# CableCards going away?



## MikeO (Jan 24, 2001)

OCAP to replace CableCARDS

Will Tivo be able to implement this in our existing Series3?? It appears to be some software CAM instead of a hardware CAM.

m


----------



## SteveJ (Jun 14, 2003)

But surely the cable companies will have to allow those of us with CableCards to keep using them for some time... 

I don't really care about On Demand or PPV. I'm happy just using my Tivo Series 3.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

CableCards are going away like B&W TVs.


----------



## timdorr (Sep 16, 2003)

I'm pretty sure they're going to stick around: http://news.com.com/Cable+companies+lose+round+in+CableCard+battle/2100-1033_3-6107359.html

It's an FCC regulation that cable companies have to provide them, anyways.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I wonder how many of these hardware failures due to incompatibility that the cable companies complain about in the article are really because of clueless techs.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MikeO said:


> Will Tivo be able to implement this in our existing Series3?? It appears to be some software CAM instead of a hardware CAM.


First off, OCAP isn't replacing CableCard. OCAP (OpenCable Application Platform) is a software platform. DCAS (Downloadable Conditional Access System) and CableCards are conditional access systems. Different things. OCAP is not dependant on any particular conditional access system ... it can be used with itegrated security systems, CableCard, DCAS, whatever ...

The plan is to "replace" CableCard with DCAS.

No, the S3 will not be able to implement DCAS (unless Tivo has had the incredible foresight to include a chip that hasn't been developed yet). Yes, part of DCAS is it's "downloadable software" component ... however it also depends on hardware (ASIC) in the host. The main difference between CableCard and DCAS is that with CableCard ... you have to get that hardware from your cable company and plug it in. With DCAS, the hardware is already soldered in ...

However, "replace" is a bit of a misnomer too. CableCard equipment will continue to provide the same functionality it currently does after DCAS is deployed / implemented.


----------



## jautor (Jul 1, 2001)

dt_dc said:


> No, the S3 will not be able to implement DCAS (unless Tivo has had the incredible foresight to include a chip that hasn't been developed yet). Yes, part of DCAS is it's "downloadable software" component ... however it also depends on hardware (ASIC) in the host. The main difference between CableCard and DCAS is that with CableCard ... you have to get that hardware from your cable company and plug it in. With DCAS, the hardware is already soldered in ...


I haven't looked at the DCAS stuff (don't even know if there's any publicly available docs), but one would think that someone would create a DCAS solution in a CableCard form factor, to instantly make all current products compatible with DCAS solutions, and would allow a quick removal of the CableCard support.

Of course, the consumer would probably have to purchase this DCAS-Card, but hey, if you got to return the rented CableCards, it'll be worth a few bucks.

Hopefully, the folks working on DCAS are at least that smart, or more correctly, care at least that much about the consumer... 

Jeff


----------



## mlofaso (Aug 11, 2006)

I am certain that cable companies wish CableCARD would go away, but for now they've got until July '07 until their own boxes must use CableCARD. As of Sep 18th the cable companies have twice requested the July '07 date to be pushed back to 2010 asking for DCAS rather than CableCARD. I haven't heard of an FCC ruling on the latest request. but I'm pretty sure it won't go through. The good news is that Verizon is adding some competition in the cable market which will be good for everybody. 

Aug 24th Story

Today's Story

Mark 
The HTPC Record


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Myth 1. DCAS is cheaper.
A non existent technology is always cheaper than known costs of an existing technology. What we do know is that DCAS requires secure processors, a custom ASIC soldered onto the motherboard of all TVs, DVRs and other navigational devices. Cablecards require a PMCIA connector and the circuitry on separate card. What I see extra on the cablecard side is the greater cost of the connector and the PMCIA case. What I see on the DCAS side is a more expensive processor like BCM7401 that is has an SVP certified processor adequate for DCAS applications- plus the added cost of the ASIC DCAS chip, plus whatever additional circuitry is required for coatail riding security protocols necessary for DCAS certification. 

Myth 2. DCAS is more reliable.
A non existent technology is always more reliable than a known technology. What we do know is that DCAS involves a larger variety of software layers and more complicated communications protocols and interoperability issues with heterogeneous head end servers. Does that sound to you like a formula for greater reliability?

Myth 3. DCAS will result in greater choice in the marketplace. 
By allowing cableco's to perpetually stall conformance to the 1996 Telecom law, the FCC has over a decade been complicit in the activities of video service providers to block the abilities of the Consumer Electronics industry to build and compete with devices provided by the service providers.


----------



## ctakim (May 7, 2006)

It would be a grand development to see this technology retired sooner rather than later. The failure to launch I had with my S3 was caused, in my opinion, by the cable card and cable company not the with TiVo. Still, I was left in the lurch.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Retired in favor of what? Retired so that we can wait until the new deadline proposed by the cablecos for DCAS- 2009? Let's see, they were 4 years late with cablecards, so with a more complex initiative like DCAS, let's be generous and assume they do as well with their schedule discipline as they have in the past. 

Are you prepared to wait until 2013 for a DCAS Tivo?

Do you to believe that the installation would have been any different if DCAS and not Cablecards were the standard today?

If so, show us why.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dt_dc said:


> First off, OCAP isn't replacing CableCard. OCAP (OpenCable Application Platform) is a software platform. DCAS (Downloadable Conditional Access System) and CableCards are conditional access systems. Different things. OCAP is not dependant on any particular conditional access system ...


"The overall design for DCAS expects an OCAP environment" CED Sept 2006

In the DCAS agreement, you are permitted to have a television with a display buffer, but after protected video is displayed, it must immediately be erased. So if you want to rewind even the last 15 seconds of a football game that has certain copy protection flags on it, the only way to do it requires support of OCAP. For these machines, there are exceptions to the Must immediately erase rule.


> "3.4.1 Such Licensed Products with integrated recording capability may internally store such content, including for the purpose of trick play or pausing the program, when instructed by OCAP"(DCAS agreement)


Otherwise, they may not make any copies, however temporary- even for rewinding in a 30 minute buffer- of such protected content- that is, unless they implement trick play using an OCAP application.

So, if you are a CE company that doesn't want to use cablecards, unless you want to build a product that will only work with some content, you must implement OCAP. Naturally, OCAP requires more memory and enough cpu speed to run Java applications quickly while simultaneously handling high priority concurrent tasks.

This is what I meant by the cable companies using DCAS long coatails to slip in requirements for other intiatives they are interested in forcing CE companies to adhere to.

July, 2007, the Cable companies will at long last be required to use the security devices they were from the start told that they would be required to use. It isn't the security access mechanism they have not yet invented, but the security access mechanism they took nearly a decade to invent but never felt motivated to support seriously because they were always granted yet another waiver extension.

It is particularly absurd of the cable companies are attempting in this context to use the security access provision of the 1996 Telecom law to force compliance to cableco initiatives that have nothing to do with protection of their network. They are attempting to use the FCC to force CE companies to build OCAP enslaved boxes that only have the user interface and features that the cable company permits in its OCAP applications.

It is absurd of the cable companies to claim that use of cablecards will cost them a billion in the next two years, when the hardware requirements for DCAS are clearly far in excess of those necessary for cablecard support.

The solution is very simple. Cablecards are dog food only because the Cable Companies have not taken support of them seriously. Use of mechanisms that are not used by cableco boxes are treated as alien technology, with the attendent disregard by all support personel. Naturally, testing is not thorough, head ends are not set up properly, cablecard training is last on the support staff priority list. With such conditions, it is a miracle there are even 2000 cablecard users who put up with this crap, let alone 200,000.

Cable companies were told in 1998 that they would have to use the security access mechanism they would be inventing, and now is the time to start ramping up that testing, that training, and cut this endless pattern of stalls with waiver after waiver application.

It's time for the FCC to stop balancing the interests of the NCTA with the CEA. Last I checked, the FCC was there to protect the interests of Joe Schmoe consumers. If cablecards really are dog food, then the cable companies have only themselves to blame, and have all the power to fix it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

SteveJ said:


> But surely the cable companies will have to allow those of us with CableCards to keep using them for some time...


Actually, there is no such requirement. They'll make that decision based solely on how many customers would be adversely affected, and on how much advantage they'd get from switching technology.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

timdorr said:


> It's an FCC regulation that cable companies have to provide them, anyways.


The FCC regulation only requires that there be a way to connect CE to cable networks -- it does not have to be CableCARD (or any specific version of CableCARD for that matter).


----------



## ctakim (May 7, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Retired in favor of what? Retired so that we can wait until the new deadline proposed by the cablecos for DCAS- 2009? Let's see, they were 4 years late with cablecards, so with a more complex initiative like DCAS, let's be generous and assume they do as well with their schedule discipline as they have in the past.
> 
> Are you prepared to wait until 2013 for a DCAS Tivo?
> 
> ...


Hmm, you seem to be bristling for a debate that I don't particularly want to enter in to. My point is only that the cable card technology (perhaps from more political than technological reasons) is poorly implemented, poorly supported, and poorly functioning, at least in my local environment.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> The FCC regulation only requires that there be a way to connect CE to cable networks -- it does not have to be CableCARD (or any specific version of CableCARD for that matter).


While that is technically true ...

All cable companies that use QAM must support (and make available) CableCards (specifically). So if a cable company wants to throw out and replacing all their own STBs / DVRs ... throw out and replacing a whole lot of head-end and infrastructure equipment ... incur a very significant cost (probably in the billions for a company like Comcast) ...

Well then yes, they could choose not to support and deploy CableCards.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

ctakim said:


> Hmm, you seem to be bristling for a debate that I don't particularly want to enter in to. My point is only that the cable card technology (perhaps from more political than technological reasons) is poorly implemented, poorly supported, and poorly functioning, at least in my local environment.


You advocated retirement of cablecards. That is the part I take issue with. It begs some questions- what will take its place, how long do we have to wait, is it really any better solution for consumers, or are the huge wins really not for consumers at all but for the cable companies to further their control of the way we watch TV?

Because that is what DCAS and OCAP is.

I don't think the answers to those questions are particularly appetizing. If I am wrong about the answers I have guessed at, then I sincerely am interested in being corrected. I admit I ask the questions in a confrontational manner, but please don't be intimidated. It is true I get emotional about it, but that is just my blood- I can't do much about that part except try to moderate the intensity down a few notches. If I am wrong, I generally try to find a way to correct myself no matter how invested I am in a particular position.

The questions are pretty obvious and they have to be asked. Regardless how I posed them, you ought to try to come up with your answers for them whether you post your answers here or not.

I'm just saying- know what you are wishing for, what you advocated is precisely what the cable companies are making a full court press to build support for. It is precisely what consumer groups are rallying against.

I think you are correct that it is more political than technical. But there is already a political solution in place for the situation. The cable companies engineered cablecards- they technically work just fine if the local cable company is motivated to support them.

They are not motivated to support cablecards because their cable boxes do not use them. Cable companies have been told since 1998 that they would be required to use the separable security access mechanism they invented.

After a few years of serving cablecards up for third party devices, the cooks are now being required to eat their own food.

That's a powerful political way of solving such a problem. The wisdom of doing it this way is that it avoids getting bureaucrats involved in arbitrating technical and operational minutiae.

It was a good plan in 1998, and it still is a good plan. Let's stay on course and let the cable companies recieve the proper motivation they obviously needed in your localities case to get their personel trained properly, for their servers to be configured properly, etc, etc. In other localities, cablecard installation and operation is very smooth.

Unfortunately not all cable companies are managed as well.


----------



## Kenji (Jun 29, 2003)

jautor said:


> I haven't looked at the DCAS stuff (don't even know if there's any publicly available docs), but one would think that someone would create a DCAS solution in a CableCard form factor, to instantly make all current products compatible with DCAS solutions, and would allow a quick removal of the CableCard support.


While I agree that this would be nice, the CableCard 1.0 interface specification doesn't support bidirectional communication of any kind, which would be a requirement for any "DCAS compatible" CableCard replacement. In fact, CableCards that meet the CableCard 2.0 interface specification (which *does* support bidirectional communication) will not be compatible with CableCard 1.0 equipment (like the TiVo S3).

In other words, while this is a nice idea, it isn't happening. Sadly.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ctakim said:


> Hmm, you seem to be bristling for a debate that I don't particularly want to enter in to. My point is only that the cable card technology (perhaps from more political than technological reasons) is poorly implemented, poorly supported, and poorly functioning, at least in my local environment.


This really sums the issue up. Any seller who seeks to sell products that rely on such technology either must bare the brunt of the obligation for overcoming those problems, or shouldn't expect the market to embrace their product.



dt_dc said:


> While that is technically true ... All cable companies that use QAM must support (and make available) CableCards (specifically). So if a cable company wants to throw out and replacing all their own STBs / DVRs ... throw out and replacing a whole lot of head-end and infrastructure equipment ... incur a very significant cost (probably in the billions for a company like Comcast) ... Well then yes, they could choose not to support and deploy CableCards.


Apparently, all the major cable companies are at least willing to, as I suggested in the message you replied to, upgrade their infrastructure to support CC2.0, afterwhich time they can switch as much programming as they wish so as to rely on (specifically) CC2.0 -- that was the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Kenji said:



> While I agree that this would be nice, the CableCard 1.0 interface specification doesn't support bidirectional communication of any kind, which would be a requirement for any "DCAS compatible" CableCard replacement. In fact, CableCards that meet the CableCard 2.0 interface specification (which *does* support bidirectional communication) will not be compatible with CableCard 1.0 equipment (like the TiVo S3).


Actually, Sony, Dell, Intel, Microsoft, Pioneer, Philips, Toshiba and Hitachi seem to think Cablecards suit them just fine, and that the Cablecard 2.0 spec is unnecessary for bidirectional cable features. Their November 2006 counter proposal to CC2.0 is a sea change, requesting that the FCC put a final end to cable company foot dragging on allowing third party devices full access to cable company networks. See Proposal for Bi-Directional Digital Cable Compatibility and Related Issues .

While it would be possible to communicate using a Cablecard 1.0 card using this proposal, my guess is that the S3 does not have necessary circuits to emit upstream messages via cable as described in Appendix A of this proposal which covers basic bidirectional services.

Perhaps if these companies see nothing wrong or substandard with Cablecard technology, perhaps the weakness is not in the cablecards, but the hostility the cable companies have towards allowing them on their networks.

Perhaps it occured to these companies that DCAS is an answer to a problem that Cable companies are intentionally creating.


----------



## Kenji (Jun 29, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> While it would be possible to communicate using a Cablecard 1.0 card using this proposal, ...


That isn't exactly what the proposal to which you linked states. It states:

"The use of a CableCARD solution would require a new version multistream CableCARD."

In other words, even if the S3's hardware supported bi-directional communication, we'd still have to get new "CC1.0+" CableCards to take advantage of it.

The proposal to which you linked is interesting. But as you say, the bottom line for S3 owners is still that bi-directional communication is probably impossible.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Note that CC2.0 does interactivity without modified cards. Neither must the CEA's proposal require changed cards.

You misread the passage. The proposal will work with current SCards and MCards.

What they were refering to is that a downloadable scheme like DCAS could be accomodated in the proposal, but this would require a modification of the Cablecard.



> As suggested above, the Proposal contemplates transition to a downloadable security regime, in that it can be effectuated through either a software-based solution *or by modifying the hardware solution (i.e. CableCARD) available today.* Under a downloadable security regime, a single chip could be physically soldered, in a secure manner, into the host device, or the security requirements satisfied through other robust approaches on multifunction devices.17 The use of a CableCARD solution would require a new version multistream CableCARD. This would not impact in any way the deployment of the current multistream CableCARD planned to be available soon for use by cable set-top boxes and OCAP-equipped digital cable-ready products.


Again, note that SCards and MCards have nothing to do with directionality. It is a question about what the host's hardware can do. The key question is whether the S3 has the hardware connections to as some later date support upstream messaging. I would bet along with you that it doesn't, but in any case, the Cable Companies are crying bloody murder / gubmint interventionists/ will no doubt call in the content industries to file an amicus comment on the NTCA position. Sony, MS, Intel are no slouches either, and will haul in their content provider pals.

However, that there may be some minor additions being requested to the Cablecards. Specifically in Appendix A they discuss new Apis for wrapping requests for VOD, and Switched video (abbreviated as SD) tuning. I can imagine that some of these might require encryption of new upstream or downstream messages that is not directly supported by current physical cablecards, but I haven't seen the specific mention of hardware change request yet, and might get dropped during the negotiation anyway.

Regardless whether S3's would support this, it will be nuclear war before this is all over. The CE guys are going to want the dust to settle fast, but fast and government bureaucracy are terms that don't belong in the same sentence. Personally, I would not pay for an S3.1 even if it only cost $50 more because I don't care about VOD or PPV. Other folks do, and certainly if switched video becomes supported on cable systems, I can see that this support would be popular for a non trivial number of potential S3 customers.

Looks to be sizing up to a WWIII death match to me. Personally, I don't think that the FCC is going to tolerate the perpetual impasse between CEA and NTCA warring factions over how two way communication is to be documented and supported by cable companies.

These companies are following a document-the-api and formats approach- a model that has a huge amount of precendents for breaking up vertical integration schemes. Most recently, Microsoft was on the recieving end of one of these rulings- requiring it to document important system interfaces so that database companies could compete on a level playing field with Microsoft's database that were allegedly using these secret protocols.

CE companies are similarly requesting that the protocols that the cableco proprietary boxes are using to do upstream communications be used by third party boxes.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

JMO,the S3 TiVo could support an uplink device that connect to USB, or even do the uplink duties over the IP connection, if it is connected to the internet with its USB wireless adapter or ethernet.

I don't think it needs to be particularily secure, so long as the downlink content stream is secure, if security is the problem.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Very good point indeed.


----------



## Kenji (Jun 29, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> You misread the passage. The proposal will work with current SCards and MCards.


Uh, I think I read the passage just fine. I don't see how the phrase "new version multistream CableCARD" can be used to describe the CableCARDs currently plugged into my S3, which are the only "current" CableCARDs I care about.

Peace out.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Kenji said:


> Uh, I think I read the passage just fine. I don't see how the phrase "new version multistream CableCARD" can be used to describe the CableCARDs currently plugged into my S3, which are the only "current" CableCARDs I care about.


I believe you are quite mistaken. The second paragraph of the technical document (Appendix A) is very explicit:



> We propose that the method described herein be implemented for all *current separable security technologies prescribed by FCC regulations* and any subsequent replacement technologies.


Current separable.. by fcc regs = current Cablecards.

Again, I sincerely believe you misread the passage. The paragraph is discussing how the proposal could accomodate future DCAS schemes. The proposal does not require a DCAS or other downloadable conditional access scheme, and is envisioned as runable today using current Cablecards.

Appendix A is the third document queriable at the above mentionned FCC site or currently may be accessed  here.

Truth and Peace to you as well.

=JT=


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

classicsat said:


> JMO,the S3 TiVo could support an uplink device that connect to USB...


Not to be one to pour gasoline on your fire for suggesting USB as a solution to everything, but the OCUR modules interface through a USB protocol.

Meaning.... Meaning... You could theoretically record shows digitally- just as the S3 does.... on an S2 Tivo via USB.

Ok ok, I know what Dan will say at this juncture, so I will say it for him.

Dan: This will *never*  happen.
JT: Fooey- you are no fun.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Are y'all actually arguing about a proposal? They can propose all the want. It doesn't really mean anything until the negotiations between those that present the proposal and those that object to it work out their differences.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Ahem. Note that Cablecard 2.0 is also only a proposal. Interestingly, cable companies can't seem to make up their minds and are now proposing DCAS.

Besides, these aren't housewives from Diluth making some minor improvements to the CC2.0 spec.

It is the largest software company in the world, the largest IC producer, and largest Consumer electronics producers.

As for waiting for the parties to work out their differences, there has been an impasse for a decade since the Telecom act of 1996 was passed.

The cable companies don't like the law, and have managed to evade compliance with it for a decade. Personally, I think it's time for congress to bust some heads at the FCC. 

Enough is enough. The NTCA is playing the FCC for fools.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

Cable card is something that benefits only the consumer. The cable companies don't want interoperability with 3rd party CE devices. They'll do whatever they can to keep that from happening. 

I think the deal with them pushing some new non-existent technology is just a ploy to derail the current cable card track. The problem lies in the cable companies doing their best to stifle the technology not the technology itself. The FCC needs to take the hard line and really force it down their throats. Once they've proven they can implement cable card to everyone's satisfaction, they can be rewarded with the opportunity to move on to something else.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CraigHB said:


> Cable card is something that benefits only the consumer.


That's actually a very good way of wording it, alluding to its major obstacle for success. A mechanism that would be a win-win -- that provides positive benefits to *both sides *(rather than benefiting one side and just avoiding punishment to other side) -- would have a far better chance of succeeding.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

I see. So is it your contention that Cable won't make profits from services sold to devices usinng cablecards? Sure- they won't be making money off of rentals of DVRs and set top boxes, but what are you saying ? Competition for producing cable ready devices is bad?

If they can't make money off this technology then why did they invent Cablecards to work this way then? Maybe you need to give the cable companies some pointers on developing technology.


----------



## Kenji (Jun 29, 2003)

Here's Ken Polhmann's two cents on CableCARDs.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

His perspective is an accurate representation of the cable companies' position on this issue. It is amusing to note that he omits the fact that the entity that created cablecards was the cable industry itself. Kind of changes the meaning of his illustration when you understand that the devil in the picture running the show is the cable companies.

Unfortunately, the reviewer obviously hasn't studied Cablecard, making the statement "*2.0 cards won't work in TVs that already have CableCARD slots*."

I think you and I know that this is utterly false. So much for his "expert" opinion. So if he flubs such a fundamental fact, what does this tell us? Perhaps he has a lot to learn.

Note that the piece was written prior to the Sony, Philips, Toshiba, Hitachi, Dell, Microsoft, and Intel along with other major CE companies in lining up behind CableCARD.

It will be interesting to see how this particular fellow's perspective evolves as he learns more about their Bidi proposal and the importance of keeping Cable Companies to the 1998 requirement that they use the separable security access scheme that they designed.

BTW- Kenji do you now agree that their proposal applies to current cablecards?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

CraigHB said:


> Cable card is something that benefits only the consumer. The cable companies don't want interoperability with 3rd party CE devices. They'll do whatever they can to keep that from happening.


I completely disagree! I'm sure the short-sited cable companies see it this way, but it isn't true.

MANY people here who are buying S3's and getting cablecards are CANCELING DirecTV and SWITCHING to cable! The cable companies are BENEFITING by getting new $65-$100 a month new high end customers! This doesn't benefit the cable company??

Their technology sucks. They really should embrace cablecards because it gives them an edge on satellite.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

Kenji said:


> Here's Ken Polhmann's two cents on CableCARDs.


He says PPV and VOD are "Some of the most important TV features", that's a skewed viewpoint. I couldn't care less about VOD, I'd like to be able to PPV, I've used it before, but I'll take a TiVo over PPV. From a consumer point of view they're pretty low priority (at least from this consumer's point of view).

He does reveal his agenda later, when he says "Cable companies ... derive mucho income from PPV and VOD", these are important features for the cable co, not for the consumer. My view is they should be making it possible for S3 owners to get PPV, even without interactive cable. DirecTV can do this, and you'd think they'd want to sell their most profitable product (PPV) to customers who've demonstrated a high disbosible income (ie have bought an S3). Expecting the cable companies to see sense is too much to hope for.

As for needing a win-win scenario, the cable companies had their chance to impliment a solution to their liking, They came up with cable cards. If they don't like it it should be just rammed down their throats. Expecting the cable companies to see sense is too much to hope for.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> I completely disagree! I'm sure the short-sited cable companies see it this way, but it isn't true.
> 
> MANY people here who are buying S3's and getting cablecards are CANCELING DirecTV and SWITCHING to cable! The cable companies are BENEFITING by getting new $65-$100 a month new high end customers! This doesn't benefit the cable company??


I competely agree with what Adam says here.

Expecting the cable companies to see sense is too much to hope for.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> I see. So is it your contention that Cable won't make profits from services sold to devices usinng cablecards? Sure- they won't be making money off of rentals of DVRs and set top boxes, but what are you saying ? Competition for producing cable ready devices is bad?


Who said that? Why not argue against what I actually wrote instead of arguing against things I didn't write, but are easier to argue against? 

The cable companies are making profit as things are now. You want them to change. If you want them to *foster* specific changes, those changes need to make them _more_ profit -- that would be a "win" for them, instead of a "loss".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

btwyx said:


> As for needing a win-win scenario, the cable companies had their chance to impliment a solution to their liking, They came up with cable cards. If they don't like it it should be just rammed down their throats. Expecting the cable companies to see sense is too much to hope for.


Luckily, the government and the courts don't see it that way, on any account.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

For example? In Ruling- Charter versus FCC, the Federal appeals court ruled in august against the cable industry's bid to strike down the requirement effectively and will force the Cable companies to fix their problems with cablecards because they will have to use them too.

Specifically, they have noted the Cable companies less than half hearted support for cablecards, refering to the obstruction of M-Cards that were needed for both the Tivo S3 and Vista MCE based DVRs.



United States Appeals Court- DC circuit said:


> As an example of the need for aligned incentives, the Second Report and Order recounted the cable industrys reluctance to provide TiVo -- an intermodal competitor -- with a multistream CableCARD: a device that TiVo needed to allow its customers to receive two streams of programming, but that cable did not need to provide the same service.


Bicker, the consumers want this to happen, the courts do, the major electronics and IT companies want it. Your proposal is that there should be no check on the power of vertical monopolists.

I think most people respectfully disagree.


----------



## Warlord46 (Dec 2, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *btwyx*:
> As for needing a win-win scenario, the cable companies had their chance to impliment a solution to their liking, They came up with cable cards. If they don't like it it should be just rammed down their throats. Expecting the cable companies to see sense is too much to hope for.
> 
> Originally Posted by *bicker* in response:
> Luckily, the government and the courts don't see it that way, on any account.


On the contrary, the deadline for FCC-ordered forceful implementation of cable-card technology over cableco's strenuous objections is July 2007. In other words, cable cards are indeed about to be rammed down cableco's collective throats. Cableco's efforts to get court orders to prevent that from happening have failed. Cableco's last hope is to persuade the FCC to postpone that date with the hangman. Everyone, other than cableco employees, stockholders and PR flacks, hopes that the FCC provides no reprieve.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

The cable companies knew the rules in 1998 prior to their creation of cablecards.

Perhaps they hoped they could finesse their way out of it, but it's hard to believe they didn't prepare for this dining experience. 

They are played the system for all the delays they could eak out, and hey- they were entitled by the rules to play the game that way. I just don't see the FCC allowing the impasse to go on much longer. The FCC's obligation is to carry out the law, and the cable industry is still not in compliance with the 1996 telcom law.

Checkmate 707.


----------



## CheezWiz (Dec 30, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> I completely disagree! I'm sure the short-sited cable companies see it this way, but it isn't true.
> 
> MANY people here who are buying S3's and getting cablecards are CANCELING DirecTV and SWITCHING to cable! The cable companies are BENEFITING by getting new $65-$100 a month new high end customers! This doesn't benefit the cable company??
> 
> Their technology sucks. They really should embrace cablecards because it gives them an edge on satellite.


Not to mention all of us cheapskates are probably locking ourselves into the three year commitment with Tivo which means a three year commitment to Cable TV too!


----------



## BruceShultes (Oct 2, 2006)

CheezWiz said:


> Not to mention all of us cheapskates are probably locking ourselves into the three year commitment with Tivo which means a three year commitment to Cable TV too!


Only until FIOS becomes available in my area. Then the cable company will lose me for good.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> MANY people here who are buying S3's and getting cablecards are CANCELING DirecTV and SWITCHING to cable! The cable companies are BENEFITING by getting new $65-$100 a month new high end customers! This doesn't benefit the cable company??


That does benefit the cable companies. However, I doubt the MSO's realize this. It's a matter of control. They want to maintain the ability to do as they see fit without issue over 3rd party compatability. Cablecard eliminates a degree of flexibility for them. As far as they're concerned, they lose revenue to CC TV's that don't need a box rental and have no access to PPV or VoD. S3 TiVo probably doesn't even enter into the equation.

In any case, it *is* their specification and if they screwed up by not doing it right the first time, they're going to have to live with it. No mercy.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Does the FCC require Verizon to seperate out the encryption on FiosTV like the cable companies are required to?

I imagine many consumers who were looking to have 'digital cable ready' TV sets, and cable competition will be disappointed if those CableCARD Sets will still need a STB on FiosTV? ( I have an email in to Verizon to ask but I thought people here might know better about the FCC regs?)

I would think the FCC would require Verizon to meet the same standards as they do the Cable Company. No?

If they don't have to, I would think that would just make it more valuable to the cable companies, because those of us who want/need it will have an incentive to stick with cable.

As far as I know most of the cable companies already (because they have to?) supply cable cards to the customers who want them. Am I correct in guessing that the argument in the court is wether or not the cable companies are going to have to use CableCARDs in their own set-top boxes? right?

I agree though with the point that if their own boxes had to use CableCARDs then their system's support of the cards would definitely improve. There may still be 3rd party devices with problems, but they'd pretty much always be the device's issue, since the network or cable system would have it's end setup for the cards correctly.

The 'incompatibility' or 'complex testing and support' arguments don't fly with me for using the CableCARDs in cable boxes. The Cable company generally only supplies one or two types boxes to it's customers in any one area, and they get to pick the type of CableCARD to use. So it shouldn't be that hard to find a combo that will work.

About the replacement system the companies are asking for... Are they hoping to license it to 3rd party electronics vendors? or is it planned only for their own boxes?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Yep, FCC rules apply to Verizon because they are a cable company. Verizon supports cablecard 1.0 devices like Tivo S3 and Vista cablecard MCE's.

The fact that Verizon uses optical cable to the house is immaterial. Both cable and Verizon use hybrid fiber coaxial systems. The difference is where the optical to coax node is. In verizon's case, it is at an individual home. In cable's case, an optical node may serve 500 to 2000 homes served by a coax cable.

Anyway- as a cable company, Verizon must provide support for Cablecard 1.0 devices. Verizon applied for waiver of the integration ban, based on uncertainty caused by the introduction of the DCAS proposal.

They assert firstly that the integration ban should not be applied to new entrants to the multichannel video market. Secondly, they argue that DCAS is more attractive than physically separable Cablecards, but as proposed by cablelabs would be injurious to Verizon because the return path for two way communications does not work the same way as that of typical cable companies. So, whatever DCAS proposal Cablelabs is scrambling to demonstrate in time to stall the ban is not going to be acceptable to Verizon since it tilts the playing field in Cable's favor. Isn't this squabbling fun? There is more to the objections, but interested readers might like to take a look at their filing. Lots of pictures and diagrams.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

That's a great document. That FiOS looks really cool. It would be kind of lame for the FCC to pidgeon hole an emerging provider like that. They should get the waiver. What the FCC should do is start working plans for a new open standard that FiOS can drop into easily.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> I see. So is it your contention that Cable won't make profits from services sold to devices usinng cablecards?


It is from the value added services, namely on ads placed on the cablebox menus andi nteractive non-video services, and even some video services that the cable company wishes to retain revenue from, which is in jeopary if a customer has a box that they cannot force those services on.


> If they can't make money off this technology then why did they invent Cablecards to work this way then?
> 
> 
> > To meet the minimal word of the FCC requirement to have ineteroperable security.
> ...


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> Not to be one to pour gasoline on your fire for suggesting USB as a solution to everything, but the OCUR modules interface through a USB protocol.


I am talking of just using the USB for the upstream backchannel communication, not the entire cablecard tuner.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> do you now agree that their proposal applies to current cablecards?


No.

The CEA / IT proposal is not designed for the current CableCards (or 'soon-to-be-available M-Cards').

The CEA / IT proposal needs a more 'heavy weight' card (or integrated ASIC for a download solution). Basically, you need more memory, more processing power, perhaps more data accross the interface, etc. than is required by the current CableCard interface spec.

Perhaps SA / Moto massively over-engineered their cards ... but I kinda doubt it. Plus the CEA / IT proposal isn't anywhere near fully spec'ed so ... who knows.

But, it definately is not intended nor designed to be used with current CableCards. To run the 'application specific interface code' they want run on / from the CableCard is almost certainly not going to be able to be supported with current CableCards. You're going to need another new CableCard.

Now, the new CableCards could certainly be designed in the same backwards-compatible way as M-Cards ... ie, put them in a current host and they'd work (providing the same functionality as current cards).


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dt_dc said:


> No.
> 
> The CEA / IT proposal is not designed for the current CableCards (or 'soon-to-be-available M-Cards').
> 
> The CEA / IT proposal needs a more 'heavy weight' card (or integrated ASIC for a download solution). Basically, you need more memory, more processing power, perhaps more data accross the interface, etc. than is required by the current CableCard interface spec.


Here is what Appendix A says:


> We propose that the method described herein be implemented for all *current separable security technologies prescribed by FCC regulations* and any subsequent replacement technologies.  source


By ASIC's, you are talking about how things would work in "subsequent replacement technologies". DCAS.

The new CEA proposal is not a rehash of DCAS. See specifically "UDCR evolution"- 


> Further, we wish to stress that the technological changes necessary to *allow Unidirectional Devices to allow consumers access to basic interactive services * are evolutionary, and not revolutionary, in nature. This approach requires no changes to the interface between the cable provider distribution network and its client-side conditional access technology. It does require additions to the currently implemented interface between the conditional access technology and the host device.


Interfaces, not hardware changes.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Here is what Appendix A says:


Make sure to read the footnote.


> We propose that the method described herein be implemented for all current separable security technologies prescribed by FCC regulations and any subsequent replacement technologies.1
> 
> 1 The technologies described in this document could be implemented in either hardware or software. Accordingly, references herein to conditional access technologies should be read to include either a future, modified version of the soon-be-released multistream (MS) CableCARD, or some future software-based approach.


The CEA proposal makes (rather abundantly) clear that they do not expect currentlty deployed CableCards to be able to implement their interface changes / additions ...


Justin Thyme said:


> By ASIC's, you are talking about how things would work in "subsequent replacement technologies". DCAS.
> 
> The new CEA proposal is not a rehash of DCAS.


I'm not talking (specifically) about DCAS. I am talking about some future "software based" "downloadable" CA system where a chip is soldered in by the manufacturer and authorized remotely by the cable system (no CableCards ... like DCAS ... although the CEA / IT proposal makes clear they have some issues with DCAS specifically).

Again, the "basic interactive" (non-OCAP) solution in the CEA / IT proposal could be implemented either in:
1) a new CableCard (which they want available by January 1, 2008)
and / or
2) a (future) "software based" "downloadable" system (which they want available by January 1, 2009)

#2 was what I was referring to by ASICs.

Ie:


> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518539867
> 
> This non-OCAP approach could function with either a hardware-based conditional access technology like todays CableCARD, or a software-based technology.
> (...)
> As suggested above, the Proposal contemplates transition to a downloadable security regime, in that it can be effectuated through either a software-based solution or by modifying the hardware solution (i.e. CableCARD) available today.16 Under a downloadable security regime, a single chip could be physically soldered, in a secure manner, into the host device, or the security requirements satisfied through other robust approaches on multifunction devices.17 The use of a CableCARD solution would require a new version multistream CableCARD. This would not impact in any way the deployment of the current multistream CableCARD planned to be available soon for use by cable set-top boxes and OCAP-equipped digital cable-ready products.


If you want to know why a new CableCard would be needed ...


> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518539867
> 
> This non-OCAP approach builds on the existing DFAST technology and interface standards already being used by todays unidirectional digital cable ready devices (UDCRs). It would require a conditional access element with sufficient processing power and memory to operate both proprietary conditional access software and service-specific functionality.


Today's "conditional access elements" (current CableCards) only need the "processing power and memory to operate conditional access software" only ... the "service-specific functionality" isn't required.


Justin Thyme said:


> Interfaces, not hardware changes.


What do you think drives the CableCard hardware? The interface it has to support.

Look at the CableLabs web site. There's no "CableCard" spec ... just a "CableCard Interface" spec. The interface is spec'ed ... CableCard manufacturers (Moto, SciAtl, whomever) build to meet the interface spec. Heck, the only difference between the S-Cards and M-Cards is ... an interface. Of course, that (expanded) interface requires additional capabilities in the hardware ...

The CEA / IT propsal calls for "basic interactive" services (VOD, SDV, iPPV, etc) to be supplied by the CA element (CableCard, future downloadable solution, whatever). That means, if a CableCard solution is used / supported ... all that additional functionality outlined in Appendix A (that you linked to above) which currently are NOT supported by CableCards will have to be. All the code for:
1) The CableCARD to communicate with the cable network to determine SDV channel allocation
2) The CableCARD to implement Generic IPPV support (as defined in SCTE 28)
3) The CableCard to communicate with the cable network about VOD titles
4) And lots of other things that current CableCards have absolutely, positively, no need to do.
That's all going to have to be downloaded and run on the CableCard.

If current CableCards don't have the "processing power and memory" to do everything in Appendix A ... well ... they'd have to design new ones.

Like I said ... Moto and SciAtl may have over-engineered their cards to go above and beyond the then-spec'ed interface ... but ... I kinda doubt it.

The NCTA, of course, is guilty of a bit of hyperbole on the subject


> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518710599
> 
> The proposal insists instead that the cable industry provide selected two-way services through specific protocols designed for each application. (...) For example, multistream CableCARDs would become miniature set-top boxes, with more resources, more memory, more processing power and higher cost.


Like I said ... a bit of hyperbole ... but ... that's to be expected (in all these filings).


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Either currently speced MCards can be used to implement two way communication in cablecard 2.0, or they can't.

If they do, the significantly extra processing and memory happens somewhere not on the card in a CC2.0 Host. This proposal says- we can do that minus OCAP, thank you very much.

Would Dell, Microsoft, Sony PS3 products have the necessary resources? Oh, I think so.

What is required by January 1, 2008 is:


> Mandatory support for MS-CableCARD, consistent with this proposal, on every headend of every 550 MHZ or greater cable system by January 1, 2008.


Support on the server. Nothing about a "availability" or similar such of a new card.

OOOPS.



> Substantial percentage of newly deployed cable devices must use new version MS-CableCARD, as defined in this proposal.


 (also appendix b).

Nevermind. You are probably right then.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Wow. So care to place any wagers on that one? 

How bad do the cableco's want out of 7/07? It looks like it will cost them OCAP.


----------



## Jazhuis (Aug 30, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> How bad do the cableco's want out of 7/07? It looks like it will cost them OCAP.


Someone's head is probably asploding over the dilemma. Either way requires giving up some measure of control, and that is pretty much the main concept driving what they do technologically.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Either currently speced MCards can be used to implement two way communication in cablecard 2.0, or they can't.
> 
> If they do, the significantly extra processing and memory happens somewhere not on the card in a CC2.0 Host.


Exactly.

Under the CableLabs two-way specs that's all taken care if in the OCAP environment in the host. For example ... if you look at SDV ... OCAP-based guide (running on the host) talks to OCAP-based SDV software (running on the host) which together make use of the hardware on the host (OOB QPSK, DOCSIS, whatever) to talk to / from the headend to figure out what's required to tune an SDV channel (making use of hardware in the host). The only time the CableCard (or DCAS chip) gets involved is if the OCAP-based guide and / or OCAP-based SDV software decide they need something sent from the head-end unencrypted (or I guess encrypted if they want to send something important up to the head-end). The CA element's (CableCard or DCAS chip) only job is ... decryption / encryption. Exactly what it was designed for.


Justin Thyme said:


> This proposal says- we can do that minus OCAP, thank you very much.
> 
> Would Dell, Microsoft, Sony PS3 products have the necessary resources? Oh, I think so.


Doesn't matter. Again, Dell, Microsoft, and Sony are suggesting that the CA element do all the above. The host requests an SDV channel from the CA element ... and then the CA element has to figure out what's required to tune an SDV channel ... and either do it (itself) or tell the host how to do it. Again ... there's (admitedly) some 'fuziness' in the CEA / IT proposal.


Justin Thyme said:


> Wow. So care to place any wagers on that one?
> 
> How bad do the cableco's want out of 7/07?


Yes ... well ... there's the $5 million question eh?

I'd want to see the following before placing any wagers:
1) what the FCC is going to do with the waiver requests 2) some more details on what the CEA is looking for in their "OCAP Version X" that they still want mandatory support for and 3) the CableLabs "OCAP 1.1" specs

Right now I'd place it at 60/40 against any significant action / compromise between now and 7/07. But as always, subject to change. And hey, negotiators always hold their cards close to the vest ....

BTW, the 'new card' vs. 'existing cards' isn't really an issue here. It comes back to all the same old stuff ... aggregation vs. disaggregation ... common reliance ... costs / benefits ... IP issues ... some very real technical issues (and of course some not-so-real ones) ... different industry objectives ... etc, etc, etc ...


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> 3) the CableLabs "OCAP 1.1" specs


Woops ... missed it ...

CableLabs issued a public release of their OCAP 1.1 specs 12/29/06:
http://www.opencable.com/downloads/specs/OC-SP-OCAP1.1-I01-061229.pdf

Some hefty reading ...


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dt_dc said:


> Under the CableLabs two-way specs that's all taken care if in the OCAP environment in the host. ... Dell, Microsoft, and Sony are suggesting that the CA element do all the above.


Yep. What puzzled me is- why request a variant of the MCard with all the attendant whining and complaining from the cableco's (you noted their hyperbole) if they could do the same in software? That way they could have been ready to roll a lot sooner.

Is there something in the security rules (DFAST or whatever) forbidding such software running in memory spaces that the cableco's don't control? Perhaps as a concession to the Philips/Toshiba/Hitachi contingent that build boxes with far less computing power?


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Yep. What puzzled me is- why request a variant of the MCard with all the attendant whining and complaining from the cableco's (you noted their hyperbole) if they could do the same in software? That way they could have been ready to roll a lot sooner.


Sooner? Not sure what going back to the 2000-2002 specs would have done ...

Seriously, what you're talking about is exactly the way the earlier bidirectional specs were laid out. Optional OCAP for 'advanced interactive services' but with support for VOD, iPPV, guide data, and other things via non-OCAP standards. All those various SCTE standards the CEA / IT proposal refers to (for VOD, iPV, etc) come from that era (they just want the host talking with the card / CA element instead of directly to the headend ... but same general stuff).

SDV of course wasn't but a twinkle in anyone's eye so ... work to be done there ...

But anyway, take a look at how bidirectional communication works in the 1.0 Host specs because ... that's exactly it:
http://www.opencable.com/downloads/specs/OC-SP-HOST1.0-CFR-C01-040629.pdf

Anyway, not sure why Sony etc. are going to this "protocol in the CA element" approach over the earlier "non-OCAP protocol in host" ... I have one wacky idea but ... we'll see over the next few months if that plays out.


Justin Thyme said:


> Is there something in the security rules (DFAST or whatever) forbidding such software running in memory spaces that the cableco's don't control?


The DFAST license does prevent any attempt by a UDCP to communicate up to the headend ... but ... if all you want is licensing changes just ask for licensing changes (heck, the CEA / IT propsal includes a few other licensing changes too).


----------



## cramer (Aug 14, 2000)

MikeO said:


> OCAP to replace CableCARDS...


The writer of that article starts out wrong and spirals out from there...

How loudly does one have to scream this for people to hear it and remember it?
ALL CABLECARDS ARE BI-DIRECTIONAL - PERIOD.
It's the receiver that's unidirectional. It's easier to build and certify UDCP's. I've not been able to dig up even a single certified bidirectional device. ('tho I have found the reqs... look for "CHILA") OCAP is yet another BS move from the cableco's to avoid the integration ban and the resulting flood of equipment they'll have to replace and/or depreciate. (I'm not sure if they'll actually be forced to replace the existing deployed "integrated" hardware.)



dt_dc said:


> No, the S3 will not be able to implement DCAS (unless Tivo has had the incredible foresight to include a chip that hasn't been developed yet).


Maybe, maybe not. I've not seen anything in either the OCAP or DCAS specs specifically mandating a "security processor". If the system itself is "secure", then the system processor will do -- asuming it can run the bloated java application from the cableco. BTW, the cableco is responsible for the OCAP/DCAS application(s); so you can bet they'll only work properly on _their_ hardware and not be tested at all on any CE hardware.

The S3 certainly has the CPU to handle a java VM.



Kenji said:


> While I agree that this would be nice, the CableCard 1.0 interface specification doesn't support bidirectional communication of any kind, which would be a requirement for any "DCAS compatible" CableCard replacement.


See above. *ALL CABLECARDS ARE BIDIRECTIONAL.* DCAS does not require bidirectional support... aside from the obvious issue of getting the DCAS app in the first place, which I'm 100% certain MSOs would require to be requested instead of available OOB (think multicast... periodic mass broadcast.)



classicsat said:


> JMO,the S3 TiVo could support an uplink device that connect to USB,


Nice idea, but the problem is getting CableLabs to think the same way. While there's nothing in any of the specs as far as I've read them (I'm not a lawyer) to prevent such a creature, I really doubt it'd pass the certification processes. For starters, it's "outside" the controlled environment (read: the case.) It also opens the door for hacking -- signal theft, use in uncertified devices, etc.

--

The only _real_ problem with cableCARD(tm) deployment is the cable companies. Many simply don't want to deploy them and intentionally make the process as painful as possible. *cough*TW*cough* No cableco is happy with the opening of the digital cable hardware market, so it's understandable that they'll fight it. But, just like cable modems, they'll eventually come around and pull their head out of their ***. (This won't happen until they *SEE* the market for it. Thankfully, Comcast is leading the way. Now, if TW, et. al., would realize the number of pissed DTV Tivo users [millions] willing to switch to cable thanks to the S3...)


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

cramer said:


> Maybe, maybe not. I've not seen anything in either the OCAP or DCAS specs specifically mandating a "security processor".


Note: The actual DCAs specs are only available after signing the DCAS license agreement and subject to very strict NDAs so ... we can't really talk about the DCAS specs ... just what cable has said about the DCAS specs ...

NCTA filing / DCAS proposal:


> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518185079
> 
> In the DCAS architecture, leased-set top boxes and retail Hosts include a special chip which is pre-programmed with certain keys.
> (...)
> ...


Also see the DCAS Host license:


> http://www.opencable.com/downloads/DCASHostLicense.pdf
> 
> CableLabs shall cause PolyCipher to provide to Licensee, subject to security approval, the relevant portions of DCAS Know-How that Licensee has not previously received, and to make arrangements for receipt of appropriately keyed Qualified Secure Micros and Qualified Transport Processors as required for Certified Host Devices


Polycipher is a Comcast / Time Warner / Cox joint venture responsible for much of the actual DCAS execution:
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6363598.html?title=Article&nid=2797
http://www.ncta.com/DocumentBinary.aspx?id=525

For more on DCAS and its mandated secure processor, (in addition to the above links) see:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518312031 (interesting comments from Intel)
http://www.cedmagazine.com/toc-bbdirect/2006/20061212.html
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6303853.html
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=108605&site=cdn
etc.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

> ...a keying and programming facility that can install secret keys into the secure microprocessor; authentication systems to pair elements of the system...


Thank goodness the cable companies is keeping up to date on the latest and greatest. You know, I think we can always count on them to be championing the best protection that technology can provide... of course, not technology available exactly now, but real soon now. Obviously with any new technology there are always technical and logistical details to work out. Of course what's another year or year and a half to get the best of the best? It certainly would be a scandal if the gubmint forced Cable to invest billions in last year's technology- whatever it was called.

Protection from denied waivers is a major area of ongoing research and Government should not be standing in the way of bold innovations in this area.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

JT: sarcasm doesn't always come accross that well in text


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

I myself don't care about PPV or VOD (maybe if it's free).

I also don't care for 2 way communication. I don't mind it so much TiVo knowing my viewing prefs/history...why hould the cableco have it? 

It's not like they are giving me a break on my service, letting me use their equipment for free, ect...


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dt_dc said:


> JT: sarcasm doesn't always come accross that well in text


My crude attempt at wit. No substitute for action anyway.

But you are right- I had Closed caption on for a test and was watching Jon Stewart with no volume. It was amazing how different it was.

On the other hand:



Dorothy Parker said:


> This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.





> She runs the gamut of emotions from A to B.
> Dorothy Parker about Kate Hepburn​


----------



## CheezWiz (Dec 30, 2006)

http://www.pvrwire.com/2007/01/06/niveus-showcases-dual-cablecard-receiver/

We will now begin to see MediaPC makers push for CC's continued adoption. I expect to see all the big PC makers come out with CC equipped media PC's by the end of the year...


----------



## CheezWiz (Dec 30, 2006)

Yeah, Cable Cards are going away, away to peoples homes!

ATI Cable Labs Certified TV Tuner:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/08/atis-tv-wonder-digital-cable-tuner-announced/

CES will bring the Cable Co's a lot of unhappy announcements!
I love it!


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> While it would be possible to communicate using a Cablecard 1.0 card using this proposal, my guess is that the S3 does not have necessary circuits to emit upstream messages via cable as described in Appendix A of this proposal which covers basic bidirectional services.


Why do you say this? A CableCard slot is just a PCMCIA slot. If they stuck with the standard hardware interface for PCMCIA when they designed the damn thing+, then there's no reason why inserting a new card and updating the driver shouldn't allow for bidirectionality. Unless it was deliberately designed to violate the OCMCIA standard -- a distict possibility.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Royster said:


> Why do you say this? A CableCard slot is just a PCMCIA slot. If they stuck with the standard hardware interface for PCMCIA when they designed the damn thing+, then there's no reason why inserting a new card and updating the driver shouldn't allow for bidirectionality. Unless it was deliberately designed to violate the OCMCIA standard -- a distict possibility.


Because under the CE / IT proposal:


> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518539867
> 
> The host device would include other necessary non-proprietary hardware for communication from the device back to the cable operator.


The host device (ie, Tivo S3, CableCard TV, whatever) would still need to include the hardware (ie, DOCSIS modem or OOB QPSK modulator) to send messages to the head-end.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

This article seems to think that the FCC is sticking to it's guns... DCAS or not.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113480&site=cdn

According to the article, the STB manufacturers seem to be gearing up for CableCARD only STB's.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

kjmcdonald said:


> According to the article, the STB manufacturers seem to be gearing up for CableCARD only STB's.


Both Scientific Atlanta and Motorola are showing several CableCard versions of their boxes at CES.

Motorola:
http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail.jsp?globalObjectId=7563_7492_23

Scientific Atlanta:
http://home.businesswire.com/portal...d=news_view&newsId=20070108005424&newsLang=en


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Royster said:


> Why do you say this? A CableCard slot is just a PCMCIA slot. If they stuck with the standard hardware interface for PCMCIA when they designed the damn thing+, then there's no reason why inserting a new card and updating the driver shouldn't allow for bidirectionality. Unless it was deliberately designed to violate the OCMCIA standard -- a distict possibility.


It is PCMCIA in its physical form (as in card slot, pins, and the mating female connector on the card and card body), not electrically.

Nothing in the PCMCIA spec would dictate how it would be used in STB CA devices, let alone something as advanced as Cablecard, especially its backchannel, whose standard wasn't defined when the CC1.0 spec was released, which the Series 3 TiVo was based on.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Royster said:


> Why do you say this? A CableCard slot is just a PCMCIA slot.


It IS??? COOL! Then forget the TiVo! I'll just stick the card in my laptop and be off to the races!!


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> It IS??? COOL! Then forget the TiVo! I'll just stick the card in my laptop and be off to the races!!


Sure, as long as you know how to program the posrts, you;re ready to go. Or not.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

MikeO said:


> OCAP to replace CableCARDS
> 
> Will Tivo be able to implement this in our existing Series3?? It appears to be some software CAM instead of a hardware CAM.
> 
> m


Has anyone read (and sent the formletter to the FCC) this page:

http://www.eff.org/IP/pnp/cablewp.php

It seems like it would be in all of our best interests to be as vocal as possible to the FCC in this regard.

-Kyle


----------



## Warlord46 (Dec 2, 2006)

kjmcdonald said:


> Has anyone read (and sent the formletter to the FCC) this page:
> 
> http://www.eff.org/IP/pnp/cablewp.php
> 
> ...


That's a great site! I sent in both a complaint to the FCC about Comcast, and a letter urging the FCC to stick to their guns on July 1. I hope we can all find the time to do that.


----------



## hiker (Nov 29, 2001)

FCC denies Comcast request; "integration ban" coming in July


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

hiker said:


> FCC denies Comcast request; "integration ban" coming in July


YAY!!!! This is GREAT news for consumers...


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

TCF Discussion of the FCC's rulings


----------

