MichaelWacey
OwlSaver
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| This shows how little the cable industry understands
My goal is to make TV watching simple. I like the idea of cable cards because I do not need the silly cable box. With SDV, I can get a cable card and no cable box but I need a box for SDV. This is pathetic. Why can't they come up with a scheme where the cable comes out of the wall, plugs into my TV, and I can watch what I want. Too bad they do not understand their customers. |
|
magnushsi
join:2002-11-06
Cedar Springs, MI
| There are a few ways to look at it. The cable co's are actually are trying to help the customers by giving them more HD content. But unfortuneatly technology precludes some of that more without change.
You could actually blame the TV manufacturers for not supporting every form of cable technology. Now that's not very realistic either. But if the TV or Tivo supported 2 way, SDV could be supported.
I think as with everything, you have to look at the "greater good" as a whole. Right now cablecard customers are an extreme minority. Why? Well thats argueable as well, but cable co's are trying to make the most customer base happy, or at least content while they compete with satellite or in some areas FIOS/U-Verse.
It's unfortuneate that some customer bases have to suffer, but that's kind of like everything that progresses in the world. |
|
socrplyr
join:2008-03-25
Canton, OH
| I think the original poster meant that why can't there be a standard two-way device, like the CableCard spec does for one-way. Note, I am talking about the FCC mandated CableCard spec, which does not allow for two-way devices. I fully understand that an actual CableCard can support two-way, but as I mentioned above, such a device would not be certified by CableLabs. |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
4 edits | This article shows how often the CableCARD issue is misreported.
The 2-way CableLabs spec is OpenCable: »opencable.com/ CableCARDs are just part of it. The spec is a couple years old.
For consumer marketing it was rebranded tru2way late last year: »www.tru2way.com/
More info here:
»www.ncta.com/IssueBrief.aspx?contentId=4272
CableLabs has certified several (6 according to the list) OpenCable devices over the last couple of years, but until recently none of the manufacturers released them to retail. Here's the list of CableLabs certified UDCP/OpenCable devices:
»www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/OC_PNP.pdf
That list doesn't include the cable boxes made by Cisco, Motorola, Panasonic, and Samsung that are designed to be OpenCable compatible but are not certified yet.
Panasonic released a couple of tru2way TVs to retail last month:
»www.engadgethd.com/2008/10/17/pa···icago-r/ |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to socrplyr
Re: This shows how little the cable industry understands
Ok, so what's the reason Tivo doesn't support two-way?
* They just didn't do the work?
* They aren't allowed to make it work?
* They won't get it approved?
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Tustin, California USA | my web site |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
4 edits | It's still in development and is known as the Tivo Series 4:
»www.multichannel.com/article/CA6506184.html
Apparently they were waiting for the fight between the CEA endorsed DCR+ and the CableLabs OpenCable to be decided before they started designing a 2-way box:
»www.lightreading.com/document.as···d=132578
Too bad by the time Tivo decided which to follow, most cable companies had already deployed THOUSANDS of OpenCable boxes (due to the FCC integrated security ban):
»www.engadgethd.com/2007/10/17/ti···ard-2-0/ |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
1 edit | reply to MichaelWacey
said by MichaelWacey  :Why can't they come up with a scheme where the cable comes out of the wall, plugs into my TV, and I can watch what I want. Too bad they do not understand their customers. Actually I have wondered something similar for a while but in a different format. Granted you cannot have ClearQAM for all of the channels since customers have to pay for the premium channels. What I would like to know is why a cable box could not be developed that sits between the cable feed into the house and the house wiring. This box would either have a CableCard in it or be a traditional box with a SmartCard. The box would decrypt all channels the subscriber is entitled to watch and rebroadcast those channels to the house side in ClearQAM. It would require some horsepower but probably not beyond the current technology. This would at least allow subscribers to hook up any number of their TV's in their house without incurring the monthly rental charges and per-outlet fees (oops, maybe I just answered my own question  ) |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
4 edits | There is a whole home solution (TeraPIX by BroadLogic) that can bolt to the side of the house, but unit costs, installation costs, and in-home signal distribution problems are big enough issues to prevent any cable companies from rolling it out.
It's just easier and cheaper to slap a box on every TV that needs it and handle a couple channels at a time.
To rebroadcast everything in the clear you would need some serious hardware to handle hundreds of channels. You're talking a headend in a box and even the TeraPIX doesn't do all of what you want. It just converts select tiers of digital channels (not all of them) to analog and it doesn't keep them digital, remux them, or rebroadcast them as QAM channels.
P.S. ClearQAM (as opposed to encrypted QAM) is a misnomer as it's not the QAM channel that's encrypted. It's the MPEG streams on the QAM channel that are encrypted. That means the QAM channel has to received, demodulated, (possible MPEGs demuxed), and then the MPEG stream can be decrypted. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to n2jtx
said by n2jtx :said by MichaelWacey :Why can't they come up with a scheme where the cable comes out of the wall, plugs into my TV, and I can watch what I want. Too bad they do not understand their customers. Actually I have wondered something similar for a while but in a different format. Granted you cannot have ClearQAM for all of the channels since customers have to pay for the premium channels. What I would like to know is why a cable box could not be developed that sits between the cable feed into the house and the house wiring. This box would either have a CableCard in it or be a traditional box with a SmartCard. The box would decrypt all channels the subscriber is entitled to watch and rebroadcast those channels to the house side in ClearQAM. It would require some horsepower but probably not beyond the current technology. This would at least allow subscribers to hook up any number of their TV's in their house without incurring the monthly rental charges and per-outlet fees (oops, maybe I just answered my own question ) Good idea. But, it won't make everyone happy because most TVs still don't support QAM. Though going forward that would be an excellent way to not need more than 1 box per household.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to n2jtx
said by n2jtx :said by MichaelWacey :Why can't they come up with a scheme where the cable comes out of the wall, plugs into my TV, and I can watch what I want. Too bad they do not understand their customers. Actually I have wondered something similar for a while but in a different format. Granted you cannot have ClearQAM for all of the channels since customers have to pay for the premium channels. What I would like to know is why a cable box could not be developed that sits between the cable feed into the house and the house wiring. This box would either have a CableCard in it or be a traditional box with a SmartCard. The box would decrypt all channels the subscriber is entitled to watch and rebroadcast those channels to the house side in ClearQAM. It would require some horsepower but probably not beyond the current technology. This would at least allow subscribers to hook up any number of their TV's in their house without incurring the monthly rental charges and per-outlet fees (oops, maybe I just answered my own question ) Just trun that in to a full home DRV and put mini boxes at each tv. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to magnushsi
said by magnushsi :There are a few ways to look at it. The cable co's are actually are trying to help the customers by giving them more HD content. But unfortunately cablecorpses' are completely driven by their all-powerful greed so it precludes some of that more without change - cablecorpses want to do everything new on their already outdated networks while investing zero - or if that's not possibl then the least amount of - money into bandwidth and other network upgrades. Fixed it for you. 
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
