# Tru-2-Way TVs service starts in two Comcast Markets is Tivo far behind?



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Engadget carried an interesting piece today that in two big Comcast markets, Denver and Chicago they have started offering Tru-2-Way service for customers buying one of two new Panasonic Tru-2-Way compatible TV models.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/15/panasonic-reveals-first-tru2way-hdtvs-in-chicago-and-denver/

My installer who put in an M-card for me in my Tivo-HD mentioned this when he was out here (greater Denver suburbs) doing my install a few days ago. He mentioned that his boss had actually gone out on one of these and that the hardware was now shipping.

With Tru-2-Way TVs starting to ship I am wondering how long it is going to be before Tivo takes the wrap off of a Tru-2-Way box, which is surely coming, before next year is finished.

Thoughts?


----------



## rv65 (Aug 30, 2008)

I'm sure by CES they will offer a prototype of it. Should be in production by later this year. It will probably be the Series 4. It will have a Tivo mode and the the tru2way/cable mode. Tivo mode will allow you to record your favorite shows with the tivo interface we all know and love. Tivo mode even supports SDV as well. Cable mode will use the cableco IPG for VOD, interactive games, or whatever your cableco has plans for.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jmpage2 said:


> Engadget carried an interesting piece today that in two big Comcast markets, Denver and Chicago they have started offering Tru-2-Way service for customers buying one of two new Panasonic Tru-2-Way compatible TV models.


Two Cities is a litle less than what TiVo needs to sell these.  I think we need to see sucess there and an expansion of tru2way for TiVo to feel they need the box on the retail shelf.

That said i agree with rv65 that some kind of prototype will hopefully show up at CES this January.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Any solution that still requires a truck roll for a Cablecard install is still a bad solution.

Unless the cableCos get out of their 'it's not our box, why would you want a card?' mindset, that is.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

I envision fall 09 at the earliest, you will see The S4 available. Remember it has to go through Cablelabs testing and approval, and they do that in waves.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Two Cities is a litle less than what TiVo needs to sell these.  I think we need to see sucess there and an expansion of tru2way for TiVo to feel they need the box on the retail shelf.
> 
> That said i agree with rv65 that some kind of prototype will hopefully show up at CES this January.


These are just the first two cities in a rollout that will go national for Comcast over the next 6-12 months.

Panasonic is an even bigger company than Tivo. They wouldn't have already produced TVs with Tru-2-Way if they thought it was niche.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jmpage2 said:


> These are just the first two cities in a rollout that will go national for Comcast over the next 6-12 months.
> 
> Panasonic is an even bigger company than Tivo. They wouldn't have already produced TVs with Tru-2-Way if they thought it was niche.


I was speaking to the timing of seeing a tru2way TiVo DVR, not the inevitability of it. TiVo has very clearly indicated they are working on a tru2way DVR.

so basically I am saying we can look at how fast the Comcast rollout happens as to how fast TiVo would try and push the tru2way out the door.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I was speaking to the timing of seeing a tru2way TiVo DVR, not the inevitability of it. TiVo has very clearly indicated they are working on a tru2way DVR.
> 
> so basically I am saying we can look at how fast the Comcast rollout happens as to how fast TiVo would try and push the tru2way out the door.


I don't expect a Tru-2-Way until this time next year or early 2010. However, it is somewhat reassuring to me that they are working on it. The cash that they have gotten in the Echostar suit and the suits that will surely follow should keep them going until this product rolls out the door.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

What is the big advantage or Tru-2-Way? If it's just VOD, then all you need is a STB from your provider and you are covered. I have an HD STB from FIOS for strictly HD VOD. I use my TiVos for everything else. If VOD is the main purpose of tru-2-Way, then I will be in no rush to get a product that utilizes it.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> What is the big advantage or Tru-2-Way? If it's just VOD, then all you need is a STB from your provider and you are covered. I have an HD STB from FIOS for strictly HD VOD. I use my TiVos for everything else. If VOD is the main purpose of tru-2-Way, then I will be in no rush to get a product that utilizes it.


I agree with your sentiments about VOD, but there is one major reason... SDV.
It will effectively have an integrated Tuning Adapter (so no need for a second box to get all of your normal channels). It will also be able to do VOD as you mentioned as well as order PPV.
Josh


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

SDV is exactly why you should care about Tru-2-Way.

Tru-2-Way devices will natively have SDV switching capabilities for cable systems they are on. You will see SDV in many if not most markets by the end of next year.

If your box can't do SDV then you will be missing out on many channels and probably a lot of HD programming.

The VOD and other stuff is just icing on the cake and will certainly push some people to go with a TiVo that otherwise won't consider one due to their affection for those services.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

Will Tivo be able to Cache VOD etc ? I know you can do that with some comcast dvrs. Record VOD, and PPV for a limited amount of time.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

Videodrome said:


> Will Tivo be able to Cache VOD etc ? I know you can do that with some comcast dvrs. Record VOD, and PPV for a limited amount of time.


VOD will be completely controlled by the cable system and their set up. So really it depends on how they implement VOD for tru2way, not what the Tivo does.


----------



## Scyber (Apr 25, 2002)

jmpage2 said:


> SDV is exactly why you should care about Tru-2-Way.
> 
> Tru-2-Way devices will natively have SDV switching capabilities for cable systems they are on. You will see SDV in many if not most markets by the end of next year.
> 
> ...


Well considering Aaronwt has FIOS and FIOS doesn't use SDV nor are they supporting tru2way, the new box would be useless for him unless he switches TV providers.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Scyber said:


> Well considering Aaronwt has FIOS and FIOS doesn't use SDV nor are they supporting tru2way, the new box would be useless for him unless he switches TV providers.


That's fine. Something like 1% of the market has FIOS available. For the rest of us SDV is going to become a bigger and bigger deal over the next 12 months.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

Does anyone know if tru2way devices are backwards compatible with current cable cards?

Putting aside SDV and PPV, tru2way doesn't matter a lot for Tivo, since you already have the box--it's Tivo instead of cable co.

But I am wondering whether tru2way will mean the return of cable-card enabled TVs, even if your cable provider doesn't offer up tru2way just yet.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

DrewTivo said:


> Does anyone know if tru2way devices are backwards compatible with current cable cards?
> 
> Putting aside SDV and PPV, tru2way doesn't matter a lot for Tivo, since you already have the box--it's Tivo instead of cable co.
> 
> But I am wondering whether tru2way will mean the return of cable-card enabled TVs, even if your cable provider doesn't offer up tru2way just yet.


It is unclear, because this is effectively what Tivo wants to do with their tru2way device. They want it to have a "Tivo" mode and a "cable box" mode. Instead a tru2way tv would need a "TV w/ cable card" mode and a "cable box" mode. The idea for the Tivo has not been agreed to by the tru2way group or CableLabs (if Tivo sent in a box today to get certified it would fail based upon no agreement being in place for such a device). Now that doesn't mean that they won't certify a box that will do one mode or the other, but not both simultaneously as the Tivo would require.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

DrewTivo said:


> Does anyone know if tru2way devices are backwards compatible with current cable cards?


Yes--tru2way devices will use the same M-Cards which work in TiVo HD and in all the millions of new leased cable STBs deployed since July 2007 (the Cisco Explorer "C" series among them--8300HDC, 4250HDC, etc).


> Putting aside SDV and PPV, tru2way doesn't matter a lot for Tivo, since you already have the box--it's Tivo instead of cable co.


Yeah, it kinda does matter to TiVo, since without it, any new product that they create will have to use Tuning Adapters for SDV access.


> But I am wondering whether tru2way will mean the return of cable-card enabled TVs, even if your cable provider doesn't offer up tru2way just yet.


Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

socrplyr said:


> It is unclear, because this is effectively what Tivo wants to do with their tru2way device. They want it to have a "Tivo" mode and a "cable box" mode. Instead a tru2way tv would need a "TV w/ cable card" mode and a "cable box" mode. The idea for the Tivo has not been agreed to by the tru2way group or CableLabs (if Tivo sent in a box today to get certified it would fail based upon no agreement being in place for such a device). Now that doesn't mean that they won't certify a box that will do one mode or the other, but not both simultaneously as the Tivo would require.


My understanding of the Tru-2-Way implementation is that the box/TV/etc will run an OCAP stack. In the case of the Tivo it would actually be running the OCAP loaded down from the CC in addition to what looks more or less like current Tivo software.

Again, the reason that this is a big deal is that this future implementation should make the Tivo completely compatible with SDV, On Demand, etc. We won't know what the final GUI and implementation looks like until Tivo releases their Tru-2-Way box.

As far as I know all Tru-2-Way boxes require Cable Card 2.0.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

mikeyts said:


> Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand.


I think he's referring to the fact that Cable Card TVs have essentially vanished, primarily because of their limitations when used on the cable company network.

If Tru-2-Way works out well for Panasonic then I think you will see many manufacturers re-introduce Cable Card equipped TV sets with Tru-2-Way since for all intents and purposes it eliminates the need for a set top box.

In some areas people are paying $10 for a set top box per month. A $1.50 per month CC rental is much more attractive especially if you will have the TV for 5-10 years.

Over the course of 5 years having a Tru-2-Way TV with a CC in it could save you around $500 vs. the cost of renting an HD receiver from the cable company.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

socrplyr said:


> Instead a tru2way tv would need a "TV w/ cable card" mode and a "cable box" mode.


Huh? If a tru2way TV has a CableCARD attached, it will present a cable provider downloaded IPG; if not, it's just an ordinary TV, to which you could connect a leased cable box if you wanted. (I believe that TVs could be created which become TV/DVR combos by just plugging in an external drive).


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

jmpage2 said:


> My understanding of the Tru-2-Way implementation is that the box/TV/etc will run an OCAP stack. In the case of the Tivo it would actually be running the OCAP loaded down from the CC in addition to what looks more or less like current Tivo software.


Only if CableLabs agrees to TiVo's scheme--right now, what they want to do won't work, and requires that there be an exposed API for SDV tuning accessible by software outside of a downloaded OCAP IPG.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

mikeyts said:


> Only if CableLabs agrees to TiVo's scheme--right now, what they want to do won't work, and requires that there be an exposed API for SDV tuning accessible by software outside of a downloaded OCAP IPG.


Instead of just letting the FCC represent us (and cave to the cable companies) it might be helpful if we could set up a petition site, etc, that would try to pressure the FCC from us millions of Tivo owners to force DCR+ onto the cable companies.

I'm really getting tired of the Cable Companies whining and crying about how they have to have complete and total control over the devices placed on their new digital networks.

AT&T tried to play that same whiny game and we can all see how that ultimately panned out for them.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Unfortunately most of us don't have any better alternatives to the cable providers for multichannel subscription programming (unlike U-verse, which is trying to compete with cable). Cable is likely to get what they want.

There's nothing "whiny" about their plans. "Our ball, our rules". The FCC asked them to provide a separable method with which devices could support their interactive services and that's what they've done.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

mikeyts said:


> Unfortunately most of us don't have any better alternatives to the cable providers for multichannel subscription programming (unlike U-verse, which is trying to compete with cable). Cable is likely to get what they want.
> 
> There's nothing "whiny" about their plans. "Our ball, our rules". The FCC asked them to provide a separable method with which devices could support their interactive services and that's what they've done.


 AT&T is the precedent. They were a total and complete monopoly that lobbied the government heavily to avoid being broken up.

And, it still happened.

While it is ultimately debatable I would argue that it has ultimately been to the benefit of consumers. Certainly the massive growth of the Internet, broadband, etc, couldn't have happened as quickly with the strangle hold AT&T had on long haul connections between geographic sites.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DrewTivo said:


> Does anyone know if tru2way devices are backwards compatible with current cable cards?
> 
> Putting aside SDV and PPV, tru2way doesn't matter a lot for Tivo, since you already have the box--it's Tivo instead of cable co.
> 
> But I am wondering whether tru2way will mean the return of cable-card enabled TVs, even if your cable provider doesn't offer up tru2way just yet.


they are backward comptible. Cable cards themselves have no hardware for two way communication but they also do not limit such communication.
the Tuner adapter for SDV is basically just a DOCIS modem that is the hardware needed to talk back to the cable company to ask for those switched channels.

at a very high level all tru2way is that hardware and then the software environment to run a cable co. interface. All cablecards have to do is accept the digital stream(s) and tune/decrypt the proper channel as needed. Tru2way will tell it what channel to tune for SDV or PPV/VOD.

and yes the only content difference between a TiVo HD with SDV adapter and a Series 4 as described currently is PPV/VOD access (and no Tuning adapter hanging off the back)


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

jmpage2 said:


> I think he's referring to the fact that Cable Card TVs have essentially vanished, primarily because of their limitations when used on the cable company network.
> 
> If Tru-2-Way works out well for Panasonic then I think you will see many manufacturers re-introduce Cable Card equipped TV sets with Tru-2-Way since for all intents and purposes it eliminates the need for a set top box.
> 
> ...


Yes, that is exactly why I was asking. I love Tivo, but I don't need it on every TV. For example, in the kitchen. But I wouldn't want a cable box there on the counter--ideally I'd hang a TV on the wall with a cable card and get all the channels. If the TV manufacturers bring out lots of tru2way sets, and they are backwards compatible in the way I mean, then this is a reality.

As for cost, yeah, the pricing is definitely more attractive. But frankly doing away with the box and paying the same price would be fine with me.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

mikeyts said:


> Yeah, it kinda does matter to TiVo, since without it, any new product that they create will have to use Tuning Adapters for SDV access.


Fair point. My no-SDV-cableco bias is showing. It matters to Tivo to the extent SDV becomes prevalent and would inhibit the usefulness of Tivo on those cable systems.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

jmpage2 said:


> AT&T is the precedent. They were a total and complete monopoly that lobbied the government heavily to avoid being broken up.
> 
> And, it still happened.


(I was gonna let this stand because I don't want to get into a long hairy argument over monopolistic practices, but I can't resist ). Cable has already been through their version of AT&T. They were dragged kicking and screaming into development and deployment of Plug-and-Play V1 (Unidirectional CableCARD) and then kicking and screaming into using CableCARDs in their own leased boxes. (They were given a couple of years extension to complete the development of the M-Card spec, but were denied further extension to complete the development of DCAS, which would have rid them of the need to deal with CableCARDs in their own equipment). If the FCC hadn't driven this, TiVo Series3 and TiVo HD wouldn't exist.

Congress required, as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that they develop a way that any manufacturer could create a product through which all of their services can be purchased which can be moved from cable system to cable system. That requirement was about separable security and later standardized digital-tv-over-cable and interactive services got rolled up into it. With the delivery of tru2way they've completely complied with that requirement. No one required that OEMs be able to put their own interface design on those services.

If TiVo can work something out with them, cool. They worked together to concoct the Tuning Adapter--maybe they're all buds now . It seems unlikely that the FCC would force the cable industry to give TiVo what they need for the proposed "Series4", since they've given the FCC what they asked for.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

socrplyr said:


> It is unclear, because this is effectively what Tivo wants to do with their tru2way device. They want it to have a "Tivo" mode and a "cable box" mode. Instead a tru2way tv would need a "TV w/ cable card" mode and a "cable box" mode. The idea for the Tivo has not been agreed to by the tru2way group or CableLabs (if Tivo sent in a box today to get certified it would fail based upon no agreement being in place for such a device). Now that doesn't mean that they won't certify a box that will do one mode or the other, but not both simultaneously as the Tivo would require.


Help me understand this, because I'm curious.

Why is there a problem in taking the current tivo menu and adding another choice that's something like "Cable Company Features" that takes you into the cable co.'s tru2way supplied menu of choices? What about tru2way makes this difficult or undesirable?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

DrewTivo said:


> Fair point. My no-SDV-cableco bias is showing. It matters to Tivo to the extent SDV becomes prevalent and would inhibit the usefulness of Tivo on those cable systems.


Your cable company is of a dying breed. AFAIK, Charter is starting to test SDV for deployment early next year. That means all of the major cable companies will have SDV at least partially deployed next year.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

rainwater said:


> Your cable company is of a dying breed. AFAIK, Charter is starting to test SDV for deployment early next year. That means all of the major cable companies will have SDV at least partially deployed next year.


Dying or ahead of the curve. RCN is eliminating analog and using all bandwidth for digital.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

DrewTivo said:


> RCN is eliminating analog and using all bandwidth for digital.


Which, though it may delay and reduce the use of SDV, isn't likely to stop it altogether.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

mikeyts said:


> With the delivery of tru2way they've completely complied with that requirement.


True, but then there is the sticky issue of Congress's precise wording: "_assure the commercial availability_" of navigation devices. Ambiguous to be sure, but it could be taken to mean that to assure commercial availability, the design must result in _economically viable _third-party devices. CEA's argument has been that Tru2Way is simply too expensive for anything but the highest-end multifunction devices; thus the DCR+ proposal.


mikeyts said:


> No one required that OEMs be able to put their own interface design on those services.


I think the issue isn't so much the UI; TiVo and CableLabs appear to have come to an agreement for the sandboxing of the TiVo UI separate from the rest of the cable company services. As with most things in life, the issue is money. DCR+ is cheaper.

At any rate, I completely agree with mikeyts that it is unlikely the FCC will force DCR+ onto anybody at this point. Tru2Way, for all its warts, appears here to stay.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Saxion said:


> I think the issue isn't so much the UI; TiVo and CableLabs appear to have come to an agreement for the sandboxing of the TiVo UI separate from the rest of the cable company services.


Where did you hear that they came to an agreement? I've read that TiVo made the proposal, but I can't find anything to indicate that CableLabs agreed to it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

mikeyts said:


> Where did you hear that they came to an agreement? I've read that TiVo made the proposal, but I can't find anything to indicate that CableLabs agreed to it.


since Comcast is the main pusher of tru2way and it helps them if 3rd parties use it then I can see Comcast pressuring Cablelabs to agree to TiVo's idea since it does have a full tru2way implementation in it


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

mikeyts said:


> Where did you hear that they came to an agreement? I've read that TiVo made the proposal, but I can't find anything to indicate that CableLabs agreed to it.


Here is a link.

"In response to TiVo's concerns, *the cable industry has agreed to work with TiVo* to make clarifications or adjustments to OCAP that may be necessary to enable TiVo to build what TiVo believes can be a viable retail DVR with OCAP. We explained that a TiVo DVR with OCAP would have a "TiVo mode" displaying all linear channels (including switched digital video enabled by OCAP) with the TiVo user interface and full DVR functionality as well as a "cable mode" running OCAP and displaying all cable programming services with the cable user interface without DVR functionality."


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Saxion said:


> Here is a link.
> 
> "In response to TiVo's concerns, *the cable industry has agreed to work with TiVo* to make clarifications or adjustments to OCAP that may be necessary to enable TiVo to build what TiVo believes can be a viable retail DVR with OCAP. We explained that a TiVo DVR with OCAP would have a TiVo mode displaying all linear channels (including switched digital video enabled by OCAP) with the TiVo user interface and full DVR functionality as well as a cable mode running OCAP and displaying all cable programming services with the cable user interface without DVR functionality."


oh don't stop there - the next part spells out the abondement of the DCR+ that the CEA originally had been shooting for

"We also expressed our belief that this refined version of OCAP was a
preferable solution to DCR+ for a variety of reasons, including time-to-market
and the ability to receive all of cables two-way services. Manufacturers, cable
companies, and consumers will benefit most from an OCAP-based solution that
enables the creation of differentiated retail devices such as TiVo DVRs and
allows all of cable's two-way services to reach the consumer within a reasonable
time. In contrast, a DCR+-based solution would take longer to implement and
result in devices with more limited functionality that would not enjoy the full
support of the cable industry."


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

DrewTivo said:


> Dying or ahead of the curve. RCN is eliminating analog and using all bandwidth for digital.


So is every other major cable provider. However, even moving analog channels to digital only is not enough room to add HD channels to keep up with satellite.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Saxion said:


> Here is a link.
> 
> "In response to TiVo's concerns, *the cable industry has agreed to work with TiVo* to make clarifications or adjustments to OCAP that may be necessary to enable TiVo to build what TiVo believes can be a viable retail DVR with OCAP. We explained that a TiVo DVR with OCAP would have a TiVo mode displaying all linear channels (including switched digital video enabled by OCAP) with the TiVo user interface and full DVR functionality as well as a cable mode running OCAP and displaying all cable programming services with the cable user interface without DVR functionality."


Yeah--I've looked that letter over many times since it emerged a year ago, but I haven't been reading it as stating that the cable industry agrees to make whatever changes to OCAP are necessary for TiVo's proposed bi-modal device, but maybe it does say that. We'll see, I guess.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

rainwater said:


> So is every other major cable provider. However, even moving analog channels to digital only is not enough room to add HD channels to keep up with satellite.


not every provider cox plans to keep analog until 2012 atleast.

Cox subscribers will not need to take any action to receive digital programming. For at least three years after this deadline, Cox will continue to offer analog broadcast signals to customers who do not receive Coxs digital services.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

rainwater said:


> So is every other major cable provider. However, even moving analog channels to digital only is not enough room to add HD channels to keep up with satellite.


Sure it is. There are around 60 analog channels in most systems these days. Get rid of all but local broadcast, government access, and such, and you're down to 20, saving 40 channels. That's enough for a minimum of 80 HD channels, or up to 120 HD channels, depending on the mix of 1080i and 720p and the bandwidth used by each.

If you get rid of them all, that's somewhere between 120 and 180 channels of HD. In addition to whatever they've got on there now.

If your cable company aren't cheap bastards, they can then do an upgrade to 1GHz and have an extra 140MHz for new VOD or DOCSIS carriers.

The only cable providers having serious bandwidth issues right now are the ones who have stubbornly refused to come into this century and build up past 550MHz. 860 is a little cramped. 1GHz is enough, especially with the elimination of most analogs.

If a cable company wants to keep customer's NTSC televisions going, they need only lease them inexpensive SD boxes.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

mikeyts said:


> We'll see, I guess.


One never knows, until the thing is sitting on a store shelf.  I do note that TiVo does not appear to have signed the Tru2Way Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which I find strange at this point. So maybe there are still some sticking points for them. Digeo signed it, and I'd assume they would have concerns similar to TiVo's.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

rainwater said:


> So is every other major cable provider. However, even moving analog channels to digital only is not enough room to add HD channels to keep up with satellite.


I'm sure eventually RCN, and other "laggards" will adopt it. But it's not happening immediately, so by the time they do I'm confident the SDV problem will have been worked out.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> Instead of just letting the FCC represent us (and cave to the cable companies) it might be helpful if we could set up a petition site, etc, that would try to pressure the FCC from us millions of Tivo owners to force DCR+ onto the cable companies.


Unfortunately, we Series III class TiVo owners do not number in the millions. For Series I and Series II owners, it's a moot point, unless one is considering upgrading.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

wierdo said:


> Sure it is. There are around 60 analog channels in most systems these days.


I think for most it is closer to 80 or 100.



wierdo said:


> Get rid of all but local broadcast, government access, and such, and you're down to 20, saving 40 channels. That's enough for a minimum of 80 HD channels, or up to 120 HD channels, depending on the mix of 1080i and 720p and the bandwidth used by each.


As compared with tens of thousands of individual "channels" in an SDV implementation.



wierdo said:


> If your cable company aren't cheap bastards, they can then do an upgrade to 1GHz and have an extra 140MHz for new VOD or DOCSIS carriers.


At upwards of $7000 an amplifier, installed, a 400 node CATV system is looking at spending $14 million or more to upgrade to 1000MHz, not counting all the headaches involved with out of spec plant. That gives them an extra 80 HD channels. By spending a tenth that amount, they can have several thousand additional channels., with the option to add thousands more for incrementally smaller investments. If you were spending the money on upgrades, which would you do?

Even setting aside the monetary considerations, which is the more prudent move for future expansion, one which must be torn out completely the next time any additional bandwidth is required, or one which only needs comparatively minor upgrades to expand? One whose bandwidth is fundamentally fixed, or one whose bandwidth is fundamentally unlimited?


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

My post in the SDV fine thread should really have been placed here. Oh well.

I am thinking that cable licensing restrictions on broadband connections of True2way devices may be what is holding up the True2way TiVo DVR. A brain deadened TiVo without broadband would not be much use to anyone. So it appears without further pressure from the FCC, real third party navigators are still a long way off.

[cynicism]Perhaps cable is just using true2way as a means of increasing captive cable box manufacturing volumes and increasing the competition so that they can drive down their purchase prices. [/cynicism]

feel free to replace cynicism with "tin foil hat"


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CuriousMark said:


> [cynicism]Perhaps cable is just using true2way as a means of increasing captive cable box manufacturing volumes and increasing the competition so that they can drive down their purchase prices. [/cynicism]


fortunately the FCC does not seem to share the cable companies goals. from the doc you quote in your post in the otehr thread
"We consider such restrictions to be contrary to Congress and the Commission's shared policy goal of expeditious commercial availability of bi-directional navigation devices. "


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

CuriousMark said:


> I am thinking that cable licensing restrictions on broadband connections of True2way devices may be what is holding up the True2way TiVo DVR. A brain deadened TiVo without broadband would not be much use to anyone. So it appears without further pressure from the FCC, real third party navigators are still a long way off.


Actually, I think that development time is a big part of the "hold up". I might be wrong, but I doubt that they could have had a tru2way-compliant TiVo Series4 ready for Christmas this year if they'd wanted to. TiVo doesn't need to be among the first to jump into this--they weren't among the first to introduce unidirectional CableCARD products and they don't need to be forerunners here either.


CuriousMark said:


> [cynicism]Perhaps cable is just using true2way as a means of increasing captive cable box manufacturing volumes and increasing the competition so that they can drive down their purchase prices. [/cynicism]





ZeoTiVo said:


> fortunately the FCC does not seem to share the cable companies goals. from the doc you quote in your post in the otehr thread
> "We consider such restrictions to be contrary to Congress and the Commission's shared policy goal of expeditious commercial availability of bi-directional navigation devices. "


I don't think that there's anything cynical about that and no doubt creating a flood of products that they can purchase for subscriber lease which should drive their costs down is part of their motivation. I'm not sure where ZeoTiVo's comments are coming from, but that's totally in line with the FCC's "policy goal of expeditious commercial availability of bi-directional navigation devices".


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

wierdo said:


> There are around 60 analog channels in most systems these days





lrhorer said:


> I think for most it is closer to 80 or 100.


Articles I have read, say that systems typically have ~70 Analog channels.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> I think for most it is closer to 80 or 100.
> 
> As compared with tens of thousands of individual "channels" in an SDV implementation.
> ...
> ...


SDV is not fundamentally unlimited due to the limited number of simultaneous possible streams.

I doubt that the SDV equipment is substantially less than the cost of the 1GHz upgrade. That bandwidth upgrade which many MSOs have already embarked upon.

Also, you can get 80 HD channels just from analog channel recovery, before any 1GHz upgrade.

The only MSOs really hurting are those that have the most to gain from plant upgrades, those who are still sitting at 550MHz. Their problems would be better solved by fixing the plant rather than pursuing this stopgap measure.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

wierdo said:


> I doubt that the SDV equipment is substantially less than the cost of the 1GHz upgrade.


Quoted from an old post by dt_dc:


> Here's an article (talking alot about 1+GHz and / or SDV as different ways to increase bandwidth) where Scientific Atlanta estimates an upgrade from 750MHz to 1Ghz as costing $30 to $35 per home:
> http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA509144.html?industryid=43678
> 
> OTOH, here's an article estimating SDV as costing $5 to $10 per home passed:
> http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6355602.html


Unfortunately, neither CED Magazine article is still available online .

Determining the right thing for a cable provider to do (upgrade to 1GHz, analog reclamation, SDV deployment or some combination of any two or all three) is a complex analysis which needs to take the current state and topology of the network into consideration. Effective deployment of SDV might require a greater outlay of cash in some networks than in others, since it might require installing more edge nodes to reduce the average number of subs per node (from say, 2000 to 500).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I was speaking to the timing of seeing a tru2way TiVo DVR, not the inevitability of it. TiVo has very clearly indicated they are working on a tru2way DVR.
> 
> so basically I am saying we can look at how fast the Comcast rollout happens as to how fast TiVo would try and push the tru2way out the door.


I hope they are a bit aggressive- they admitted they were behind the curve on HD. So I hope they want to not be so behind this time around that they wait to watch what happens with true2way before they act.

(of course all that assumes there is an acceptable license availible from cablelabs....)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

mikeyts said:


> ...
> Congress required, as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that they develop a way that any manufacturer could create a product through which all of their services can be purchased which can be moved from cable system to cable system. That requirement was about separable security and later standardized digital-tv-over-cable and interactive services got rolled up into it. With the delivery of tru2way they've completely complied with that requirement. No one required that OEMs be able to put their own interface design on those services.....


actually congress merely required that the FCC act to create rules which would make a viable 3rd party market for Set top boxes and other equipment that consumers would connect to the cable system. They didnt say how that should be implemented- just to get it done. (also note the year- TWELVE years ago and the FCCs actions to date still havent produced that market)

The FCC thought the right way to go about that was forcing separable security by way of cablecards and the one way spec.

The 2 way plan is sort of done but.

IF (big IF) the lack of being able to put one's own interface on the device keeps the market for 3rd party devices from being viable then yes that is a problem in regards to the law..

As far as that IF- for TV's I dont know that it will matter all that much, but for DVR's it's much more likely to be an impediment to a viable 3rd party market.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> I hope they are a bit aggressive- they admitted they were behind the curve on HD. So I hope they want to not be so behind this time around that they wait to watch what happens with true2way before they act.
> 
> (of course all that assumes there is an acceptable license availible from cablelabs....)


since I made the post you quoted - there was some posting on FCC filings that pointed out cable companies stalling over 3rd party tru2way also having broadband download capability. That could be a stumbling block that has not had much visibility till now.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

mikeyts said:


> ...
> I don't think that there's anything cynical about that and no doubt creating a flood of products that they can purchase for subscriber lease which should drive their costs down is part of their motivation. I'm not sure where ZeoTiVo's comments are coming from, but that's totally in line with the FCC's "policy goal of expeditious commercial availability of bi-directional navigation devices".


I believe Zeo's point is that they wont be available in "RETAIL" which is I believe in the specific wording of the law.

(if that's not Zeo's point I apologize and we'll just call it MY point- lol)

the law doesn't care that comcast can now buy 500,000 OCAP DVR's for cheap from panasonic instead of cisco or moto so they can lease them out to us if at the same time you or I can't walk into a best buy and buy one for ourselves.

The interesting thing will be if Panny decides to sell those very same "dumb" boxes at best buy to consumers. (Dumb meaning all they do is download cable company software and have no differentiation).

Still from those recent coments seems the FCC thinks the law intended for someone like tivo to be able to build a box that allows the cable softare PLUS some other features like internet downloads.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> I believe Zeo's point is that they wont be available in "RETAIL" which is I believe in the specific wording of the law.


Though they may have special versions for the cable providers (who insist on the lowest possible price point so you don't put anything they don't specifically need in), they will almost certainly have boxes at retail, even if they're "dumb" (a curious word for a box running the huge pile of software that is the OCAP platform--which has to be resident--with a large amount of memory and a fairly fast processor; sort of like calling your top-of-the-line PC "dumb" because it doesn't do anything that other computers can't and has to have an OS and applications software loaded into it). What benefits the cable providers benefits consumers interested in owning their own boxes.

Samsung has been working with TWC for years on both boxes and televisions with built-in OCAP platforms. They've displayed prototypes of the televisions running TWC's OCAP Digital Navigator (without an STB) at the past two or three Consumer Electronics Shows, and they displayed boxes at at least last year's show. TWC will probably buy some of these boxes to lease--they've announced that they will--but they certainly won't buy any of the televisions, which are strictly for consumers.


----------



## rv65 (Aug 30, 2008)

mikeyts said:


> Though they may have special versions for the cable providers (who insist on the lowest possible price point so you don't put anything they don't specifically need in), they will almost certainly have boxes at retail, even if they're "dumb" (a curious word for a box running the huge pile of software that is the OCAP platform--which has to be resident--with a large amount of memory and a fairly fast processor; sort of like calling your top-of-the-line PC "dumb" because it doesn't do anything that other computers can't and has to have an OS and applications software loaded into it). What benefits the cable providers benefits consumers interested in owning their own boxes.
> 
> Samsung has been working with TWC for years on both boxes and televisions with built-in OCAP platforms. They've displayed prototypes of the televisions running TWC's OCAP Digital Navigator (without an STB) at the past two or three Consumer Electronics Shows, and they displayed boxes at at least last year's show. TWC will probably buy some of these boxes to lease--they've announced that they will--but they certainly won't buy any of the televisions, which are strictly for consumers.


In the NYC area they have the Samsung SMT-H3050. Now they offer the SMT-H3090 and the SMT-H3092. The 3092 has DLNA, MoCA, and uPnP. DLNA is nice since you can share or stream the contents of the DVR to another device. Panasonic, Motorola, and Cisco all have interesting OCAP boxes as well.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

You can see a little article at engadget.com (here about Samsung's display of the SMT-3090 at this year's The Cable Show in May. There are pictures of it running what appears to be an OCAP version of Aptiv Digital's Passport Echo (Aptiv was bought by Gemstar which was bought by Macrovision).

That little article has some interesting links, one of which is to a demo of Samsung's "See'n'Search" tech (here). It reads the close captioning and picks out things and let's you stop and go to a selection of related web pages. I do this all the time while watching TV, but I have a PC connected to the TV that I watch most, so I just PAUSE my TiVo, switch inputs to the PC and look up whatever it was that caught my interest. This is integrated with the TV or an STB. Seems like something TiVo could have done, if Samsung hadn't thought of it first .


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

mikeyts said:


> Though they may have special versions for the cable providers (who insist on the lowest possible price point so you don't put anything they don't specifically need in), they will almost certainly have boxes at retail, even if they're "dumb" (a curious word for a box running the huge pile of software that is the OCAP platform--which has to be resident--with a large amount of memory and a fairly fast processor; sort of like calling your top-of-the-line PC "dumb" because it doesn't do anything that other computers can't and has to have an OS and applications software loaded into it). What benefits the cable providers benefits consumers interested in owning their own boxes.
> 
> Samsung has been working with TWC for years on both boxes and televisions with built-in OCAP platforms. They've displayed prototypes of the televisions running TWC's OCAP Digital Navigator (without an STB) at the past two or three Consumer Electronics Shows, and they displayed boxes at at least last year's show. TWC will probably buy some of these boxes to lease--they've announced that they will--but they certainly won't buy any of the televisions, which are strictly for consumers.


you beleive people will buy "plain vanilla" (better then dumb?)- we need to see if panasonic and samsung and the rest think so do and bother to make them. And then we need to see if people really want to buy them.

those are the 64,000 questions.

If Panasonic trusts this so much that they will be first to market OCAP TV's (presumably high end that cost some significant cash to keep stock lying around)- then why haven't they put out STB's which presumably would cost much less to stock? Could just be time obviously- but maybe they dont see the point.

and if samsung has boxes already deployed then why not sell them at retail?

(again could just be timing...)


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Indeed. Ever since Cablecards were released, the CE industry has had the opportunity to create and sell two-way STBs to consumers. But they haven't, maybe because the cable industry 'encouraged' them not to (Moto, Cisco/SA), or because they didn't see a market for them (others) because renting a DVR was easier for J6P. Or they just didn't want to hassle with CableLabs certification. Who knows?

I'm not sure how tru2way changes any of this for STBs, because there's nothing new here for them. For TVs, perhaps, but not boxes. Tivo S4 might be the first and only one on the street (again).


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> Indeed. Ever since Cablecards were released, the CE industry has had the opportunity to create and sell two-way STBs to consumers.


Actually no. When CableCARDs were released, the OCAP standard was far from being complete. The first OCAP capable products (for sale only to cable providers) hit the market last year. Decisions on how to package 2-way interactive cable-ready products to consumers have taken a while, as well as getting OEM buy-in--remember, a group of them were trying to push a much lighter-weight solution on them through the FCC (Digital Cable Ready Plus), which would have been far easier to deploy across their entire range of products. Until most of the major OEMs were onboard with tru2way, there was no sense in rolling it out. Now that they have Sony, Panasonic and Samsung, the rest will fall into line.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

OK then, thanks for the clarification. But remove 'two-way' from what you quoted and the result is the same - there are no STBs for sale to consumers, not even as cheap access devices to all the channels you're paying for (without the two-way features). The Tivo HD is it, and it's way more than an STB and way more expensive.

What I find even more appalling is that the cable industry is going to force the CE manufacturers to use their crappy UIs, a la 'cable mode', which will reduce innovation. I thought one of the points in favor of buying your own box is that you're not satisfied with what you're renting. Note that I'm just talking about STBs here, not tru2way TVs.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I expect we will see price drop on the entry level Tivo HD down to $199 which is going to make it much more of a mainstream product (and much more likely for me to buy a 3rd one).

I would expect a Tru-2-Way Tivo being shown off at CES next year at the latest.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> ..
> 
> What I find even more appalling is that the cable industry is going to force the CE manufacturers to use their crappy UIs, a la 'cable mode', which will reduce innovation. I thought one of the points in favor of buying your own box is that you're not satisfied with what you're renting. Note that I'm just talking about STBs here, not tru2way TVs.


various comments from the FCC seem to indicate they concur on this point. WAY BACK when they gave DBS waivers they gave lip service to the fact that there were different ui's/feature sets on the different choices that dbs had. More recently (so much more relevant since the guys from ~1996 are probably long gone) - their language discussing onerous licensing terms in their ruling about SDV seemed to be telling


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

jmpage2 said:


> ...
> 
> I would expect a Tru-2-Way Tivo being shown off at CES next year at the latest.


curious-

you expect it in the 2009 CES in a few months or the folling one in 2010?

I'm hoping it's sooner rather then later.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> What I find even more appalling is that the cable industry is going to force the CE manufacturers to use their crappy UIs, a la 'cable mode', which will reduce innovation.


I agree with what you are saying but I also agree that the cable company has a right to peddle their PPV/VOD services without having to take into account some other CE interface. It is access to their infrastructure we are talking about 

I like the TiVo solution of a CE interface that has access to all the channels I subscribe to and then a switch into the cable company PPV/VOD interface if you want PPV/VOD. heck I might even start using the PPV/VOD then 

PS - given the hassles iwth cablelabs over the tru2way implementation in a 3rd party device, especially over other broadband content delivery - i would be surprised to see anything other than a hands off demo of Tivo tru2way at CES 2009


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

does the current OCAP/tru2way license specifically say something about no other broadband content- or is it that those details are all still being negotiated?


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> OK then, thanks for the clarification. But remove 'two-way' from what you quoted and the result is the same - there are no STBs for sale to consumers, not even as cheap access devices to all the channels you're paying for (without the two-way features). The Tivo HD is it, and it's way more than an STB and way more expensive.
> 
> What I find even more appalling is that the cable industry is going to force the CE manufacturers to use their crappy UIs, a la 'cable mode', which will reduce innovation. I thought one of the points in favor of buying your own box is that you're not satisfied with what you're renting. Note that I'm just talking about STBs here, not tru2way TVs.


There was one other CableCARD STB, Sony's DHG-HDD line, in 250 and 500 GB models. They were pricey, single-tuner DVRs which used Macrovision/Gemstar's TV Guide On-Screen IPG. Sony abandoned the line and no one other than TiVo ventured in that direction. (Well, Mitsubishi kinda sorta did, having some CableCARD equiped televisions with built-in DVR functionality--if I can find one, I can plug a CableCARD and an AV/C compliant AVHDD into the 1394 connection on my Mits LCD panel and get similar function to Sony's box, also via the TVGOS IPG. There may be other OEMs who added such a feature to CableCARD-equiped monitors; maybe Sharp and RCA).

The CE industry's not forced to use the cable companies' IPGs--they're forced to allow its use. The unfortunate part is that access to the cable providers interactive services, like VOD and IPPV, will require that _we_ use their IPG. If you're not interested in that stuff, I'm sure that other manufacturers will have alternative IPGs, just as TiVo plans to offer one. If TiVo's proposed tru2way device flies, then they can embellish that interface. At The Cable Show this year Panasonic showed a tru2way television with some interesting and unique features that they added as an addition to the cable providers' IPGs.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> What I find even more appalling is that the cable industry is going to force the CE manufacturers to use their crappy UIs, a la 'cable mode', which will reduce innovation. I thought one of the points in favor of buying your own box is that you're not satisfied with what you're renting. Note that I'm just talking about STBs here, not tru2way TVs.


The reason the FCC banned proprietary cable boxes was to stimulate competition in cable boxes, and to allow people to buy them instead of rent them. The "content," even that on the cable box itself, however, was always presumed to be provided by the cable provider--it's just that the box would be portable and all you would need from a cable provider was a decrypting device (cable card).


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> curious-
> 
> you expect it in the 2009 CES in a few months or the folling one in 2010?
> 
> I'm hoping it's sooner rather then later.


I believe that we'll at least see a teaser/prototype shown off at CES2009 with a product shipping late next year.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

DrewTivo said:


> The reason the FCC banned proprietary cable boxes was to stimulate competition in cable boxes, and to allow people to buy them instead of rent them. The "content," even that on the cable box itself, however, was always presumed to be provided by the cable provider--it's just that the box would be portable and all you would need from a cable provider was a decrypting device (cable card).


But it doesn't have to be that way - the protocols for two-way service access could be hammered out so that anyone can create a GUI for them as long as their device was approved by CableLabs (or better yet, a neutral standards body). Why did OCAP, i.e. the not-so-open 'OpenCable', end up with cable companies controlling what is loaded on the box? 
IMO the whole intent *should* have been fully open access as long as you are using approved devices, but I guess that it will end up like cellphones and the locked down content on them. Perhaps a hacker's underground will open up for STBs as it has for phones.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> Why did OCAP, i.e. the not-so-open 'OpenCable', end up with cable companies controlling what is loaded on the box?


because the FCC passed control of the standard to cable companies sicne they said anything from the outside would be too onerous on their business model.
See also "Economic Crisis" for a larger and more serious context of the same issue.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> because the FCC passed control of the standard to cable companies sicne they said anything from the outside would be too onerous on their business model.
> See also "Economic Crisis" for a larger and more serious context of the same issue.


I'm also not sure how it would work from a practical, not technical, standpoint. What does a cable box do other than (a) tell you programming (b) tell you other service offerings from the cable co. (PPV, VOD, etc.) Both are cable co. products, so why not use their interface? I mean, if I'm ordering something from Amazon, why wouldn't I want Amazon's ordering interface? Might I prefer Apple's interface? Perhaps, but then you'd need some sort of standard that would water down the unique points of each. I'm just having a hard time imagining a Sony TV presenting the PPV options of comcast.

(Note that none of this has anything to do with having a device overlay, whether Tivo for tivo-related items or Sony etc. for TV control items (photos, settings, etc.)


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

MichaelK said:


> does the current OCAP/tru2way license specifically say something about no other broadband content- or is it that those details are all still being negotiated?


I dont see how they could stop it, isnt that preventing competition. The cable co complain about it, regarding PPV etc. I dont see how it could hold up.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Scyber said:


> Well considering Aaronwt has FIOS and FIOS doesn't use SDV nor are they supporting tru2way, the new box would be useless for him unless he switches TV providers.


Verizon has announced plans to switch to an IPTV model. While this isn't the same as tru2way it's possible a Series 4 box might also accomodate the upcoming FiOS changes.

Some people think a software update might allow S3 units to work with FiOS VoD. This would require cooperation from Verizon, not sure how likely.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lew said:


> Verizon has announced plans to switch to an IPTV model. While this isn't the same as tru2way it's possible a Series 4 box might also accomodate the upcoming FiOS changes.
> 
> Some people think a software update might allow S3 units to work with FiOS VoD. This would require cooperation from Verizon, not sure how likely.


I think they were originally saying starting in 2010, but I think they have pushed it back. I don't think they are in any rush now since dropping all their analog channels. Assuming they still plan on going forward with an IPTV solution.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I think they were originally saying starting in 2010, but I think they have pushed it back. I don't think they are in any rush now since dropping all their analog channels. Assuming they still plan on going forward with an IPTV solution.


They're already using an IPTV solution for VoD. It's clear when/if they'll be doing it for the channels we watch. I think the current roll out of new HD channels is using (almost) all the bandwidth that was made available when analog was dropped.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> But it doesn't have to be that way - the protocols for two-way service access could be hammered out so that anyone can create a GUI for them as long as their device was approved by CableLabs (or better yet, a neutral standards body).


This is exactly what the OEMs came back and proposed, their so-called "Digital Cable Ready Plus". They wanted simple open protocols for IPPV, VOD and SDV that could be implemented for a fraction of the cost of an OCAP-capable device, which requires quite a lot of memory and a pretty fast processor, a barrier to inclusion in their low-end products. Unfortunately, the OEMs went along with OCAP until the end of 2006, 6 or 7 months before the cable providers planned to launch it, along with mandated CableCARDs-in-new-leased-boxes. Had they insisted on this from the beginning, and had it written into the Plug-and-Play MOU that they signed at the end of 2003, they probably could have had it. (Actually, the original CableCARD spec, written by CableLabs, a property of the cable providers, included built-in low-cost support for IPG, IPPV and VOD, based on HTML, but the cable providers were allowed to reject that).

The one compelling argument that the OEMs made for DCR+ was that they shouldn't have to implement all of OCAP just to get SDV tuning; the cable providers answered that by proposing the Tuning Adapter (and wrote a spec for it and got it manufactured and have started deploying it, all before the ever-speedy FCC could comment on it ). Unidirectional CableCARD slot + USB connection for TA is fairly cheap at this point, if not particularly elegant. I don't expect to see any OEMs producing products with built-in support for the TA, but its an option for near low-end products.

Personally I think that it's reasonable that the cable providers insist upon couching IPPV and VOD in their own interface, where they control presentation and they can push advertising for the offerings at you. Those products come with their interface, and that's all there is to it. You can always decide that you don't want to deal with that interface and take a pass on either leasing a box or buying tru2way equipment to get access to those services. But OCAP isn't just for that. They envision a whole world full of applications that they'll download into your equipment through OCAP, from kinda useful stuff like TWC's Start Over and Look Back features to ordering pizza to playing games.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

wierdo said:


> SDV is not fundamentally unlimited due to the limited number of simultaneous possible streams.


I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The number of possible streams is limited by the number of households per node. Decrease the number of households per node, and the number of possible streams increase until the point is reached where every receiver can have an individual stream. It's true, of course, there are not an infinite number of subscribers in any system, but there is no fundamental limit to the number of streams on an SDV system.



wierdo said:


> I doubt that the SDV equipment is substantially less than the cost of the 1GHz upgrade. That bandwidth upgrade which many MSOs have already embarked upon.


'Not most, because it is far too expensive. Essentially every piece of equipment in the system, both active and passive, must be upgraded, and 1000MHz active devices cost nearly twice what 750 MHz active devices do. Add to that the fact 1000MHz spacing is much denser than 750MHz spacing, and the cost for 1000MHz gear can be more than twice the cost of 750MHz gear. Remember, too, who must bear the cost of the upgrade: the consumer. SDV does not require any different gear in any part of the CATV system except for the TOC, where the provider must purchase some computer hardware and software costing almost nothing comparatively speaking. Depending on the topology, doubling or tripling the number of channels by deploying SDV can cost much less than $1 million. Doubling or tripling the bandwidth in a digital plant is not just prohibitively expensive, it's totally impossible.



wierdo said:


> Also, you can get 80 HD channels just from analog channel recovery, before any 1GHz upgrade.


Which is trivial copmpared to the thousands of streams available on an SDV system, although your math is wrong. It's not 80 channels. At a minimum its 100, and probably more like 150 HD channels, even if the locals are left as analog.



wierdo said:


> The only MSOs really hurting are those that have the most to gain from plant upgrades, those who are still sitting at 550MHz. Their problems would be better solved by fixing the plant rather than pursuing this stopgap measure.


A 550MHz plant isn't broken, it's just not state of the art. As a former video engineer for a CATV company who was personally involved in quite a few upgrades from 250 - 300MHz, from 300-330 MHz, from 330-400MHz, and from 400 - 550MHz, I am telling you flat out, an upgrade from 550MHz to 750MHz is very expensive and difficult in any but the newest, smallest markets. An upgrade to 1000MHz from 750MHz is doubly so. Upgrading to SDV can yield a systems with 10 to 100 times as many channels for a fraction of the cost and effort. I'm no longer employed by a CATV system, so I don't know the exact numbers, but I guestimate the local CATV system here probably has 3000 - 4000 streams at peak useage. If they had elected to go to 1000 MHz, it would have cost them much, much more and only gotten them 300 or so additional streams. It's not a stopgap measure, any more than replacing Ethernet hubs with Ethernet switches is a stopgap measure. It's actually very simple: the CATV provider can employ a bandwidth upgrade which costs perhaps $100,000 or more per additional channel with an absolute limit of less than 300 HD channels, or they can employ SDV, which costs something on the order of $100 per additional channel, with thousands of channels at the outset, and no fundamental limit to the ultimate number of channels. In practical terms, of course, I doubt any provider will ever exceed 100,000 streams, but it's entirely possible to do so using SDV, even on a 450MHz plant.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I agree with what you are saying but I also agree that the cable company has a right to peddle their PPV/VOD services without having to take into account some other CE interface. It is access to their infrastructure we are talking about


So you think your broadband provider should be allowed to dictate what software is loaded on your PC? Should Google or Yahoo be allowed to dictate who can and cannot develop software for the internet? Should AT&T be allowed to tall you you can't use a Panasonic phone when calling on their network? Should Microsoft be allowed to force you to load Visio, even if you don't want to use it?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Agreed. A similar analogy for the web might be, should you be forced to use Internet Explorer to access every site? If the protocols are open (HTTP, HTML, Javascript, etc.) this should be just as irrelevant for cable TV content as it is for broadband content.

But as we've seen with cellphones, they always want to lock you in to their way of doing business. It would be different if you had a choice of cable TV providers, but you don't. OpenCable is such a misnomer here.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lew said:


> They're already using an IPTV solution for VoD. It's clear when/if they'll be doing it for the channels we watch. I think the current roll out of new HD channels is using (almost) all the bandwidth that was made available when analog was dropped.


I thought I read where Verizon said they would have the capacity for 150HD channels using MPEG2. Just switching to MPEG4 would greatly increase that number. It's one thing to use IPTV for VOD and another to use it for regular programming.
I know if they ever switch to an all IPTV solution, and I can't use a TiVo with it, I will probably be getting my HD programming from someone else. That was the whole reason I left DirecTV, because they had dropped TiVo. Of course now they have re-embraced TiVo, but i have no desire to return unless I have no other options.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

lew said:


> They're already using an IPTV solution for VoD. It's clear when/if they'll be doing it for the channels we watch. I think the current roll out of new HD channels is using (almost) all the bandwidth that was made available when analog was dropped.


Remember, Verizon is upgrading on two fronts. The first is the elimination of ~40 analog channels. The second is the expansion from ~100 QAMs to 135 QAMs. Once all upgrades are complete, Verizon will have close to 135 usable QAMs * 38.8Mbps = 5.2Gbps. Co-channel interference shouldn't be a major issue, looking forward.

If every HD channel consumes 19.4Mbps (two per QAM), that would be sufficient for 270 HD channels and 0 SD channels. Or 300 SD channels @ 4Mbps and 206 HD channels @ 19.4Mbps. They're not close to that yet. Verizon just hit 102-103 HD channels in the NY market, and it will probably be some years before they approach 200.

In the future, Verizon has the option of upgrading from 860MHz RF to 1GHz RF. IIRC, Verizon's new Motorola 7x00 series STBs and DVRs support 1GHz RF. I don't see that happening anytime soon though, as it would require new (expensive) ONTs for every video customer. For the foreseeable future, I see Verizon sticking with 860MHz RF, but transitioning to MPEG-4 for new channels.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I thought I read where Verizon said they would have the capacity for 150HD channels using MPEG2. Just switching to MPEG4 would greatly increase that number. It's one thing to use IPTV for VOD and another to use it for regular programming.
> I know if they ever switch to an all IPTV solution, and I can't use a TiVo with it, I will probably be getting my HD programming from someone else. That was the whole reason I left DirecTV, because they had dropped TiVo. Of course now they have re-embraced TiVo, but i have no desire to return unless I have no other options.


The most likely scenario, as I see it, is that Verizon just offers newer channels in MPEG-4, as more and more of the MPEG-4 capable Motorola QIP7x00 boxes are deployed. Verizon is currently converting the new MPEG-4 HBO and Starz channels to MPEG-2 for those with older QIP6x00 series boxes, but looking forward, they can pass those channels and future MPEG-4 channels through as is, saving bandwidth.

These MPEG-4 channels consume significantly less bandwidth, so Verizon could conceivably offer 300 MPEG-4 SD channels @ 3Mbps, 110 MPEG-2 HD channels @ 19.4Mbps, and another 180 MPEG-4 HD channels @ 12Mbps. For reference, most Dish Network and DirecTV MPEG-4 channels are delivered at <8Mbps.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

It sounds like that would be the easiest solution than switching to an all IPTV solution. Besides I keep reading about Uverse and people only being able to have one or two HD streams at a time depending on how far away they are. OF course FIOS has more bandwidth, but that is still crazy. Sometimes I'm recording a dozen HD programs at one time. Having only the ability to watch/ record one or two, especially if you have big family would be too limiting.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Agreed. A similar analogy for the web might be, should you be forced to use Internet Explorer to access every site? If the protocols are open (HTTP, HTML, Javascript, etc.) this should be just as irrelevant for cable TV content as it is for broadband content.
> 
> But as we've seen with cellphones, they always want to lock you in to their way of doing business. It would be different if you had a choice of cable TV providers, but you don't. OpenCable is such a misnomer here.


I don't think that's a very good analogy. A better analogy is MSNBC.com providing full features only to people using internet explorer. That's fine, I'll go elsewhere. Would I prefer their website were open? yes, but I can go elsewhere.

On your argument, couldn't the same be said for Sony putting its interface on its TVs and "forcing" you to use it? Maybe sony has a crap interface, but you like their tvs' picture/features. You have to balance the two, and if sony loses sales because of it, there's an incentive to improve the interface.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

DrewTivo said:


> I don't think that's a very good analogy. A better analogy is MSNBC.com providing full features only to people using internet explorer. That's fine, I'll go elsewhere. Would I prefer their website were open? yes, but I can go elsewhere.
> 
> On your argument, couldn't the same be said for Sony putting its interface on its TVs and "forcing" you to use it? Maybe sony has a crap interface, but you like their tvs' picture/features. You have to balance the two, and if sony loses sales because of it, there's an incentive to improve the interface.


The difference is in what I said - if you want cable TV, there is usually only one provider. You can't go elsewhere, and you have to use their "OS and browser".


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I thought I read where Verizon said they would have the capacity for 150HD channels using MPEG2. Just switching to MPEG4 would greatly increase that number. It's one thing to use IPTV for VOD and another to use it for regular programming.


Except that "regular programming" isn't, and it's becoming less so every day. One ofthe best examples is TWCs "Video Start Over" (or whatever they call it). Scheduled programming goes out to everyone on one stream, but then if the user is watching the program on a regular STB, but still wants to pause or rewind, he can do so from his STB. That user's stream is then split off from the regularly scheduled stream. It doesn't take too many users doing that on too many channels to run the number of streams into the thousands. Or what about interactive video? Multiple points of view? Alternate endings? Alternate casts, even? These features and more can be quite reasonably deployed on "regular" channels once the installed base of SDV viewers is large enough to make it practical for broadcasters to implement. Any stream whose penetration is close to or smaller than the inverse of the average number of streams per node engenders cost savings for the CATV company and effective bandwidth expansion for the subscribers if it is broadcast over SDV. At this point, most HD offerings qualify, as does any channel whose programs are not consistently in the top 3% or so in penetration, which includes time delayed or alternate streams of mainstream channels.



wierdo said:


> I know if they ever switch to an all IPTV solution, and I can't use a TiVo with it, I will probably be getting my HD programming from someone else. That was the whole reason I left DirecTV, because they had dropped TiVo. Of course now they have re-embraced TiVo, but i have no desire to return unless I have no other options.


Well, if someone comes up with a better PVR than the TiVo, I could definitely be persuaded, but so far I haven't seen one. That aside, I tend to agree with you. OTOH, I think it's pretty likely TiVo will be offering an IPTV enabled DVR before too long. I'd be surprised if they don't have one out by late 2010.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> But it doesn't have to be that way - the protocols for two-way service access could be hammered out so that anyone can create a GUI for them as long as their device was approved by CableLabs (or better yet, a neutral standards body). Why did OCAP, i.e. the not-so-open 'OpenCable', end up with cable companies controlling what is loaded on the box?
> IMO the whole intent *should* have been fully open access as long as you are using approved devices, but I guess that it will end up like cellphones and the locked down content on them. Perhaps a hacker's underground will open up for STBs as it has for phones.





ZeoTiVo said:


> because the FCC passed control of the standard to cable companies sicne they said anything from the outside would be too onerous on their business model.
> See also "Economic Crisis" for a larger and more serious context of the same issue.


at the time plenty complained that letting cablelabs control the specs was allowing the fox to watch the hen house. several suggested a 3rd party.

The FCC, IIRC, said that cable was the only one that could get it done fast and the FCC wanted the grand new market for purchesed STB's to happen super quick (how hillarious is that at this point now TEN years later). The FCC also gave like 20 reasons why they didn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. They commented that the best option was to let cablelabs do it and then TRUST cable to do the right thing with the 2-way spec.

Now here it is 10 years later and recent FCC comments sound like they dont beleive cable has done the right thing. who'da thunk????


----------

