You mean you are disappointed they are not supporting the FULL 3rd Party CE Device CableCARD 1.0 EXPERIENCE.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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...
No mention of 3rd party and no mention of OCAP.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.
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: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.
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.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?
:up: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.
Since I'm just over the bridge from you, I'm curious as to which Brighthouse HD channel is using SDV?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.
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 said:Golf/Versus on channel 694, there might be more, that is the only one I've had confirmed.
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.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?
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 said:Golf/Versus on channel 694, there might be more, that is the only one I've had confirmed.
