# FCC issues (some) decisions in integration ban waivers



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Articles:
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6406655.html?display=Breaking+News
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6406657.html

FCC Press Release:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269446A1.pdf

Rulings:

CableVision - http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-48A1.pdf

Comcast - http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-49A1.pdf

BendBroadband - http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-47A1.pdf

Comments on BBT (downloadable security) - http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-51A1.pdf

The above are available from the Media Bureau page:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/

Basically ... Comcast and big cable companies were shot down. Small cable companies have some wiggle room. CableVision is a bit of a unique situation ...

Nothing yet regarding Verizon.

Congress and / or the courts will be next ...


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

NCTA comments:
http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?hidenavlink=true&type=reltyp2&contentId=3766


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Great info, thanks. So what about existing deployed set top boxes that are not already CC compatible?. Would Comcast and other "bigs" have to replace them with CC compatible boxes right away when Jul 1 2007 rolls around? Or does it only apply to new deployments of set top boxes going forwards? I suppose for instance the Motorola DCT series of set tops would have to be replaced with the DCH series at some point in time.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

moyekj said:


> So what about existing deployed set top boxes that are not already CC compatible?. Would Comcast and other "bigs" have to replace them with CC compatible boxes right away when Jul 1 2007 rolls around? Or does it only apply to new deployments of set top boxes going forwards? I suppose for instance the Motorola DCT series of set tops would have to be replaced with the DCH series at some point in time.


The integration ban applies to new boxes deployed after 7/07. So yes, cable companies can keep using their existing integrated boxes ... they don't have to all of a sudden replace their entire inventory. They can also re-use integrated boxes. Ie, customer turns in an integrated box after 7/07 ... the cable company can lease that box to another customer.

What's also interesting ... the way the regulation is worded ... cable companies can't (or at least aren't supposed to) buy up a whole bunch of new integrated boxes now to deploy after the ban. Ie, the cable companies can re-deploy integrated boxes ... but they can't deploy new ones. No clue exactly how that would be enforced ... but that's the way it's worded.

Basically ... after 7/07 cable companies won't be buying any new DCT boxes ... they'll be buying new DCH boxes. They'll have both deployed in the field (untill all the DCT boxes die / fade away / whatever).


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Yes, thanks much for the info! Bedtime reading....


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

(probably a) Dumb question.

If the Cable companies are going to have to had out Cable Card boxes starting in 7 months, isn't that going to put a crimp in SDV? Or can the DCHs do something that the S3 can't?


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> If the Cable companies are going to have to had out Cable Card boxes starting in 7 months, isn't that going to put a crimp in SDV? Or can the DCHs do something that the S3 can't?


The CableCard capable boxes being sold to cable companies to lease to customers will be perfectly capable of SDV, VOD, iPPV, running the cable company's EPG, etc. etc.

Lack of SDV in the S3 is not a 'CableCard' limitation ... it's a 'standards' (and licensing and a few other things) limitation.

So no, it's not going to put a crimp in SDV.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

Um, I do believe SDV is a limitation of CC 1.0, since SDV requires 2-way communication and CC 1.0 can't do 2-way communication. But I could be wrong.


----------



## RFEngineer (Oct 30, 2006)

The CableCard 1.0 standard does 2-way. Just not in unidirectional devices like the S3...

http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.html


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

The cable companies can do Switched video with the OCAP boxes contracted from LG, Panasonic, and Samsung, as well as the OCAP capability of current Moto boxes. There has been a proposal for a waiver based on a low cost OCAP less box capable of Bidi- apparently FCC left Comcast an out for reapplying for waiver for such a low cost box. 

I thought it was interesting that this seemed to give FCC blessing for downloadable security like DCAS- although it was somewhat ambiguous since it refered to FCC requirements. The way it is worded, I think they could still mean FCC approval only if the ASIC is on a physically removable card. 

Something I just don't understand is why the FCC thinks it has a mandate to get Cableco's to modify their networks to go all digital. It is a high priority because they would entertain allow Comcast "to seek waiver based on a commitment to go all-digital by a date certain such as February 2009."

What is the basis in law for FCC's goal that cableco's not carry analog encoded video?


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

"The Bureau also noted that Cablevision has
ensured that its SmartCard works with all consumer electronics devices that can use
CableCARDs."

Really? How does that work? Anyone got one (two) in an S3?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

vman41 said:


> "The Bureau also noted that Cablevision has
> ensured that its SmartCard works with all consumer electronics devices that can use
> CableCARDs."
> 
> Really? How does that work? Anyone got one (two) in an S3?


I gather from the article they have a CableCard device that you insert the SmartCard into.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

dt_dc said:


> NCTA comments:
> http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?hidenavlink=true&type=reltyp2&contentId=3766


When they make such outlandish claims, they do nothing but look childish and stupid.

As pointed out here, it's not like this all happens overnight; it's just the beginning, and no doubt the economy of scale is going to kick in as well.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> I thought it was interesting that this seemed to give FCC blessing for downloadable security like DCAS- although it was somewhat ambiguous since it refered to FCC requirements. The way it is worded, I think they could still mean FCC approval only if the ASIC is on a physically removable card.


I know the Cable Companies wnat to reduce costs everywhere they can, so the socket and connector of a removable card will always seem 'expensive' to them.

But I like the idea. I hope it is seomthing that the FCC will strive for. I'm not sure if the CableCARD spec allows it, but eventually I'd like to see a technology where I can move the CAS device aroundmy home from device to device without notifying the Cable Company, and without them needing to do anything.

That's the down side of DCAS, even if it catches on in CE equipment. If it's fixed in the box, I'll have to constantly call the cable company if I want to save money by only activating a subset of my devices at one time - Which some people are likely to do given all these 'addtiional outlet' fees.

-Kyle


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> What is the basis in law for FCC's goal that cableco's not carry analog encoded video?


Congress trying to cover their a$$ ... er, sorry ... Congress instructed the FCC to 'promote the digital transition'.


----------



## cramer (Aug 14, 2000)

dt_dc said:


> NCTA comments:
> http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?hidenavlink=true&type=reltyp2&contentId=3766


*shakes head* Are they _really_ that stupid? The whole point is that consumers can stop renting those f'ing cable boxes in the first place. *We* want a tivo. Most people will be happy to shove a cableCARD(tm) in their spankin-new HD TV and be done with it... pretty much the same thing we've been able to do for almost 20 years with "cable ready" TVs. (sans the scrambled premium channels.)

I don't doubt the "$600mil" number. Let's be truthful about that "tax". That's money the cableco's are going to have to make up somewhere else when people stop renting those blasted cable set-top boxes. And they'll have to charge more for those who do still rent them because they'll have to replace them with new cableCARD(tm) based ones.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

cramer said:


> *shakes head* Are they _really_ that stupid? The whole point is that consumers can stop renting those f'ing cable boxes in the first place. *We* want a tivo. Most people will be happy to shove a cableCARD(tm) in their spankin-new HD TV and be done with it... pretty much the same thing we've been able to do for almost 20 years with "cable ready" TVs. (sans the scrambled premium channels.)
> 
> I don't doubt the "$600mil" number. Let's be truthful about that "tax". That's money the cableco's are going to have to make up somewhere else when people stop renting those blasted cable set-top boxes. And they'll have to charge more for those who do still rent them because they'll have to replace them with new cableCARD(tm) based ones.


Actually, earlier in the thread it says that only new deployments (and possibly only new *purchases*) need to be CableCARD based. Existing boxes can continue to be used.

I'd like to see the FCC stick to its guns about CAS portability. I think the CableCARD regulations should already allow end users to move the cards between devices. By allowing DCAS it seems like the FCC will be allowing the CableCo's more freedom to lock access to a specific device, and require us to call them and pay '(Remote) installation fees' to move the access to new deivces we might buy.

-Kyle


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Just finished the speed read of the Comcast ruling.

All I can say is WOW!

Looks like the FCC has been clipping every snippet in print that Comcast has said for the past few years and been storing it to use against them. The amount of footnotes using Comcasts own comments to poke wholes in their reasoning is pretty amazing. Some pages have more footnotes than actual text!

Now I know what big companies make their lawyers filter every public word. They have quotes that look like they come from magazine articles and other stuff like that.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dt_dc said:


> Congress trying to cover their a$$ ... er, sorry ... Congress instructed the FCC to 'promote the digital transition'.


Which congress was that? The congress that was going to only honor a fraction of the vouchers on a first come first served basis, or the congress that says that the government is not going to make a 10 billion profit, while the poorest americans are left to pick up the bills for converter boxes?

Was that the congress that was willing to accomodate the business interests of cablecos wanting to lock out competitors to their set top boxes? Sure, maybe there was a deal in there somewhere to "work with business" (to trade compliance with the 1996 Telecom law) in order to make the plight of po' folk less burdensome. If cutting such deals with business worked so well for FEMA on the Katrina contracts, why not with the FCC? I recall a mandate for subsidizing analog cable users during the digital transition of *public airwaves*. The mandate was not to subsidize cableco's efforts to coerce their analog users over to digital cable.

Let's take note that Pelosi's constituency in San Francisco is using public airwaves for public wireless access. Is it possible that some of the freed up spectrum could get reserved for something like say- a public WIFI mesh network? I don't think there is any reason to believe the use of the freed spectrum will remain unalterred. There are many interesting things that can be done with such spectrum that furthers social goals held by democrats, and there was much to be learned from mistakes the europeans made with their huge spectrum sell offs.

Also the shift in economics will be more carefully considered. Also let's take note of Scott Atkinson's (manager of news at a local new york OTA station) remarks on the digital transition. It seems to me that local broadcasters of free content are also footing the bill- they will have to pay millions and millions just to get what they provide now. Is this the party that favors snuffing out decentralized grass roots local voices in favor of centralized media voices?

It's natural for them to question who will buy that freed up spectrum and consider the social impact of use of that spectrum. Verizon and the usual suspects are going to buy it and we can already see in their products what they are using it for.

*We are watching nothing less than the conversion of spectrum over from free video to pay video. * Is that in the public's interest?

And it won't be more efficient either because though it is digital it is now single point PPV and VOD broadcasts rather than broadcast to hundreds of thousands of homes simultaneously.

Hey- but it's digital. Let's see how long this conventional congressional "wisdom" for the last 10 years survives when another party is running the hearings.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> *We are watching the conversion of spectrum over from free video to pay video. * Is that in the public's interest?


I was amused to find that I'm able to receive over 40 different channels of programming via 8VSB -- all free. Sure, there's stuff in Korean and Spanish I'd never tune to, but it's there for free if I wanted. And if I turned the antenna towards Philadelphia, there's at least a dozen more channels I can receive. Free. (Haven't checked out Philly lately, so it might be more than a dozen).

Now granted, too many (IMO) of those are PBS stations. It seems every NJ PBS station puts out 4 or 5 subchannels, and I can get at least 3 different NJ PBS station broadcasts. But they're there. And free.

The ion (Paxson) station now broadcasts Qubo, a kids channel. The local CW station puts out The Tube, a music channel. It can't be that long before we see some deals in place for some of the common cable channels to experiment with free broadcast in major metro areas... FX, SciFi, USA all seem like prime candidates.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

No, it sounds great if this materializes for most OTA folks in the country. I too read long ago of the promise of 4 channels for the price of one. 

Scott said that the realities are that it was a hustle. Maybe there are different economics at work in megalopolis's like where you live. IF they are mostly PBS stations, maybe not.

You mentioned rotating your antenna to pick up philly. Do you have to be a jock to recieve so many stations, or do you think that normal foks will be able to pick up omnidirectional things from Rat shack and be able to do away with cable?


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Which congress was that? The congress that was going to only honor a fraction of the vouchers on a first come first served basis, or the congress that says that the government is not going to make a 10 billion profit, while the poorest americans are left to pick up the bills for converter boxes?


Yes, that one ...

You see, when the proverbial 'Grandpa J6P' gets his letter from the cable company that they are going 'all digital' soon (_before_ the OTA cut-off of course) and his 1970 Magnavox analog TV might not work anymore to get all the channels he's used to getting ... and that he should get one of these new 'digital' TVs or DVD-Rs or VCR or some other 'digital' tuner ... or else he's going to have to start (gasp) renting a box from the cable company ...

'Grandpa J6P' is just naturally going to go down to Best Buy and pick up a brand spanking new 'digital' TV. He'll be amazed at all the 'digital' OTA stations he gets. He'll tell all his friends to get new 'digital' TVs. He'll be a little peeved at his _cable company_ for breaking his perfectly-functional 1970 Magnavox analog TV but ... so it goes. He won't even notice when the analog stations go dark. Won't dream of blaming Washington for breaking his perfectly-functional 1970 Magnavox analog TV. Certainly won't be needing one of those voucher things.

Oh, and there's some other issues for Washington to address (like digital-must-carry) ... or re-address ... or change ... that are a heck of alot easier if cable companies suddenly have a little bit of space and can't whine and complain about 'lack of bandwidth'.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> You mentioned rotating your antenna to pick up philly. Do you have to be a jock to recieve so many stations, or do you think that normal foks will be able to pick up omnidirectional things from Rat shack and be able to do away with cable?


I have two antennas... a Channel Master 4228 on a rotator in the attic, and a Square Shooter mounted outside, under the eaves. The 4228 is my "exploration" antenna; the Square Shooter is what all my OTA receivers are hooked up to now except for the HDHomeRun.

The Square Shooter is just an 18"x18"x4" antenna that's just mounted on a post screwed onto the eaves of my house. Aimed toward NYC.

The Zenith Silver Sensor and similar indoor antennas are reasonably close to the same performance as the Square Shooter. Of course being inside is a bit of a handicap, but they work for quite a few people.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

So ... finally having read some of the decisions ...

The 'all digital' thing is interesting.

Ok, so any cable company (Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) can re-apply for a waiver "based on a commitment to go all-digital by a date-certain such as February 2009 or sooner, when broadcasters will cease their analog operations." BendBroadband is getting their waiver (conditionally) based on their promise to do so. They have to actually commit (submit affidavits and such).

But ... that's one way to get a waiver. Go all-digital.

Is there an end-date on BendBroadband's waiver? Ie, do they get a waiver impertuity ... or for some limited time ... or untill some other even happens? I'll have to look that up.

Will Comcast, Cox, Time Warner take the FCC up on that? Heck, will the small cable companies take the FCC up on that? Interesting ...

As others have noted ... that would seem to potentially 'push' SDV back too. Drop analogs ... frees up lots of space ... no SDV needed (for a while anyway).


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Anyone have any pointers on the FCC's thinking on SDV?

It seems to me if making it easy for CE devices to plug and play is so important, then allowing companies to move stuff to SDV arbitrarily is a step backwards. Doesn't it just give the CableCo's an easy way to force people to rent STB's again? Imagine a system where the Broadcast Basic channels are digital only, and everything else is SDV. Good bandwidth wise for the CableCo... Not so good for the consumer who wants his devices to be able to access the content directly. Not good for the CE vendors who want to sell those devices.

More $$$ for the CableCo too.

Am I missing something?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dt_dc said:


> You see, when the proverbial 'Grandpa J6P' gets his letter from the cable company that they are going 'all digital' soon (before the OTA cut-off of course) and his 1970 Magnavox analog TV might not work anymore to get all the channels he's used to getting ...


Won't happen for a decade at least according to the Cable companies. For example, though the cable companies can drop analog versions of OTA channels when these broadcasters cease transmission of analog in 2009, the CTO of comcast says:


> But even there, we will leave a set of analog channels onI'm just guessing for another five years or so. That's so basic-only subscribers or third or fourth TVs in the home can tune a set of 20 or 30 channels. I think that's in place for another decade. And I think for another five years, 60 or so [analog] channels are in place. source


Personally, I think the FCC was throwing them empty opportunities at a waiver resubmission. Cableco's won't submit for a waiver of "low end" boxes that don't do bi directional, and they aren't going to commit to all digital (meaning no analog) by 2009.

So that leaves the "not the same" Congress (bad bet), or the courts (even worse given the August 2006 ruling in the DC circuit.)

Goody. Looks like we will be getting MCards this time for sure. What a coincidence they will show up in time for the cableco boxes that will need them. Two years late, but who's complaining. No more double charging and all those second card install glitches.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

When would I support an permanent waiver on the integration ban? When would I support a totally proprietary Conditional Access System?

When the Video Provider provides me with one device that sits where the signal enters my premises, and converts the signals that I'm eligible for into clear unencrypted signals that are compatible (QAM or ATSC) *and free to be used with* any device (subject to the FCC flags already on the content) I can feed the signal into.

There isn't any reason to still charge by the TV set, or the 'outlet'. They provide programming, I watch it. The phone companies haven't charged by the number of phones in my house in about 30 years... Why should the Cable Company?

This would fix any future Switched Digital video rollout too. They can switch only the streams I'm watching to my house, as long as they then send them out on the right channels through my wiring allowing my QAM or ATSC tuners to tune them in.

Digital TV is great. HD TV is even better, but for all those people who invested in CableCARD technology to be left hanging when CableCO's upgrade to SDV is wrong. To force them to rent a STB is wrong. 

It seems a CableCompany owned 'Point of Entry Decryption Device' included in the Monthly fee for the whole house could solve all these problems.

The cable company could still offer (probably simpler) STB's for PPV and VOD. When a spec is finalized and Bidirectional CE devices appear, Consumers would still be able to optionally do without those STB's also.

Am I missing something? (Other than the fact that it would loosen the monopolistic grip the CableCo's have on me?)

-Kyle


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

One Pod for the whole family. Oh- you mean like what a Vista media server like a Niveus Rainier would do. And you'll be able to use any format for storage that you want- just so long as it is MSWMV, and the devices you connect to your net support the same.

So it's not like the alternatives are being presented by sweethearts either.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Won't happen for a decade at least according to the Cable companies.


Yes ... I know the cable companys' _plans_. Guess I should have added "that's the theory". Someone once said sarcasm doesn't come accross well in text.

But anyway, obviously the FCC isn't to pleased / thrilled / ecstatic about this long-term-analog-on-cable outlook and are looking for a way to (possibly ... maybe) prod cable into going all digital a little earlier than planned.


Justin Thyme said:


> Personally, I think the FCC was throwing them empty opportunities at a waiver resubmission. Cableco's won't submit for a waiver of "low end" boxes that don't do bi directional, and they aren't going to commit to all digital (meaning no analog) by 2009.


Perhaps. That was my first reaction too. But ... there's a little more behind the scenes ... we shall see.

My other first reaction was that Kevin Martin didn't get many chances to sit at the cool kids table and seemed to relish a little bit in making the announcement at CES (note: his CES appearance was scheduled fairly recently ... Dec. 8). But anyway ...

As far as all-digital ... BendBroadband _said_ they were planning on going all-digital (not just ADS, but all-digital, no analog) by 2008. That's the condition their waiver was granted on. And their 'all-digital' waiver applies to two-way boxes. All-digital ... keep deploying whatever box you want. I can see BendBroadband / Sunflower and some of the other 'small/nimble' companies (that don't exactly piles of cash lying around like Cox, Comcast, etc) doing it. We shall see ...


Justin Thyme said:


> So that leaves the "not the same" Congress (bad bet)


Sununu to the rescue ...
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6405159.html?display=Breaking+News

Ok, perhaps he won't get his bill passed. Should provide an opportunity to get some nice, fat checks from lobbyists though.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Comcast was saying something like 47 percent of their subs are digital. And since the US statistic is more televisions than people in a household, even in the digital households, there are a lot of sets even in the digital households that are analog.

Are the cableCo's really going to provide that many converter boxes? Just for Comcast case, that is over 10 million boxes and 10 million truck rolls. If the DT700 is $100, it is a billion buck rollout. 

That's if they only provide a single replacement box per analog family. That sort of stingey solution is going to leave a LOT of pissed off customers if the cable companies don't provide more boxes. And then the digital folks are going to want low cost boxes for their extra analog sets... That's more truck rolls, more STB capital needed. 

Was Bend blowing smoke about banning analog totally? I wonder if Bend really will submit the avadavits / announcements fully expecting it to be a fiasco they can blame on the FCC- so they can weasel out in the face of a consumer backlash that they can fully document to the FCC. That would be a cute strategy. 

The big complaint driving this is that a cablecard box cannot be built for under $100. Well duh- the cableco's forced the cablecard solution to require enough processing power to support a Java virtual machine (OCAP). The proprietary under $100 box doesn't have to do OCAP. That was what the CEA was up in arms about in their November filing. Therefore, since proprietary = cheaper, then the cableco is free to make all sorts of economic arguments that cablecard is an unfair government burden. 

Funny how that worked out that way.

It is such a charade, yet the FCC lets Bend off the hook "under regulations 1.3 and 74.7." Well- that's the- we-can-waive-anything-we-like-if-we-think-it-is-a-good-idea regulations. None of those regs say anything about an FCC mandate to eradicate all analog encoding of video in the US. 

The social good is to free up public airwaves for other purposes, period. Public airwaves. Not what is carried on copper or glass. Verizon is using glass into the house and is providing analog in FIOS homes. They have gobs of bandwidth and they still provided analog. 

The FCC has let these guys slide for a decade. It's time to put an end to the games played with the stacked cablecard deck.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Comcast was saying something like 47 percent of their subs are digital. And since the US statistic is more televisions than people in a household, even in the digital households, there are a lot of sets that don't have an STB.
> 
> Are the cableCo's really going to provide that many converter boxes? Just for comcast case, that is over 10 million boxes and 10 million truck rolls. If the DT700 is $100, it is a billion buck rollout.


Now ... yes. What will the % be in 2009? Especially as Comcast pumps free VOD and Digital Sports tiers and all these other 'wonders' they've promised with 'digital' cable?

Heck, one of cable's own goals / intents is to keep upping their % of digital subs.

You know who I could see taking the all-digital out? Verizon. The FCC still hasn't ruled on their request ...

Verizon's only got a few analog channels anyway (locals / PEGs). Sure ... all digital by 2009 along with OTA. Why not? Oh, and cable is going to keep analog around to please Grandpa J6P with his 1970 Magnavox. Ok ... in the meantime we'll keep buying and leasing these cheaper (by cables estimates ... dramatically cheaper) integrated boxes. Subscriber costs ... especially for those high-end HD loving DVR loving subs will be lower than cable's.

Go ahead cable ... keep the analogs ...

Hmm ...


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> Comcast was saying something like 47 percent of their subs are digital. And since the US statistic is more televisions than people in a household, even in the digital households, there are a lot of sets even in the digital households that are analog.


No one is talking about the other side of the equation. As analog channels are removed, bandwidth is freed up and that bandwidth gets put to use by the cable company to make more money. So sure, there's an expense to provide digital cable boxes to subscribers, but the upside is once you've done that, you have more than twice the bandwidth you've been using previously for digital services available for more digital services, many of which likely will be at a cost to the subscriber.

And if it's just a matter of accommodating grandpa with his 1970's analog television set, these cheap digital tuner boxes don't need to be addressable; they don't need to handle PPV or VOD; and they don't need to decrypt anything. They don't need a CableCard, and they don't need the FCC's permission. They just need to be QAM tuners. And those are substantially cheaper than $100.

Anything more than that means the cable company wants to build a revenue source by equipping these people with hardware that might encourage them to spend more money on occasion. And in those cases, again, the financial benefit derived would go towards paying off the investment in hardware infrastructure.

Now if the cabhle company desires to encrypt all channels so as to protect their signal from any theft of services, then there's financial incentive to them to provide more capable, more expensive hardware, as it'll reduce or eliminate the ability to steal signals, and thus may also lead to more income as people now have to subscribe to get anything. So someone stealing basic analog cable from a neighbor to avoid paying $10 a month might end up spending $10 a month and need a cheapo $100-$150 box -- a box also capable of VOD, PPV and decrypting higher cost services, all of which can be more potential revenue to the cable company; and that's well within accepted investment/return for such businesses.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

dswallow said:


> vman41 said:
> 
> 
> > "The Bureau also noted that Cablevision has
> ...


Correct. It's listed in several places in the PDF file of the FCC ruling on Cablevision, linked in Post 1 of this thread. Here are the key areas of the ruling regarding Cablevision's use of SmartCards:



> 5. In addition, Cablevision states that its SmartCard-based separate-security solution is compatible with CableCARD-ready consumer electronics devices. With the use of an adapter, CableCARD-ready consumer-electronics devices are supported by Cablevisions SmartCard-based conditional access system. Accordingly, Cablevision believes that it complies with Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commissions rules and that its continued use of SmartCards will not affect Cablevisions continued support of CableCARDs for third-party, CableCARD-ready CE devices, and will not adversely impact customers experience with such CableCARDs.





> (Cablevisions SmartCard solution promotes common reliance on the industry standard CableCard solution because every manufacturers CableCard-compatible set top box is compatible with Cablevisions network.





> Cablevision has demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, however, including its efforts stretching back to 2001 to implement the integration ban36 and its work to ensure the compatibility of SmartCard technology with CableCARD devices.





> With respect to compliance with the requirement Section 76.1204(a)(1) to provide the conditional access function in a separate device, the Commission intended that all of the conditional access functions  including decryption of the protected content  be performed by the separate-security element.47 Because Cablevisions SmartCards rely upon the Cablevision-leased set-top box, or, in the case of the Cablevision-provided SmartCard/CableCARD combination device, the CableCARD adapter, we conclude that Cablevisions SmartCard-based approach is not consistent with the definition of conditional access in Section 76.1200(e).


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

RFEngineer said:


> The CableCard 1.0 standard does 2-way. Just not in unidirectional devices like the S3...
> 
> http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.html


Interesting reading. I wonder why then did Tivo claim it was the CC 1.0 limitation that prevented them from doing SDV and that only CC 2.0 would solve that?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

A physical card compliant with cablecard 1.0- will do bi directional communication. However, a device cannot do bi directional communication by conforming to the cablecard 1.0 spec.

The Host device must implement OCAP and a do a bunch of other things if it can use that card for two way communication. These extra things are documented in the cablecard 2.0 spec.

There is a wikipedia article on cablecards that might be helpful.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dswallow said:


> No one is talking about the other side of the equation. As analog channels are removed, bandwidth is freed up and that bandwidth gets put to use by the cable company to make more money. So sure, there's an expense to provide digital cable boxes to subscribers, but the upside is once you've done that, you have more than twice the bandwidth you've been using previously for digital services available for more digital services, many of which likely will be at a cost to the subscriber.
> 
> And if it's just a matter of accommodating grandpa with his 1970's analog television set, these cheap digital tuner boxes don't need to be addressable; they don't need to handle PPV or VOD; and they don't need to decrypt anything.


 Actually- it is far more than double. 10 analog channels frees up 240 switched SD channels. Not that video will take over the 2/3's of their bandwidth now devoted to analog. One channel = 200 digital phone calls with QOS better than internet.

Bend was not satisfied with the cheapo Qam tuner box without bi directional, and because of the profit motives you mention, I don't suppose we'll see any of those FCC qualifying minimalist converter boxes from any of the cable companies.

The interview with the Comcast CTO I linked to is interesting- Fellows gives a picture into their thinking- a proprietary network with boxes running an OS that they control. Better than internet- delivered to the living room. And they do not want Sony, Microsoft, Cisco, Intel or Apple muscling in.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> The interview with the Comcast CTO I linked to is interesting- Fellows gives a picture into their thinking- a proprietary network with boxes running an OS that they control. Better than internet- delivered to the living room. And they do not want Sony, Microsoft, Cisco, Intel or Apple muscling in.


Do a Google for TCI, Malone, "Walled Garden" ... this view goes back to the early 90's and the very birth of digital cable.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> Actually- it is far more than double. 10 analog channels frees up 240 switched SD channels. Not that video will take over the 2/3's of their bandwidth now devoted to analog. One channel = 200 digital phone calls with QOS better than internet.


I was talking about the raw available bandwidth; of the bandwidth these cable systems are capable of carrying, typically about 1/3rd of it is devoted to digital services (internet, voice, video) and 2/3rds to analog services.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dt_dc said:


> Do a Google for TCI, Malone, "Walled Garden" ... this view goes back to the early 90's and the very birth of digital cable.


My view is that it was a reaction to Microsoft's successful running demos of VOD in 1996 to Malone and other leading Cable execs that they provide the software for cable company head ends and STBs. TCI was aware of earlier work dating from 1992, and easily predated anything faintly real from the cable companies. I wrote something about it a while back.

Cable dudes were in the stone age in 1992, and still haven't figured out how to execute a system strategy.

My view is that after frittering away all of their lead, they never will.

But I could be wrong. In that case, Tivo would be a killer OCAP app, so I wouldn't be that unhappy. I just don't think the cable guys realize the barbarians are going to take them down if they don't start acting as paranoid as Andy Grove recommends high tech companies behave.


----------



## RFEngineer (Oct 30, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> A physical card compliant with cablecard 1.0- will do bi directional communication. However, a device cannot do bi directional communication by conforming to the cablecard 1.0 spec.
> 
> The Host device must implement OCAP and a do a bunch of other things if it can use that card for two way communication. These extra things are documented in the cablecard 2.0 spec.
> 
> There is a wikipedia article on cablecards that might be helpful.


Rather than rely on "wikis", how about the actual ANSI standard as set forth by the SCTE. (Interestingly enough, the link I posted earlier references this exact wikipedia post as a source of misinformation regarding CableCard capabilities.)

The OCAP 1.0 was established in December of 2001, and devices conforming to the CableCard 1.0 spec are quite able to perform 2-way communications under that (now 5-year-old) standard -- as long as they were designed that way.

It was the CE manufacturers that wanted another standard based on 1-way, for simplicity and low-cost. Cablelabs specs still provided for 2-way using the OCAP 1.0 and CableCard 1.0.

http://www.scte.org/documents/pdf/ANSISCTE282004.pdf

See section 4.2 and 4.4 for 2-way network block-diagrams using the 1.0 standards.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Ok, tell me, what is the format of the data sent on the bi directional link, as well as any information related to how to set up a VOD, PPV or switched video interaction with the head end.

Sorry pal. Not in the CC 1.0 spec. For example, see page 15.

"This serial data is used primarily to send conditional access entitlement management messages from the cable system to the POD Module. These messages are beyond the scope of this standard."

Rather than pointing at specs, perhaps it would be better to read them.


----------



## RFEngineer (Oct 30, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Ok, tell me, what is the format of the data sent on the bi directional link, as well as any information related to how to set up a VOD, PPV or switched video interaction with the head end.
> 
> Sorry pal. Not in the CC 1.0 spec. For example, see page 15.


Obviously headend setup isn't going to be in the interface spec, but everything else you need to do 2-way is in the Interface Standard. Just read it and see. You need to get past page 15 though. Try around 161 to 184.

Additionally, from Cablelabs own site, regarding the 1.0 spec...

From the very early specifications and draft standards, the CableCARD module has been a two-way device. That is, it included the functionality to enable two-way communication on the cable plant. This two-way communication is necessary for a variety of advanced cable services including video on demand (VOD), switched digital video (SDV), interactive services and applications.

The media has frequently reported that first-generation CableCARD 1.0 modules are one-way devices. This is simply not true. CableLabs had always intended to develop the CableCARD module and host receiver standards with two-way capability. However the manufacturers of digital TVs requested that a host standard be developed that only had one-way capability. This one-way cable-ready receiver was defined by the FCC's Plug & Play order and by the Joint Test Suite (JTS). It is the definition of this one-way receiver that lacks the ability for two-way functionality, not the CableCARD module. While the FCC defined the elements of the one-way cable-ready receiver, CableLabs continued to define specifications for two-way receivers.

When a CableCARD 1.0 module is used with a two-way receiver (e.g., Samsung HLR5067C) that card supports all the necessary two-way functionality for VOD, SDV, and other interactive services.

http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.html

Also, you misunderstood what was being said on page 15. Conditional access is covered in another spec (http://www.scte.org/documents/pdf/ANSISCTE412004.pdf) which is why it was "beyond the scope of this standard" for the Interface Standard I referenced.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Really, you are very confused.

There is NOTHING in the Cablecard 1.0 specs that tells anyone how to build a host that can do VOD, PPV or switched video.

The cablecards will support bidirectional communication, they will support unidirectional. Big deal. 

OpenCable's faq page on cablecards makes it very clear that only Hosts that conform to the opencable 2.0 spec are capable of two way communication. They say that the wikipedia article is incorrect about cablecards, but the article seems to make it very clear that the MCARDS and SCARDS both support unidirectional and bidirectional. Perhaps their faq page was refering to some version of the article long ago.

For a device to do bidirectional, a host must conform to the CC2.0 spec and put in a bunch of crap like OCAP. If the CEA has it's way, there will be a way for CE companies to do these bidirectional features without making themselves the serfs of the cable company's Operating system.


----------



## RFEngineer (Oct 30, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Really, you are very confused.
> 
> There is NOTHING in the Cablecard 1.0 specs that tells anyone how to build a host that can do VOD, PPV or switched video.
> 
> ...


Of course the CableCard spec is just an interface standard, and not a receiver design. However, you do not require CC 2.0 to create a bi-directional device.

Samsung's HLR5067C was certified (2-way) in August of '05 and is based on the 1.0 standard.

Can you link me to where OpenCable's faq makes it very clear that only hosts that conform to the opencable 2.0 spec are capable of two way communication?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Look at what this spec is talking about. Who cares about using cablecard as a Cable Modem? No one here cares about that kind of bidirectionality or the Docsis bidi features. They care about VOD, PPV and switched video, and you won't find it in any of the 1.0 specs. The reason why is not because the CE companies wanted something dumbed down, as the Cablelabs site presents the story. The reason why is that they were not going to have OCAP and a bunch of other things shoved down their throats. 

The Samsung HLR5067C is an OCAP device, and is conformant to Opencable 2.0. 

Besides specification of OCAP, the 2.0 spec covers other requirements of the host, including transmitters. This info is not in the 1.0 specs nor have these specifications been approved by the FCC as the 1.0 specs have.

The Cablelabs faq states: "The ability to support two-way and interactive cable services such as VOD and SDV is a responsibility shared between the CableCARD module and the Host. There are circuits and functionalities needed on both sides of the CableCARD module interface to complete the connection and to enable full two-way signaling....

Only products compliant with the OpenCable Host 2.0 specifications include the transmitters capable of supporting all three upstream protocols."

Yeah, and Cablelabs also neglects to add, the OCAP Operating system, because that is the software that handles the handshake with the Host. A Java virtual machine for doing trivial communications? The CE companies balked at such an overkill solution.

Isn't that odd how cablelabs neglects to even mention OCAP in their entire Cablecard primer. It happens to be at the crux of the dispute between CEA and NCTA over the Cablecard spec impasse that has been going on for about 8 years now....

Some primer.


----------



## RFEngineer (Oct 30, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Look at what this spec is talking about. Who cares about using cablecard as a Cable Modem? No one here cares about that kind of bidirectionality or the Docsis bidi features. They care about VOD, PPV and switched video, and you won't find it in any of the 1.0 specs.


I am not certain why you continue to assert that VOD, PPV, et al., are not defined in the CableCard 1.0 ANSI/SCTE-28 standard.



Justin Thyme said:


> The Samsung HLR5067C is an OCAP device, and is conformant to Opencable 2.0.


The fact remains that it is an example of a device which implements the SDV, PPV and VOD 2-way protocols using the CableCard 1.0 standard.



Justin Thyme said:


> Only products compliant with the OpenCable Host 2.0 specifications include the transmitters capable of supporting all three upstream protocols."


OpenCable Host 2.0 includes device specifications -- far beyond the interface specs contained in SCTE-28 -- but does not preclude the use of CableCard 1.0 PODs in its implementation.

Here is my summary:
You took issue with the statement I made declaring that CableCard 1.0 devices could be (and have been) built using that specification and achieve 2-way capability.

I gave an example of such a device from Samsung.

Had you continued to quote the faq you started above, it subsequently stated:

"On the other hand, CableCARD modules always were designed to support two-way functionality, including the original CableCARD 1.0 interface specifications. The CableCARD module includes the knowledge of the upstream transmission standards and protocols used by each cable operator and is able to format and prepare messages for that protocol. Those upstream messages are sent to the Host device for transmission (when so equipped). The upstream transmitter also is under the complete control of the CableCARD module to set frequency and output power. CableCARD modules are equipped to recognize the presence of these upstream transmitters in an OpenCable Host device and to use them as necessary."


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

RFEngineer said:


> I am not certain why you continue to assert that VOD, PPV, et al., are not defined in the CableCard 1.0 ANSI/SCTE-28 standard.


Yes, they are ... but ...


RFEngineer said:


> You took issue with the statement I made declaring that CableCard 1.0 devices could be (and have been) built using that specification and achieve 2-way capability.


"achieve 2-way capability" is a tricky statement. Can the Samsung HLR5067C "achieve 2-way capability" in Time Warner's little test-lab down in the Carolinas (and probably a Cox test-lab somewhere and a Comcast test-lab somewhere)? Yes ... sure. Can it "achieve 2-way capability" on *any* other cable system in the United States right now? No. Could Samsung sell me the HLR5067C and after I bring it home I'd be able to call up my cable company and make it "achieve 2-way capability"? No.

If I heave a pig off the Empire State Building have I made it possible for pigs to "achieve flight"?


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> Yes, they are ... but ..."achieve 2-way capability" is a tricky statement. Can the Samsung HLR5067C "achieve 2-way capability" in Time Warner's little test-lab down in the Carolinas (and probably a Cox test-lab somewhere and a Comcast test-lab somewhere)? Yes ... sure. Can it "achieve 2-way capability" on *any* other cable system in the United States right now? No. Could Samsung sell me the HLR5067C and after I bring it home I'd be able to call up my cable company and make it "achieve 2-way capability"? No.
> 
> If I heave a pig off the Empire State Building have I made it possible for pigs to "achieve flight"?


So the spec allows the creation of devices that could work?

But the monopolists refuse to make the networks capable of working with such devices?

Hmm....

As much as I dislike Regulation, I think I'm glad the FCC is watching this closely... I almost think they're not taking a ahard enough line.

Even if Verizon succeds, if they take the same track as the CableCo's I still won't be able to as a consumer 'vote with my wallet' like I can with other products.

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> One Pod for the whole family. Oh- you mean like what a Vista media server like a Niveus Rainier would do. And you'll be able to use any format for storage that you want- just so long as it is MSWMV, and the devices you connect to your net support the same.
> 
> So it's not like the alternatives are being presented by sweethearts either.


No that's not what I meant.

I meant that like I can plug as many phones of what ever type I want into my phone outlets, like I can plug as many computers of whatever kind I want into my home network. I should be able to plug in as many TV's, PVR's Tuner Cards in my PC's, etc as I want, and have access to all content I subscribe to on all of them without:

1) the cable company's knowledge or approval.
2) needing any actions on the Cable company's side of the network.
3) paying any additional money.

I have that with phones, internetaccess, gas and electrical utilities... Why not with the Cable Utility?

Like the Cable modem translates the Cable Company's encodings to something standard I can use (USB or Ethernet). I want a device that will convert whatever form they choose to deliver the video with to a form I can use (ATSC or ClearQAM) to view it on any device I choose.

-Kyle


----------



## RFEngineer (Oct 30, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> If I heave a pig off the Empire State Building have I made it possible for pigs to "achieve flight"?


CableLabs certified the Samsung box for use in cable-systems as a 2-way device.

Did the FAA certify the pig for flightworthiness?


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

kjmcdonald said:


> Like the Cable modem translates the Cable Company's encodings to something standard I can use (USB or Ethernet). I want a device that will convert whatever form they choose to deliver the video with to a form I can use (ATSC or ClearQAM) to view it on any device I choose.


If I were verizon, I'd seriously consider this before investing heavily in other equipment. It would cost alot probably for the CableCo's to change to this paradigm, but for Verizon (or other newcomers) it would be not only easier, but it would also be a 'product differentiator'.

Everyone hates set top boxes. If the the Content Deliverer (that's all verizon or ComCast, etc. are - just like Nationgrid is an electricity deliverer) would play nice with the CE vendors and make VOD, PPV, SDV easier and cheaper so that people could have it in the devices they already wnat and have to buy, It seems so obvious that any lost rental revenue, can totally be replaced by the increased VOD, PPV, revenue that all those additional devices will generate.

Not to mention the savings on the cost side for the CableCo's. I constantly see here how Cable DVR's are seen as having the 'future tech proof' feature, or the 'neverending repair service' feature. Both of those have got to cost the Cable Co's quite a bit of money. Or Tivo would be offering it with their service! How much less money did the phone company make when they stopped leasing (and buying and repairing) phones? I bet not much if any at all... I bet they made more!

Making this move in cable (or satellite even) like was made with the phones, (and just happened on it's own with the internet) seems like an even better way than CableCARDs.

But until then I'll take my CableCARD thank you very much!

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

RFEngineer said:


> CableLabs certified the Samsung box for use in cable-systems as a 2-way device.
> 
> Did the FAA certify the pig for flightworthiness?


How many networks are certifed for use with the Samsung box?

Is there any regulation that forces a cable company to make the box's VOD, PPV, etc features work on their network?

-Kyle


----------



## RFEngineer (Oct 30, 2006)

kjmcdonald said:


> How many networks are certifed for use with the Samsung box?
> 
> Is there any regulation that forces a cable company to make the box's VOD, PPV, etc features work on their network?
> 
> -Kyle


I'm not in the cable business, so I cannot answer those questions.

But I've been an RF-communications systems-design engineer for more than 30 years (10 back in the analog days, and the rest doing digital.) So I know how to read an interface-spec and interpret device-design guidelines in order to create a compatible product. Its all in there as far as I can tell.

How anyone can say that the 2-way design considerations are NOT included in SCTE-28 is patently beyond my understanding. What dt_dc says is also correct, in that this design may not fit into each of the various cable corporation's schemes regarding their infrastructure. Again, I defer to those actually in the field to supply those answers.

I can fully appreciate Tivo's (and the rest of the CE community's) desire to produce cheaper 1-way products using the alternative host-design certified by CableLabs with their 1.0 CableCard -- but to conclude that this implies that a 2-way design is not possible given the Interface Standard set forth, is just plain wrong. Perhaps not practical, but certainly possible.

From the CES blurbs coming out of LV this week, it appears that all of the big-players are deploying the newer OCAP version in order to provide more capable solutions using CableCard. This is great for the consumer who will now have more choices for home-devices used to enjoy cable content.

Unfortunately, this doesn't give me much solace concerning my disappointing decision not to purchase a (1-way) S3 to round out my family of S1 and S2 products. Unlike some here, I would simply not be happy about spending in the neighborhood of $900-$1000 to secure a lifetime'd S3 -- and then be resigned to the fact that it will not be able to tune an increasingly larger number of SDV channels (many in HD) within the next 12-24 months and beyond.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

kjmcdonald said:


> How many networks are certifed for use with the Samsung box?


0 (outside of test labs)


kjmcdonald said:


> Is there any regulation that forces a cable company to make the box's VOD, PPV, etc features work on their network?


No. Cable companies have never committed to it working by a date-certain either. They are currently saying that it should work on a majority of systems (but certainly not all) by mid-2009. Note that this date keeps getting pushed back ... they've committed before to mid-2008 ... late-2008 ... etc.

And, quite frankly, things may very well change by then (mid-2008) so it won't work.

Is it technically possible to currently make a two-way box if all you want to do is look at the specs? Yes, sure, it was technically possible to do so all the way back in 2000. Is it realistically possible to manufacture a two-way box and actually sell it to consumers? No. Not now. Comcast and Panasonic have said they hope to make this realistic in early 2008 ... I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

RFEngineer said:


> CableLabs certified the Samsung box for use in cable-systems as a 2-way device.


Yes, but it won't actually *do so* in any cable-systems.


RFEngineer said:


> Did the FAA certify the pig for flightworthiness?


Dunno. Don't care. It flies. It's technicaly possible. I've got to go publish my specs for porcine flight ASAP.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

kjmcdonald said:


> No that's not what I meant.
> 
> I meant that like I can plug as many phones of what ever type I want into my phone outlets, like I can plug as many computers of whatever kind I want into my home network. I should be able to plug in as many TV's, PVR's Tuner Cards in my PC's, etc as I want, and have access to all content I subscribe to on all of them without:
> 
> ...


I knew what you meant Kyle. I want that too. And we have that with analog.

As DT pointed out- the cableco's want video delivery to be their walled garden. They are attempting to create a vertically integrated market- a closed ecosystem like Apple iPod. Because as Microsoft showed, these pseudo monopolies are where the big bucks are.

And the cableco's want to extend the downloadable control access not just to the set top boxes but to all devices that play video. So instead of a PocketDish, you would buy a portable media player from the cable company that would get it's instructions on what you can watch from the mothership.

According to the cablelabs licenses, if you decode their video, you cannot transmit it in the clear around the home. You can't even re-encode it in a protected format approved by the FCC (like TivoGuard). It all must be blessed by Cablelabs, and they aren't going to, because it creates holes in the walled garden.

The CEA proposal breaks this iron grip on home formats, but as I intimated, it isn't going to create the world we want in the home. For each television there will have to be a decoder.

Most video in the home is going to be encoded whether the CE companies get their way or not. The only alternative is if you use a video distribution scheme- like fiber extended hdmi cables.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

kjmcdonald said:


> If I were verizon, I'd seriously consider this before investing heavily in other equipment. It would cost alot probably for the CableCo's to change to this paradigm, but for Verizon (or other newcomers) it would be not only easier, but it would also be a 'product differentiator'.
> 
> Everyone hates set top boxes. If the the Content Deliverer (that's all verizon or ComCast, etc. are - just like Nationgrid is an electricity deliverer) would play nice with the CE vendors and make VOD, PPV, SDV easier and cheaper so that people could have it in the devices they already wnat and have to buy, It seems so obvious that any lost rental revenue, can totally be replaced by the increased VOD, PPV, revenue that all those additional devices will generate.
> 
> ...


actually I think verizon is doing just that. They have a fiber line with digital info somehow that connects to a box at the demarcation point. That box takes your locals and puts them on a coax in NTSC and then puts the rest of the cable channels on the coax as QAM.

The only thing that verizon seems to do messed up is their vod/ppv type stuff is IPTV and needs to speak directly to the proprietary cable box to work. I guess the lack of 2 way consumer devices has somethign to do with that- if there were viable 2 way consumer devices readily availible at retail then I would think they likely would have allowed them for PPV/VOD. Hopefully once some form of retail 2 way devices take hold then vz can update their demarc boxes so those can work.... Verizon with their 180,000 subs spread out over the country isn't a force enough to get any kind of CE standard done. They sort of are at the mercy to see what their competition at Cablelabs comes up with and hopefully they can make that work for them. The FCC NEVER should have allowed cablelabs to be the standard bearer. They should have found a way to force a third party to be in control like the IEEE or ansi or something. Then competitors wanting to do things wouldn't be beholden to whatever cable comes up with....

Incidently- I've seen press releases from a company to make just such a device for converting cable at the entry point to ananlog in the house. If I recall it would be in the ball park of 100 bucks a house. Can't seem to find it on google right now- sorry.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> actually I think verizon is doing just that. They have a fiber line with digital info somehow that connects to a box at the demarcation point. That box takes your locals and puts them on a coax in NTSC and then puts the rest of the cable channels on the coax as QAM.


Fiber is perfectly capable of carrying analog video. Those analog channels are carried (as analog channels) via fiber along with all the rest of Verizon's 860Mhz of RF. All the ONT (on the side of my house) does is take that 860MHz RF being carried on fiber and translate it to 860MHz RF sent via coax. Badda bing ... easy peasy. No massive / multiple D->A conversions being done ...

It's the exact same thing the cable company does. The cable company just does it further away from my house ...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Fiber is perfectly capable of carrying analog video. Those analog channels are carried (as analog channels) via fiber along with all the rest of Verizon's 860Mhz of RF. All the ONT (on the side of my house) does is take that 860MHz RF being carried on fiber and translate it to 860MHz RF sent via coax. Badda bing ... easy peasy. No massive / multiple D->A conversions being done ...
> 
> It's the exact same thing the cable company does. The cable company just does it further away from my house ...


ahhh- learn something new everyday.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> ahhh- learn something new everyday.


Not only that, the encrypted channels you pay for are still unlocked on a per set top box basis. Not a per-home basis.

I used the analogy already that the CableCo's need to be veiewd more the like the electric company, and the gas company:

They are content deliver's, just as the power ompany is basically only an electricity deliverer.

Content genration is done by others these days, like power is generated mosttly by other companies these days.

I think (predict?) that IPTV may force the cable companies into this roll wether they like it or not.

Just like people are using their Cable modems to get their phone service delivered today (VOIP) Verizon and Cable's bandwidth competition will open the way for Tivo, or others to deliver the content over the Cable data network.

Just like I dropped my Comcast Phone line for Vonage over the cable modem, I'll (hopefully) someday be able to drop my Comcast Video Content for an internet based IPTV provider.

The hell with SDV, Digital Cable, CableCards... Digital Video and Voice is all *DATA* Broadband Internet access Carries Data!*

To bad I can't do that today.

*Can someone explain to me the forsight of carrying IPTV dat in DOCSIS data packets that are encapsulted in MPEG2 Digital Video Packets? Why didn't they realize in the beingning that 'It's all Data Stupid!' and make the Data layer the lowest one, put the MPEG Digital video on the data, the Internet on the data, and now that it's here, the ipTV on the data????

Seems like a 'Duh!' to me. But What do I know?

-Kyle


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

dswallow said:


> And if it's just a matter of accommodating grandpa with his 1970's analog television set, these cheap digital tuner boxes don't need to be addressable; they don't need to handle PPV or VOD; and they don't need to decrypt anything. They don't need a CableCard, and they don't need the FCC's permission. They just need to be QAM tuners. And those are substantially cheaper than $100.


It's a *lot* more than grandpa and a 35-year old analog set. It's also all of the *current* analog sets that are still being sold. And yes, they do need to be able to decrypt stations like TNT, TBS, and ESPN. Even those of us with digital sets probably have extra analog sets in the house. I have 3 analog sets if you count the TV card in one of the PCs. One of the TVs is probably only 5 years old. And replacing even a cheap <$100 13" TV in my office isn't going to be all that cheap if Comcast insists of charging all of those sets an extra $5.95 per month for an "additional digital outlet".

.../Ed


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

ewilts said:


> It's a *lot* more than grandpa and a 35-year old analog set. It's also all of the *current* analog sets that are still being sold. And yes, they do need to be able to decrypt stations like TNT, TBS, and ESPN. Even those of us with digital sets probably have extra analog sets in the house. I have 3 analog sets if you count the TV card in one of the PCs. One of the TVs is probably only 5 years old. And replacing even a cheap <$100 13" TV in my office isn't going to be all that cheap if Comcast insists of charging all of those sets an extra $5.95 per month for an "additional digital outlet".


I have no idea where you came up with the additional outlet fee; this whole discussion surrounds how to deal with equivalents for the current analog devices. My comment was that a QAM tuner could be produced very cheaply if all it needed to do was tune and buffer an analog signal from unencrypted QAM. All the cable system need do is provide the basic tier digitally unencrypted. For the value of the freed up bandwidth the cable system will now be able to use for other things, they could afford to give these boxes away to customers as needed.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> I knew what you meant Kyle. I want that too. And we have that with analog.


Not totally. Ideally you'd have access to every channel you pay for. Even on Analog today, if you pay for Analog HBO you have to have a STB.



> As DT pointed out- the cableco's want video delivery to be their walled garden. They are attempting to create a vertically integrated market- a closed ecosystem like Apple iPod. Because as Microsoft showed, these pseudo monopolies are where the big bucks are.


As I wrote in another reply, my hope is that IPTV will blow a hole in that. I'm hoping soon that I'll only have to pay the Cable Company or Verizon for my highspeed internet access.

Come to think of it why not start an internet cable company?

What would it cost me to sign deals with the content generators (the places the CableCo's get their content) and get a super Internet connection, and start selling IPTV today? In the beginning it might be only to devices with an IPTV software, but I bet a company doing this could convince CE vendors to make a STB that could receive this too.



> According to the cablelabs licenses, if you decode their video, you cannot transmit it in the clear around the home. You can't even re-encode it in a protected format approved by the FCC (like TivoGuard). It all must be blessed by Cablelabs, and they aren't going to, because it creates holes in the walled garden.
> 
> The CEA proposal breaks this iron grip on home formats, but as I intimated, it isn't going to create the world we want in the home. For each television there will have to be a decoder.
> 
> Most video in the home is going to be encoded whether the CE companies get their way or not. The only alternative is if you use a video distribution scheme- like fiber extended hdmi cables.


I don't mind the video being encoded inside my home. I understand the need to make sure the content can't be viewed outside my home. I just don't want to be limited to the devices I can use in my home. I'd like to think a device I can bring into my home could copy the content, and then transport it out of the home, but not allow it to leave that device - I don't need that but I be others would want it.

The device that does the conditional access control at the edge of my home could also be made to securely communicate a MAK to the devices in my home Allowing all of them to share the content I'm eligible to view. Transferring content between devices could require both devices to prove they have the same MAK, or to both check in with the Access control device to ensure that transfers only happenned in the home, and were not allowed after leaving the home, or between 2 devices that didn't belong to the same home.

-Kyle


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

kjmcdonald said:


> Come to think of it why not start an internet cable company?


In the traditional sense of 'internet' and 'cable company' ...

QoS, multicasting, a couple other issues.

Or rather, lack of QoS and multicasting standards (and a couple other issues) in IPv4.

Then again, YouTube, Vongo, Akimbo, TivoCasts, etc. etc. etc. Many more that I'm forgetting ... well, these are all 'internet cable companies' in a (non-traditiional) sense. Heck, any ole streaming video web site ...

But what truly seperates 'MVPD' IPTV and 'internet' IPTV is ... QoS and multicasting (and a couple other issues) that may (but most likely will not) be addressed by IPv6 (people tried ... oh well).

If you really want to start an 'internet cable company' now (in the traditional sense) you're going to have to make deals with everyone's internet providers ... who are also all cable companies ... who are just going to skip you and make deals with the content providers themselves so ...


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

RFEngineer said:


> Perhaps not practical, but certainly possible.


Well, this is a technical quibble then, isn't it.

It is not possible for CE companies create commercially viable boxes that access VOD, PPV and switched Video until the FCC mandates a standard for two way communications that all cable companies must support on their head ends. The fact that cablelabs certified a device as two way is meaningless because consumers have no guarantee that a local cable company will support that device. So FCC approval is crucial for commercial viability.

Cablelabs have proposed the CC2.0 specification as this standard. The CEA has agreed to CC2.0 with some tweaks (removal of OCAP, reduction of the power of cablelabs to dictate formats and other allegedly nefarious activities).

Cableco's will not surrender on the OCAP issue because it will mean that they don't get their walled garden. CE companies won't surrender because they don't want the cableco's to have such power over their devices.

It's an impasse that has gone on since CC1.0. My bet is the FCC will rule in favor of CEA's OCAP less proposal, and mandate support of the modified MCards by 2008. This weakens OCAP, since there will be commercial alternatives. Who knows though- maybe the cablecos will roll out some great OCAP applications and people will prefer them to the OCAP less boxes. Maybe the OCAP boxes will be inherently more reliable because they are managed well by the Cable companies (well- stranger things have happened).

Hey- if they do a good job with OCAP, more power to them. What I think most folks prefer is that it happen as a result of free competition, with Intel, Dell, Microsoft, Apple and Philips in with both elbows doing their best to deliver a preferable cable access device. And not because the CableCo's forced everyone to accept OCAP as the price of getting VOD, PPV, and Switched Video.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> My bet is the FCC will rule in favor of CEA's OCAP less proposal, and mandate support of the modified MCards by 2008.


Bwaah hah haaa ... ROTFLMAO.

Funny guy.

Seriously, I'll take that bet. What's the wager? Heck, I'll give 3:1 odds.

Not going to happen by 2008 my friend. Can't happen without _cable_ blowing even more big huge chunks of cash to dig themselves out of their own vendor-lock in ($1+ Billion and counting). _Cable_ can't _practically_ support the CEA's proposal even if they wanted too (sure, I guess they could _technically_ do it but ... oops, earlier discussion).

Don't worry ... something somewhat reasonably similar to what the CEA wants will eventually come out of this whole mess.

Perhaps even early (like 2009 ... 2010) if the CEA and NCTA suddenly find a way to work in peace and harmony and teach the world to sing. Perhaps later (like 2020 ... 2030) after cable has released OCAP to wonderous applause and beaten DBS, telcos, IPTV, and every other possible form of MVPD into submission and become the ONE.

But probably ... something like 2012-2015 after a few stuttering baby-steps into OCHDs and in light of a changing regulatory and marketplace environment ... and after similar agreements have been struck with the telcos and dbs ...

Even if the FCC wanted to ram the CEA's proposal down cable's throat (which is certainly entirely within the realm of possibilities) they (the FCC) couldn't _practically_ do it by 2008. Hence the reason I'm willing to take the bet and lay odds.

Don't worry though. It (or rather, something pretty dang similar) will happen. But not by 2008. No way, no how.

Edit: ugh, lots of typos


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> Bwaah hah haaa ... ROTFLMAO.
> 
> Funny guy.
> 
> ...


And yet in the mean time the cable company can move all or most of it's prgramming to SDV and all devices with CableCARDS will be nearly useless??

-Kyle


----------



## Tough_Nuts (Jan 12, 2007)

vman41 said:


> "The Bureau also noted that Cablevision has
> ensured that its SmartCard works with all consumer electronics devices that can use
> CableCARDs."
> 
> Really? How does that work? Anyone got one (two) in an S3?


I have 2 CC's in my S3.

Works fine as best as I can tell..


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

kjmcdonald said:


> And yet in the mean time the cable company can move all or most of it's prgramming to SDV and all devices with CableCARDS will be nearly useless??


Big picture is easier to see than some of the individual trees in the forrest ...

And I've started responding to JT in that oh-so-charming combination of sarcastic wit and angry rant "big picture view of the world" that he has so ... don't try to read too much into the above post.

SDV can't be accessed by current UDCPs (one way CableCard hosts). SDV can be deployed by cable companies (currently) as they please.

"In the mean time" ... ie, between now and the time frames I was talking above ... 2008 ... 2015 ... 2020 ... alot can and will change.


----------



## blacknoi (Jan 23, 2006)

dswallow said:


> I gather from the article they have a CableCard device that you insert the SmartCard into.


Exactly. I have a s3 ,with 2 cablevision cablecards. Cablevision rents you Scientific Atlanta boxes and the slot in the front is used (a smart card, similar to a direcTV or dish network is in there). Cablevision's implementation of the cablecard is a cablecard-sleve with one of these smart cards inside it.

Theoretically, you could slip that smartcard out of the cablecard and into one of their stbs and get all the channels you receive through that cable box, instead of the cable card. They tie the subscriber info to the smartcard, not the cable box's mac address / serial # etc (unlike time warner... they don't use the smartcard slot).

Cablevision does not marry the smart card to the device. I'm not sure if they marry their cablecard to the tv / tivo / cablecard device.

I wonder why this approach gets a 2 year pass? Its not like I could put this smart card into my tv, its NOT a cablecard.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

It is exceedingly lame the way the cable companies have the ability to require proprietary equipment and draw fees for every TV in the household. As mentioned previously, what if that was the case for every device plugged into an electrical outlet. That would be ridiculous. 

Why is it that cable companies have gotten away with this for so long. I'm pleased to see the FCC finally pushing the integration ban. I have no sympathy for the cable companies. They've had seven years to get their act together which is a huge amount of time. 

Cablecard is a step in the right direction, but it still allows cable companies to do what they've been doing. Cablecard still requires a device for each set. You still have to obtain them and pay fees for them from the company. The best solution, as stated earlier in this thread, would be a decoder at a home's entry point that sends everything through a household in the clear. Why was that never considered?


----------



## Dajad (Oct 7, 1999)

My coverage of this is here:

http://daledietrich.com/imedia/2007/01/12/fcc-chairman-declares-no-more-blanket-cablecard-waivers/


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

It's pretty dry stuff without a little drama.

Seriously though- I don't see how the CE companies will ever accept an OCAP solution that would satisfy Cable Company goals for a walled garden. It seems to me that the FCC will have to take harsh action in order to achieve resolution of the impasse on two way features. Concerning your reference to the changing regulatory environment- the pendulum is swinging the opposite direction now and the political conditions are better now than they ever have been for decisive action.

My understanding was that the main negative on the CEA 2008 proposal was the generic cablecard problems- cost at the low end and higher support/installation costs. Your assertions of significant head end changes is not what I understood to be the case. If it is not the CEA modified MCard proposal, but the downloaded solution, my understanding is that this will require even more significant HE changes than the mod'd MCard. The CEA document talked openly of finding an OCAPless downloadable proposal acceptable- I could see them converging on BBT, helping fund some smaller cableco's showcase the approach and go to the FCC saying, you betcha- BBT is great- mandate that by July 2008, but only if they manage to make it so that it doesn't require just Drake HE's and the one satellite content aggregator.

I just don't see Microsoft, Sony, Intel, Microsoft, and Dell waiting for another 4 years for BBT or DCAS to mature to the point for acceptance as an identical security function. I expect they will stick to their guns and press hard and consistently for a modified MCARD and let the cableco's twist in the wind with their attempts at low cost OCAP platforms using either DCAS or physical cards.

There has been some speculation whether downloadable security met FCC requirements for "separable" security. The FCC reiterated in a separate release that they believe that downloadable security such as that from Beyond Broadband Technology does satisfy the requirements for separable conditional access devices. Such devices would satify the integration ban. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-51A1.pdf

In this document FCC is substituting "severable" for "seperable". The key issue for them is whether common reliance is possible, which I interpret to mean- whether all cable companies and CE companies can build to it. The BBT solution requires a hardware chip like in the DCAS approach, but even if it is soldered onto the motherboard, I understand the FCC's reasoning to be that since the machine could be used in one city then later used in a different city (eg sold on ebay), that the downloaded conditional access component can be severed and so meets the FCC goal for enabling the market of third party cable devices.

So as far as I can see, for VOD, PPV and SWV (switched video), the following choices are on the table:

Cable company's OpenCable 2.0 spec- (removable card + OCAP)
Cable company's Downloadable solution (DCAS +OCAP)
CEA proposal (Modified MCard no OCAP)
Beyond Broadband Technology- alternative downloadable scheme, no OCAP.
What we are seeing, is a divergence of proposals, not convergence on a single proposal. Yet reliance on an *identical security function* is the FCC's goal:



> We believe that common reliance by MVPDs and consumer electronic manufacturers on an *identical security function * will align MVPDs incentives with those of other industry participants so that MVPDs will plan the development of their services and technical standards to incorporate devices that can be independently manufactured, sold, and improved upon. (Source- 2005 deferral- Second report and order)


The 2005 deferral allowed the cableco's two years to come up with a downloadable solution, and they declined to produce one in time. It is clear they have large disincentives to see convergence on an identical security function, because such a function does not result in a federal mandate for their walled garden approach. The integration ban will not force convergence on a single security function. Comcast will comply with the integration ban by providing OCAP cablecard boxes.

Will the current congress allow this to fester for another decade? I doubt it. The cableco's have had 8 years to figure this out, so their cries of mercy due to their infrastructure constraints are utter BS. They painted themselves into whatever corners they will no doubt wail to high heavens about.

If Congress were to authorize FCC powers to change the incentives for Cable companies, then the dynamic could change in short order. For example, if the FCC were empowered to block any further addition or increase in switched video, VOD or PPV until such convergence is acheived, then that would be something of an incentive to the cableco's to cut the crap.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Dajad said:


> My coverage of this is here:
> 
> http://daledietrich.com/imedia/2007/01/12/fcc-chairman-declares-no-more-blanket-cablecard-waivers/


Dale, the ars technica CableCard primer is better than the OpenCable Primer, but I think you should note that it has some problems:

"CableCARDs were one-way devices."- wrong. This mixes up limitations of the 1.0 Cablecard specs, with cablecards.
Page 3- "One obvious development that we have already touched on is the future deployment of CableCARD v2.0 devices, which will be two-way and multistream. Hosts with a legacy CableCARD v1.0 interface will not work with the new cards"- False- they are backward compatible with CC1.0 hosts, though true in the sense they won't do two way, and probably won't do multistream (though there is some speculation S3's will work with MCards).
The article does not discuss OCAP- the single biggest obstacle to agreement between cableco's and CE companies
The political battle is not mentionned- the NCTA is, but not the CEA, and the reader can't really make sense of the mess unless they see that what we have is only the agreed upon middle ground between warring factions.
Nonetheless it gives a more balanced coverage than the OpenCable primer, and goes into more technical depth in some respects than the wikipedia article.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

blacknoi said:


> I wonder why this approach gets a 2 year pass? Its not like I could put this smart card into my tv, its NOT a cablecard.


Cablevision started providing a separable solution beginning in 2001, 3 years before other companies did. The FCC awarded a brownie point for timely compliance with its ruling, and also noted that their requirement that the security function be identical was not clarified by the FCC until 2004.

The smartcard scheme does not comply for two reasons. It is not an identical scheme because you stick the smartcard directly into the cablevision box, whereas you stick it into a cablecard sleave first for a third party box. Secondly, the decryption is done on the cablevision boxes' board, not on the smartcard, so the solution does not meet the requirement of being fully separable.

It looks to me that they could keep using smartcards if they chop and channel their boxes to accept the Cablecard smartcard adapters they are providing for third party devices. I am presuming here, that these cablecard "sleaves" do all the decryption and other conditional access functions on the card.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

kjmcdonald said:


> No that's not what I meant.
> 
> I meant that like I can plug as many phones of what ever type I want into my phone outlets, like I can plug as many computers of whatever kind I want into my home network. I should be able to plug in as many TV's, PVR's Tuner Cards in my PC's, etc as I want, and have access to all content I subscribe to on all of them without:
> 
> ...


In my mind likely doable, if appropriate security measures are taken between the gateway device and the client, both which need approved/licensed to carry secure content.


> I have that with phones, internetaccess, gas and electrical utilities... Why not with the Cable Utility?


Because the point of control for those is either A: External, or B: A simple yes or no to the service as a whole. 


> Like the Cable modem translates the Cable Company's encodings to something standard I can use (USB or Ethernet). I want a device that will convert whatever form they choose to deliver the video with to a form I can use (ATSC or ClearQAM) to view it on any device I choose.
> 
> -Kyle


The biggest hurdle would be content protection, but here goes my concept:
A gateway box would receive the cable or whatever, tune the channels on demand (through a back channel), transcrypt from the external encryption to an internal encryption scheme, and send on the internal network to a client, which would have to be approved before hand, but not externally married to your network (essentially Plug And Play. The gateway could have internal admin features, to control what certain STBs can get (for parental control), and have things like security cameras fed into it.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

RFEngineer said:


> I'm not in the cable business, so I cannot answer those questions.
> 
> But I've been an RF-communications systems-design engineer for more than 30 years (10 back in the analog days, and the rest doing digital.) So I know how to read an interface-spec and interpret device-design guidelines in order to create a compatible product. Its all in there as far as I can tell.


Neither am I in the cable business. I am not even a cable customer, nor have really played with digital cable. My last long term cable was an all analog system fifteen years ago.

I however do understand mostly how the hardware, and to a certain degree, the software and regulations work, although technically am not an engineer.


> What dt_dc says is also correct, in that this design may not fit into each of the various cable corporation's schemes regarding their infrastructure.


Which means it will not likely work, in its two way capacity, on most cable systems. IOW, despite it using a 1.0 card, and having bi-directional capability, such is not a universal bi-directional, but one built for a specific platform.


> I can fully appreciate Tivo's (and the rest of the CE community's) desire to produce cheaper 1-way products using the alternative host-design certified by CableLabs with their 1.0 CableCard -- but to conclude that this implies that a 2-way design is not possible given the Interface Standard set forth, is just plain wrong. Perhaps not practical, but certainly possible.


Making the Series 3 as it is now bi-directional is impossible, to the current rules, which is the current 2.0 host standard.

See, you are confusing the card and host version, it seems, and not seeing what it takes, both technically and regulatorily, for a bi-directional 3rd party cable tuner.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

dswallow said:


> My comment was that a QAM tuner could be produced very cheaply if all it needed to do was tune and buffer an analog signal from unencrypted QAM. All the cable system need do is provide the basic tier digitally unencrypted.


On the condition they do provide that tier unencrypted, they could do that. But as it stands, there is no guarantee those channels would be unecrypted.

I do see the market for a dirt cheap simple QAM/8VSB tuner box, and if I were a 2nd or 3rd tier CE manufactuer, I'd be making them today and saturating the market with them. I might even make them open source or better.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

kjmcdonald said:


> Not only that, the encrypted channels you pay for are still unlocked on a per set top box basis. Not a per-home basis.
> 
> I used the analogy already that the CableCo's need to be veiewd more the like the electric company, and the gas company:
> 
> They are content deliver's, just as the power ompany is basically only an electricity deliverer.


Except their content is segmented _and_ locally controlled.



> Content genration is done by others these days, like power is generated mosttly by other companies these days.


Whom creates the content or electricity is not relavent. And, to note, the larger cable providers do have holdings in cable channels.


> I think (predict?) that IPTV may force the cable companies into this roll wether they like it or not.
> 
> Just like people are using their Cable modems to get their phone service delivered today (VOIP) Verizon and Cable's bandwidth competition will open the way for Tivo, or others to deliver the content over the Cable data network.
> Not to the point of directly competing with cable.
> ...


You can, to a certain degree. But IPTV requires your internet service have a certain QOS to be worth wholly replacing a conventional video service.


> *Can someone explain to me the forsight of carrying IPTV dat in DOCSIS data packets that are encapsulted in MPEG2 Digital Video Packets? Why didn't they realize in the beingning that 'It's all Data Stupid!' and make the Data layer the lowest one, put the MPEG Digital video on the data, the Internet on the data, and now that it's here, the ipTV on the data????
> 
> Seems like a 'Duh!' to me. But What do I know?
> 
> ...


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Tough_Nuts said:


> I have 2 CC's in my S3.
> 
> Works fine as best as I can tell..


A CC is not a smartcard.

A CC is an entire cable TV access device.

A smartcard relies on circuitry/processing in the host device to to the decrypting and some packet capturing to feed the smartcard. The smartcard simply captures those control packets, some commands, and spits out decryption keys to the circuity in the host device.

The question should be:

Does anybody in a Cablevision system that uses smartcards have a Series 3 with a Cablecard that has a smartcard slot with a smartcard installed?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

CraigHB said:


> It is exceedingly lame the way the cable companies have the ability to require proprietary equipment and draw fees for every TV in the household. As mentioned previously, what if that was the case for every device plugged into an electrical outlet. That would be ridiculous.


Don't laugh, they did that years ago, before electric meters.
But still, for cable, they have to authorise something to receive pay channels, as that is how cable works.


> Why is it that cable companies have gotten away with this for so long. I'm pleased to see the FCC finally pushing the integration ban. I have no sympathy for the cable companies. They've had seven years to get their act together which is a huge amount of time.


Becasue the FCC is/was wussies. They should have put their foot down in 2001, and closed down Cablelabs.



> Cablecard is a step in the right direction, but it still allows cable companies to do what they've been doing. Cablecard still requires a device for each set. You still have to obtain them and pay fees for them from the company. The best solution, as stated earlier in this thread, would be a decoder at a home's entry point that sends everything through a household in the clear. Why was that never considered?


See other posts (mine and others) for details of such a gateway, and why the content likely could not be in-the-clear in your home, except in a display device, or on analog outputs.

Cable has to have the control at the STB level, as that is what is cheapest and most secure for them and for most of their customers.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

classicsat said:


> On the condition they do provide that tier unencrypted, they could do that. But as it stands, there is no guarantee those channels would be unecrypted.
> 
> I do see the market for a dirt cheap simple QAM/8VSB tuner box, and if I were a 2nd or 3rd tier CE manufactuer, I'd be making them today and saturating the market with them. I might even make them open source or better.


The franchise agreements are why they have an analog, basic tier now. The guarantee that those channels would be unencrypted so that subscribers could use a low/no cost device like a plain vanilla QAM rtuner would be the replacement terms in the franchise agreements.

And if there's no franchise agreement guaranteeing an analog, basic tier, then there's nothing keeping the cable system from doing away with them now.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> Big picture is easier to see than some of the individual trees in the forrest ...
> 
> And I've started responding to JT in that oh-so-charming combination of sarcastic wit and angry rant "big picture view of the world" that he has so ... don't try to read too much into the above post.
> 
> SDV can't be accessed by current UDCPs (one way CableCard hosts). SDV can be deployed by cable companies (currently) as they please.


That's what I understood.

I guess if SDV is only used for VOD and PPV, then it won't affect me.

My question is what stops them from taking DiscoveryHD off the lineup as a digital channel that I can tune with a CableCARD, and instead make it a SDV stream that their boxes can figure out how to 'subscribe' to.

For most customers they won't know the difference I think. For the cableco they get the bandwidth back wherever people aren't watching that channel at the moment. For me and other CC users, we just can't watch the show anymore.

I suppose they could offer it both ways, but then they use up more bandwidth not less - so what's the point for them?

This is all scary for me as I like the S3, and think it's worth the money, so I want it to have a long lifetime.

What's scarier is that I actually work for a company that makes the equipment that makes SDV possible - so another part of me wants it to succeed too. Ugh!

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

blacknoi said:


> I wonder why this approach gets a 2 year pass? Its not like I could put this smart card into my tv, its NOT a cablecard.


But couldn't you put the smartcard in the cablecard converter, and put that into your TV?

If so, as long as they make the converters accessible, they're totally providing an equivalent seperable conditional access sytem.

My question is: With the converters, why do they need a waiver at all?

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

I understand that I'm being idealistic. I'm talking about the way it should be done that would be to the consumer's biggest advantage.



classicsat said:


> Cable has to have the control at the STB level, as that is what is cheapest and most secure for them and for most of their customers.


I beleive that Cable keeping control at the STB level is economically (higher profit) better for them. I don't know that it is cheaper (lower cost) though.

I beleive that technology could be created that would secude the content creator's rights, and still allow excercise of the consumer's fair use rights. And I think this would be just as secure for the things that should be secured.

I disagree that allowing the CableCo to control everything up to my set top box, is cheaper for me, nor do I think it secures any of my rights at all. So the 'and for most of their customers' part of what you wrote is just not true in my opinon.

I don't see how changing the cabletv market to something like I've described wouldn't make it cheaper and more secure for *all* cable customers. What customers would be harmed by the change?

-Kyle


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

kjmcdonald said:


> But couldn't you put the smartcard in the cablecard converter, and put that into your TV?
> 
> If so, as long as they make the converters accessible, they're totally providing an equivalent seperable conditional access sytem.
> 
> ...


Here's the reason, from the FCC ruling:


> With respect to compliance with the requirement Section 76.1204(a)(1) to provide the conditional access function in a separate device, the Commission intended that all of the conditional access functions  including decryption of the protected content  be performed by the separate-security element. Because Cablevisions SmartCards rely upon the Cablevision-leased set-top box, or, in the case of the Cablevision-provided SmartCard/CableCARD combination device, the CableCARD adapter, we conclude that Cablevisions SmartCard-based approach is not consistent with the definition of conditional access in Section 76.1200(e).


It boils down to separate treatment for the consumer based on the equipment in use. If the consumer has a Cablevision box, they need only plug in a SmartCard. If they have another device, they need a CC adapter AND a SmartCard. The FCC sees that as not providing the same conditional access, so in essence, Cablevision has been given two years to move to a strategy that treats their own boxes and consumer devices exactly the same.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

kjmcdonald said:


> Not totally. Ideally you'd have access to every channel you pay for. Even on Analog today, if you pay for Analog HBO you have to have a STB.


Say you want an STB-less solution in the home as I think you initially proposed. That means you are going to have to have a box that is converting every channel over some neutral form which any video device can access without an STB. That common form is analog. But obviously, that is not going to work for VOD, PPV, or switched video, so you are going to have to have something that is accepting a remote input command from you to tell the cable system which of these channels you want. Sure, this could be done where the cable enterred the house, but now you don't have an STBless solution- you have merely moved the STB to a central location, and put some kind of IR reciever at each television set so that you can switch to these advanced channels.

So forget about an STB less solution if you want any of these "advanced" services.



> I don't mind the video being encoded inside my home.
> ....
> The device that does the conditional access control at the edge of my home could also be made to securely communicate a MAK to the devices in my home Allowing all of them to share the content I'm eligible to view.
> -Kyle


Ok, so by definition you have accepted that per television in the home _*some*_ extra mechanism must do the Conditional access and decryption. Cable companies currently seem to favor most the DCAS/ OCAP solution. So all your TVs (or some device dangling off the back) have to be able to run java. Sound inexpensive to you? FCC points out that Beyond Broadband converter could provide inexpensive converter boxes. But at $100 per box (possibly $50 in volume), is that sufficiently low cost? Note also that each of these are digital devices, so you get a monthly charge from the cableco for each one.

Then there is the near term modified MCard approach by the CE companies. You would need one of these boxes for each television, so you also get a per television charge from the cableco for each of these devices, plus the mechanism is going to be a heck of a lot more expensive than the $50 to $100 BBT box.

Then there is the Microsoft variant of the modified MCard approach. For every television, you must have an XBox360 or other microsoft approved media extender device in the home, it talks to the Media server which uses one of its 4 to 6 MCard streams to feed your television with the desired SDV or conventional digital channel. You only pay one monthly charge to the cableco, but you pay $3500 for the server and a couple hundred for each XB360 or other microsoft compatible media center extender. Minuses- 1) you are spending huge bucks and are locked into the M$ ecosystem. 2) Standard for accessing SDV/VOD/PPV does not exist yet, so no support for this for the forseable (2 year) future.

I'm sure the Sony and Apple variants will have an uncanny resemblence to the Microsoft scheme of locking you into their ecosystems. Intel may just lock you into intel chips, so maybe if they really push a solution, their will be a more permissive variety.

The Tivo scheme is not a totally closed eco system since it allows gateways to other formats through TTG, but this requires a PC. Provided Tivo gets Cablelabs (or DLNA) to certify TivoGuard as ok for MRV and TTG of digital content in the home, then you theoretically could pay the Cable Company once for a cablecard in the S3, then MRV your shows to the lower cost S2's in the home. Minuses- 1) you have to Pay Tivo a monthly charge for each S2. 2) Not sure an S3 could handle multiple simultaneous MRV's-, for that matter- whether it could transcode to a format the S2 could play plus it would be at MRV transfer speed (slow). 3) generic problem of lack of a standard for doing SDV/VOD/PPV.

Conclusion? If yoy accept that there be conditional access and encryption in the home, you have to accept that you are going to be paying some company for a box for each television in your home, and likely they will have to be all from the same company. Secondly, the current political reality is that you must accept the cablecompany formats and approved boxes until such time as the FCC gets off its backside and cuts Cablelabs out its current overlord position over home formats. Will the FCC mandate a standard for two way communication on cable networks anytime soon? Well, not if the public remains silent.

Now would be a good time to write your congressperson.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

kjmcdonald said:


> ...
> 
> Come to think of it why not start an internet cable company?
> 
> ...


good idea.

I bet to start such a venture it would be tough at first to get the content providers to make deals with you so they wouldn't piss off their other channels and they could be sure you would do it securely. So to start you would probably have to fill your pipe with lessor brands like cnet, heavy, union, ivillage and the like. Once you had the basics of the tenchology down with those lessor brands, then you would build it to add the next teir like CBSs innertube. After you showed your stuff to one of the big 4 networks then you would beg them to make you a better bigger deal. You'd probably try to make those deals the basis of something you would do with a movie distibutor like maybe netflix.

At first your software would probably only work on your on hardware but over time you would work on making it work on a variety of common platforms like boxes from moto and SA. Your end goal would probably be make it work on OCAP and hope that cable got their way so that OCAP ready CE devices became ubiquitous.

Hmmm, I wonder who would be working on such a thing....

Just being goofy...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicsat said:


> ...
> 
> The question should be:
> 
> Does anybody in a Cablevision system that uses smartcards have a Series 3 with a Cablecard that has a smartcard slot with a smartcard installed?


yup- someone does-

you most have glanced over post #71:



blacknoi said:


> Exactly. I have a s3 ,with 2 cablevision cablecards. Cablevision rents you Scientific Atlanta boxes and the slot in the front is used (a smart card, similar to a direcTV or dish network is in there). Cablevision's implementation of the cablecard is a cablecard-sleve with one of these smart cards inside it.
> 
> Theoretically, you could slip that smartcard out of the cablecard and into one of their stbs and get all the channels you receive through that cable box, instead of the cable card. They tie the subscriber info to the smartcard, not the cable box's mac address / serial # etc (unlike time warner... they don't use the smartcard slot).
> 
> ...


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

kjmcdonald said:


> I guess if SDV is only used for VOD and PPV, then it won't affect me.
> 
> My question is what stops them from taking DiscoveryHD off the lineup as a digital channel that I can tune with a CableCARD, and instead make it a SDV stream that their boxes can figure out how to 'subscribe' to.


Switched video would not achieve it's promise of over 2X increase in effective bandwidth unless it were for all channels. (You don't have to subscribe to them though- they just all seem to be there, although in reality only about half are using the line). VOD and PPV can be thought of as a special case of switched video. Rollout requires that a cable company provide it's digital subscribers with boxes capable of support SDV, but they will be delayed. The reason why is that the the cable companies will only be able to provide the solution they forced third party boxes, and surprise surprise- they now care about the fact they designed a very expensive and unnecessary solution for supporting SDV. They wanted a waiver for low cost boxes they would have to install if they were to be able to move to SDV. Only cablevision and Bend recieved temporary waivers- and everyone else will have to make adjustments. With OCAP cablecard boxes costing double or triple what boxes from Beyond Broadband Technology would cost, the upgrade of every digital subscriber necessary for SDV will be retarded. It's a corner the cableco's painted themselves into, and is a testament to the quality of their techology planning.

Regarding cablevision smartcard adapters, Drew explains why "equivalent" is not sufficient for the FCC. The FCC knows that if it is not identical to that provided to the CE companies, then you have problems like- gee shucks- I wonder how HBO got dropped from your S3 or cablecard HDTV? (subtext- why didn't you just get a cableco box and you wouldn't have these problems). Not having common reliance on an identical module guarantees Cablevision customers two more years of Aw shucks situations because Cablevision only has disincentives to support the cablecard adapters.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> ....
> 
> The Tivo scheme is not a totally closed eco system since it allows gateways to other formats through TTG, but this requires a PC. Provided Tivo gets Cablelabs (or DLNA) to certify TivoGuard as ok for MRV and TTG of digital content in the home, then you theoretically could pay the Cable Company once for a cablecard in the S3, then MRV your shows to the lower cost S2's in the home. Minuses- 1) you have to Pay Tivo a monthly charge for each S2. 2) Not sure an S3 could handle multiple simultaneous MRV's-, for that matter- whether it could transcode to a format the S2 could play plus it would be at MRV transfer speed (slow). 3) generic problem of lack of a standard for doing SDV/VOD/PPV.....


Some other problems with the tivo MRV is it COPIES the content and doesn't stream it. That makes your choices limited in the home depending on the CCI flags that your cable company applies (they can assign copy once to basically anything they want "cablechannel" wise- and "copy never" to VOD/PPV. I beleive MS streams to avoid that problem (but not sure?).

Another limitation of MRV is that Tivo decided (apparently to get the NFL off their back when they applied for FCC approval of Tivoguard)- that you cant transfer a recording till it's done recording. So watching live events like a football game (hmmm coincidence...) anyplace beside the original S3 becomes impossible.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> Some other problems with the tivo MRV is it COPIES the content and doesn't stream it. That makes your choices limited in the home depending on the CCI flags that your cable company applies (they can assign copy once to basically anything they want "cablechannel" wise- and "copy never" to VOD/PPV. I beleive MS streams to avoid that problem (but not sure?).


Yes, like the earlier mce extenders, the vista media extenders software on the XB360 streams from a cablecard vista mce box like the Niveus Rainier.

However, an aspect of the CEA november proposal that is little commented on was that the CEA wants to move cableco's out of the business about making arbitrary decisions about what can and cannot be copied in the home. They want to deal with the content owners directly regarding what the content access policies should be. So, for example if Viacom told the DLNA that any DLNA certified machine may make any number of copies so long as it is in the same household, that then such DLNA devices may ignore whatever flags the cableco put on any Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodian, or Paramount or Dreamworks motion picture.

The cable companies are up in arms about this, because it is key to their vertical integration / walled garden/ pseudo monopoly strategy. If the CHILA and other licenses remain as they are, the cableco's are the gatekeepers to the vast majority of digital video- whether on your television or your portable devices. This is huge leverage that the CE companies want to bypass. Otherwise, if any CE company wants to transfer digital cable video to portable devices etc, you would have to cut a deal with the cablecos.

And with that leverage they would shove DCAS into all portable devices that must periodically check in with the Cableco Mothership, allowing the cableco's to distribute video that delivers them revenue from every play on your phones or Zen media players.

Pretty nifty business model huh.

Only problem is that the CE companies aren't blind.

My question is whether Tivo could be a beneficiary of such an FCC authorized invalidation of thes CHILA provisions so that some organization like DLNA could negotiate directly with content providers over distribution in the home. Is there anything that would disqualify Tivo from DLNA certification?


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

drew2k said:


> Here's the reason, from the FCC ruling:It boils down to separate treatment for the consumer based on the equipment in use. If the consumer has a Cablevision box, they need only plug in a SmartCard. If they have another device, they need a CC adapter AND a SmartCard. The FCC sees that as not providing the same conditional access, so in essence, Cablevision has been given two years to move to a strategy that treats their own boxes and consumer devices exactly the same.


I guess... But the net effect for the end user is the same.

As long as a working smartcard continues to work in the adapter.

If there are additional netwrok settings that have to be configured only for the adapter, then I guess they wouldn't be meeting the 'common reliance' section.

If all the configuration is 100% identical...then the end users won't see a difference.

-Kyle


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

kjmcdonald said:


> I guess... But the net effect for the end user is the same.
> 
> As long as a working smartcard continues to work in the adapter.
> 
> ...


You are considering the formal compatibility. You are not considering subtle behavior dependencies that always exist in communications systems. The "net effect for the end user" is not guaranteed to be the same because it is a different mechanism. The decryption and control access processing that occurs on the cablecard adapter is implemented on the Cablevision STB's motherboard. Any difference in coding or circuitry introduces incompatibilities. The message acknowlegement is sent 100ms slower, the card barfs on a malformed message sent from the Head end, but the proprietary box didn't catch it, etc. etc. In a perfect world, Apple programs wouldn't break when you install the new system upgrade. After all, they all were obeying the Apple protocols on the former version when it worked perfectly fine- so why should it break on a new version?
The cable companies have gotten comfortable with a highly homogeneous system- you tweak your servers until all of the boxes that you have purchased for the network function properly. You don't need to do any more. So what if your servers technically were configured incorrectly? What if the 100K shipment of STBs malfunction and so the servers are tweaked to make them sort of work most of the time, but who knows what the hack will do to other boxes. So what. If it works it works, don't fix what already works. In a heterogeneous network, you can't be so lazy. 
Cablevision will continue to tune their systems to work with their boxes, and if the cablecard boxes barf, well it won't matter much to them.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Here is some excerpts from how Dow Jones covered the rulings:

First off, maybe it's personal.


> The decision to reject the waiver application of the largest cable companies is the latest in a growing series of incidents over which FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and the cable industry have been at loggerheads.


That gives the impression that these incidents are something recent, and have not been continual since the 1996 telecom law was passed. It also leaves the impression that somehow this is a new phenomenom of having something to do personally between this particular chairman and the cableco's. Actually- it is an ongoing battle the cableco's have had with the FCC since 1996 regardless who was chairman.



> The FCC believes that by separating the set-top box from the cable operator, a marketplace would be created in the sales of the boxes, which could lead to driving down the prices consumers pay for cable television.


This makes it seem as if the FCC dreamt up this idea of enabling the marketplace for third party set top boxes. That is a common NCTA distortion. They portray their opponents as unelected bureacrats. Rather, a republican congress voted the 1996 Telecom law into force. The fact is the directive was given by congress, and the cableco's are up against the will of the people as expressed in federal law. The FCC is attempting to bring the cablecos into conformance with that law using the feeble means they have available.

Secondly, what is this twilight zone portrayal of the FCC "separating the set top box from the cable operator". What a crock. The law says that cable operators are entitled to compete with their own boxes. Consumers can continue to rent a set top box from the operator if they choose.

This is from Dow Jones? What did they do- have a college intern take an NCTA news release and reword it?

This is journalism? They don't seem to have a clue about what they are reporting on. They quote the NCTA's figures and Comcast- do they quote the CEA to get the CE industry's take on all of this? How about the FCC's side? Martin was speaking at CES, how about a remark from him?

This is balance?



> The FCC chairman stressed that it is "important to find a way to move forward" on the plug-and-play/downloadable security issue...the FCC chairman specified that he wants to find that solution in time for the Christmas 2008 selling season so that "consumers are able to take advantage of what we're seeing on the floor."(source)


Hmmm. 2008? And this from the republican side of the commission? Maybe I should take those 3 to one odds someone offered...

So what are the rude questions they could ask the Cable Companies?
Q: What is the breakdown on your estimate of $600 million cost to cosumers for this ruling? How come you plan to buy $200 plus boxes from SciAtl and Moto in volume when Beyond Broadband is putting out a box for $100 that will cost $50 in volume.
A: The BBT boxes won't do OCAP Java apps.
Q: Steve Jobs said the reason why iPhone doesn't have Java is that "Javas not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. Its this big heavyweight ball and chain. Is that the $600 million ball and chain?
A: The FCC doesn't have the right to stand in our way of innovating. Consumers want OCAP.
Q: Like they wanted MHP*** in Europe? The retail sales figures for Germany was 7000 units? Why should it be any different in the US?(source)
A: But in Italy it was 5 million.
Q: Only because the Italian government mandated that all boxes would have it. But even if the FCC requires OCAP in retail devices, why do you think that consumers will prefer to run interactive apps on the TV rather than on the internet.
A: Why not? If YouTube, google maps, voip, music, even video downloads (with our partner sites) are faster and better off the OCAP box than off the internet, then why not use the OCAP box?
Q:Why should it be any faster for OCAP?
A: Because we can guarantee they are. For these homes we also own the internet pipe into the home and are entitled to prioritize packets into the home with respect to the customer's comittment to our ecosystem. If users are paying more for a higher quality internet experience, then we are entitled to provide it to them.
Q: But not if Net Neutrality is approved by congress. What if the wallen garden is a walled desert? Shouldn't consumers be allowed to choose whether they prefer the internet versus your proprietary network without your price incentives and ability to retard the performance of the internet connection in your favor?
A: That is rude. Cable companies are well known for the quality of their offerings.​
***OCAP is a variant of MHP.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> ...The smartcard scheme does not comply for two reasons. It is not an identical scheme because you stick the smartcard directly into the cablevision box, whereas you stick it into a cablecard sleave first for a third party box. Secondly, the decryption is done on the cablevision boxes' board, not on the smartcard, so the solution does not meet the requirement of being fully separable.
> 
> It looks to me that they could keep using smartcards if they chop and channel their boxes to accept the Cablecard smartcard adapters they are providing for third party devices. I am presuming here, that these cablecard "sleaves" do all the decryption and other conditional access functions on the card.


Cablevision is my cable provider, and my S3 boxes use Scientific Atlanta CableCARDS. My friend, also a Cablevision subscriber, was provided SA CCs for his S3 too. I have never seen these Cablevision "sleaves", nor was I offered the option of using one. in fact, when the S3 was first released, I had a hard time convincing Cablevision that there was really such a thing as a CableCARD, and that they did offer them...

My guess is that the "sleaves" are in use in an area where Cablevision uses NDS head-end equipment - I am basing this on the fact that NDS developed the smartcard solution for Cablevision STBs. The other possibility is that they forced all their employees to use the "sleave" to further their cry for a waiver - which they got


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

kjmcdonald said:


> I beleive that Cable keeping control at the STB level is economically (higher profit) better for them. I don't know that it is cheaper (lower cost) though.


at $100 per STB or $125 per cablecard, it is.

It is my opinon, that a basic gatway box could cost a bit, at least initially, especially for the few thouseand customers that would use it.

Of thouse, the gateway could be a 3rd party device with an approporate cablecard or otherwise FCC approved Separable access circuit.



> I beleive that technology could be created that would secude the content creator's rights, and still allow excercise of the consumer's fair use rights. And I think this would be just as secure for the things that should be secured.


That is what I have been saying, in a way. But you do have to cede some rights to get the technology you want (you want to download legit music, you need to accept the DRM it comes with).



> I disagree that allowing the CableCo to control everything up to my set top box, is cheaper for me, nor do I think it secures any of my rights at all. So the 'and for most of their customers' part of what you wrote is just not true in my opinon.


You aren't most customers. Most customers are happy having just a box on their TV. Yes, a gateway/client system does have a certain amount of flexibility cablecard or DCAS doesn't have, I agree on that.

Outside of that, you would have exactly the same rights (WRT DRM and copy protection), as current cable boxes provide. If you want to change that, you will have to change something deeper than the cable box paradigm.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> So to start you would probably have to fill your pipe with lessor brands like cnet, heavy, union, ivillage and the like. Once you had the basics of the tenchology down with those lessor brands, then you would build it to add the next teir like CBSs innertube. After you showed your stuff to one of the big 4 networks then you would beg them to make you a better bigger deal. You'd probably try to make those deals the basis of something you would do with a movie distibutor like maybe netflix.


That would be not the way to go, IMO.

What you should so is initgially provide the service as a cable-like service, with the normal cable channels, on ISPs where you can provide a QOS, then branch out to other providers.



> At first your software would probably only work on your on hardware but over time you would work on making it work on a variety of common platforms like boxes from moto and SA. Your end goal would probably be make it work on OCAP and hope that cable got their way so that OCAP ready CE devices became ubiquitous.


That would be, assuming the boxes have an appropriate network interface and software/drivers to use that interface.

I would wourk with CE manufacturers and other IPTV providers to make a secure IPTV standard.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

kjmcdonald said:


> I guess... But the net effect for the end user is the same.


In the one way though.

You should be able to take that cablevision box, and use it with any other provider with their cablecard, which a removeable smartcard won't allow you to do, as the cablevision box has no slot for a cablecard.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Say you want an STB-less solution in the home as I think you initially proposed. That means you are going to have to have a box that is converting every channel over some neutral form which any video device can access without an STB. That common form is analog. But obviously, that is not going to work for VOD, PPV, or switched video, so you are going to have to have something that is accepting a remote input command from you to tell the cable system which of these channels you want. Sure, this could be done where the cable enterred the house, but now you don't have an STBless solution- you have merely moved the STB to a central location, and put some kind of IR reciever at each television set so that you can switch to these advanced channels.
> 
> So forget about an STB less solution if you want any of these "advanced" services.
> 
> Ok, so by definition you have accepted that per television in the home _*some*_ extra mechanism must do the Conditional access and decryption. Cable companies currently seem to favor most the DCAS/ OCAP solution. So all your TVs (or some device dangling off the back) have to be able to run java. Sound inexpensive to you? FCC points out that Beyond Broadband converter could provide inexpensive converter boxes. But at $100 per box (possibly $50 in volume), is that sufficiently low cost? Note also that each of these are digital devices, so you get a monthly charge from the cableco for each one.


I do want a STB'less home, although I'm happy to accept a 'central' CAS/Communications Gateway in order to get it.

I don't accept a need for a box on each TV or viewing device.

I am talking about the future. I think it's a given that CE vendors should be able to build something into their devices that will enable them to work with Content Provider's Networks (Cable, Phone, Satellite, maybe even from the power company...) I'm not talking about how to make current TV's and devices work. STB's may be needed for that, but in my vision the STB's should be generic compatible and available from anywhere. New equipment should 'just work'.

The main thing I want to avoid is letting the cable company have any more knowledge than is necessary, of what devices are in my home and what I do with them. I want to pay for content to be delivered to my home, that's it.

My vision is that the CableCo can use whatever it wants to prevent service theft while the signal travels to my home. The Central 'CAS' device then decrypts the content I pay for, tags it/ encrypts it with my Media Access Key, and puts it out through my home over coax.

The TV's in the future don't need STB's. They do however need a *standardized* way to contact the Central CAS box to securely retrieve the MAK. Any device in my home should have access to the MAK. Recordings would be made with the encryption intact, requiring the device that plays it back to also have the MAK. The security comes in that the device has limits on how long it can retain the MAK based on it's device type and portability. The important part is that the device should get the MAK based on it's ability to connect to the Central CAS device, and not because it was registered with the cable company.

I'm not naive enough to not see that the cable companies wouldn't want this. And I know it would take some work. I'm just confident the technology exists, and/or can be created to make it work. It would advantageous to the CE indiustry, and the consumers, and I think it has benefits for the Cable industry too.

This *standard* could also specify how the TV's and other devices can pass content requests upstream through the Central CAS device. PPV, VOD, SDV, could all be done this way. For services like those that are already thought of today, it would be possible to specify how to do them on a protocol level, and nothing like a JVM would be needed.

On the other hand, future services that haven't been thought of before would need a mechanism to be able to add that functionality later. Firmware updates are one, but then the consumer is at the mercy of the equipment maker to continue to develop firmware for old products in the future. Here a Standardized software environment that is CPU architecture independent (something like C# or a JVM) *would* be very useful.

That doesn't mean I'd be in favor of turning control of my CE devices over to the cable company. Quite the opposite. I'd prefer something more like TiVo's HME ('Music, Photos, Products, and more') facility. Where the device is not 'taken over' but instead lists services from many sources all in one place and on equal footing.

Would this Virtual Machine API require more expensive devices? Maybe. Over time the cost always drops though. In the end the savings for the consumers (Only buying and powering devices they wanted to buy to begin with) and the cable companies (not having to buy, maintain, replace, etc. STB's) will more than make up for it in my opinion. On top of that, I don't think the cable companies currently factor in how *much* more they can make from PPV and VOD, and other services when those services are available on *every* device in every home.

The central 'CAS' device could include the providers VOIP end point, and it's Internet access deivce, to break out Dialtone and Ethernet. For Verizon, or eventually for the cable companies, it could even be the Fiber termination unit.
A device like this could even be created that could allow the same household of devices to work the same way with satellite.

Imagine only having to have your 'gateway CAS device' swapped out to change content providers! And not having to make any puchases or changes within your home. In the long run this can oly save everyone lots of money.

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

classicsat said:


> The biggest hurdle would be content protection, but here goes my concept:
> A gateway box would receive the cable or whatever, tune the channels on demand (through a back channel), transcrypt from the external encryption to an internal encryption scheme, and send on the internal network to a client, which would have to be approved before hand, but not externally married to your network (essentially Plug And Play. The gateway could have internal admin features, to control what certain STBs can get (for parental control), and have things like security cameras fed into it.


Exactly.

I'm reading 'a client, which would have to be approved beforehand' as verified to meet the standards specifications by the standards body, and not 'approved by the content provider themselves'. Is that what you mean too?

The parental controls idea is good too. It could be done directly on each client also, but having it centralized would be nice too.

In this case I would prefer to see another type of device that is totally under the user's control.

I like the cable modem with home gateway/router model.

I'd like to see a 'CAS control/converter device' (like a cable modem) that is seperate from a 'distribution control/management device (Home gateway router) that a user might use for parental controls etc. I say this because in the cable modem model I enjoy being able to purchase the gateway/router of my choice and load or reload the software on it to enable disable features as I please. I'd like to see the same flexibility in the content.

Eventually as everything moves to IP I could see the devices merging (CAS device and Cable modem merge and Home internet gateway/content control merge seperately.)

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Q: What is the breakdown on your estimate of $600 million cost to cosumers for this ruling? How come you plan to buy $200 plus boxes from SciAtl and Moto in volume when Beyond Broadband is putting out a box for $100 that will cost $50 in volume.
> A: The BBT boxes won't do OCAP Java apps.
> Q: Steve Jobs said the reason why iPhone doesn't have Java is that "Javas not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. Its this big heavyweight ball and chain. Is that the $600 million ball and chain?​




Steve Jobs said that? There are currently 2 platforms for creating games and apps for cell phones, Java and something proprietary. The Java for phones is not the Java for desktops. And I'd argue with the 'nobody uses it anymore' line... Tivo themselves are using it for HME.

On top of that, if you don't provide a virtual machine of some sort, then you are forced to either:

1) Require the use of a very specific HW architecture.
2) Require service vendors to supply a version of the service for *every* HW architecture available.

As I said in another post, If you only want the services that are invented today (VOD, PPV, SDV) then yes you can implement these with just a standardized protocol. But if you want to allow innovation in the future without obsoleting older devices, then a Virtual Machine that runs the same software on any HW is a smart thing to use. Does it have to be Java? No. But it seems like the millions of Java developers out there would only help your platform succeed.

Still Picking Java, doesn't need to mean picking OCAP.



> Q:Why should it be any faster for OCAP?
> A: Because we can guarantee they are. For these homes we also own the internet pipe into the home and are entitled to prioritize packets into the home with respect to the customer's comittment to our ecosystem. If users are paying more for a higher quality internet experience, then we are entitled to provide it to them.


Now that is scary.

That would be like blocking my Vonage, or making it work so bad that I'll switch back to Comcast Digitial voice. I'll be very upset if that's allowed to happen.

-Kyle​


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

classicsat said:


> That is what I have been saying, in a way. But you do have to cede some rights to get the technology you want (you want to download legit music, you need to accept the DRM it comes with).


I've said I'm ok with a form of DRM.

Tag the Content I buy with my MAK, so you can trace it back to me.
Encrypt it with my MAK, so that it's only useable on devices I put my MAK into.

That should stop the illeagal proliferation of Content (Make content only useable by the purchaser, and make it easy to see who released the content to the world.)

Ideally one MAK would be useable for pictures, video, music, news, eBooks, everything.

I'm not OK with the Corporate DRM that is being proliferated today.



> You aren't most customers. Most customers are happy having just a box on their TV. Yes, a gateway/client system does have a certain amount of flexibility cablecard or DCAS doesn't have, I agree on that.


Most customers may put up with the STB, but none like it. The extra cables, remotes, complexity even if they don't know about what else is outthere I know virtually everyone out there would enjoy the simplicity of *truely* cable ready devices, and the (hopefully) lower prices that would ensue.



> Outside of that, you would have exactly the same rights (WRT DRM and copy protection), as current cable boxes provide. If you want to change that, you will have to change something deeper than the cable box paradigm.


I'm not sure they'd be exatly the same. At least What I'm thinking of wouldn't be.

I am *sure* that it would take much more than the cable companies changing to bring around what I'm talking about.

Noone ever accused me of not being an idealist! 

-Kyle


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

kjmcdonald said:


> Steve Jobs said that? There are currently 2 platforms for creating games and apps for cell phones, Java and something proprietary. The Java for phones is not the Java for desktops. And I'd argue with the 'nobody uses it anymore' line... Tivo themselves are using it for HME.


It's pretty funny that somone would repeat that as fact just because Steve Jobs said it. What he really meant to say is, "No, we only use open software when it doesn't get in the way of locking you into our vertical channel."


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Jobs said that in response to a question asked by John Markoff at CES, and reported by david pogue in the NYT. Current link is general, to Pogue's blog, so the may change in the future. (If the link is broken, googlers may search for the jobs quote- the title of the blog entry is "Ultimate iPhone FAQs List, Part 2" dated January 13, 2007.

Is it really a ball and chain? Well- consider this:

The DCT700 STB does two way and costs $84.
The DCH100 STB does two way and costs $234. This is is the cheapest Motorola STB with cablecard capability, and the model that Moto using cablecos would use after the integration ban goes into effect.

What you say? Why does it cost 3 times as much for supporting a crummy PCMCIA card?

The answer? It doesn't need that much for the card. That's not where the cost is going.

It's all the horsepower and memory necessary to run the crummy OCAP VM so that it can run a trivial communications handshake application. They don't even need OCAP to do it, as demonstrated by the DT700.

So why are cable companies tacking on the OCAP requirement? Why indeed. Because they wanted the government to issue a mandate for their vertical market plans for a walled garden ecosystem. Plus- they want to blame the government for forcing them to spend the 600 million necessary for the boxes that can run OCAP. If they wanted a box near the $84 mark, they could go with the CEA OCAPless Cablecard proposal. But they say that's too hard. Beyond Broadband has a cheaper $50 solution. Cableco's balk at that, saying they need another 2 years to refine their DCAS/OCAP design. Really, all of this is about OCAP.

It is a somewhat disingenuous and slimey move by the cable companies, and so I tend to be rather sarcastic about it.

[The fact that DCH100 runs OCAP may be verified here.]


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

nrc said:


> "No, we only use open software when it doesn't get in the way of locking you into our vertical channel."


That is very true. However, he said iPhone would likely support Flash, and that is multiplatform as well.

While I think it is typical reality bending for Jobs to say that no one uses Java, he is correct and I think everyone knows that running a Java VM is a huge pig for resources on a portable device. It certainly requires more ponies than what you will find on a $50 two way cable device anytime soon.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Jobs said that in response to a question asked by John Markoff at CES, and reported by david pogue in the NYT. Current link is general, to Pogue's blog, so the may change in the future. (If the link is broken, googlers may search for the jobs quote- the title of the blog entry is "Ultimate iPhone FAQs List, Part 2" dated January 13, 2007.
> 
> Is it really a ball and chain? Well- consider this:
> 
> ...


I don't doubt that OCAP adds to the price. but OCAP is not just JAVA. It's JAVA plus other requirements isn't it?

If you want to rally against OCAP, fine, I'll join you.
As I've said before I don't want the 'walled garden' anymore than you.

However, I do think that some platform for the delivery of services after the box's manufacture is a good thing. I dont think Java is the only choice. I happen to think it's one good chioce, there also may be even better ones. I won't join you in rallying against Java itself.

Some of the extra expense would still be there with Java. Possibly even more if the platform was well thought. Any virtual machine that's well thought out (futurewise) might mean higher cost.

I'm all for a VM based 'service/software' delivery feature. But I'm only for something like Tivo's HME functionality, not the Calbe Companies 'Walled Garden'

-Kyle


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't have any huge objections to OCAP so long as it is optional and doesn't get favored bandwidth. That is, that I can get access to two way services on the cable's net without it, and there is a provision in any Net Neutrality bill that states that CableCo's cannot favor its products for bandwidth priority (including OCAP applications).

I have even less problem with OCAP if the user can load his own OCAP applications and arrange the environment as they please, deleting apps they don't want and if they can use it with alternate head ends on the internet for network applications.

The OCAP application box running things like ecommerce, banking apps etc. is really the old Network computer idea for a proprietary network.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

kjmcdonald said:


> The Central 'CAS' device then decrypts the content I pay for, tags it/ encrypts it with my Media Access Key, and puts it out through my home over coax.


Or Ethernet, or other (powerline, wireless, fibre). Ethernet cabling is just a cheap as coax, or marginally more at most. The real savings are in the termination hardware, in that one ethernet interface is cheaper than what one needs on either end of a typical household coax "network"


> This *standard* could also specify how the TV's and other devices can pass content requests upstream through the Central CAS device. PPV, VOD, SDV, could all be done this way. For services like those that are already thought of today, it would be possible to specify how to do them on a protocol level, and nothing like a JVM would be needed.
> 
> On the other hand, future services that haven't been thought of before would need a mechanism to be able to add that functionality later. Firmware updates are one, but then the consumer is at the mercy of the equipment maker to continue to develop firmware for old products in the future. Here a Standardized software environment that is CPU architecture independent (something like C# or a JVM) *would* be very useful.


They could do either. Build an ultra cheap STB that directly controls basic interactive services, and when it reaches a support EOL, it can be reasonably disposed, or a higher end box that runs middleware, which the middleware gets updeated as needed. Of course, the base firmware on those boxes needs updates too, unless they get it right the fist time, or eventually.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

iPhone is a very smll iMac runing the Mac OS. Why use java when you have an entire OS to play with.


----------



## ac3dd (Mar 2, 2002)

kjmcdonald said:


> I do want a STB'less home, although I'm happy to accept a 'central' CAS/Communications Gateway in order to get it.
> 
> I don't accept a need for a box on each TV or viewing device.
> 
> ...


Brilliant post. There is a boatload of innovative devices that we haven't thought of yet that would be invented and marketed if cable companies didn't have such a chokehold on signal distribution within the home.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Note: Apparently the CEA/IT proposal is getting called "DCR+" by some folks so ... that's what I'll use ...


Justin Thyme said:


> Seriously though- I don't see how the CE companies will ever accept an OCAP solution that would satisfy Cable Company goals for a walled garden.


Yes ... I know ...

You've built this litlle OCAP = walled garden ... NoCAP = open garden world that isn't very accurate.

Seriously, it's just as possible to build an open garden with OCAP as it is to build one without it. It's just as possible to build a walled garden with OCAP as it is to build one without it. The two things aren't interchangeable.

But ... ah well ...


Justin Thyme said:


> My understanding was that the main negative on the CEA 2008 proposal was the generic cablecard problems- cost at the low end and higher support/installation costs.


Now what did I say on that other thread ...


dt_dc said:


> dt_dc said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4730281&&#post4730281
> ...


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> Technology-wise (OCAP vs. NoCAP) ... the differences between the DCR+ proposal and cable's OCAP approach isn't really about the "garden" at all. It's all about risk / reward and *who (really) pays *for the changes required to bring two-way products to market ...


And isn't that always the end consumer?  Both by being forced to wait, and then having the costs passed along.



> and who pays for getting cable out of some of the proprietary vendor lock-in they've submitted themselves to.


This is the other aspect that I don't see mentioned much. The Cable companies use the set top boxes that are made for the head-ends they have installed (at least that's how I understand it.)

They want to see 'generic open' set top boxes just as much as the end user does, since it will reduce the costs for them to maintain the 'fleet' of boxes they have now. I've heard many time people complaining about features on STB's that the cable company "won't enable" ... Really (from what I understand) it's that the Head End equipment make charges large licensing fees to enable those features.

This is s big driving force. being able to pit the STB vendors against each other and create a real marketplace for the equipment.

Of course they don't want us end consumers buying the equipment at retail. They can't have it both ways.

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> If you really think DCR+ is going through ... here's a tip ... get in on the BigBand IPO and buy up any VOD / SDV vendor you can lay hands on because cable is going to have to make some big deals in the space.
> 
> 
> > Do you think that's a good investment or is that sarcastic?
> ...


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

I keep finding more things to ask questions or comment about....



dt_dc said:


> You're missing how the cable and CEA propsals / ideas have shifted over time.
> 
> The DCR+ proposal offers more of a "walled garden" for cable than CEA/IT has ever proposed before. Similarly, the OCAP 1.1 specs and some other moves by cable offer more possibility of an "open garden" than cable has ever offered before. The two groups are circling around the same (general) target.
> 
> Quite frankly the "walled garden" / "open garden" analogy is a bit lacking too. Both groups are presenting a garden that is partially walled and partially open. Under the DCR+ proposal, the CEA has a bigger space to play in. Under cable's current proposal, that area is smaller. The groups' proposals, over time, are inching towards the same general thing (as far as the "garden" is concerned).


Personally, I'd be happy where the Device Vendor has control of the 'top level UI menu' and is free to organize it however it wants as long as it offers:

1) a single toplevel submenu or entry point to the Cable operator to offer it's 'garden'.
2) a single toplevel submenu or entry point that will 'contain' submenus for any 3rd party services offering.

Thinking this way, not all compaines in the CEA are really looking for the same thing. Many are actually hoping to offer services (microsoft) through this platform not really manufacture (panasonic, samsung, dell) devices.

It'd be interesting to see how the negotiations would proceed if these two groups were split out.

I primarily want the device vendor (Tivo in my mind) to have control over the look of the device. To offer me things at it's level (guruguide, showcases, tivocast). If comcast had the ability to insert a Comcast item in the toplevel Tivo menu that'd be find with me, it could affer me all it's services there. Then MS, Yahoo, and otehrs could all offer their content/services through something like Music,Photos, and more... Actually I'd like to see things like that are based in my home (Galleon apps, TivoToGo services) split out and easier to get to. Right now they're at the bottom of all the Yahoo, etc. stuff. - well Galleon is anyway.

-Kyle


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

kjmcdonald said:


> Do you think that's a good investment or is that sarcastic?


Woops ... sorry ...

I knew I was treading dangerously close to 'no stock talk' with that comment. Stay away from 'investment' comments. And, in general, judging MSO vendors' outlooks can be very tricky unless you're CTO or something of an MSO so ... that's all I'm going to say.

But, if DCR+ actually went through with a mandated date of 2008 ... yes, it would certainly, one way or another, mean alot of money going into (some) cable vendors' hands very quickly. And probably some of the big, name-brand ones. It would also mean some cable vendors folding up and dieing though so ... carefull carefull. Edit: And as I noted above ... I personally _don't_ think that's going to happen.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> Woops ... sorry ...
> 
> I knew I was treading dangerously close to 'no stock talk' with that comment. Stay away from 'investment' comments. And, in general, judging MSO vendors' outlooks can be very tricky unless you're CTO or something of an MSO so ... that's all I'm going to say.


Oops.

Is there a rule about stock/investment talk here? I may have missed it.

Sorry.

-Kyle


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

kjmcdonald said:


> Is there a rule about stock/investment talk here? I may have missed it.


Rule #13:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=217934


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> Rule #13:
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=217934


Yep I missed that post in the Coffee House forum.

I had looked through the 'forum rules' from the quick links menu:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/rules.html

All I found there was:



> You agree to not use the Service to:
> 
> .
> .
> ...


Which I didn't think we were anywhere near breaking.

Thanks for the pointer.

-Kyle


----------

