Bi-directional CableCARD host for Windows?

[barnabas1969]

I'm not even sure how I got to reading about this, but here it is...

I'm always interested in learning new things. I am very inquisitive and... inquiring minds want to know.

So, I already know that the Ceton and other available CableCARD tuners for PC's are uni-directional and unable to work with VOD services. But I got to wondering... why is it that the Samsung HLR5067C uses a CableCARD, and it is capable of two-way communication.

I've read the explanations that there are several different methods of two-way communication, and so it would be impossible for a tuner manufacturer to make their tuner do all of them. However, while reading this thread, which included a link to this Cable Labs "primer" on CableCARD, I read the following paragraph in the Cable Labs primer:

"There are three distinct languages (or protocols) that are used on cable systems for the two-way communications: (1) Aloha (the protocol, defined by the ANSI/SCTE 55-1 standard, used by Motorola systems); (2) DAVIC (the protocol, defined by the ANSI/SCTE 55-2 standard, used by Scientific Atlanta systems); and (3) DSG (the protocol, defined by the ANSI/SCTE-106 DOCSIS Set-top Gateway standard, used by a variety of cable systems). All three protocols transmit their upstream signals on channels in the 5 MHz to 42 MHz frequency band. In order for a Host to support two-way services on any cable system, it must be capable of transmitting upstream signals using any of the three protocols. Only products compliant with the OpenCable Host specifications include the transmitters capable of supporting all three upstream protocols. Products built to the Plug & Play or Digital Cable Ready (DCR) FCC requirements are unidirectional only, and do not include these transmitters and are unable to support two-way services."

So, if there are only three different types of two-way communication in use in the US, and Samsung was able to do it... then why can't a tuner be made for a PC which does the same thing? Is this a limitation of Windows? If so, how hard would it be to:
A) Get Microsoft to add this capability, and
B) Make firmware for the existing Ceton tuners to support the bi-directional communication?

I'm hoping some folks from Ceton (Motz, Erkotz, Jeremy) can help me understand this.

Thanks!

P.S. I'm not trying to start trouble or be confrontational. I'm just curious and would like to know more about the subject.

[STC]

Our buddies here have discussed this over at WEC:
http://experts.windows.com/frms/windows ... 45713.aspx

[richard1980]

You answered your own question. Read the last 2 sentences from your primer quote:

"Only products compliant with the OpenCable Host specifications include the transmitters capable of supporting all three upstream protocols. Products built to the Plug & Play or Digital Cable Ready (DCR) FCC requirements are unidirectional only, and do not include these transmitters and are unable to support two-way services."

The Samsung HLR5067C is a certified OpenCable Host device. (see http://www.cablelabs.com/opencable/udcp ... OC_PNP.pdf)

Also from the primer:

"...only CableCARD modules and OpenCable Host devices support upstream channels."

[erkotz]

Short version:
DAVIC/Aloha/DSG are basically the bottom 2 layers - pretty much akin to Ethernet. There's a whole slew of stuff on top of that that needs to be sorted out, mainly because there's no standard for the data. Right now, the only standard that exists is OCAP, which you really don't want as that would result in the MSO's "cable box" software booting and running on your PC, defeating the whole point of the HTPC.

Existing Ceton InfiniTV tuners (and all existing OCURs) do not have the hardware to support two-way communication - in fact, the OCUR specification explicitly prohibits it. It's impossible to create a firmware update to enable two-way communication as there is no hardware.

As far as the future goes, I will say that at Ceton, we understand that customers would love to access Video on Demand content (and get rid of their TAs) on their HTPCs.

[makryger]

Erkotz says:

Existing Ceton InfiniTV tuners (and all existing OCURs) do not have the hardware to support two-way communication - in fact, the OCUR specification explicitly prohibits it. It's impossible to create a firmware update to enable two-way communication as there is no hardware.

As far as the future goes, I will say that at Ceton, we understand that customers would love to access Video on Demand content (and get rid of their TAs) on their HTPCs.

Community Hears:

The Q will be be getting opencable certified, since the device is not 'plug and play', and as a result, the Q will be able to access VOD.

[richard1980]

I suspect there's a hidden message in that last statement....perhaps some day we'll see Ceton in that list of products with an OpenCable Host certification....unless of course we end up with new tech first.

[adam1991]

As I read what Richard said on the other site:

The roadblock preventing anyone from using a 3rd party navigation device from accessing the on-demand content is that the FCC doesn't require it and the cable companies don't have a standard for accessing the on-demand content (or any other interactive services). Basically, each cable company is free to use whatever methods they like for interactive services, so it would take a navigation device manufacturer working directly with each cable company to enable such a feature

what I'm hearing here is that the software required to interact with a cableco's system is unique/proprietary to the cableco. Their crap boxes are running software that they have set up, so it all works. We are not running cableco software, we're running Windows, therefore there's no communication with the VOD system.

Is that right? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

We all came here on some computer platform running a thing called a web browser--and it doesn't matter what OS or web browser you're using, we're all accessing the same web site and interacting with it the same way. We'd like to think that cableCARD and VOD is the same type of thing, but it's not. We'd need the cableco's proprietary stuff, but alas we're running Windows.

I wonder if a cableco could create a MC plugin that would assist with all of this, and allow their specific PPV/VOD inside MC....

[erkotz]

Community Hears:

The Q will be be getting opencable certified, since the device is not 'plug and play', and as a result, the Q will be able to access VOD.

Haha you guys hear what you want to hear

[erkotz]

As I read what Richard said on the other site:

The roadblock preventing anyone from using a 3rd party navigation device from accessing the on-demand content is that the FCC doesn't require it and the cable companies don't have a standard for accessing the on-demand content (or any other interactive services). Basically, each cable company is free to use whatever methods they like for interactive services, so it would take a navigation device manufacturer working directly with each cable company to enable such a feature

what I'm hearing here is that the software required to interact with a cableco's system is unique/proprietary to the cableco. Their crap boxes are running software that they have set up, so it all works. We are not running cableco software, we're running Windows, therefore there's no communication with the VOD system.

Is that right? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

We all came here on some computer platform running a thing called a web browser--and it doesn't matter what OS or web browser you're using, we're all accessing the same web site and interacting with it the same way. We'd like to think that cableCARD and VOD is the same type of thing, but it's not. We'd need the cableco's proprietary stuff, but alas we're running Windows.

I wonder if a cableco could create a MC plugin that would assist with all of this, and allow their specific PPV/VOD inside MC....

That's basically correct. This is primarily a political problem, not a technical one.

[richard1980]

We all came here on some computer platform running a thing called a web browser--and it doesn't matter what OS or web browser you're using, we're all accessing the same web site and interacting with it the same way.

While this might be true for this specific website, it is not true for every website. As an example, there are many HTML tags that are only supported in certain browsers. Ideally there would be one group of HTML tags, and all browsers would support all HTML tags. But of course that does not happen.

I wonder if a cableco could create a MC plugin that would assist with all of this, and allow their specific PPV/VOD inside MC....

I believe this is technically possible. However, I doubt we'll ever see it unless an FCC ruling is made that requires the MSOs to all conform to specific standards. Once that happens, some enthusiast would probably be the one to make it happen. I doubt the MSO would ever get involved, and I don't have much faith in Microsoft doing it unless WMC starts going somewhere.

[barnabas1969]

Short version:
DAVIC/Aloha/DSG are basically the bottom 2 layers - pretty much akin to Ethernet. There's a whole slew of stuff on top of that that needs to be sorted out, mainly because there's no standard for the data. Right now, the only standard that exists is OCAP, which you really don't want as that would result in the MSO's "cable box" software booting and running on your PC, defeating the whole point of the HTPC.

Existing Ceton InfiniTV tuners (and all existing OCURs) do not have the hardware to support two-way communication - in fact, the OCUR specification explicitly prohibits it. It's impossible to create a firmware update to enable two-way communication as there is no hardware.

As far as the future goes, I will say that at Ceton, we understand that customers would love to access Video on Demand content (and get rid of their TAs) on their HTPCs.

Thanks, that makes sense. The Cable Labs article didn't go far enough then. It's a shame that they specifically prohibit the host device from having the hardware required. It seems to me that it would have made sense to make it possible for a firmware update to make a particular host device compatible with a particular cable company.

I suppose this all means that in order to have this capability, we will need a Tru2Way tuner (if such a thing ever becomes a reality) to replace the OCUR devices we currently own.

As I read what Richard said on the other site:

The roadblock preventing anyone from using a 3rd party navigation device from accessing the on-demand content is that the FCC doesn't require it and the cable companies don't have a standard for accessing the on-demand content (or any other interactive services). Basically, each cable company is free to use whatever methods they like for interactive services, so it would take a navigation device manufacturer working directly with each cable company to enable such a feature

what I'm hearing here is that the software required to interact with a cableco's system is unique/proprietary to the cableco. Their crap boxes are running software that they have set up, so it all works. We are not running cableco software, we're running Windows, therefore there's no communication with the VOD system.

Is that right? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

We all came here on some computer platform running a thing called a web browser--and it doesn't matter what OS or web browser you're using, we're all accessing the same web site and interacting with it the same way. We'd like to think that cableCARD and VOD is the same type of thing, but it's not. We'd need the cableco's proprietary stuff, but alas we're running Windows.

I wonder if a cableco could create a MC plugin that would assist with all of this, and allow their specific PPV/VOD inside MC....

That's basically correct. This is primarily a political problem, not a technical one.

That's an interesting idea... and it would actually benefit the cable company to come up with a solution because it would encourage more people to buy their VOD and PPV content.

Thanks all for the good information. My curiosity has been satisfied. I'm glad the subject of my post caught your attention!

[erkotz]

Thanks, that makes sense. The Cable Labs article didn't go far enough then. It's a shame that they specifically prohibit the host device from having the hardware required. It seems to me that it would have made sense to make it possible for a firmware update to make a particular host device compatible with a particular cable company.

I suppose this all means that in order to have this capability, we will need a Tru2Way tuner (if such a thing ever becomes a reality) to replace the OCUR devices we currently own.

You don't want Tru2Way - that uses the same OCAP stack everyone hates. It actually makes sense that OCUR is one-way - it's an OpenCable Unidirectional Receiver - that said, I agree a two-way standard would be a good thing. In fact, some work was done on BOCR (Bidirectional OpenCable Receiver) but the spec was never completed. Maybe someday

[barnabas1969]

Ah, I understand. From what I read, the REASON it was made uni-directional was so that box/tuner manufacturers could keep their unique interface and not have to download the crappy one from the cableco. It all makes sense now. I read somewhere that they were working on a way to allow the manufacturers to keep their proprietary interface, except when the user wants to use VOD services and other interactive stuff that is proprietary to the cableco.

[shoffert]

I honestly don't think this will end good for the Cable Companies. Eventually, someone with enough money will develop a system to deliver OnDemand style programming over the internet and completely bypass the need for a cablecard. Honestly, this will probably be a much cheaper solution than paying the cable company's crazy monopoly mark ups on all content. The Hulu's and Netflix's of the world are the right direction. It's the consolidator of OnDemand content that will be the winner.

You'll see this LONG before you'll see any effective/reliable two way cable card. Just my opinion, of course.

[barnabas1969]

Hulu and Netflix are pretty cool, but they do have some problems.

On Hulu, you can't see the show for 1-7 days, and not all shows are available. The wait isn't a big problem for me, however.

On Netflix, the movie selection really needs some improvement. The production companies don't want Netflix to stream all the latest and best movies. It's not Netflix's fault.

Neither of them have the video/audio quality offered by the cable companies... and this is my biggest problem with Netflix, Hulu, and other internet sources. On a large screen TV, you really need good video quality. Even when watching Cable, I can see some compression artifacts... and it gets even worse with internet streaming sources.

If they can get Internet sources up to or better than the cable company for video quality and 5.1 surround, and could offer more content, then I might agree with you.

[slowbiscuit]

FCC's AllVid proposal was supposed to be the answer for all of this nonsense, but it's not gone anywhere since the notice of intent came out.

You also won't see a 'cableco over the internet' anytime soon, the content providers like things the way they are. Microsoft recently abandoned the idea for the Xbox, frex.

[richard1980]

Honestly, this will probably be a much cheaper solution than paying the cable company's crazy monopoly mark ups on all content.

Since the majority of all the content (and the pipeline) is owned by the cable companies or other companies that are heavily influenced by the cable companies, no 3rd party will ever succeed, and it will never be cheaper to go to the 3rd party instead of the content owners (the cable companies).

Google, Microsoft, and Netflix are all perfect examples. When Google tried to tap into the content, the cable companies blocked GoogleTV from accessing the content. When Microsoft tried to tap into content, the cable companies priced the content too high. And when Netflix threatened Hollywood's revenue, Hollywood started withholding content. It's all proof that you can't beat a content owner at their own game.

[barnabas1969]

Good points, Richard. It's all part of the "fat pipe dream" that still hasn't happened.

[STC]

It's all proof that you can't beat a content owner at their own game.

Here here.
Result is a lot goes underground on P2P...

[Jim_IT]

I have to disagree with the statement that the Cable Companies are the ones running the entire entertainment industry.

Please show where the content providers; Disney, News Corp, Viacom, CBS, Time Warner, G.E. are currently owned by any Cable entity?

The reason why other models will not work is because the Cable companies pay huge amounts of money for each subscriber (even if they don't watch) to the content providers. The content providers are not going to give away their content over the internet without recieving equal compensation.

Content providers goal is to increase revenue yearly across all streams (Channels) and not limit themselves their best offerings. If 50 people cut cable and went directly to the provider(s) for limited content, do you really think that they would get a better deal?

Jim