# CableCARD 2.0 in the wild



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

I filed a complaint with the FCC since I couldn't watch an HD channel with my Series3 that Bright House Networks deployed using SDV. I got a call from the VP of customer service of our local BHN branch and he offered me a free STB for a year so I could watch the channel. At first I told him no thanks, but then figured sure, as long as it had a CableCARD. It took the guy a few days to track one down and he arranged for me to pick up a SA 4250HDc at my local office.

As many suspected, the cards are shipped sealed in the STB and they even go so far as to tape the lid shut. I tried out the STB with all the usual suspects, SDV, VOD and PPV; and they all worked as expected. So I figured what the hell, and removed the CableCARD and sure enough it stopped working. I put the card back in the box and within a few minutes the box was back to normal. As much as I expected them to do this, I'm still disappointed that they aren't truly supporting CC, and I really don't see how this is going to help TiVo's cause.

There are some pics in this post.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/07/19/cablecard-2-0-caught-in-the-wild/

The other thing of interest is that the MFG date of the box was 6/29/07, talk about cutting it close to the deadline.

***While this box does just about everything that a CableCARD 2.0 host device can do (like SDV, VOD, PPV), it doesn't support OCAP, which according to many means, it doesn't meet the CableCARD 2.0 specification.***


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

To be fair, CC2.0 isn't a spec on the card itself, but the complete two-way system (which the Series 3 lacks some hardware for). The card itself is a plain M-Card.

And it technically isn't "in the wild", but contained in the zoo that is Bright House.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

I am not in the BHN zoo, it's at my house. Unless you mean the 4250 is the zoo.

And it is a two-way device, otherwise I wouldn't be able to watch VOD, SDV etc on it.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

bdraw said:


> the cards are shipped sealed in the STB ...
> 
> I put the card back in the box and within a few minutes the box was back to normal. As much as I expected them to do this, I'm still disappointed that they aren't truly supporting CC, and I really don't see how this is going to help TiVo's cause.


You mean you are disappointed they are not supporting the *FULL * _3rd Party CE Device CableCARD 1.0_ *EXPERIENCE*.


----------



## lombard (Dec 6, 2001)

Well, I just hope Brighthouse doesn't jump on the SDV train over on this side of the state (Cape Canaveral). I'm getting my cable hooked up next Friday. This is the first I've heard of them going the SDV route.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

Your right, its not going to help tivo's cause until they make a device that is a opencable host 2.0 device.



> The fourth type of Host product that can make use of the CableCARD module is an OpenCable Host 2.0 device. This device is licensed by CableLabs under CHILA and the requirements for this product are found in the Host-CFR-2.0 specification. The main difference between this product and that which is defined by the FCC is the support for two-way functionality. The OpenCable Host 2.0 device specifications include all of the requirements necessary to support two-way cable services (e.g. video-on-demand or switched digital video), while UDCP devices do not. It is important to note that it is the receiver implementation that determines support for two-way services, not the functionality of the CableCARD module. All CableCARD modules are two-way capable.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

As others have noted, "CableCARD 2.0" as currently defined means a complete system overhaul (both headend and end-user equipment) based on OCAP. It does not imply any change to the actual CableCARDs themselves, which would work fine in an OCAP system, and is thus horribly misnamed. CableCARD 2.0 receivers only exist in prototype form and from a very small number of manufacturers. It will be a while before any OCAP/CC 2.0 systems are actually deployed. So no, you have not seen any "CableCARD 2.0" system in the wild.

Bdraw, is there any way for you to change the name of the thread you started?


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

saxion, if that thing is doing 2 way coms and using cable cards, wouldnt it be an opencable 2.0 device using cablecard 2.0 specs?


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

No, the cable companies have always had closed systems (protocols, licensing) that can do 2-way. That's how you could pick up a non-CableCARD STB direct from the cable company that could do 2-way. The new boxes only add a CableCARD to that existing architecture, and the CableCARD is only used for authorization and decryption. All the 2-way stuff just uses the existing (closed) protocols...no change there.

OpenCable/CableCARD 2.0/OCAP is a new system that is meant to open this up to 3rd parties (TiVo, TV manufacturers, etc). It is meant to unify all the incompatible closed systems out there, and open up the licensing to third parties.

Please note I'm not approving of CableCARD 2.0/OCAP. I think it is horribly flawed, as currently specified & licensed. But with some modifications, it could be a great system.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Saxion beat me to it and is correct.


davecramer74 said:


> Your right, its not going to help tivo's cause until they make a device that is a opencable host 2.0 device.


Tivo will be able to change channels to PPV, VOD and SDV channels, but I don't think Tivo will build an Opencable 2.0 host to do it, nor will many major CE companies. Technically, it is unnecessary. Cable company Cablecard boxes don't need to use the 2.0 specification (OCAP) to change channels, so they will find it difficult to justify to the FCC why third parties must use a much more complicated mechanism to change channels, especially when it appears to do something quite different.








CableLabs: "Want to attach to our networks, Tivo? No problem, just build this contraption and stick your head in here."​


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

CableCARD 2.0 does exist, but what it is 'exactly' is confusing to say the least. Regardless, most people think CableCARD 2.0 is a two-way, multi-stream device that uses a CableCARD to control the conditional access. 

As for taking this STB to another system, I don't see any reason why this box wouldn't work with any other cable system as long as it had a CableCARD from that system installed and authorized. 

If someone has proof that SA 4250HDc isn't a certified CableCARD 2.0 host device, please let me know and I will edit the topic and my post at Engadget.

Thanks


----------



## JimboG (May 27, 2007)

Ben,

I'm pretty sure that cable cards are not as portable as one might wish. You need a Motorola cable card if your cable head end has Motorola gear and a Scientific Atlanta cable card if your cable system is built with SciAtl gear.

While you may be able to take a third party Cable Card device anywhere in the country, the cable cards themselves are still specific to one of the two duopoly equipment manufacturers.

Why is it so hard for the cable companies to see that set top boxes from both Motorola and Scientific Atlanta suck badly? I don't get why forcing third party boxes to use cable company software through OCAP is a competitive advantage. Sure, you get to push advertising through the TV Guide On Screen interface or something similar. But you pass up the opportunity to have a competitive market for CE provided set top boxes. Is the revenue from set top box advertising so great that cable companies wouldn't push a potential advantage over satellite and telephone providers?


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

eric_mcgovern said:


> That's a bit silly as there is no proof that it IS a CableCARD 2.0 host device. It does 2-way communication and uses a CableCARD, that is not the definition of "CableCARD 2.0". View the thread (people have explained what it is) and poke around this forum a tad. You will discover that you are misinformed, and unfortunately pushing that misinformation out there on a fairly popular blog. Makes me wonder what else you guys have wrong. Would be nice if you did your homework rather than asking everyone else to do it for you...


I am not misinformed, I understand exactly what CableCARD 2.0 is and I realize that most people don't. I have been "poking" around this forum for 3 years and I have also discussed this topic throughly with engineers from Motorola and CableLabs.

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


> CableCARD 2.0
> These new CableCARD-2.0 specifications were issued on March 31, 2005; at the same time the former CCIF 1.0 and Multistream Card (M-Card) specifications were closed. Along with this update, changes were made to all related OpenCable specifications to require use of the new CCIF-2.0 and CCCP-2.0 in all places that previously referenced the former specifications. Beginning June 6, 2005, all CableLabs certifications of OpenCable products have been tied to CableCARD-2.0 (or CCIF-2.0) specifications. As of that date, new Cards and new Hosts have been certified to support the CCIF-2.0 and CCCP-2.0 specifications.


No mention of 3rd party and no mention of OCAP.

The entire point of Open Cable is for both 3rd party devices and cable co' issued STBs to use the same security, I'm not sure why you guys believe that only 3rd party devices can be considered CC 2.0 certified devices.

Either way we are arguing over semantics, and the bottom line is that the July 1st mandate isn't going to help TiVo owners get better support.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

JimboG said:


> Ben,
> 
> I'm pretty sure that cable cards are not as portable as one might wish. You need a Motorola cable card if your cable head end has Motorola gear and a Scientific Atlanta cable card if your cable system is built with SciAtl gear.
> 
> While you may be able to take a third party Cable Card device anywhere in the country, the cable cards themselves are still specific to one of the two duopoly equipment manufacturers.


This is exactly the case, this is what I meant to say. That being said, there should be no reason why you can't take this SA 4250HDc and install a Moto CableCARD and use it on a Moto system.



JimboG said:


> Why is it so hard for the cable companies to see that set top boxes from both Motorola and Scientific Atlanta suck badly? I don't get why forcing third party boxes to use cable company software through OCAP is a competitive advantage. Sure, you get to push advertising through the TV Guide On Screen interface or something similar. But you pass up the opportunity to have a competitive market for CE provided set top boxes. Is the revenue from set top box advertising so great that cable companies wouldn't push a potential advantage over satellite and telephone providers?


It's about money, the Cable co's are the customer and just like any smart company, they want to spend as little as possible, and why not when most people don't seem to care.
They want to control the STB experience, there are many reasons for this, when I asked CableLabs this very question they gave me a word that makes me laugh. They said that disintermediation would occur, which basically means to cut out the middle man.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/06/22/cablecard-2-0-is-ready/


----------



## mrmot (Aug 27, 2006)

bdraw said:


> Either way we are arguing over semantics, and the bottom line is that the July 1st mandate isn't going to help TiVo owners get better support.


 :up:

It's too bad the FCC didn't mandate that the cable companies have to go through the same process for 3rd party cablecard devices as their own.

In my opinion, it's clear that the cable companies will look for any loophole to deviate from the intent of the integration ban.


----------



## windracer (Jan 3, 2003)

bdraw said:


> I filed a complaint with the FCC since I couldn't watch an HD channel with my Series3 that Bright House Networks deployed using SDV.


Since I'm just over the bridge from you, I'm curious as to which Brighthouse HD channel is using SDV?


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

Golf/Versus on channel 694, there might be more, that is the only one I've had confirmed.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

bdraw said:


> Golf/Versus on channel 694, there might be more, that is the only one I've had confirmed.


got any buddies with a Hd box from your cable company? that would be easiest way. Or does brighthouse have a "channel lineup" page?


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

davecramer74 said:


> got any buddies with a Hd box from your cable company? that would be easiest way. Or does brighthouse have a "channel lineup" page?


I only watch HD channels, so I know there is only one HD channel on SDV, there could be SDV, but I don't care enough to surf all the channels on my S3 looking for them.


----------



## windracer (Jan 3, 2003)

bdraw said:


> Golf/Versus on channel 694, there might be more, that is the only one I've had confirmed.


Hmmm ... when that one was first added, I thought I could get it on my S3 (but I removed it from my lineup 'cause I would never watch it). I'll try again tonight ...


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

It's possible that it isn't SDV in St Petersburg, while similar, the systems are not identical.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

bdraw said:


> most people think CableCARD 2.0 is a two-way, multi-stream device that uses a CableCARD to control the conditional access.


That's like saying most people think of a BMW as a car. This is true. The problem is, you have a Mercedes. They are both cars, but a BMW is not a Mercedes.

A CableCARD 2.0 STB is one type of a two-way device that uses a CableCARD to control access (it can also use DCAS to control access). The STB you have is another type of a two-way device that uses CableCARD to control access. But the former is not the same as the latter.

Best place I can send you for education is this Wiki page. Note the following: *"Cable Companies have required OCAP as part of the Cablecard 2.0 specification"*.

The definition of CableCARD 2.0 is not open to debate or opinion; it is rigidly defined by CableLabs.

We all hate to see misinformation on such an otherwise useful forum. It decreases the signal to noise ratio and really confuses people who are trying to educate themselves by coming here. Please consider modifying your thread title.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

Saxion said:


> That's like saying most people think of a BMW as a car. This is true. The problem is, you have a Mercedes. They are both cars, but a BMW is not a Mercedes.


Not a good analogy, 'cause it's not true. TiVo would be a better one since many people think of a DVR as a TiVo.



Saxion said:


> A CableCARD 2.0 STB is one type of a two-way device that uses a CableCARD to control access (it can also use DCAS to control access). The STB you have is another type of a two-way device that uses CableCARD to control access. But the former is not the same as the latter.
> 
> Best place I can send you for education is this Wiki page. Note the following: *"Cable Companies have required OCAP as part of the Cablecard 2.0 specification"*.


Also from this source *Cable companies have stated that two way communications by third party devices on their networks will require them to support OCAP.* It does not say that the specification requires OCAP on 1st party devices. Let me see if we can get dt_dc to chime in, if anyone has actually read the specification, it would be him.



Saxion said:


> The definition of CableCARD 2.0 is not open to debate or opinion; it is rigidly defined by CableLabs.


I'm not debating the definition, just that this box fits the specification.


----------



## shady (May 31, 2002)

I still don't see how you made the leap from The Cable Box works with SDV and It's Cablecard 2.0

Am I missing something? Does it say Cablecard 2.0 on the card itself? that wasn't clear from the photos.

As other's have said, just because the box is doing 2 way communication, it doesn't mean that it's using the cablecard to do that.

I really think you should change the title of your article


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

shady said:


> Am I missing something? Does it say Cablecard 2.0 on the card itself? that wasn't clear from the photos.


CableCARD 2.0 is a host device specification, not an actual card, so no the card won't say anything.

The point of contention is, does this 1st party device fit the 2.0 host device specification even though it doesn't support OCAP?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

bdraw said:


> CableCARD 2.0 is a host device specification, not an actual card, so no the card won't say anything.
> 
> The point of contention is, does this 1st party device fit the 2.0 host device specification even though it doesn't support OCAP?


Simply no, given what that Wiki states. Its two-way functionality is proprietary.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bdraw said:


> The point of contention is, does this 1st party device fit the 2.0 host device specification even though it doesn't support OCAP?


No. First off, a cable company is not obligated to support cablecard 2.0, they are not obligated to buy cablecard 2.0 boxes in order to do two way. They are obligated to support cablecard 1.0 devices, supply cards conformant with the 1.0 spec, and since July, all new boxes they supply must use cablecards.

The 2.0 spec explicitly states that OCAP is a requirement for both 2.0 hosts and 2.0 terminals:



Cablecard 2.0 spec said:


> OpenCable Set-top 2 (OCS2)
>  Two-way connectivity support via both ANSI/SCTE 55-1,-2 OOB and DOCSIS with DSG functionality;
>  OpenCable Application Platform (OCAP) 1.0 support;


Source: http://www.opencable.com/downloads/specs/OC-SP-HOST2.0-CFR-I14-070615.pdf

When wading through the cablecard specs, it is useful to note that in most cases "Cablecard" has been replaced with "Open Cable", a label that is a classic example of Cable doubletalk to describe their closed system. So "the CableCard 2.0 Spec" is now known (at least in cablelabs land) as the "Open Cable 2.0 spec". They just want to get us in the habit of saying "open" every time we use the word "cable".

ClassicSat- boxes could use the out of band (OOB) rf support which has a standard but my understanding is that the actual pattern of signalling is proprietary as you state. My understanding is that the cable companies don't like this sort of proprietary signalling for a number of reasons- besides inefficiency with high data rate signalling, they don't like the vendor lock in to specifici head end equipment. Most likely the new boxes would use the Docsis protocol also mentioned above, because it is where they are going to avoid these issues.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

Ben, dude, you're killing me. Read up on NPH (Non-Portable Host) boxes. That's what you've got there. It *technically* doesn't fulfill the definition of a CableCARD 2.0 device, and really, it wasn't meant to. It was a stop-gap measure for the industry to provide a set-top that adheres to the FCC mandate for separable security but falls short of the portability requirement stipulated in CC 2.0.

cableric


----------



## windracer (Jan 3, 2003)

bdraw said:


> It's possible that it isn't SDV in St Petersburg, while similar, the systems are not identical.


Sure enough, I get "channel not available" when trying to tune my S3 to 694. I wonder if I should call and complain and see what BHN says.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

eric_mcgovern said:


> You are posting to a blog that deals mainly with 3rd party consumer devices, don't you think that is a bit misleading? When you say "CableCARD 2.0" most people won't be thinking about a proprietary 1st party box that you can only get from your local cable company.


It may be a bit misleading, but one of the points I wanted to make was how the Cable companies are attempting to elude the FCC, more specifically to point out that the current mandate is ineffective. Most who think they know what a CableCARD is, believe 2.0 means two-way. I have previously written posts explaining that this is not the case.



eric_mcgovern said:


> The only mandate for July 1 was for removable security, nothing else changed in those boxes, except for the CableCARD. So were the boxes almost CableCARD 2.0 before? They aren't using any sort of OpenCable standard for 2 way communication (dt_dc has posted numerous times, there simply isn't a standard yet), so it goes against what anyone on this forum and anyone who is following this issue thinks of as "CableCARD 2.0".


CableCARD is all about separate security, that is the entire point of the technology. If you take a cable box and switch out the security then yes, my understanding is that is enough to make it CC 2.0.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

cableric said:


> Ben, dude, you're killing me. Read up on NPH (Non-Portable Host) boxes. That's what you've got there. It *technically* doesn't fulfill the definition of a CableCARD 2.0 device, and really, it wasn't meant to. It was a stop-gap measure for the industry to provide a set-top that adheres to the FCC mandate for separable security but falls short of the portability requirement stipulated in CC 2.0.


Thanks for the clarification about the fact that this box is a Non-Portable Host. Can you explain to me why an NPH doesn't *technically* fulfil the definition of a CableCARD 2.0 device?


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

windracer said:


> Sure enough, I get "channel not available" when trying to tune my S3 to 694. I wonder if I should call and complain and see what BHN says.


Definitly, I'd be interested in hearing back if the CSR actually have a clue about the problem now. They didn't when I called.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

bdraw said:


> CableCARD 2.0 is a host device specification, not an actual card, so no the card won't say anything.
> 
> The point of contention is, does this 1st party device fit the 2.0 host device specification even though it doesn't support OCAP?


Justin already wrote this but it seems you skipped the post. There is no distinction of 1st party vs 3rd party.

The CableCARD 2.0 specs state the function list of a 2.0 set top box
http://www.opencable.com/downloads/specs/OC-SP-HOST2.0-CFR-I14-070615.pdf


> OpenCable Set-top 2 (OCS2)
>  Two-way connectivity support via both ANSI/SCTE 55-1,-2 OOB and DOCSIS with DSG functionality;
>  *OpenCable Application Platform (OCAP) 1.0 support;*
>  MPEG2 Main Profile @ Main Level ([email protected]) Standard Definition and Main Profile @ High Level
> ...


If the box you have satisfies the functional requirements, it can be submitted to be certified as CC2.0. If not (for example it doesn't support OCAP 1.0) then don't bother submitting it, it doesn't meet the basic functionality requirements.

I believe upon further reflection you will find you have a cable set top box that happens to use a M-Stream CableCARD. It supports VOD/PPV/Interactive Guide services, but does not do so using a CC2.0 compliant platform. As such, it should not be referred to as a CC2.0 device. Instead it should be called a set top box that uses CableCARDs and supports 2-way services.

If you'd like to bring attention to the fact that cable MSOs can implement 2-way services using CableCARD without needing to comply with CC2.0 specs, while 3rd parties need to comply with CC2.0 specs and that this situation is unfair, then please do that. Using the wrong terminology will only lead to further confusion.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

Thanks for spelling it out for me, I hope you understand that I didn't have time to digest that 133 page document that was very technical. 

I hear what you guys are saying, but it contradicts my understanding, which I gained by talking to CableLabs. I have emailed them for some clarification, but just in case I will change both titles.


----------



## SugarBowl (Jan 5, 2007)

Maybe the cable companies should create a Unidirectional CableCard Channel lineup.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

SugarBowl said:


> Maybe the cable companies should create a Unidirectional CableCard Channel lineup.


It might be doable, just not map the channels that are unavailable to linear static authorization cable (non SDV, non PPV, non VOD).

Of course, you can't add SDV channels just for Cablecard users; that would eliminate the purpose of SDV altogether.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

bdraw said:


> Thanks for the clarification about the fact that this box is a Non-Portable Host. Can you explain to me why an NPH doesn't *technically* fulfil the definition of a CableCARD 2.0 device?


At minimum, the two-way functionality is built and coded to the "provider's " format, not the OpenCable 2.0 "standard".

At most, and it seem it is the case, it is essentially a standard Scientific Atlanta cable box with a cablecard for conditional access rather than a built in chip.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

bdraw said:


> Thanks for the clarification about the fact that this box is a Non-Portable Host. Can you explain to me why an NPH doesn't *technically* fulfil the definition of a CableCARD 2.0 device?


"Since OCAP is not a prerequisite and most MSOs will not have a complete
OCAP head-end and system architecture implemented by July 2007, Motorola
provided an alternative reduced-risk solution known as the Non-Portable Host
(NPH) or leased set-top.

The Motorola Non-Portable Host provides MSOs with a separable security
solution having equivalent functionality to current embedded (DCT) set-tops. The
NPH solution provides MSOs with a transition path to separable security set-tops
to address the FCC ban with a migration path to future OCAP deployment.
Manufactured under CableLabs' Non-Portable Host license, these special
set-tops cannot be sold at retail and are not CableLabs Host
2.0-compliant." - _Motorola_

cableric

*edit* 
#3 on OpenCable Host 2.0 specifications..._"Require portability. FCC regulations adopted under the "retail availability" provisions of the Communications Act provide for retail cable navigation devices to operate with CableCARDTM modules. The OpenCable system permits "point-of-deployment decisions" for network, security and operator-programmed user interfaces to enable the anticipated variety of retail devices and promotes the portability of such devices."_


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bdraw said:


> Thanks for spelling it out for me, I hope you understand that I didn't have time to digest that 133 page document that was very technical.
> 
> I hear what you guys are saying, but it contradicts my understanding, which I gained by talking to CableLabs. I have emailed them for some clarification, but just in case I will change both titles.


despite it being their charter, I would not rely solely on cable labs to clarify cable card standards. They do have a heavy bias toward cable companies and would most likely let the idea that cable company boxes are working on CC 2.0 spec go by unmediated. It is in their interest for such thinking to bolster the current standard as working in the minds of policy makers


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

cableric said:


> "...The OpenCable system permits "point-of-deployment decisions" for network, security and operator-programmed user interfaces to enable the anticipated variety of retail devices and promotes the portability of such devices."


Key term here is "anticipated variety".

Cable anticipates/hopes that customers will want to buy network computer services from them, which would include traditional video services as well as interactive applications that one might find on a personal computer. In anticipation of the reluctance of CE companies to build such expensive OCAP client boxes for such network computer services, CableLabs tied services that consumers want (changing channels) to services that consumers are indifferent to (placing orders for home shopping network using interactive software on the Set top box).

Maybe folks will want to buy such network computers from cable companies. They are entitled to try to sell such services.

What is completely reprehensible is this idea from the cable companies that they can hold basic channel changing hostage in order to force Consumer electronics companies to help them build and promote such a system.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

This box does support OCAP according to the docs.
http://www.sciatl.com/customers/source/7008361.pdf

As for CableLabs, as ZeoTiVo said, they told me, "It shows it supports OCAP, M-CARD and DSG just like any other OpenCable Host-2.0."

I replied back to confirm that OpenCable Host-2.0 is the same thing as CableCARD 2.0.

I will say that the statements I have made here were based on my discussion with them, so if they misled me, then I followed them down the path.

All I have to say, is the more I learn about this, the more I realize what a mess it is.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

bdraw said:


> This box does support OCAP according to the docs.
> http://www.sciatl.com/customers/source/7008361.pdf


Yes, but in the end it's not a portable device. It won't leave the cable system it was issued to.

ce


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

cableric said:


> Yes, but in the end it's not a portable device. It won't leave the cable system it was issued to.


Ah-Ha! That is an important distinction and makes the CC inside of it a complete crock, what is the point of separable security if the box is non-portable?


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

bdraw said:


> Ah-Ha! That is an important distinction and makes the CC inside of it a complete crock, what is the point of separable security if the box is non-portable?


No, there's no "Ah-Ha!"

*Pounds head against wall*

The July 1st mandate required that the security portion of the box be separate from the box itself, NOT that box be portable as set forth by the requirements of CC 2.0. That's what this is all about. Cable companies could not convert their systems to OCAP by July 1st, so they couldn't deploy CC 2.0 by July 1st, so a box was created that met the separable security mandate but did not fully support OCAP and CC 2.0. (Although the device is upgradeable to support OCAP, DSG, etc.) you'll probably never see it sitting on a store shelf, they'll come out with a separate retail version...that WILL be portable and therefor meet ALL the requirements for CableCARD 2.0/Host 2.0.

cableric


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

bdraw said:


> This box does support OCAP according to the docs.
> http://www.sciatl.com/customers/source/7008361.pdf


And you are sure your model is not using:

Conventional Scientific Atlanta Network Support
o Scientific Atlanta Resident Application (SARA) Software on a separable security set-top supports native navigator and user interface in a non-OCAP service provider network environment (optional software)
o DAVIC Receiver/Transmitter allows IP-based, real-time, two-way communication between the set-top and the service provider's network for services such as video-on-demand


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

cableric said:


> No, there's no "Ah-Ha!"
> 
> *Pounds head against wall*


It's ok man, Ah-Ha!, just meant I finally understand the point you are trying to make. There's no need to pound your head, everything you said makes perfect sense now.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

sfhub said:


> And you are sure your model is not using:
> 
> Conventional Scientific Atlanta Network Support
> o Scientific Atlanta Resident Application (SARA) Software on a separable security set-top supports native navigator and user interface in a non-OCAP service provider network environment (optional software)
> o DAVIC Receiver/Transmitter allows IP-based, real-time, two-way communication between the set-top and the service provider's network for services such as video-on-demand


I'm positive it is, I went in the service menu and confirmed it.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> They do have a heavy bias toward cable companies and would most likely let the idea that cable company boxes are working on CC 2.0 spec go by unmediated. It is in their interest for such thinking to bolster the current standard as working in the minds of policy makers


Exactly! Normally I wouldn't care so much that someone is posting threads with incorrect titles and misleading information in them. But it is important here not to propagate the idea that CableCard 2.0 is here, or nearly-here, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. This is a MYTH and the cable cartel is only too happy to propagate it. The cable cartel wants everyone to think that CableCard 2.0 is real/finished/perfect/cast in stone. It is actually very controversial and does not have the backing of some very big industry players. I think we should be careful not to play into this game and promulgate cable's propaganda.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

To summarize, a "version" of the CC2.0 *spec* is in the wild, but the folks who will be the ones using the spec for consumer devices are not happy with it because it contains, in their opinion, unnecessary baggage. They are going back and forth about various issues and this is partially why CC2.0 cannot get any traction.

Separate from the CC2.0 soap opera, FCC mandated use of separable security by July 1st. Though there were various proposals for alternate separable security designs (like downloadable security), the only viable separable security that was available for that deadline was CableCARDs, S-Stream and M-Stream.

What cable companies have deployed for the July 1st deadline is not a portable STB based on a CC2.0 platform. Instead they have built a STB using M-Stream CableCARD separable security which supports VOD/PPV/Interactive Guide 2-way services. It is possible some models of these STBs are pre-cursors of a CC2.0 STB and could be upgraded to be CC2.0 at some future point, but that is neither here nor now.


----------



## mfogarty5 (Apr 27, 2006)

cableric said:


> Cable companies could not convert their systems to OCAP by July 1st, so they couldn't deploy CC 2.0 by July 1st, so a box was created that met the separable security mandate but did not fully support OCAP and CC 2.0. (Although the device is upgradeable to support OCAP, DSG, etc.) you'll probably never see it sitting on a store shelf, they'll come out with a separate retail version...that WILL be portable and therefor meet ALL the requirements for CableCARD 2.0/Host 2.0.
> 
> cableric


cableric,

This is fantastic news! Soon I will be able to go to Best Buy and pick up an LG, Samsung, or Panasonic OCAP compliant box only to go home, plug it in and have it download the same crappy cable company software! Excellent! 

I mean the MSO's wouldn't want there to be any "disintermediation", right?


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

mfogarty5 said:


> This is fantastic news! Soon I will be able to go to Best Buy and pick up an LG, Samsung, or Panasonic OCAP compliant box only to go home, plug it in and have it download the same crappy cable company software! Excellent!


Yes, but you forgot to mention the most important part that they will be available in glossy piano black, matte black, titanium, and silver colors to match your home decor. This will keep your wife happy and result in a satisfied cable customer.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Actually, Samsung achieved "Certification status" (whatever that is) for their OCAP enabled two way digital television in August of 2005. [source]

Nowhere does it mentions Opencable 2.0 Host certification, nor is it clear to me how that would be possible since the 2.0 spec as of today is still not closed, so certifying compliance in 2005 with a spec not yet known would be impossible.

Yet they recieved "Certification status" in 2005. If someone wants to dig into the test wave info to see what spec the device is certified as being compliant with, maybe that will give some clues.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Actually, Samsung achieved "Certification status" (whatever that is) for their OCAP enabled two way digital television in August of 2005. [source]


Just try to buy one. Anywhere. Any price. They are just not for sale anywhere.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

Justin Thyme said:


> Actually, Samsung achieved "Certification status" (whatever that is) for their OCAP enabled two way digital television in August of 2005. [source]
> 
> Nowhere does it mentions Opencable 2.0 Host certification, nor is it clear to me how that would be possible since the 2.0 spec as of today is still not closed, so certifying compliance in 2005 with a spec not yet known would be impossible.
> 
> Yet they recieved "Certification status" in 2005. If someone wants to dig into the test wave info to see what spec the device is certified as being compliant with, maybe that will give some clues.


I believe it was certified under the 0.9.alpha.private.proof.of.concept.get.fcc.off.our.back revision of the CableCARD 2.0 spec.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

mfogarty5 said:


> cableric,
> 
> This is fantastic news! Soon I will be able to go to Best Buy and pick up an LG, Samsung, or Panasonic OCAP compliant box only to go home, plug it in and have it download the same crappy cable company software! Excellent!
> 
> I mean the MSO's wouldn't want there to be any "disintermediation", right?


Oh you mean the same way that you can currently purchase a TiVo S3, take it home and plug it in, only to have the cable company purge the TiVo guide and load the craptastic iGuide software?

Oh wait, it doesn't work that way, and it never will. You get to KEEP the guide you BUY with the hardware! How great is that!

That will not change, although others would have you believe different.

cableric


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

sfhub said:


> I believe it was certified under the 0.9.alpha.private.proof.of.concept.get.fcc.off.our.back revision of the CableCARD 2.0 spec.


Oh, sf, your sarcasm is only exceeded by your ignorance.

cableric


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Well then, if you do know more, prove it.

Where can you buy one of these things and if they are not CC2.0 certified, but are OCAP 2 way devices, then what is the meaning of the "CableLabs Certification" trumpeted in the "Open"Cable new release?


----------



## mfogarty5 (Apr 27, 2006)

cableric said:


> Oh you mean the same way that you can currently purchase a TiVo S3, take it home and plug it in, only to have the cable company purge the TiVo guide and load the craptastic iGuide software?
> 
> Oh wait, it doesn't work that way, and it never will. You get to KEEP the guide you BUY with the hardware! How great is that!
> 
> ...


LOL. You must work for an MSO.

Yup, I can go out and buy a Series 3 today, but it won't be able to receive SDV channels. Why you ask? First, it doesn't have a modem, and second it isn't OCAP compliant.

What does it take to be OCAP compliant? You have to let the cable company download their crappy software to your new box.

The only way a TiVo could still be a TiVo and be OCAP compliant is if they figured out how to make the OCAP software run as a virtual machine within the regular TiVo software, but then "disintermediation" might occur and CableLabs wouldn't certify it as OCAP complaint.

Now, go run back to CableLabs and comeback with some more MSO propaganda to refute the statements above.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

cableric said:


> Oh, sf, your sarcasm is only exceeded by your ignorance.


And your ignorance is only exceeded by your lack of a sense of humor.

We can go on if you'd like or just call it even.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

mfogarty5 said:


> The only way a TiVo could still be a TiVo and be OCAP compliant is if they figured out how to make the OCAP software run as a virtual machine within the regular TiVo software, but then "disintermediation" might occur and CableLabs wouldn't certify it as OCAP complaint.


Or, if they could get the MSO to distribute their OCAP software like Comcast has agreed to do. Either option is way less than ideal, and not "open" by any means.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Hey working for an MSO does not mean folks tow the management line that cablecard/fcc= bad. 

Cablecards as invented by cablelabs are great for job security, both for installers and CSRs. The more complicated cablelabs makes cablecard and their "Open" standard, the more installers and CSRs the cable companies will need to hire.

I'm sure many installers could just cry a river for the pain that their warm and supportive management is suffering from the FCC forcing them to conform to a decade old law.


----------



## mfogarty5 (Apr 27, 2006)

bdraw said:


> Or, if they could get the MSO to distribute their OCAP software like Comcast has agreed to do. Either option is way less than ideal, and not "open" by any means.


Hi Ben.

I read your blog over at engadgethd everyday. 

About a year ago I was going through the whole SDV/TWC vs. Directv debate and I decided to go with Directv and the HR20. The HR20 has been pretty reliable and is a FAR better device than the crappy SA8300 I had for a few weeks. As fate would I have it, I have found a great house that most likely will not have a line of sight for satellite so now I am back to where I was a year ago.

I have to decide between using the SA 8300 or the TiVo Series 3 knowing that SDV will be implemented here in Charlotte later this year. To make matters worse it appears that all new TWC customers who want an HD DVR are getting the CableCard version of the SA 8300 with TWCs own Navigator software pre-loaded. If there's anything worse than a TWC DVR it's a TWC DVR with brand new unproven software on it.

I also wanted to let you know that the Director of Marketing for TWC South Carolina used to post in the Columbia, SC thread over at avsforum. In fact I think she was so good at communicting their propaganda that she was promoted to corporate.

Anyway she and I exchanged some messages about SDV nearly a year ago that I thought you might find entertaining.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7956765&&#post7956765

Keep up the good work at engadgethd!


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Saxion said:


> Exactly! Normally I wouldn't care so much that someone is posting threads with incorrect titles and misleading information in them. But it is important here not to propagate the idea that CableCard 2.0 is here, or nearly-here, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. This is a MYTH and the cable cartel is only too happy to propagate it. The cable cartel wants everyone to think that CableCard 2.0 is real/finished/perfect/cast in stone. It is actually very controversial and does not have the backing of some very big industry players. I think we should be careful not to play into this game and promulgate cable's propaganda.


Yup.



cableric said:


> you'll probably never see it sitting on a store shelf, they'll come out with a separate retail version...that WILL be portable and therefor meet ALL the requirements for CableCARD 2.0/Host 2.0.


Which of course will be more expensive than the cable co box which cable is under no obligation to replace with said more expensive devices. 

At least until the FCC beats cable into doing the right thing.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

Glad you like the site, and thanks for the tip.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

sfhub said:


> I believe it was certified under the 0.9.alpha.private.proof.of.concept.get.fcc.off.our.back revision of the CableCARD 2.0 spec.


LOL!!

Yeah, cable labs can certify something as complying with whatever cable labs is proposing, and presumably that will work with whatever deployment the cable industry undertakes; but that don't make it something the CE industry as a whole wants to accept as the standard, and it don't make it _the _ "official" standard in the sense that NTSC is a standard.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

cableric said:


> Oh you mean the same way that you can currently purchase a TiVo S3, take it home and plug it in, only to have the cable company purge the TiVo guide and load the craptastic iGuide software?


That is not at issue with CC1.0 (one-way) devices.


----------



## NickIN (Dec 26, 2002)

A little off topic... but this is the first I've seen a multi-stream cablecard. Is the S3 capable of using one if I can round one up from Brighthouse? I know it has the slot, but I didn't know if the S3 software currently had that feature enabled.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

mfogarty5 said:


> What does it take to be OCAP compliant? You have to let the cable company download their crappy software to your new box.


This is the single statement that many arguing your point stand on. Yet no one that I've questioned has ever been able to back it up. The fact of the matter is, at best your not in the loop or uninformed. That's fine, but don't spread misinformation. At worst you are completely intellectually dishonest and just have a bone to pick with any or all of the following; FCC, CableLabs, or your local MSO.

I assume that most of you here are TiVo lovers...or at least greatly admire the product. Do you really think that TiVo is so inept that they would spend millions of dollars to develop OCAP compliant hardware and software only to have it reduced to a buggy, fugly, TV Guide drone?

Speculation, assumptions, and hearsay is not the basis for an intelligent argument.

cableric


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

NickIN said:


> A little off topic... but this is the first I've seen a multi-stream cablecard. Is the S3 capable of using one if I can round one up from Brighthouse? I know it has the slot, but I didn't know if the S3 software currently had that feature enabled.


The S3 was originally built and spec'ed for two single-stream or one multi-stream BUT delays in rolling it out have forced TiVo to revert back to single card mode even if a multi-stream card is inserted. As a result you would still need two cards regardless of which type. I fully expect a SW update will enable only one multi-stream card to be used.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

cableric said:


> This is the single statement that many arguing your point stand on. Yet no one that I've questioned has ever been able to back it up. The fact of the matter is, at best your not in the loop or uninformed. That's fine, but don't spread misinformation. At worst you are completely intellectually dishonest and just have a bone to pick with any or all of the following; FCC, CableLabs, or your local MSO.
> 
> I assume that most of you here are TiVo lovers...or at least greatly admire the product. Do you really think that TiVo is so inept that they would spend millions of dollars to develop OCAP compliant hardware and software only to have it reduced to a buggy, fugly, TV Guide drone?
> 
> ...


Right or wrong, this argument comes from the requirement that all two-way CE devices be OpenCable Host 2.0 Devices as defined below. The current S3 is an UDCP as defined below.

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


> There are four types of devices that can be authorized to use the CableCARD module interface. This electronic authorization comes in the form of digital certificates that are embedded within the Host receiving device that accepts a CableCARD module. In order to receive these digital certificates a manufacturer must sign a license and build a product according to certain requirements.
> 
> The first type of Host product that can make use of the CableCARD module is the Unidirectional Digital Cable Product (UDCP) or "Digital Cable-Ready Receiver." These products were defined by FCC rules. The license a manufacturer signs for such products is the DFAST license and the requirements are found in the Joint Test Suite Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma. For more information, please see www.cablelabs.com.
> 
> ...


If you start digging through the referenced specs it appears as though the two-way CE device must also OCAP. OCAP has specs for downloading code objects from the headend to the device.

This much is fact. Where things get a little fuzzy is, do the 'two-way => OCAP => Downloadable' relationships mean that devices MUST or MAY be downloadable.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

ah30k said:


> The current S3 is an OCUR as defined below.


I believe you meant to say that the S3 is a UDCP.

Possibly the S3 was subsequently certified also as an M-UDCP in March, but no announcement has been made, and the software for that enables that capability has not been released/enabled as of this date.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

cableric said:


> mfogarty5 said:
> 
> 
> > What does it take to be OCAP compliant? You have to let the cable company download their crappy software to your new box.
> ...


You didn't question me. The OCAP tutorial at this site  will help educate you. In particular, examine the architecture:



> As we've already seen, the monitor application plays an important part in an OCAP receiver, acting as a cross between a navigator, a part of the middleware and the network operator's representative in the receiver. Why is this a separate application? Why not move this functionality in to the middleware?
> 
> Partly, it *allows the network operator to enforce common behaviour across receivers.* In an MHP system, two different receivers on the same network may behave differently when resolving a resource conflict between two applications. In an OCAP system, they will probably behave the same, but they may both behave differently when they're plugged into a different network. This allows the network operator to _*make the user experience as close to identical as possible, no matter who built the receiver.* _ If all boxes on a network are running the same monitor application, you know that the behaviour will be identical in those areas that the monitor application has responsibility. [source]


The Monitor application gives the operator *total* control over the OCAP applications running on the STB. Even if a consumer somehow managed to load their own OCAP application, the network operator may delete it and replace it with any OCAP application they choose. They manage the OCAP boxes. That's the whole idea.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> I believe you meant to say that the S3 is a UDCP.


Yes, sorry. My mistake.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

cableric said:


> mfogarty5 said:
> 
> 
> > What does it take to be OCAP compliant? You have to let the cable company download their crappy software to your new box.
> ...


Really? Motorola themselves admitted as much in an interview:

_Can independent companies or individuals produce applications for the OCAP platform?_

Absolutely. The Motorola MOTODEV program has long been in place to help the software communities develop new applications for the cable market. Today the program is dedicated to helping forward the development of applications specifically written for the OCAP platform.​_*But is deployment controlled by the cable companies?*_

*Yes*  OCAP, like any software that runs on a cable operator's video network, is deployed as part of a managed service by the operator.​


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

cableric said:


> Do you really think that TiVo is so inept that they would spend millions of dollars to develop OCAP compliant hardware and software only to have it reduced to a buggy, fugly, TV Guide drone?


Did I miss something? Is TiVo heavily into development of such a box?


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

What parallels to this subject could be drawn from the Google 700MHz Auction proposals?

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6458959.html

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6461928.html



> Google wants the FCC to ensure that consumers can attach their own non-harmful devices to the broadband network and download any application. Martin supports these two conditions with regard to a 22-MHz block, while Google has insisted on all 60 MHz.
> 
> Martin has not embraced Googles remaining conditions -- that auction winners must be prepared to wholesale their spectrum to other organizations and interconnect with competing Internet-access providers.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Did I miss something? Is TiVo heavily into development of such a box?


no, they are developing a box that is crippled. It doesnt do VOD, has no interactive ordering of PPV (call up your cable company and order it like the 80's) and it doesnt support new technology that the cable companies are moving over to. What you have is a POS box that doesnt support the basics that cable offers and wont support some of their future channel offerings. You have a box that can record HD and has some nifty software.

Sorry VOD is one giant DVR, if they cant support that, they are forcing me to spend even more money on hardware. Its a moneypit that your going to have to buy a new one of them in a couple years. A little disappointed they arent waiting another 6months a year so their lite one actually supports some of these features once they are the standard.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

davecramer74 said:


> no, they are developing a box that is crippled. It doesnt do VOD, has no interactive ordering of PPV (call up your cable company and order it like the 80's) and it doesnt support new technology that the cable companies are moving over to. What you have is a POS box that doesnt support the basics that cable offers and wont support some of their future channel offerings.


 Effectively, there is currently no legal way for a third party manufacturer to build a box that supports those features.

To offer an HD DVR, a third party manufacturer must have Cablecard support. To offer Cablecard support they must sign the Cablelabs DFAST agreement.

The DFAST agreement prohibits the manufacturer from building a box that communicates upstream to the Head end.

This upstream communication is necessary for all the features missing from the Tivo which in your view turns it into a POS. By the way- all the manufacturers of cablecard ready PCs are in the same boat- none are allowed to support any of those features.

So what are you suggesting Tivo and all the other third party vendors do- break the law and violate their DFAST contract?

Sorry, but you are mistaken about the wonders of VOD. I currently have about 2000 shows available on demand from my Tivo. They all interest me- at this moment how many on VOD interest you? One, two, a dozen? No cable system supports thousands of VOD shows, and by the time I will have a couple thousand shows available via VOD that interest me, the hard drives necessary to support that many shows on my DVR will cost $1.98.

Checkmate. VOD is a dead end- it can't compete with cheap hard drives.

Sorry, but you seem to misunderstand the dynamics.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

The other problem I had with VOD was navigating through the interface to find a show. It's like searching through 1000 DVDs thrown into the bargain basement bin. I'd much rather just have a list of stuff I care about watching.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> Where can you buy one of these things


Try South Korea; or go see one at some TWC employee's house; or supposedly some residential customers in NYC have them, so make friends there.



> OCAP-Based Services Go Live in New York City
> 
> Consumer electronics manufacturer, Samsung, and cable MSO's, Time Warner Cable and Advance/Newhouse Communications, announced earlier this month that interactive digital cable services have now gone live on OCAP-compliant Samsung HL-S5686C DLP HDTV sets and SMT-H3050 HDTV set-top boxes on Time Warner Cable's New York City systems; and that those services will soon be rolled out in other cities (including Milwaukee, Wisconsin) served by Time Warner Cable, as well as in cities covered by Advance/Newhouse's Bright House Networks cable systems. The announcement was made during the opening night of Time Warner Cable's "Home to the Future" exhibit, a four-story, interactive installation inside the Time Warner Center in New York City's Columbus Circle (note: the exhibit opened January 17th and will run for three weeks).
> 
> New interactive cable services from Time Warner Cable that are running on the OCAP-enabled Samsung devices include its OCAP Digital Navigator and its in-house-developed EPG. "This underlines our commitment to fully deploy OCAP on all of our systems, and confirms our growing relationship with Samsung, a leader in consumer electronics," Time Warner Cable president and CEO, Glenn Britt, said in a prepared statement. "OCAP will foster the national launch of interactive applications and these Samsung products will enable consumers to enjoy the full range of interactive services with or without a set-top box."


http://www.itvt.com/wvaph[itvt]-htmlissue7.16pt2.html#technology.03


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Sorry, but you are mistaken about the wonders of VOD.


Well, i guess you havent read much on what comcasts plans are. Im in an area that is comcast and comcast only unless i want to go satelite. Instead of adding actual channels, alot of their Hd content is going on demand. they just added history channel HD to on demand. That is the only way to watch those shows in HD. If your a tivo user, you dont get it. This is going to be the case going forward. Right now, tivo users have no history channel HD in my area. I do. So sorry, im not mistaken, you are. Do you think all the new discovery channels are going to be added or will be VOD/SDV?? The cable operators do not have the bandwith to support all of the new channels. They will be VOD or SDV. It will be the only way they can compete with the sat operators. its pretty clear to me the direction they are going. You can argue it until you are blue in the face, i could care less.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

sfhub said:


> The other problem I had with VOD was navigating through the interface to find a show. It's like searching through 1000 DVDs thrown into the bargain basement bin. I'd much rather just have a list of stuff I care about watching.


that to me is such an ironic part of this. The cable company UI for VOd is such pure garbage and full of ads. One of the main things people are really loving on the new Comcast/TiVo software is the ON DEMAND UI is significantly better to find shows on and record so it is just there and ready later on.

If the cable companies just relented and allowed for a simple interactive protocal to facilitate on demand and let TiVo do the interface they would sell a boatload more on demand then they do now and I for one would have switched to digital tier long ago, *sigh*.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

davecramer74 said:


> Well, i guess you havent read much on what comcasts plans are. Im in an area that is comcast and comcast only unless i want to go satelite. Instead of adding actual channels, alot of their Hd content is going on demand. they just added history channel HD to on demand. That is the only way to watch those shows in HD. If your a tivo user, you dont get it. This is going to be the case going forward.


So, it is your believe that these channels will only be available to cable provided STBs? Do you actually think that cable will be allowed to withhold channels from owners of third party boxes in clear violation of the 1996 telecom law?

You earlier attempted to assert that the DVR is dead, because VOD is an enormous DVR. I pointed out that today I can get 2000 shows, on demand using my Tivo and a Tivo server. I pointed out that the cable companies aren't fighting just Tivo here, but the general electronics trend that enormous hard drives will soon be so inexpensive that they will be an incidental added cost to an STB. People will have thousands of movies simply because they won't need to delete them. They will have entire series collected not because they are serious collectors, but simply because they don't need to delete them to free up space. I can put 2TB in my Tivo today. In a Vista cablecard MCE, the capacity could easily go to 20TB. Just to give you an idea, the 2000+ shows I have are on a 3.5 TB server, and it is nowhere near capacity.

So really, VOD will never be able to compete with DVRs or cablecard PCs.

And legally, the cable companies are not legally entitled to withold shows from them. So go ahead say it. I know you can.

Checkmate.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> So, it is your believe that these channels will only be available to cable provided STBs?


My belief? Right now, its a fact. History channel shows in HD are only available on cable provided stb's. So is cable in violation of the law? You see why they are using VOD? because its not tecnically a channel.

I didnt say anything about "dvr's" being dead i said the TIVO is a crippled dvr. My Cable company DVR is more than sufficent for my needs. I record my primetime shows and thats about it. All the movies, specials, etc are on demand. Once again, why im disappointed in tivo not waiting until their is some kind of standard to support 2 WAY COMS. these media PC's, tivos, etc dont support VOD.

Either way, the tivo's, mediacenters out there right now have shortcomings. And with my viewing habits, its a big shortcoming. I'm sorry if you dont understand or agree.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

I don't think it is true that VOD will never be able to compete with in-home DVRs, but I do think VOD as it is implemented today is not competitive with in-home DVRs.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> Try South Korea; or go see one at some TWC employee's house; or supposedly some residential customers in NYC have them, so make friends there.
> 
> http://www.itvt.com/wvaph[itvt]-htmlissue7.16pt2.html#technology.03


My question was, where can I buy one of these.

You are seeing what I did- it is easy to find cable company media folks beating the drum about this device, but it is really really hard to find anyone offering them for sale.

Further- all the releases are like the one you cited. They claim the devices are certified, but certified as what? The specification for 2 way is for "Open"?Cable (Cablecard) 2.0 Host devices. This is not certified as one of those. If it is something like that it is "OCAP 1.0" certified, then where is the document that says that the cable industry will let me use one of these with my local cable provider? Nothing- zilch nada. The idea of a standard is that it is you know-"standard" across systems. OK- Cablelabs tells the FCC that their standard for bi directional is the CC2.0 spec.

Okeydokey none of those for sale, but even if there were, there is no comittment from the cable industry that if even if I could buy a CC2.0 host device that they will support it on their networks.

You know what this about? It's about transmitting a requested channel number to the server. That's all. It's just a fricking number. Here- I want this channel number. Please send it. "Hey- no can do- you have to have a Java virtual machine (OCAP) if you want to do that. Oh, but by the way, we don't support from our server anyway, so sorry. Really, we are very very sorry, but we are oppressed by the FCC you see.... blah blah blah"

Can't get VOD on CC1.0 devices, can't get switched video on CC2.0 devices because no one supports that anyway. Well shucks. I guess third party manufacturers are just SOL. Funny how it works out that way. A cynic might conclude the FCC is colluding with the Cable Companies and the companies like Scientific Atlanta that make boxes for them. But to support that notion, there would have to be some sort of revolving door... oh but wait. Where is Michael Powell former chairman of the FCC now? Why, what a shock- he is a member of the board at Cisco- parent company to SciAtl. [source]

Cozy.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> My question was, where can I buy one of these.
> 
> You are seeing what I did- it is easy to find cable company media folks beating the drum about this device, but it is really really hard to find anyone offering them for sale.


I know. I can't even say I know they are _For Sale _ to consumers in South Korea.


> Where is Michael Powell former chairman of the FCC now? Why, what a shock- he is a member of the board at Cisco- parent company to SciAtl


Well, he's gotta eat.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> What parallels to this subject could be drawn from the Google 700MHz Auction proposals?
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6458959.html
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6461928.html


Opening A Network


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> A cynic might conclude the FCC is colluding with the Cable Companies and the companies like Scientific Atlanta that make boxes for them. .


I think that would require active work from the FCC. I vote for just sitting back and letting the business do wjhatever it wants. Of ocurse the top guy will actively get his share for just doing nothing though.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

davecramer74 said:


> So is cable in violation of the law? You see why they are using VOD? because its not tecnically a channel.


You bet they have to comply with the law. Just because the FCC doesn't feel like enforcing it doesn't mean that the laws of Congress do not apply to cable companies.

And technically, you are quite mistaken. For cable systems, VOD is sent on QAM channels. But it would be irrelevant even if they weren't channels. The 1996 Telecom covers says third party devices must have full access to the video distributor networks. That includes IPTV that do not use channels.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

> Can you comment on this thread?
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5340565
> 
> We are debating if a SA 4250HDc is a CableCARD 2.0 device.


Well I guess that depends on your definition of a "CableCARD 2.0 device" eh? A rather imprecise / meaningless term ... debating whether (or not) something is a "CableCARD 2.0 device" is going to be rather imprecise / meaningless. But anyway ...
The SA 4250HDc can not be sold to consumers as "cable ready" or "digital cable ready" or "POD / CableCard" compatible or using any other similar terms indicating that it is fully compatible with cable systems.

The SA 4250HDc does not fully meet the OpenCable Host 2.0 specifications (or new OpenCable Host 2.1 specifications) for providing interactive / two-way services.

The SA 4250HDC has not been submitted to CableLabs for certification under the CableCard-Host Interface License Agreement (nor verification under the DFAST license agreement), nor would it achieve CableLabs certification (or verification) since it does not meet the Host Core Functional Requirements (nor would it pass the DFAST PICS Interoperability / Acceptance Test Plans).

SA can not use the CableLabs Certified mark nor use the term OpenCable Host Device in reference to the 4250HDc.

The SA 4250HDC is designed and intended to be sold to cable companies to lease to their customers, not to be offered for direct sale to consumers.

Even if the SA 4250HDC was sold to / aquired directly by a consumer, it could only be used to access advanced / interactive services on those cable systems that choose to support accessing advanced / interactive services on consumer-owned SA 4250HDCs.

Even if a cable system chose to support accessing advanced / interactive services on consumer-owned SA 4250HDCs, a siginificant percentage (around 50%) of cable systems would be unable to do so for the "base / SARA" 4250HDC configuration. Err, OK, it's probably possible with significant software / plant / hardware changes and upgrades ... but it's not realistically going to happen.

Even in the "advanced / OCAP / Axiom Middleware" configuration, a very high percentage (99%) of that same significant percentage (around 50%) of cable systems would be unable to support advanced / interactive services on consumer-owned SA 4250HDCs (again, even if they chose to) without significant software / plant / hardware changes ... although those changes and upgrades are more likely to happen at some point.
Bottom line is this. A consumer who aquired an SA 4250HDc would have absolutely no reasonable expectation (much less assurance) of being able to use the box on any cable system ... unless that cable system gave specific assurances to the consumer that they would be able to use the box. I don't think that's what most readers of this forum, endgadget, etc. think of when they hear the term "CableCARD 2.0 device".

OTOH ... if you're a geeky SCTE Engineer / CableLabs spec contributer / or someone deeply involved in CableCard product development (engineers at chip manufacturers, CE manufacturers, cable vendors, etc) ...
The SA 4250HDC is a device designed to use seperable security in the form of CableCards conforming to the CableCARD Interface Specification 2.0.
Yes, I'd consider the SA 4250HDC a "CableCARD 2.0 device" ... and the Tivo S3 ... and the vast, overwhelming majority of CableCard hosts and products sold to date (including TVs, PC cards, etc.) ... by that definition there are very, very few "CableCARD 1.0 devices" out there.

I guess it depends on your definition of a "CableCARD 2.0 device" eh?


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

Wow, nice job!

Thanks


----------



## steelio (Jul 12, 2002)

So can S3's use M-cards?


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

steelio said:


> So can S3's use M-cards?


Not at this time, no. The TiVo HD can, the S3 cannot.

But M-Card is a different issue than CC1.0 vs CC2.0.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

steelio said:


> So can S3's use M-cards?


It is supposed to be able to use M-Cards, but only in S-Mode, which means it only has the bandwidth to decrypt 1 channel. There is various talk about an update later in the year enabling M-Mode on the S3s.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I'm thinking of getting the new TiVoHD. What's the Bright House situation vis a vis these cards? I'm pretty confused about cards, as they haven't been relevant with my Series 1 and 2.

And how far ahead should I order the cards? Price?


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

You don't really need to call ahead too far, probably the best thing to do is to order the TiVo, set it up and use it without the CableCARDs. Then call BHN, that way everything is good to go when the installer gets there. Most of the installers will need you to hold their hand, since they don't know anything about CCs. The CC directions included with the TiVo are great, so have them on hand.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

Hmmm. Then BH will really do it without BS? I was getting the impression that it wasn't a good fit.

Glad to hear it.

Okay, since I'm a neophyte with cable cards, help me out some more. Does it take them a long time to make an appointment (I'm accustomed to going to the source to pick up equipment and installing it myself.) . Is it easy?

Thanks.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

bdraw said:


> You don't really need to call ahead too far, probably the best thing to do is to order the TiVo, set it up and use it without the CableCARDs. Then call BHN, that way everything is good to go when the installer gets there. Most of the installers will need you to hold their hand, since they don't know anything about CCs. The CC directions included with the TiVo are great, so have them on hand.


Terrible idea. Set up your CC install appointment now. You can always request a date one or two days after you expect TiVo HD delivery. If anything changes you can roll the appointment out. But this way _you have an appointment_. Otherwise you might get the *thrill * of getting the TiVo and finding out you have to wait 2 weeks for the CCs.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> Terrible idea.


Tell us how you really feel.

I've never had trouble getting an appointment within a week in Tampa.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

megory said:


> Does it take them a long time to make an appointment (I'm accustomed to going to the source to pick up equipment and installing it myself.) . Is it easy?


It shouldn't take more than a half hour, but the 4 cards I've had installed were anything but easy. It really depends on the installer.


----------



## TomRaz (Mar 1, 2002)

Okay if I decided to purchase a new HD Tivo for $299 that just came out will I be having cable card issues with Bright House ?

Can I ask them for version 1.0 compatiable cable cards so I don't have some of the issues you are having ?

I am just about ready to pull the trigger on the HD Tivo but know I am getting second thoughts.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

There is no such thing as a CC 1.0 compatible or a CC 2.0 compatible CableCARD.

There are S-Cards and M-Cards, that's all. And the TiVo HD supports both. You need ONE (1) M-Card or TWO (2) S-Cards.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

You shouldn't have any problems after you get the CableCARDs installed. You want be able to watch ch 694 Golf/Verus, but everything else is fine.


----------



## TomRaz (Mar 1, 2002)

Thanks bdraw. What is to prevent the cable companies from increasing their lists of lesser channels they decide to convert to SDV in order to save bandwidth ?

I do not understand how the FCC allows them to change their offerings and reduce some of the features of capabilities of cable cards so they are less attractive then the set top boxes they offer for rental units.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

Check here for more information about SDV
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=357703


----------



## rkramm (Mar 23, 2007)

Simple questions: any word on when cablecard 2.0 will be offered by Comcast? Will cablecard 2.0 be supported by TIVO series 3 (including On Demand features)?

Thanks.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

rkramm said:


> Simple questions: any word on when cablecard 2.0 will be offered by Comcast? Will cablecard 2.0 be supported by TIVO series 3 (including On Demand features)?
> 
> Thanks.


Simple answers: Now & No.


----------

