| Author statement: "The cost to TiVo, anyway. Despite all the talk of CableCARDS, there's only 260,000 currently in use, in part because cable operators aren't eager to cannibalize their DVR rental income by promoting them."
The authors statement of about cable operators DVR rental income is bogus. They don't promote CC rental because no-one is selling a two-way device, yet. The cable operator wants the customer to have the ability to impulse buy VOD, PPV, games, etc. As long as they have a CC in a one way device, they loose "potential" revenue. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | said by magnushsi: They don't promote CC rental because no-one is selling a two-way device, yet. i've read on a few posts that this is b.s. cable cards are two way, but something about tivo not having access to the hardware to make it functional. or something. |
|
| CableCards don't have to be 2-way. CableCards simply decrypt what is encrypted.
What needs to be 2-way is the device in which the CableCard is installed. So far there are Motorola, SciAtl, and Samsung cable boxes that have this 2-way communication with CableCards that cable companies have been using since 7/1/07.
TiVo should probably have waited with their new TiVo HD box until they could have created and sold a 2-way OCAP capable TiVo. |
|
1 edit | OCAP The issue is not that the TiVoHD or TiVo Series3 hardware is incapable of supporting 2-way CableCard. It is that the cable companies are trying to force the CE companies to use OCAP. I am hoping that the FCC forces CableLabs to drop their requirement of OCAP software compatibility in order to perform 2-way functions:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCable_···Platform
»www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-01/oca···ng-whom/ |
|
 myosh
join:2001-05-03
Cupertino, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
 ·Comcast Formerl..
| reply to smcallah
Re: Author statement: said by smcallah:TiVo should probably have waited with their new TiVo HD box until they could have created and sold a 2-way OCAP capable TiVo. I heard that the user interface on OCAP devices are regulated by the cable industry (CableLabs?) which means the superior TiVo interface would either need a makeover or scrapped entirely to make it OCAP-compliant. |
|
|
|
| reply to WeKnSmith
Re: OCAP I don't see why other software can't be overlayed on to OCAP, as long as the OCAP interface is standard, there shouldn't be a reason.
This is what will take time to develop and work around. |
|
| reply to myosh
Re: Author statement: The OCAP interface isn't regulated by cablelabs, the OCAP spec is. The cable company is going to determine what the interface looks like (what OCAP client they are going to use, TW uses an in house developed one). OCAP spec is mainly the middleware between the box (it's proprietary OS/Drivers) and the client.
So the problem is that VOD and IPG and such all require some sort of App to interpret the data. How would you propose that every settop support every App? You have to have a standard. OCAP tries to bring that standard. If you don't have a standard, then every cable company has to to have every App for every settop, not very realistic.
Unless you've seen some of the OCAP clients, you can't really say the Tivo interface is superior. Although opinions will vary.
Cable companies aren't forcing CE vendors to use anything. If they want to sell boxes that work on their network, they kind of need to support that network. There is nothing saying a CE vendor has to have a device OCAP certified to work 2 way on a cable companies network. The CE vendor would have to write their OS/App to work with whatever the cable company is using (i.e. VOD client, etc.) Nothing stopping that, except each cable company uses many different clients. No standard, although their is a spec. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| The problem is that OCAP requires that the cable company choose which application is deployed on the box, despite there being standard calls to handle things like VOD and channel tuning.
Someone like TiVo can't build an OCAP box and have their UI on it without negotiating with each MSO to offer it to their OCAP compliant boxes (presumably at an extra charge).
Since the 1996 Telecom Act requires that they support "portable" boxes that you can take to any carrier, they're doing the whole OCAP thing. The only problem is they're trying to treat OCAP boxes like they own them, giving you no choice in what UI to run on top, instead of being content with building a middleware layer and leaving the box manufacturers (or customer!) to decide what UI to use. |
|
| I totally disagree that they or anyone is trying to treat boxes like they own them. Like I've stated in other posts, there is NOTHING stopping a CE vendor from creating a non-OCAP box that runs on a cable providors system. The problem for the CE vendor is that no cable provider's system is created equal. So they need to support numerous differnt vendors apps. There are easily a half dozen VOD vendors, all with their own client software. Not to mention SDV vendors, game vendors, etc. Without some type of standard, it's cost prohibitive for a CE vendor to try to make a box that works everywhere.
"Someone like TiVo can't build an OCAP box and have their UI on it without negotiating with each MSO to offer it to their OCAP compliant boxes (presumably at an extra charge)."
Actually TiVo can build a box (non OCAP certified) and have their own interface on it. They just need to write their code to work off the existing cable providers system. Both Motorola and Scientific Atlanta headends follow industry standards for communications and data processing. Nothing saying TiVo can't build a box to do the same. It just doesn't make financial sense for them to do so. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| They could, but it couldn't get Cable Labs certification, and would have to be approved by every individual MSO. That's exactly what Cable Labs certification is designed to prevent.
You're being dense. It's technically possible but not feasible from a business standpoint.
There's no reason that Cable Labs could not allow a vendor to make a box that has the OCAP layer (and all the middleware that makes VOD, SDV and whatever else work with OCAP apps) and put their own UI on top and not allow the MSO to change that part of the software stack.
The only reason is control. Think about it. With OCAP they get to treat the boxes the same as they do today yet don't have to pay for them. How is that not like treating them as if they own the box? |
|
| You aren't paying attention to any of the numerous posts that all say the same thing. So I would say your the one being dense! The CE vendor doesn't have to get anything approved by every MSO. They would want to if they wanted to verify it continued to work, or just build a device with an OCAP compliant middleware.
CableLabs cert is not to prevent, its to make sure anyone can build a box to a standard and it will work. Why should cable companies be dictated on what hardware they should support anyways? I can't think of any other industries that are forced to promote CE competition?
With OCAP they try to guarantee the box will work and customers will be able to buy services without issue. If there was 100 different UIs out there, who would consumers call when they had an issue? I guarantee the majority of consumers will call the cable company.
If you don't like the control get a different service! Oh, you end up with the same so called control...nevermind... |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| They need approval from each MSO if they want to offer their own UI on the device because it's the MSO that chooses what software runs on top of the OCAP layer, just like on their boxes.
It basically neuters the whole third party device market by eliminating the biggest differentiation between devices! |
|
