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."

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:

[dreamt]

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

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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

Re:

[KingSkippus]

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

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

Re:

[AndersOSU]

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

Re:

[A Cheese Danish]

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

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

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?

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:

[jedidiah]

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

Not so with HDTV.

American Gladiator in good enough clarity that you can see the sweat

Your HD Tivo will work forever, regardless.

[Viewsonic]

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

Re:

[edwdig]

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

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

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 [cisco.com] the figure here is kinda basic, and includes stuff not really needed...but may help as a visual aid.

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

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

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

Re:

[DCTooTall]

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

In Typical fashion... I think a large part of the cablecard issue is typical washington politics. The FCC was complaining about wanting to seperate the security of the cable system from the settop box. As a result, they pretty much said that after 7/

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:

[LMacG]

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

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

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

Re:

[HTH NE1]

I understand that there are some people still happily paying for the black Model 500 deskset.

Can you still get them? In rotary, please?

Re:For a moment ...

[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:

[MidnightBrewer]

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

Re:

[Mr2001]

Restaurants that aren't good go out of business; restaurants that served poisonous food would be out of business in a day, even without health codes. We've got private certifications for quality in other arenas; I see no reason to believe they wouldn't work in food, as well.

Here's one reason: we tried it before and it didn't work. That's why we have regulations now.

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

Re:

[jedidiah]

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

McDonalds
Jack-in-the-Box
Odwalla

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

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

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

Infact, the most prevalent business model is to sell "crap to millions" that

Re:

[cayenne8]

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

Well, for one thing...one less remote with out a settop box. For many of us, with homebrew DVR's (MythTV), or more related here, Tivo HD units....you don't want to have to have it control a separate STB...there is no need fo

Re:

[jedidiah]

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

Your logic is flawed.

[dslauson]

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

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

According to your logic, the web page must work, because

Re:

[Ilgaz]

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

With a really fast internet connection (e.g. Fiber) and a reasonably designed, easily used computer like Mac Mini or those small form factor dedicated Linux stuff, there is no need for a "cable box". That is what those media moguls don't understand. Or they really understand what is coming and try to convince people to use their closed, locked, overpriced "boxes" which has 2001 technology inside.

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

Who cares about sony?

[Freaky Spook]

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

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

Re:

[MarkGriz]

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

Re:

[Ilgaz]

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

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

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

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

Sony in TV broadcast scene has some amazing marketshare but they have always

Early 2009: Portable DVR boxes

[DragonPup]

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

Re:

[glindsey]

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

A device which would kick ass if not for the fact that content providers will be able to choose exactly what you're "allowed" to take on the road, and how long it can sit on your portable box before automatically expiring.

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

Re:

[garcia]

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

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

They want to have lock-in permitted by the government?

Re:

[dreamt]

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

Isn't this the point of this tru2way -- it doesn't lock you into one provider. I think that just because Comcast is part of the announcement, it isn't going to tie you to Comcast.

Re:

[jedidiah]

Just think about it for a minute.

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

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

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

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

Re:

[93 Escort Wagon]

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

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

Re:

[MarkGriz]

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

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

Re:

[jedidiah]

Even if you live alone it makes no sense.

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

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

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

Re:

[plague3106]

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

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

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

Re:

[DragonPup]

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

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

Re:

[jedidiah]

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

Privacy and Cell Phones?

[giminy]

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

That is all.

Re:

[Wesley Felter]

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

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

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

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

Re:

[onemorechip]

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

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

Re:

[Wesley Felter]

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

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

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

Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[Scareduck]

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

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[peragrin]

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

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

Re:Almost certainly this will benefit advertisers

[MarkGriz]

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

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

Re:

[ps_inkling]

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

Mythtv guide

[Neil Watson]

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

Re:Mythtv guide

[glindsey]

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

Re:

[saleenS281]

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

Re:

[jddj]

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

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

Ah yes, "FCC" and "open"

[Maury Markowitz]

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

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

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

Maury

Re:

[Poppler]

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

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Brett Buck]

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

          Brett

Re:

[rtechie]

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

The FCC spec is being pushed

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

[evilviper]

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

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

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

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

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

Let's change the name and hope nobody notices!

[glindsey]

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

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

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

Re:

[Bryansix]

So basically it's the Broadcast Flag for cable.

Re:

[powerlord]

So basically it's the Broadcast Flag for cable.

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

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

The FCC is getting ticked off (since the Cable

Why?

[nonsequitor]

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

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

Re:

[duranaki]

Pay Per View, Video on Demand, etc.

Re:

[nonsequitor]

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

Re:

[truesaer]

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

Re:

[Detritus]

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

Re:

[TooMuchToDo]

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

Re:

[duranaki]

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

Re:

[mzs]

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

Re:

[LabRat]

It's obvious you don't grasp how modern digital cable works. This isn't about "phoning home". This is about being able to send command/control signals to the head-end equipment in order to access dynamically provisioned resources. Just as your web browser isn't "phoning home" when you open a TCP connection to slashdot in order to request the index page. Such dynamic resources include Switched Digital Video (sort of like multicast in the IP world..but not quite as granular), VOD, PPV, etc. Yes, it's true

Re:

[nonsequitor]

Cable is dead anyway, I torrent my television. There's is no way in hell I'll invest in this technology even if its the only thing on the market after a few years. This is just another method to sell new TVs. I have no intention of buying a new one for a long time, nor should I have to. I'll be laughing my ass off when this gets hacked and every comcast subscriber sees nothing but goatse for a week. All you would need is a modded surfboard cable modem to get on the network. This is just another point

Re:

[TooMuchToDo]

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

Re:

[kebes]

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

If it truly ends up being an open standard, then end-users will benefit. The two-way interaction will be used to select desired data, for video-on-demand, downloading TV-schedules to various devices, etc. With an open standard, the end-user will be able to select from a wide variety of devices or even "roll their own" (e.g. MythTV). An open standard also means that new kinds of two-way TV interactions may be invented that can't be im

Re:

[gstoddart]

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

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

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

Personally, I'm waiting for any of the technologies they tout to ever come into existence. I thought the Cable

Re:

[Tintivilus]

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

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

Re:

[plague3106]

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

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

What's wrong with the push method of content distribution? I am skeptical as to what value this really adds to my viewing experience. I get the feeling its not about improving the user's experience at a

Re:

[dreamchaser]

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

Great

[DoofusOfDeath]

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

Re:

[DragonPup]

Video on Demand requires 2 way communication.

Re:

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

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

Do you have a digital cable converter to get channels beyond the basic 99? If so, then you already are. And probably paying %$10/mo for the privilege. This just eliminates the fee they charge to spy on you, which is good. It's like they're giving free lube before they... well, you get the picture.

Switching Video Delivery

[saikou]

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

Re:

[TheSkyIsPurple]

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

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

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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Who does this guy think he is?

[frankie]

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

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

The FCC standard.

[AltGrendel]

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

Building this stuff into the tv is a good idea?

[\\]

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

Re:

[jandrese]

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

Re:

[cHiphead]

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

cheers.

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

[Buelldozer]

We already DO build all of this stuff into televisions!

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

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

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

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

The question still remains...

[darjen]

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

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

Totally agree

[SuperKendall]

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

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

Re:

[darjen]

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

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

Re:

[Tacvek]

There is no real competition under the OCAP model, because when plugged into the cable network and activated, the boxes will all be EXACTLY THE SAME.

Sort of like all web browsers are all EXACTLY THE SAME, right? Please. This is almost exactly analogous to a web browser - the set top acts as a browser of the cable's content. There are plenty of features that set top boxes will be able to offer in addition to displaying cable content. (Things like Internet video come to mind.)

Sure internet video could be added, but it would use an interface that looks very different than the main interface. It would not be possible for a box to offer a superior DVR scheduling algorithm. For example, if a show cannot be taped due to not enough tuners on a Tivo box (for example two tuners in the box, but three shows to record in that time-block, the lowest priority one will not be recorded), it is possible for it to automatically record that episode the next time it comes on. On many DISH Network

It's so difficult for me

[bmajik]

to not be this guy [theonion.com] right now.

Tru1Way

[Dachannien]

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

Re:

[gnuman99]

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

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

Re:

[gordona]

Your comments are not completely accurate. DVB does indeed have the specifications you cite and are standardized by ETSI. However, there are big differences between Europe and North American systems. Cable is the dominant technology in North America while Satellite is the major technology in Europe. North American cable provides an always on return path for 2-way communications between the cable receiver and the headend (for things like Conditional Access, Network Authorization, Viewer Interactivity, et

Re:

[Teun]

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

Re:

[Teun]

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

You missed one; DVB-M for mobile devices.