Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Outside the Cable Box 89

Posted by michael from the dust-bunnies dept.
An anonymous reader writes: "Interesting article from the Philadelphia Inquirer that talks about the Cable industry's goal of creating a tv top device that can work in any franchise. 'Some fear that Comcast will wield inordinate clout in deciding what kind of box customers will be able to buy.' It's only their goal because the government made them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Outside the Cable Box More

Outside the Cable Box

Comments Filter:

  • Expense? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MiTEG ( 234467 ) on Monday August 12, 2002 @05:13AM (#4053260) Homepage Journal
    "... the DCP501 home theater system, a hybrid digital cable box, DVD player and high-end stereo that goes for $900."

    I'd be scared to spend that sort of money on any TV tuner because the widespread adoption of HDTV is on the horizon. Undoubtedly the tuners of today will become useless within a few years time with DRM being built into programming and all. I've always seen that as a reason not to buy combo systems; when one of the components becomes obsolete, you have to replace the whole thing.
    • Hey good point on HDTV but what about the threat of internet movie distribution? [slashdot.org]
      Live from Iran, Film88

      An earlier /. story.

      If network capacity has a moores law to it, then the next generation of internet broadband may run at 10megs if most of us have 1 meg down on DSL now. At that point I think even HDTV will have a shelf life.

      Or maybe i'm a geek who spends too much time rotting away in front of my computer on slashdot.

    • what high end stereo goes for under 3k? and what true high end system goes under 30k?

      digital tv box'es however are kinda nifty around here, if you're without cable because it offers nicer picture and more channels.

      and plain analog tv is _supposed_ to end 2006(?) here(finland).

      imho hdtv is flunked...
      • You can get a high-end receiver for under $2k (Harman/Kardon, Denon, Yamaha, etc) a good set of speakers can be had for another $2K (5.1 setup) add maybe $2500 for a nice HDTV rear-projection set, a few hundred for a progressive-scan DVD player and you've got a very nice setup about $7K.

        Sure, the sky is the limit when it comes to spending money on A/V equipment, but it doesn't take $30K to get a "true high-end" system.
        • Five speakers, and a subwoofer for $2k? $2500 for a good HDTV projector? You're hilarious.

          Make those numbers $7,000 and $5000 respectively, and I'll agree.

          • Yes, you can get a good set of speakers for $2k. Granted I spent more than that on *each* of my front speakers, but you can get a decent sub for $700, that leaves $1300 for the other 5 speakers, or a little more than $100/speaker. I'm not saying you're going to get a heart-stopping THX certified system for that price, but you *will* get a very impressive setup, if you know what you're doing.

            For the TV I said $2500 for a rear-projection TV, not a LCD/DLP projector. Again, you won't get the top of the line 500" super-mega-size TV, but you can get a very good 40-60" projection set, again, if you know what you're doing.

            • Do you even know what you're talking about?

              While it feels like I'm being trolled, there are some things about your post that have me scratching my head.

              $1300 / 5 == $260. You're looking at quite a bit more than $100/speaker. Honestly I tend to gravitate away from the ultra expensive home audio equiptment personally (my ears aren't all that hot and my apartment is noisy anyway). So I can't really comment on the quality of the equiptment you'll get for that price.

              That said, I do know some things about HDTV, and I can tell you that you are crazy if you think you're going to get any sort of HDTV worth having for $2500, much less a rear projection setup. Depending on the size, $2500 will be tight for an NTSC rear projection unit.
              • You're right, $1300/5 =$260/speaker. I was typing too fast.

                Here is a HDTV (RPTV) worth having for $1900:
                http://www.valleycomputer.net/default.asp? ItemCode =55PP9401

                That is merely 1 example, and you can argue all day about what qualifies as "worth having", but the truth is that $2500 buys a lot of TV these days.

                RPTV and HDTV prices have come down quite a bit in the last year, they are no longer the toys of the .com stock-options weenies they were when I got mine a few years back.

  • UK has been there and done that (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dun0s ( 213915 ) on Monday August 12, 2002 @05:32AM (#4053279) Homepage
    Before we launch into the conspiracy theory (government/cable company control of what you think etc...) I would just like to say that the UK has had this kind of interactive box for a while now... and they work really well. Both cable and satellite users have a digital set top box that not only allows them to watch TV but also interact with the programming. It lets them view different camera feeds, participate in polls and quizzes, interactive TV schedules that can be linked to hard disk recording, not to mention the ease of buying stuff with those home shopping channels. Just pressing the red button the remote control when watching a news program brings up a wealth of background information.

    Granted the boxes are provided by the cable or satellite company, and yes they do decide what you get to view... but hasn't this always been the way with television?

    --dan
    • With the notable exceptions of the BBC & other similar state-run media, the cable/satellite/television companies do *not* decide what "we" view. What we view is literally decided by what we watch. The producers and advertisers spend a lot of money trying to discover what we watch so they can program and advertise to the largest/richest/whatever-is-today's-target crowd. We get exactly what we are asking for on TV and Radio. Or rather, we get exactly what the advertisers think the majority/richest/target crowd wants today. You can blame your neighbors. Enough to make you a geek, huh? :)
      • Blockqouth the poster:

        The producers and advertisers spend a lot of money trying to discover what we watch

        Yeah, but they spend it poorly, and then deduce unreasonably precise patterns from extremely coarse data. And then they make a decision based on their preconceptions of how the audience will respond... meaning, in the end, they do decide for us.


        It really doesn't matter what questions you ask or who, if you're going to massively filter the data...

    • This exists in the US but it's rolling out relatively slowly. I think Insight has a rollout in the Atlanta area, Charter has a test going on St. Louis and Cablevision has this in the New Jersey area.

      The issue in the US. is the actual boxes themselves. There is a huge cost overhead to delivering new boxes to all customers houses ($300-$500 per household) and there is no guarantee that there will be a significant cost return to the cable co. The importance of the announcement of a "universal" box is that the cable companies can pass this cost along to the consumer which will allow them to rollout additional services at a much lower cost.
  • A universal set-top box would be very convenient - it brings together a wide, demanding audience from various cable companies, and as a result, may provide a better "viewing experience".

    However, could this be another ploy by the industries to round the entire consumer base up in order to easily dish out digital rights management technology?

    Then again, it's just a black box...

  • Soft, not Hard (Score:3, Insightful)

    by squaretorus ( 459130 ) on Monday August 12, 2002 @05:35AM (#4053284) Homepage Journal
    Surely the future of TV decoding is in Software, not hardware.

    Even my laptop is quite up to the job of decoding a DVD glitch free without a funky card on board.

    Sell me a licence to a bit of software that I can install on any hardware, that will allow me to watch certain channels. When I want to upgrade just send me a patch, so I can watch more football.

    Soon it will be cheaper to bundle the hardware with a DVD player, or CD plater, or the TV, or you kettle - so why persist in trying to get people to buy boxes. People are scared of wasting money on black boxes.

    Sell them a bit of software on the otherhand - and give them a free box with it - and away you go. They then know that when the software or the hardware start to limit their fun they can upgrade without having to throw the lot away.

    • Re:Soft, not Hard (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BrK ( 39585 )
      The future of TV decoding will be in hardware for quite some time. Hollywierd and the cable co's *are* worried about some rouge software cropping up that allows you to consume for free. They have *NO* incentive to let you watch TV the way you want to.

      People may be scared of wasting money on black boxes, but they want their TV! So, most lemmings will buy a new black box so that they can watch the latest lame reality-tv series.

      Gawd-forbid the American public read a book, or go outdoors and excercise in their free time.
  • The IEEE had an article on it here [ieee.org] in July. It's got some of the specs they're aiming for, as well as a few of the other big players. M$ is in there of course. The last paragraph is also a nice reality check.

  • Why Comcast Sucks(not a troll) (Score:5, Informative)

    by phunhippy ( 86447 ) <zavoidNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday August 12, 2002 @05:39AM (#4053290) Journal
    Comcast is wielding monoplistic powers(yeah its not spelled right). I recently turned off my cable TV service in favor of DirecTV. However I kept my Cable Modem service as its the only high-speed internet service availble to me(no dsl yet). Comcast tells me they are very sorry i'm changing at that my bill will be $5 more a month now that i don't have cable TV.. fine no problem i say..

    So now 3 months later i get a letter in the mail informing me that the because that they have a great new pricing scheme for Cable Internet. In fact the price stays the SAME at $42 of your a comcast subscriber.

    But if yer not a comcast subscriber its now $60!! ok people thats insane!

    but wait! comcast will offer me(in same letter) truly basic cable tv of 30 channels(remember when that was a lot?) for 12 dollars a month more.. and of course since i would get cable from them the internet would go back down to $42.. and i would SAVE 17 dollars according to them.. Yet either way i still pay at least 15-17 more dollars.. and i don't even want their stinking Cable. Oh and i have 1 week to decide by next billing cycle the letter states..

    No not a abusive monopoly at all.. Now I'm just waiting for DSL to become available in my area and I'll switch first chance i can & Then i'll never have to give money to comcast again. They lost a customer with that horrible "new" policy of thiers.

    • RoadRunner used to do this too, but one of the techs told me they got in trouble for the practice and had to stop. So now you can get RoadRunner cable service for the exact same price as if you had cable with them. You may want to check around and see if you can find anything...
    • Have you looked into RCN? It's another cable/local telco company that offers cable modem service. I know they're here and there in Delware County, at least...go and check it out. A friend of mine has it and he says it's way better than Comcast.
      • Unfortunately in my town Comcast is the only game around.. its a shame too because it's never gone down once(cept once) and works well.. but if a company pulls stuff like that why should i give them more of my money? i'd much rather support their competior and let them know i'm doing it.
    • I'm utterly fed up with Comcast, and would dearly love to switch but have no options in my area. No DSL, and no other cable provider, unfortunately. Their crimes are many and grievous:

      * The initial kit they sent me contained a dead NIC. That didn't matter too much, seeing as how they didn't supply drivers. That was back in, oh, April, I think. I still don't have a replacement NIC. By the way, Comcast, it's unacceptable to tell me that I can always go and buy my own NIC. I shouldn't have to pay extra to fix a problem in which the fault is entirely yours!

      * Despite their advertising claims of "no disconnections" (a touted benefit over dial-up), I keep getting disconnected. I'll be surfing and emailing, then...nothing. Usually this results in me having to phone them and tell them they've got a problem (it's most frequently a server down). And, mate, do I love being told by them they don't have a problem and it must be on my end, until after five or ten minutes of arguing they finally say, "oh, wait, you're right, we DO have a problem in your area". No kidding.

      * I'll frequently start up my computer and check my e-mail only to discover my authentication isn't accepted. I can wait and hope, or log on and reset my passwords and watch it spring back into life. Account maintenance? What account maintenance? Strange, by the way, the only accounts which ever have this problem are the three (out of six) from which I've sent email complaints.

      * Their technical support staff have no idea what they can or can't do. I've phoned and been promised a specific resolution, then three days later phoned to find out the status only to be told "Comcast doesn't do that". When I've pointed out that I was point-blank promised they did do that only three days ago, I usually get some lame excuse of "well, we changed our policy last week".

      I've asked them to explain the advertising claims of "no disconnections" which are demonstrably false. Big surprise -- they're conveniently ignoring that little issue. I've also asked them to explain why I often have to reset my account passwords. (Most recently -- this morning, three of my accounts wouldn't authenticate until I'd reset the passwords.)

      Usually I get a reply asking me to call technical support. Why should I? The problem and resolution are clearly established, and calling technical support means I have to hang on the phone (wasting my time which I could be charging out at $250 an hour, thus resulting in lost revenue of $41.67 every ten minutes, which I'm sure they're not going to reimburse), only to get a reply which I can't be sure is going to be valid tomorrow.

      I've never been this angry at a company, and would almost consider it worthwhile to go back to dial-up simply to be freed from the appalling company that is Comcast. And therein lies the rub; it's just too convenient, and I don't have a high-speed option. But here is the most telling feature of a monopoly; whenever I've complained to Comcast about their service problems, their reply has been two-fold:

      (i) get a T1 line for my home to get more reliable connectivity (I kid you not, this was their recommendation);
      (ii) Comcast doesn't have any service level agreements. Out for more than 24 hours? Well, then we can credit your account out of the graciousness of our hearts. But we don't have to do anything, we don't have to provide any minimum level of service, and you can't do anything about it.

      So who do I complain to? I'm a permanent resident, but not a citizen (I've not lived here long enough to apply for citizenship yet), so can I complain to a politician given I can't vote for them? Will the Better Business Bureau do anything? Or is there something like a chamber of commerce at a local level to whom it would be appropriate to direct complaints? Because, frankly, I've had a gutsful of Comcast and I'm angry enough that I want to do something to make them take notice, but I haven't yet heard of a class-action suit against them. Is there anything I can do in Montgomery County, PA?
      • I have the same problems in Ohio. It should be pretty obvious just looking at their digital cable commercials:

        Claim 1: No extra fee for extra TV's

        Truth 1: Additional 'complex installation fee' as well as a monthly fee for use of the set top boxl

        Claim 2: 24 Hour Local Customer Service

        There's a local office, but they are open during regular business hours, one day a week, one week a month, one year a millenia. I usually got somebody with an accent so think I can barely hear through it.


        Claim 3:        Always on...
        Yeah, sure...

        Well, I switched to DSL, and don't have many complaints so far with the exception of the lousy linux support: "What's My Username" "You use linux, we can't help you:
        • My favorite part about Comcast Digital Cable is that the cable boxes they provide (at $15/month) don't have digital audio outs (however, they do have a Dolby Digital logo on the front just to piss you off further). When I called to complain, I was told "there are boxes with digital audio outputs, but we don't provide or support them because they cost more". Of course, the info on their website dances around the issue by saying it's easy to hook up to your stereo [comcast.com] and it has high quality sound [comcast.com] while stopping short of mentioning the fact that your audio is analog beyond the cable box. Pricks.
    • I despise Comcast... they were the original cable provider in my area. The ones that hooked up my cable without a ground line. Lightning strike somewhere vaguely nearby destroyed a VCR and damaged my receiver -- the VCR was cheaper to replace than fix and the receiver cost me a couple hundred to fix. Another surge took out my TiVo.

      Of course, they refused to pay my costs, claimed there was no fault (and quietly went and attached the ground wire), and eventually went bye-bye. I still have cable, but only because there are 60' trees blocking my SW view. Eventually I'll figure out which tree is the culprit and have it removed. Then I'll kick the cable company out once and for all.

      • Re:Why Comcast Sucks(not a troll) (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Eventually I'll figure out which tree is the culprit and have it removed.

        Dig around on the net. Twice a year the sun lines up behind the satellites for about a week. All you have to do is go outside and find the sun at the right time for your area.

        You can even check multiple slots on the same day. Go out for 101 (Directv), then come back later for 110 or 119 (either Dish or Directv). If you can see the sun at the designated time, your dish will be able to see the satellite.

        Incidentally, this sun-alignment makes life really interesting for the actual providers, since the receivers occasionally get overloaded for a few minutes. You actually lose channels briefly as it progresses across the sky.
    • It works this way across the industry. Charter offers three levels of internet service (they call them bronse, silver and gold). I bought their cheapest service for a reasonable price. A couple months later, I got a letter in the mail. The price of my service was going to rise $10 to just under the price of the next level. THAT VERY DAY, I get a phone call from charter - After the changes to the price structure, I can upgrade to the next level for only $5!

      Of course, if I wanted to upgrade, I could have at any time - for the same $15.
  • I would like to see these groups actually solicit input from and listen to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Instead of letting big business install DRM copy-rape software at our expense, fair protections should be built into these boxes to allow us to timeshift, possibly skip commercials, and even to share broadcasts. I don't mind if a "pay per view" show can't be shared, or even if it has limited views after recording, but I want the ability to watch what I want when I want and how I desire. If the potential customers had some say in how these boxes are designed, we might be much more likely to buy the things. Ease the fears of your typical /. reader, and the companies will find lots of technology acolytes to preach the wonders to the masses. Make us happy, and we will recommend the boxes to our family and friends. Ignore us, and may these boxes go the way of the Divx boxes that Circuit City lost so much money on. Media companies, throw us a bone and gain valuable allies. Screw us over and we will hack our ways to freedom. To those who claim we have no fair use rights, I buy items to own. I expect the freedom to use my possessions as I see fit. Any restrictions on that perceived right of mine will be resisted by all means possible. Do not forget the power of the customer, we are always right. Note, I am not a consumer. I will not be spoonfed whatever the media companies decide. I am a customer and I exercise the right to withhold my money if mistreated.
  • This is one of the big reasons I canceled cable and continue to refuse to get a satellite system--I don't want a box, with another remote (that would make 5 total) and a barrier to recording one program while I watch another. We know why cable providers love these stupid boxes (they can send more vacuous, overly-compressed channels, and don't like time-shifting anyway) but unless they can come up with a convincing reason I should pay for inferior service, I'll continue to just say no.

    • Yea... I want to take your point further though... the convergence on a single type of set top box is useless unless it can be integrated with new TVs, much like all modern "cable-ready" TVs and VCRs you buy today will allow you to view standard cable channels without the need for a set-top box.

      Designers need to understand that in the home entertainment market, less is more. In addition to the very valid point you make about remote controls, I also don't like to mess with running extra cables, power cords, and other crap behind my entertainment system unless its absolutely needed. Most home-entertainment consumers also don't want to deal with the extra hassle. This isn't the same as a computer setup, where it can sometimes be helpful to have multiple, easily exchangeable components (e.g., an external cable/dsl modem connected to a router).


    • Not all companies are like that. Maybe just the american ones??

      I have 2 digital cable boxes for Shaw (Canada). The extra cost? None, except purchasing the box itself. (In my case free, as it was given to me by a friend).

      There was no fee for enabling the second box, and no fee for continuing to use it. I -could- hook it up to my VCR and use it to record anything I want whenever I want. (VCR supports one of those ir-dongles to change cable box channels).

      At one time I agreed with you, but, having used digital cable for a while I'm generally impressed with the implementation and attitude.

      Yes, some shows are a little blocky, not compressed at the rate they should be, but most are fine. I've seen worse on analog cable as there are a couple of companies that get digital feeds and then broadcast them analog. (Worst of both worlds!).

      • I have 2 digital cable boxes for Shaw (Canada). The extra cost? None, except purchasing the box itself. (In my case free, as it was given to me by a friend).

        There was no fee for enabling the second box, and no fee for continuing to use it. I -could- hook it up to my VCR and use it to record anything I want whenever I want. (VCR supports one of those ir-dongles to change cable box channels).



        You really think having two seperate decoder boxes and an ir dongle is a great leap forward? I didn't say it wasn't possible to contort yourself through a bunch of hoops to get what you want, but why bother? I have an antenna that pulls in tv channels for free. If you're going to convince me to spend money for the same thing it needs to be easier and more convient rather than the opposite.
        • I could care less about convincing you, if you are properly served by what you already have.

          Me, cable isn't a choice, I'd be left with about 4 local stations that a hardly ever watch. And, once someone goes cable, around here the price difference is negligible (and, depending on options digital is slightly cheaper.).

          My point was that the same level of functionality can exist without significant increase in cost.

          You, currently, benefit from the fact that both your TV and your VCR have an analog tuner built in. In a few years it'll be a digital decoder instead. Right now the issue is the transition period.

          And, admitedly, keeping the companies from screwing us over.

          Note: I don't have to ever even see the second decoder box. It can be placed hidden in a cabinet. So, while it is an extra box/requirement it isn't a big deal either.

    • This is one of the big reasons I canceled cable and continue to refuse to get a satellite system--I don't want a box, with another remote (that would make 5 total) and a barrier to recording one program while I watch another.

      Hmm...my TiVo is perfectly capable of controlling the digital-cable box I obtained recently. Watching TV now is no different (other than the increased number of channels) than it was when the coax went straight into the TiVo: go into Now Showing, find something interesting, and start playing.

      The box came with a remote, but the only thing for which it's possibly needed is to order PPV (and you can do that over the phone or through the cable company's website). Channel changing is a little bit slower, but since I almost never watch live TV, that's no big deal. I still have the coax running straight into a couple of VCRs, too, so I could have up to three programs (one digital, two analog) recording at once if that should become necessary.

      (I swiped the batteries from the cable-box remote yesterday. They now power the thermostat in my homebrew fermentation fridge. The ability to make beer any time of the year without cranking the A/C down to ridiculously low temperatures will be nice. :-) )

  • It seems like the cable industry has a great incentive to commonize the set-top cable box. With equipment manufacturers coming and going over the years, with diverging equipment standards, why didn't the cable industry collective deliver a conclusion a decade ago?

    Clearly they were able to do so with cable modems (DOCSIS). I know the whole cable modem buiness was on 3 or 5 years old, so maybe that was the difference.

    I think a study of their failure to get their act together would help other industries (like the wireless telephone industry) figure out what the heck they're doing wrong. Clearly, commonality of standards greatly lowers infrastructure costs. And CATV and Wireless Telco wants to minimize device cost, 'cause they sell service.

    Does some business school have a (good) case study that discusses this issue? If these business schools are worth beans, someone has studied this before and published it in a journal. Someone post a URL!
    • I don't think there was any incentive before now. Int he past, most cable companies had monopoly territories, and could charge you to lease their juk equipment. With the advent of the DSS systems, and more towns with competitive cable companies they might finally have a reason to standardize.

      Of course, once they choose a standard box, they can extort more money from you, by forcing you to "upgrade" to the new box platform.

  • Easier said than done. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BrK ( 39585 ) on Monday August 12, 2002 @06:13AM (#4053338) Homepage
    Well, for one thing "they" are going to have to decide on a conditional access system (the part the encrypts/decrypts the premium content). The two big players, Motorola and Scientific Atlanta, both currently use their own proprietary schemes, and wield a lot of power on their own (after you spend several *illion dollars to setup a Moto system, switching to SA ain't cheap or easy).

    This whole thing sounds like it's going to go the route of HDTV in the US: it's going to keep getting pushed out further and further while Hollyweird and the current monoplies sort out how much they can gouge us, and how much they can minimize our use of the content.

    In the end, we all lose.

    I think I'm going to put my rabbit ears back on my tube, and tell 'em all to K.M.A
    • Well, for one thing "they" are going to have to decide on a conditional access system (the part the encrypts/decrypts the premium content).

      The last time I checked, OpenCable moves the conditional access out of the cable box and into a module called a POD. So if your cable company uses Moto CA they'll give you a Moto POD and if they use SA CA they'll give you that POD.
  • I quess Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and other game console manufacturers are already planning when to start production of devices which combine them all, and also develop remote applications (like office tools). Is this Microsoft's worst nightmare actually? Switching to another office suite, for example, is much more simpler if it does not require any installation but is done over network instead. Maybe this was another reason why they jumped into game console business.

  • Ha, good luck (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Monday August 12, 2002 @06:22AM (#4053351)
    We tried this in England. Back in the mid nineties, when digital TV was being planned out, the plan was to have 1 decoder box with plugin modules in the back for Sky/Cable/Digital Terrestrial decoder systems. By sharing the boxes, economies of scale would be reached, the hardware would be cheaper and so uptake would be faster.

    That was when it was just the engineers. Then the lawyers got involved. Oh yes. The lovely EU Competition Commision discovered this bunch of engineers from all the major players working together and decided that wouldn't do, and split them up. They forced ITV and the cable companies to eject Sky, and pay Murdoch a few hundred million pounds in compensation. From that point on things just went downhill. The idea of the universal box was killed the moment the managers, lawyers and marketroids got hold of it.

    The humble cable box, for years a mere channel-flipper, is in for a multimedia makeover: Beefed-up boxes of the future could let you play video games online, share digital photos with friends, and maybe do other things people in the business haven't even imagined yet.

    They need to come over to my house and play with Sky Digital if this is what they think. Playing games on your TV? Been there, done that, it doesn't work needless to say. For one, the games take forever to load - even with the gigabits of bandwidth they have coming off of Astra it can take several minutes to load games - it's like being back with a Commodore 64. Then, when the games do load, they are extremely primitive and loaded with advertising. Realtime games are out as the latency involved from the handset is huge - I tried a simple top down racing game one time, it was almost unplayable as the car responded almost a second after I hit the button. Finally, there aren't many of them, as interactive TV applications are far more expensive to produce than computer apps. Interactive TV is basically dead as a from of entertainment. Where it does shine is in getting information - BBC News Interactive and Sky News Active are great. It also does simple interactive additions to programs quite well. The multiple football camera angles are rare however due to the large amount of bandwidth required.

    Believe me, interactive TV on a universal cable box? It's a TV engineers dream but in the real world, we've done it, and the PC kicks its ass in almost every respect. It's a big (expensive) white elephant.

  • Use Open Standards (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ives ( 23634 )
    There is already an open standard called DVB MHP (see www.mhp.org [mhp.org]) for interactive television boxes. MHP stands for Multimedia Home Platform. MHP conformant products have already been launched in Finland and Germany and other european countries will follow over the next coming years.
    MHP is gradually being adopted by other continents apart from europe (australia for instance) and in the US, CableLabs has announced that they will be using MHP in their OpenCable specification (see this press release [mhp.org])
  • That second link is to a 1998 news article for something that was supposed to be in effect in 2000. Look how far we've come. The closest we can get to a 'universal' box would be to get a tivo from your cable company. Conceptually, I don't see how this would be bad for the consumer. If you switch cable providers you don't have to return your leased box. Heck, you don't even have to pay a monthly leasing fee because you can buy one for the long haul.

    This will also help push out those interactive features so many people want. Well, someone wants.

    "Nearly 500 government and private-sector groups have toiled on the project since its 1997 inception."

    Obviously the DRM issue has yet to be settled as well.

    • The push for standardization and interoperability started at least ten years ago. In the early '90s, one FCC official described a goal that the cable system might be as interoperable as the phone system. Specifically,

      (1) a customer should be able to own his/her cable box (just as you own your telephone); of course, boxes would be sold at the same places other consumer electronic equipment is sold

      (2) you should be able to take your cable box with you when you move, and plug it in anywhere in the U.S., and it should work (just as you can do with telephones)

      (3) subscribing to content should follow the same model as subscribing to long distance telephone service: getting local service from a cable provider shouldn't require you to buy premium channels only from that same provider

      The third idea was obviously terrifying to entrenched interests. It was easy to imagine some national enterprises bundling premium channels at prices that would deprive the cable companies (or phone companies) of much added revenue. In response to other threats and this, lobbyists and PACs spent long and hard. One result was the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, which not only protected against real competition but also served to reinforce the telecoms industry as a major political force. (Proving once again that we have the best Congress money can buy...)

      Along with the prospect of competitive service markets for content, came the "dangers" of competition for internet service. Now the internet services battle takes front page; it is all that most politicians can grasp. The larger technical and political issues of the greater network are too complex or arcane to make the news.

      We should not forget the grander vision of competition for all services - not only for content and the internet, but also for connectivity in general.

      It is true that the greater network poses problems (technical and otherwise) than those of the phone system. But the problems are tractable. Just as the phone companies once complained that deregulation was an insurmountable difficulty, now the entrenched interests complain of insurmountable technical and business problems blocking the way to real competition. If things are so difficult for them, perhaps they should not be running the show.

  • ...TV-cum-Internet.

    Come again?

  • I know you have to be different by the European standard body for this stuff has a standard called MHP Have a look which already does all of this stuff. The organisation is called DVB that produces this, most of the rest of the planet has gone with the DVB specs and MHP as a future technology direction.

    If you want everything to be different the go ahead, but wouldn't it be better all round if the box manufacturers could get cost multiples based on a world market rather than just the US, that way the price of the box could be driven even further down. And with an end game of PS3s being set-up as MHP boxes so you buy that and you've got the box.

    OpenCable have taken much of the DVB work and "tweaked" it enough to make it non-standard with DVB because of "differences" in the US market. The reality is that they've done this to keep a closed market rather than face the fact that TV is TV and iTV is just iTV the place where its broadcast is completely immaterial.

    Now if you could just use PAL as well we'd just have the French to convert :-)
  • With free-as-in-speech, not RA(N)D, licensing. Because I want to be able to build my own box that doesn't send all my viewership data back to the Man [spyinteractive.com].

  • Why worry? (Score:4, Funny)

    by jht ( 5006 ) on Monday August 12, 2002 @08:02AM (#4053539) Homepage Journal
    According to my e-mail inbox, I can get all the descramblers I want for any cable system for only $50, anyways!

    And we all know that if an offer comes via e-mail, it must be legit...
  • The CEA (Consumer Electronics Association), the trade group for the companies that would build and sell a retail cable STB (set-top box), has repeatedly said that the secret contract terms offered by CableLabs, known as the PHILA (POD-Host Interface License Agreement) are unacceptable. This has stalled the process of making STBs available as a retail product for several years. See the CEA press release [ce.org]. The HRRC (Home Recording Rights Coalition) is also opposed to the PHILA.
  • Here [24.125.76.224]

    C'mon guys, let's screw 'em like they've screwed us. Any help is appreciated, and I'm equally interested in Scientific Atlanta or Motorola/GI digital cableboxes.
  • Back in 1978 or so, you needed a cable box. Many TV's had no remote, so it was kinda handy.

    It's now 2002. Most of us don't tune with the TV anymore. Many of us have VCRs or some other tuner in between. Most of us are really tired of figuring out that the VCR (or PVR) must be 'listening' to the cable box to record the premium channels while the TV is watching something else. It's a big PITA. I spend too much time walking mom and her friends through how to set it up because of this stupid box.

    Most of us have laptops or are familiar in some way with PCCards.

    What if EVERY TV tuner had a PCCard (aka PCMCIA) like slot in it? What if there were no cable box? Let the card handle the decoding and all the roles of the big hot cable box. Let me slide the card into my VCR that is really the tuner, let me carry it into that spare TV I keep in the garage when I'm working there - it's not worth a box, but I've moved the box into there.

    Most televisions with tuners (non-"monitors") are capable of tuning in 200+ channels. Yet they are usually locked onto channel 3. The box demodulates the signal then remodulates it - usually with poor quality - to pass it to the TV. The Audio-Out of those boxes generally is limited to a 30dB range - too poor to run into the home ent. system, so I run it out of the demodulator (my VCR).

    Results of a no-box system?

    • Lower costs for cable weasels
    • Better quality for end users
    • Slight increase in costs for various tuners to support (run signal to card and take it back) (start now and it will be commoditized and can be advertised as an advantage)
    • Flexibility for the customer
    • Portability for the customer
    • Easier to program/upgrade for cable provider (need digital, fine - re-flash them or swap them out and do it remotely)
    Make it a standard and it will be cheap and work for your cable, or satellite, etc. No sony-only or comcast-only system. Pins 2&4 take balanced digital in, pins 8 & 12 put it out. A DSP and flash are "magic goes here", and you're done.

    TV industry, are you listening?

  • Gee, it's only what Sony and MS have been attempting to do in earnest lately. Remember? Control of your living room? The all in one box? News? We don't need no stinkin' news!

Slashdot Top Deals

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Close