipment fairly easy.
I got a TiVO HD last week and getting it to work was a NIGHTMARE
First I couldn't find anyone at ComCast that seemed to know how this CableCard junk works. My local office wouldn't just give me one and let me hook it up myself, I had to have a "technician" for that.
I requested a visit and specified it was for TiVO HD, and I needed a MultiStream card.
THREE guys show up. Two of them were n00bs being trained. The supposed experienced hand doing the training, hadn't heard of an M-card, and only had one single-stream card with him.
Next he informs me none of it will work until I upgrade to "Digital Classic" I can't do it with just basic digital service.
Says I'll need to call in again and schedule another truck roll after I've upgraded.
Useless! How many mornings off am I supposed to request from work, so I can hope they will show up and figure this out?
They've made it so frakkin complicated their own people don't know how it works, and they won't let you do it yourself in many places. This is like the old AT&T monopoly. This half-baked idea is supposed to replace analog cable by 2009. Ugh! The CableCo has frakked this up through sheer incompetence or spite, and the FCC is asleep at the switch. This stuff should be kept SIMPLE not layered up with a bunch of unneccessary widgets. Adding MORE widgets will not fix a broken design.
Yes I returned my TiVO HD within the 30 days for full refund. I ABSOLUTELY do not blame TiVO in this, the returns lady was very gracious and didn't try to talk me out of it or anything. TiVO is just trying to play the hand it was dealt.
I've been reading this thread and there are many fictions here I thought one general post would be better than trying to reply and correct them all.
First of all TiVO's main gripe here is the introduction of Switch Digital Video (SDV) by the cable industry breaks their product. SDV, in a nutshell, is a technology that increases network efficiency by monitoring when people are watching a given show. If no-one is watching the bandwidth is allocated to another show that is being watched. Sort of like IP multicast, where you use IGMP to sign up for a multicast group, the router streams as long as you're signed up, but when no-one is signed up it doesn't bother broadcasting the stream. The part the breaks TiVO is the program is no longer broadcast on a stable frequency and PID on the network so TiVO can no longer tune reliably. SDV is not an cable wide standard and therefore TiVO is left out in the dark unless they implement drivers for every provider in the country. Assuming they can even get the specs. It has been suggested that switched digital video support be moved into the Cable Card specification to resolve this problem, but that's all still in the works.
Note the big driver for freeing up bandwidth is HD content. HD requires 3x to 4x bandwidth to broadcast over a standard def channel. This incurs substantial cost to the cable company in terms of content revenue per bandwidth unit. One might give a nod that broadcast providers are trying to help us out here and make that shiny new HDTV in our living rooms even better. Even satellite is making this move - though they can't do switched due to their restricted 2 way capability, and instead had to launch a few new satellites and work other magic to increase their bandwidth.
An alternate to SDV would be to increase plant bandwidth like the satellite guys and add additional channels. This requires substantial capital investment whereas switched is primarily a software solution and therefore significantly cheaper. Like order of magnitude cheaper. I guess in a way you can thank Wall Street for SDV because the investors really love this stuff and it makes stock prices go up.
Second - somebody dragged in Cable Cards and said something about cable cards only being 1 way. WRONG! Time Warner Cable is deploying 2 way cable card devices in major markets such as NYC right now. http://www.timewarnercable.com/Corporate/Products/ CableCard/CableCard.html [timewarnercable.com]. Comcast does not offer two way service as of yet. But the spec is complete and available on the CableLabs website.
Third, and slightly off topic, but the word monopoly irks me to no end; somebody said cable companies are monopolies. Strictly speaking - WRONG! Cable companies have to sign franchise agreements with every city, and may be fined, or even kicked out for violating those agreements. However ANY company is free to come in and compete. Verizon FIOS and AT&T are doing just this. DirectTV is there with Satellite. The main barrier to competition is cost. And the cost to build a network and maintain it is staggering.
Remember the whole point of business is to make money while moving toward the best solution by virtue of competition. Not to give stuff away for free because it makes a company feel warm and fuzzy. You vote with your dollar be it buying stocks, paying taxes to support public infrastructure, or paying for goods and services. If you don't like cable go sign up for something else. Each broadcast technology has it's pros and cons, pick what works for you. If you're not happy with anything then cancel and get outside or take up a hobby. Hell start your own broadcast video company. Just no more whining!!!
Third, and slightly off topic, but the word monopoly irks me to no end; somebody said cable companies are monopolies. Strictly speaking - WRONG! Cable companies have to sign franchise agreements with every city, and may be fined, or even kicked out for violating those agreements. However ANY company is free to come in and compete. Verizon FIOS and AT&T are doing just this. DirectTV is there with Satellite.
In most places only one company has the legal right to use the required right-of-ways to operate a
Actually, your statement that an HD channel takes about 4x the bandwidth of an SD channel may be true - if you're comparing to a *digital* SD channel. However, many major cable MSOs still broadcast their basic lineup, as well as several other channels, in *analog* SD - those channels actually each take about the same bandwidth as an HD channel. The question remains, then, why not just move more SD channels to digital transmission? They could free up ridiculous amounts of bandwidth that way.
Ahhh, Joe's back with his amazing reading comprehension skills again. Maybe you missed the part where this is referring to a problem with the new HD TiVo devices? But that's only mentioned in the fucking article title, so I can see how you might've missed it.
It's a problem with more than just HD TiVo devices. They are merely the most used CableCARD devices out there now, and are thus getting all the attention. Don't worry, unless you've got a DOCSIS chipset in your television (you almost certainly don't) your CableCARD "compliant" television is equally as hosed by SDV.
You should apologize to the the guy for making fun of his reading comprehension, since he was actually right.
TFA is specifically about TiVo, it does not address any other devices that may also be hosed.
TiVo is unique from most other CableCARD devices because it contains what is essentially a general purpose computer running Linux, it can be connected to the Internet, it is remotely programmable, and it has standard USB ports.
Did you actually read "TFA", or even the blog post that linked to "TFA"? The mention of TiVo in the blog post is in reference to a previous post. The actual article (linked through the blog post) isn't about Tivo. It's about "Consumer Electronics Devices".
Both the article and the blog post assume some level of familiarity with the technology in order to fully understand them. The fact that you consider the TiVo "unique" in the context of a discussion about alternatives to the Open Cable Platform because it h
Blog promotion sucks. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Linking to the original article isn't done for quality. It's done because blogging tards don't deserve credit for ripping off other people's work.
Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm curious, though, how much money they actually make on set top boxes vs. what has to be nearly constant breakage and wear and tear.
Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
IANAL but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, a class action lawsuit is just what is needed here. A law firm getting millions of dollars while the chumps that signed on for the lawsuit get a coupon for $5 off their next cable purchase.
My favorite tech related class action lawsuit was against Iomega where Iomega agreed to pay legal expenses of at least $650,000 while the losers that signed up for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in theory, but every time I read about a class action lawsuit in the papers, it seems designed t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the lawyers filing the suit make a bunch of money. That's what encourages them to file the suit. Class actions are about basically using free market principles to enforce regulations -- provide a huge financial incentive to
Re: (Score:2)
Most people aren't going to pay for an off-the-shelf set top box when they still have to pay the fee to rent cablecards. People should be able to buy the cablecards too.
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't get though is why none of the manufacturers has really pushed things in order to get access to the market. I seem to remember boxes being advertised in the late 80s which would do the trick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because then it would be doing its job and protecting the consumer, which would involve effort and foresight. This way, they can just do what the cable companies ask them to, and everyone who matters goes away happy and rich.
(Okay, I'm not normally this anti-establishment, but the FCC has convinced me that it doesn't give a flying fuck about the American people.)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the cable company have succeeded in convincing almost everybody, even some very smart people with relevant domain knowledge, that VOD, SDV, and the like can't be done any other way. There is no good reason any of these services require anything but a simple decryption module and some sort (STB vendor's choice) of access to a public packet network.
The cable company's response to the integration ban in the US is to move the entire cable box inside the ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers? (Score:4, Interesting)
If it had gone the other way, there would be no internet as we know it. Sprint followed Carterphone, letting people "steal" long distance calls by paying them rather than ma bell.
Openness drives innovation, which creates new industries and technologies - which corporations then try to own completely and milk every last cent out of, while killing any competing technology.
It was a boon for AT&T to have a stranglehold on communications, they were the wealthiest company on earth. But it held technological progress back by decades. Hell, they didn't even introduce phones in colors other than black for over 50 years.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Compare the ease of ANY method where the user goes online to get a video to the complications that are coming alon
Re: (Score:2)
As for Cable Providers, so goes the rule of competition...if people can find it cheaper, better, and more reliably; they will eventually buy elsewhere
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, then the benefits of monopolizing the user interface must be sufficient to justify these costs.
But they should be allowed only the control they need to ensure efficient delivery to customers according to the terms of the service agreements with those customers.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize that. What I also realize is that there is a significant number of people out there who, given the choice of 'features' that they don't really want anyway and a STB which interferes with the operation of some more advanced features that their syste
Re: (Score:2)
I think they want to own the box for a few reasons. First, they want as much control over the CA as possible. Second, there's always concern (justified or no) about having third party hardware on any private network. Additionally, they want to control the software so they can change the experience in a controlled way.
I have problems with most of these reasons. One of the main reasons that someone would buy something like a TiVo is to get the TiVo experience, not the cable company experience. The cable co
Re: (Score:2)
That said, any industry wide standard (in any fast-moving industry) is going to be shot by the time it hits the street.
Ethernet, USB, FireWire, 802.11, PCI, and a host of other standards would seem to argue otherwise. I also have a little trouble with the Cable industry being depicted as a "fast-moving industry", but maybe that's just me. Do you know long there was between the FCCs ruling and any kind of CableCARD deployment? Here's the Wikipedia entry to refresh your memory [wikipedia.org] DVB, which is used in Europ
Open letter to the NCTA (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Cable Companies,
Features which are implemented in a set-top-box are not features of your network. You do not have some "right" to charge for features implemented in a device that is attached to your network unless that device is: A) Creating traffic on your network, and B) you charge the customer per unit traffic. Your proposal would strip away the most exciting services (the ability to pay once for things your company charges a recurring fee for) and features (the ability to skip commercials, and other crap that you haven't thought of) that distinguish the makers of competing set-top-boxes from you and each other.
Nobody with more than half a brain is fooled into thinking you have anybodies best interests but your own in mind, but the FCC's job is to look after the public's interest, not yours.
Love,
Your reluctant, but trapped, customers
Re: (Score:2)
You've missed the point entirely.
You're trapped whether you discontinue (or never sign up for) cable company service or not. Cutting the cord and discontinuing service doesn't magically make you able to manipulate and timeshift television signal in whatever legal methods you might choose... It just means you're not watching TV. The only way it would make you not "trapped"
Does anyone remember when TV was simple? (Score:3, Interesting)
My goodness, the media industry has turned watching TV into something about as fun as dealing with Microsoft software.
There's nothing that can't be turned into a total nightmare by adding technology.
Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple? (Score:4, Funny)
I remember when MTV used to play music videos.
Boy... I'm old.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing happened with CNN... then they started Headline News. At least Headline News still shows news instead of shows.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You should try using Windows MCE--the best of both worlds...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need the DVR just to help you sort it all out for you.
Re:Does anyone remember when TV was simple? (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet they insist on doing everything they can to further antagonize me. Random schedules, reality shows, more advertising per hour, advertisements _during_ the programs... I cancelled my satellite subscription years ago and with Netflix and my own personal collection (including The Simpsons, MST3K and plenty of other nerdy shows), I don't miss network TV at all.
Parent
Motorola, SA, CSG systems (Score:5, Informative)
The other big problem is that the cable billing systems were never intended to deal with customer purchased equipment that requires authorization, and most of that code was hacked on at the last minute and doesn't work very well. The customer service people have minimal training on the system (they are there to provide customer service, not enter data), so they end up making a lot of mistakes. The billing systems make it much harder than necessary, and the screwy way cablecards interface makes it much more difficult.
Finally, the cablecard spec is still only 1 way. The real spec will be the 2.0/ocap system, but there still seems to be some work to do. This will allow 2 way services to be implemented but there is a lot of back office stuff that needs to be addressed, some of which has never been tried outside of a lab. The 1.0 cablecard slot is not compatible with the 2.0 cards (it is not a firmware upgrade).
It is going to require a lot of training and attitude change from the entire industry. In the long run, if the industry adopts the standard and actually uses the features available to them, it will be a great system. Imagine picking up a set top at Best Buy, taking it home, entering you WiFi key and getting on your home gateway. Your set top will autoprovision with services based on your subnet, and will share data with any other set tops in your home network. All this stuff is possible today, but will require a lot of rethinking by the cable companies. Motorola showed off the DVRs that share data, and Cisco/Scientific Atlanta has the home networking tech.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, the big part of it is that Motorola and SA know that with a fully open encryption system, cable operators wouldn't have to continue to purchase their equipment, operators could choose to integrate competitors' equipment in the mix more easily. Working for an upstart competitor, one problem that we see is that cable operators just spent a ton of money on Mot/SA equipment, and don't want to lose that "investment".
If they would actu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Finally, the cablecard spec is still only 1 way. The real spec will be the 2.0/ocap system, but there still seems to be some work to do. This will allow 2 way services to be implemented but there is a lot of back office stuff that needs to be addressed, some of which has never been tried outside of a lab. The 1.0 cablecard slot is not compatible with the 2.0 cards (it is not a firmware upgrade).
Regarding CableCARDs, please know your stuff before posting consumer FUD. CableCARD 1.0 has always been 2-way compatible, provided you have a 2-way TV. With the exception of one model from Samsung which isn't on the general market anymore, NONE of the consumer electronics companies have built this feature into their sets.
"The media has frequently reported that first-generation CableCARD 1.0 modules are one-way devices1. This is simply not true.
"rolandsgirlfriend"??? (Score:2)
"rolandsgirlfriend"??? Come on taggers. This is offensive. You know perfectly well that Lauren Weinstein is a man. He has been making a real contribution in the security field for many years.
Too bad I can't mod a tag as -1, troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah -- I see the tag is gone. Excellent.
FCC bending-over for what? (Score:3, Informative)
I got a TiVO HD last week and getting it to work was a NIGHTMARE
First I couldn't find anyone at ComCast that seemed to know how this CableCard junk works. My local office wouldn't just give me one and let me hook it up myself, I had to have a "technician" for that.
I requested a visit and specified it was for TiVO HD, and I needed a MultiStream card.
THREE guys show up. Two of them were n00bs being trained. The supposed experienced hand doing the training, hadn't heard of an M-card, and only had one single-stream card with him.
Next he informs me none of it will work until I upgrade to "Digital Classic" I can't do it with just basic digital service.
Says I'll need to call in again and schedule another truck roll after I've upgraded.
Useless! How many mornings off am I supposed to request from work, so I can hope they will show up and figure this out?
They've made it so frakkin complicated their own people don't know how it works, and they won't let you do it yourself in many places. This is like the old AT&T monopoly. This half-baked idea is supposed to replace analog cable by 2009. Ugh! The CableCo has frakked this up through sheer incompetence or spite, and the FCC is asleep at the switch. This stuff should be kept SIMPLE not layered up with a bunch of unneccessary widgets. Adding MORE widgets will not fix a broken design.
Yes I returned my TiVO HD within the 30 days for full refund. I ABSOLUTELY do not blame TiVO in this, the returns lady was very gracious and didn't try to talk me out of it or anything. TiVO is just trying to play the hand it was dealt.
One Post to Clarify Many (Score:5, Informative)
Note the big driver for freeing up bandwidth is HD content. HD requires 3x to 4x bandwidth to broadcast over a standard def channel. This incurs substantial cost to the cable company in terms of content revenue per bandwidth unit. One might give a nod that broadcast providers are trying to help us out here and make that shiny new HDTV in our living rooms even better. Even satellite is making this move - though they can't do switched due to their restricted 2 way capability, and instead had to launch a few new satellites and work other magic to increase their bandwidth.
An alternate to SDV would be to increase plant bandwidth like the satellite guys and add additional channels. This requires substantial capital investment whereas switched is primarily a software solution and therefore significantly cheaper. Like order of magnitude cheaper. I guess in a way you can thank Wall Street for SDV because the investors really love this stuff and it makes stock prices go up.
Remember the whole point of business is to make money while moving toward the best solution by virtue of competition. Not to give stuff away for free because it makes a company feel warm and fuzzy. You vote with your dollar be it buying stocks, paying taxes to support public infrastructure, or paying for goods and services. If you don't like cable go sign up for something else. Each broadcast technology has it's pros and cons, pick what works for you. If you're not happy with anything then cancel and get outside or take up a hobby. Hell start your own broadcast video company. Just no more whining!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In most places only one company has the legal right to use the required right-of-ways to operate a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A usb dongle does not work when TV don't have u (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You should apologize to the the guy for making fun of his reading comprehension, since he was actually right.
Re:A usb dongle does not work when TV don't have u (Score:4, Interesting)
TiVo is unique from most other CableCARD devices because it contains what is essentially a general purpose computer running Linux, it can be connected to the Internet, it is remotely programmable, and it has standard USB ports.
No apology is necessary.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The mention of TiVo in the blog post is in reference to a previous post. The actual article (linked through the blog post) isn't about Tivo. It's about "Consumer Electronics Devices".
Both the article and the blog post assume some level of familiarity with the technology in order to fully understand them. The fact that you consider the TiVo "unique" in the context of a discussion about alternatives to the Open Cable Platform because it h
Re: (Score:2)
Aw, really? Modded as a Troll? When the parent said things like "Most of us techs end up asking the customer how." ?