said by AVonGauss:The communications protocol that I am referring to is an API built on top of the TCP session layer that would allow the subscriber's device to access basic functionality such as SDV handling instructions or even possibly VOD functionality.
Today, VoD is THE single most advanced protocol on a cable coax, not much basic about it. On the consumer end, SVD is VoD, the "length" of the "movie" or "show" is unlimited. VoD has huge encryption and back-talk verification between the physical hardware on both ends of the plant. A piece of software won't cut it. Tru2Way was a nice compromise for CE's to get their hands on a Rosetta stone and the MSO's to not have to replace all of their VoD servers. Tru2Way certification ensures that the encryption, identification, and cross-talk adherence's are met so that your neighbor can't steal VoD off your billing. As SVD doesn't require such scrutiny in security, a simple USB dongle can do the talking.
quote:
I'm sure every cable operator has a different cost for the "boxes" and I definitely have not been privy myself to a copy of their purchase order. However, I can say based on other CE devices if a fairly large cable operator is paying the prices you stated for their boxes in volume, I think I would start bidding for other OEM manufacturers if I was that cable operator.
You can't. If you purchased a Cisco head-end, you need a Cisco certified box. Cisco charges a very nice penny to those who want the keys to the safe. The other devil, Motorola, is slightly worse. $400 for 10,000 HD-DVR's ordered is a bargain, I guess prices have come down. You see, in order for two-way communication, the extremely proprietary language, protocol, and security with Motorola and Cisco is very, very expensive to license. Otherwise the head-end won't only ignore you, it will through you out (you'll loose all subscription keys except "clear QAM" and analog) Since they are part of CableLabs as well as MSO's and Verizon, they made sure to put a large stake for royalties in Tru2Way certifications, though they should be credited as being the mad scientists that actually got Tru2Way functional. So while Tru2Way will become cheaper, in the early years $400 extra per device is very low.
quote:
I don't want to speak on behalf of the CE vendors, but if you compare the proposal the CE vendors came up with versus OCAP (tru2way) there are a few distinct differences.
DCR+? Sure does.
Cable's take: »
www.ncta.com/IssueBrief.aspx?con···2&view=2 quote:
How Does tru2way Differ from the ¡°DCR+¡± Proposal?
Unlike tru2way, the ¡°Digital Cable Ready Plus¡± (DCR+) proposal, which has been put forward by the Consumer Electronics Association, will not bring two-way plug and play devices to the market soon, if ever. It is based on specifications and standards that don¡¯t exist and can¡¯t be delivered to consumers by the February 2009 digital TV transition.
Other shortcomings of this approach include:
¡ö¡°DCR+¡± devices would be instantly archaic; they would only receive a subset of existing interactive cable services and no future ones.
¡öConsumer electronics (CE) companies offer absolutely no assurance that any CE company would ever actually build a ¡°DCR+¡± device ¨C or that any consumer would want one if it were built. Beyond cable operators, content owners and others have said DCR+ is a nonstarter for them.
¡öThe FCC¡¯s approach should be guided by practical lessons from the CE industry¡¯s failed experiment with one-way digital cable products, which are not able to receive interactive cable services. In 2002, CE companies insisted that consumers would want a one-way plug-and-play TV. Cable complied, but one-way sets failed in the market because consumers wanted interactive services.
CE's complaint to FCC on OCAP:
»
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···19613024CableLabs beat them to market. Tru2Way exists, DCR+ still has the technical white-papers unwritten and "in negotiations".
