OCAP Becomes Tru2wayCable industry standardizes two way, device agnostic platform ( old news - 09:15AM Monday Jan 07 2008) tags: business · hardware · cable · content · networking · Comcast · RoadRunner CableTipped by phatrabt  User phatrabt writes in: "Looks like Comcast (and the rest of the big cable players) are trying to avoid the hand of government regulation on their deployment (or lack thereof) of devices that can communicate with the network without a set-top box. They're calling this new initiative "tru2way" and all of the major manufacturers are on board except Sony. However, even if they all agreed on the standard put forth, the FCC is considering a different standard." A little more detail on the standard (formerly known as OpenCable or OCAP) from the article: An industry initiative, to be renamed "tru2way" after a decade in the works, is expected to allow electronics manufacturers to make TVs and other gear that will work regardless of cable provider. By making devices compatible, the standard also could encourage the development of new services and features that rely on two-way communication over the cable network. While a fear of the FCC is likely forcing their hand, so is fear of competition from web-based providers and the phone industry. A slew of hardware vendors say they'll integrate tru2way into devices, and Microsoft says the standard may be included in future versions of Windows. Comcast says they'll deploy the technology in all their markets by the end of this year, as does Time Warner Cable.
Related:- Comcast To Deploy Femtocells
- Comcast, Like AT&T, Takes Heat For Neighborhood Cabinets
- Comcast: 50Mbps Now Available In 20% Of Markets
- Virgin Takes Aim At BitTorrent
- Comcast To Launch Online Backup Service
- Verizon Laughs Off DOCSIS 3.0
- Still Waiting On Faster AT&T Speeds, Line Bonding
- Comcast Sued Again Over Forced Equipment Leases
|
 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | So Typical of Sony quote:
They're calling this new initiative "tru2way" and all of the major manufacturers are on board except Sony.
What was Sony's standard called? Betamax?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|  | 
wruckman
Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH | Re: So Typical of Sony We definitely don't need another re-run of beta technology. Like the old beta tapes and standard vhs tapes. blah. | |
| | | 
pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ
1 edit | Re: So Typical of Sony How about HD and Blu Ray DVD format war going on now? | |
| | | |
wruckman
Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH | Re: So Typical of Sony Exactly! | |
| | | | 
Voyager2K2
join:2001-10-04
Wayne, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by pende_tim :How about HD and Blu Ray DVD format war going on now? The problem is the demand for DVDs themselves. Some analysts believe that while Blu-Ray may be winning the battle with HD DVD to be the next generation DVD format, neither will win the war, since future consumers will probably choose to download their movies and transport them on memory disk. "They know this is a dying business," said Berenberg Bank analyst Thomas Wissler
»www.forbes.com/markets/2008/01/0···s08.html | |
| | | | | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: So Typical of Sony i agree, but that is still 5 years away from being a truly mainstream happening. | |
| | | | | | 
RR Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: So Typical of Sony said by morbo :i agree, but that is still 5 years away from being a truly mainstream happening. Probably more than 5, and then you have millions who still won't be able to get the speeds needed to download this kind of content. DVD's work in ANY location, and I see no lack of demand for them. The amount of HD and Blu Ray in the stores is still TINY compared to the amount of regular DVD's, and the prices for HD and BluRay is still a lot more than DVDs. Let's be honest here too, this is a technically oriented forum, the majority of people probably don't even know about Blu Ray or HD DVD, and are happy with standard DVD's. I'm waiting until the whole war is finished before I sink any money into this new medium, besides.
--
»www.freighrailworks.org
Galesburg,IL RailCam »205.245.189.161:1100/
»www.amtrak.com
»www.amtrakcalifornia.com
»www.up.com
»www.bnsf.com
»www.metrolinktrains.com
»www.cctrailroad
»www.utu.org | |
| | | | b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
1 edit | Looks like Sony just pulled into the lead with this recent announcement:
(January 4, 2008 - Burbank, CA) - In response to consumer demand, Warner Bros. Entertainment will release its high-definition DVD titles exclusively in the Blu-ray disc format beginning later this year, it was announced today by Barry Meyer, Chairman & CEO, Warner Bros. and Kevin Tsujihara, President, Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Group. | |
| | | | | 
AnnaS8
join:2005-05-26
Annapolis, MD | Re: So Typical of Sony I hate to break it to you but the Bluray vs Hd-DVD "war" is irrelevant it is now a war between physical distribution vs electronic distribution. All the physical media will soon go the way of the dodo. | |
| | | | | | | | touchtone561
join:2007-12-10
Lake Worth, FL | Maybe Sony is just waiting to see what the standard will be.
They need to save money on R&D  | |
|
wruckman
Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| Perfect! We need to standardize. Cross compatibility is needed. Having 30 different proprietary standards is ridiculous. It reminds me of "N" technology in WIFI. No industry-wide standard for it makes it difficult to port your equipment to other locations. This way if you buy a cable box of your own, you can use it on any network! SOLID! | |
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| maybe it would be a tru miracle if it happens at all, even more so if it happens within a few years.
if this statement is true (I have my doubts):
"Our business model has changed completely, from a closed, proprietary model to an open architecture that will work across cable companies - not just across Comcast," Roberts said.
then a true miracle has already happened.
cable companies really don't want this, so it could just be something to pacify the FCC for a while. | |
| | 
phatrabt
join:2002-01-29
Marietta, GA
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| Re: maybe said by nasadude :it would be a tru miracle if it happens at all, even more so if it happens within a few years. if this statement is true (I have my doubts): "Our business model has changed completely, from a closed, proprietary model to an open architecture that will work across cable companies - not just across Comcast," Roberts said. then a true miracle has already happened. cable companies really don't want this, so it could just be something to pacify the FCC for a while. I'm with you on this. It seems like a ploy to get the FCC to look at one hand while the other is doing the what it wants. | |
| | | | | MichaelWacey
OwlSaver
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| Re: maybe said by GOLFnSUN :said by nasadude :it would be a tru miracle if it happens at all, even more so if it happens within a few years. Comcast has been moving their whole infrastructure to OCAP(tru2way) for the last year. The only thing new is that they are making a big announcement to cut off the FCC at the pass. But, the legislation tht required this was written in 1997. The Cable Industry has been slow to adapt. It is only the FCC and IPTV that are making them take action now. | |
| 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Interoperability I hope this will allow them to line share ... The article doesn't say. | |
| | ultatryon
join:2002-04-10
Waterford, CT
| Re: Interoperability The technology that they are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with linesharing. It has to do with better STB compatibility across the differing digital control types.
This particular problem has nothing to do with Comcast either. Where this stems from is the lack of interoperability between the Motorola and Scientific Atlanta digital distribution systems. If you build a box/tv that is capable of talking to the OOB network of a Motorola headend, then it is not capable of talking to an SA headend, and vice-versa.
OCAP is the use of a DOCSIS cable modem to handle OOB data, which is a big step in the right direction, but OCAP is still very very new, and is quite buggy. To my knowledge, there have not been any widespread deployments of OCAP to date.
Once you get boxes talking all the same, then you need them all to understand the same language. For example, the EPG. The EPG that I use in my cable system is TVGuide's i-Guide. I use 3 different versions of the software, depending on the set top box type (one for DCT2000s, one for DCT2500s, and one for all HD/DVR boxes). The particular code I am using would not work on any other type of box, be it SA, Pace, or what have you.
Once there is standardization amongst STBs and TVs, then we can push all the same software, and have a unified experience for all customers. The only item that would be proprietary would be the Separable Security module (aka CableCard)
I for one, am really excited about the prospect of this. I would love to be able to use any box of any type on my Motorola network, but this is still a ways away from becoming a reality. | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | And I seriously doubt that the cablecos would voluntarily move to an architecture that facilitates easy and open line sharing...even if it were technically feasible. | |
| | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
 ·Cruzio Internet
| Re: Interoperability said by openbox9 :And I seriously doubt that the cablecos would voluntarily move to an architecture that facilitates easy and open line sharing...even if it were technically feasible. Yah your probably right, they'd rather fight the 30% cap in court and not have to compete. | |
| | | 
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | TWC is already doing that. Well they actually had to due to the AOL purchase. So it is 100% feasible. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Interoperability So you can get voice, video, and/or internet access from any provider using your TWC coax? | |
| | | | |
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: Interoperability Any provider that actually wants to build up their end of the network to interface with TWC, sure. IIRC, only Earthlink shelled out the cash to build up their side to sell service through TWC. | |
| | | | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Re: Interoperability Earthlink didn't have to build up anything to offer Cable Internet.
All they had to do was offer IP addresses. The IP addresses are on the same CMTS's that RoadRunner IP's are on.
All that is different is that the Earthlink customers can only use Earthlink DNS, mail, etc, and not RoadRunner's services. Earthlink could offer VoIP as well, since it's all IP based, not much would be different from their Internet service.
Offering Video over the same coax would be a whole different ballgame. Unless Earthlink does IPTV, which isn't the same thing. | |
| | | | | | |
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: Interoperability said by smcallah :Earthlink didn't have to build up anything to offer Cable Internet. Sure they did. IP addresses aren't free. DNS servers aren't free. Routers aren't free. And so on. It still costs a lot of money to do it, which is why very few even care to do it.
The IP addresses are on the same CMTS's that RoadRunner IP's are on. The CMTS has nothing to do with an IP address. Earthlink still has to buy IP addresses, TWC doesn't give them to Earthlink. A DHCP server is still required to give out said IP addresses. | |
| | | | | | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Re: Interoperability said by imrf :Sure they did. IP addresses aren't free. DNS servers aren't free. Routers aren't free. And so on. It still costs a lot of money to do it, which is why very few even care to do it. Earthlink already had DNS servers. They were a large ISP before they started offering cable internet over Time Warner's infrastructure. Earthlink didn't need new routers to offer cable Internet. All of their cable customer Internet traffic rides over Time Warner's infrastructure to get to the Internet.
The CMTS has nothing to do with an IP address. Earthlink still has to buy IP addresses, TWC doesn't give them to Earthlink. A DHCP server is still required to give out said IP addresses.
When did I say that the CMTS had anything to do with the IP addresses? The fact is that the only thing that Earthlink provided were IP addresses, which are placed on Time Warner's CMTS's for routing. IP's are a VERY SMALL cost. IP's cost at most, $18,000/YEAR if you qualify for a very large block, which Earthlink would, being an ISP, to $1250/YEAR for a /21 or /22, smallest blocks that ARIN.net assigns. And that's assuming that Earthlink even needed to "buy" new IP's, if they didn't already have enough from already being an ISP.
Time Warner's DHCP servers provide the IP's to Earthlink's cable modems. There is no other way for this to work. Being an Earthlink customer, you can easily do a ipconfig /all and see that the DHCP servers' IP's belong to Time Warner.
The CMTS can only be configured with Time Warner's DHCP servers. The modem's config file would tell the DHCP server which type of customer is behind the modem.
Again, Earthlink didn't have to BUILD anything. Anything they have built now is from the growth of their service as a whole, and not just cable Internet, which required no cable infrastructure outlay on their part. | |
| | | | | | | | |
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: Interoperability said by smcallah :Earthlink already had DNS servers. They were a large ISP before they started offering cable internet over Time Warner's infrastructure. Earthlink didn't need new routers to offer cable Internet. All of their cable customer Internet traffic rides over Time Warner's infrastructure to get to the Internet. Again, yes Earthlink did have to built out. Earthlink may have DNS servers and routers, neither of which are in the same areas as the gear for TWC. They had to interface somehow. And no, Earthlink people do not ride on the same peers that TWC and their subs pay. Earthlink has to provide their own pipes to the internet, all TWC does is give Earthlink access to provisioning customers.
When did I say that the CMTS had anything to do with the IP addresses? When you said this, quote:
The IP addresses are on the same CMTS's that RoadRunner IP's are on.
The CMTS does nothing more than interface a modem to a router, it doesn't do anything with IP addresses.
The fact is that the only thing that Earthlink provided were IP addresses, Again, wrong.
which are placed on Time Warner's CMTS's for routing. Again, a CMTS does not do anything with IP addresses.
IP's are a VERY SMALL cost. IP's cost at most, $18,000/YEAR if you qualify for a very large block, which Earthlink would, being an ISP, to $1250/YEAR for a /21 or /22, smallest blocks that ARIN.net assigns. And that's assuming that Earthlink even needed to "buy" new IP's, if they didn't already have enough from already being an ISP.
Still costs money doesn't it? | |
| | | | | | | | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
1 edit | Re: Interoperability said by imrf :Again, yes Earthlink did have to built out. Earthlink may have DNS servers and routers, neither of which are in the same areas as the gear for TWC. They had to interface somehow. And no, Earthlink people do not ride on the same peers that TWC and their subs pay. Earthlink has to provide their own pipes to the internet, all TWC does is give Earthlink access to provisioning customers. The Earthlink subs are carried by the TWC network. Obviously, you don't know how this works.
The ONLY thing besides DNS, mail, etc that Earthlink provides is IP addresses to TWC, that TWC has to configure on its CMTS's. And BTW, most CMTS's are routers, and the ones that it looks like TWC mostly uses, Cisco uBR's and Motorola BSR's are definitely 100% routers.
The only way that Time Warner and Earthlink interface is over the Internet. Earthlink does not have routers in TWC facilities. Their IP addresses are routed on TWC's backbone. This can easily be seen from any number of BGP routing looking glasses as well as can be seen in a SIMPLE traceroute by an Earthlink customer to Earthlink's DNS servers.
The CMTS does nothing more than interface a modem to a router, it doesn't do anything with IP addresses.
The CMTS's in use by TWC ARE routers, the IP's are configured directly on the CMTS. If you don't know what you're talking about or how any of it works, you should discontinue replying.
Still costs money doesn't it?
And yet it is NOT A BUILD OUT. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: Interoperability said by smcallah : Obviously, you don't know how this works. I'm well aware how it works, I don't think you do.
that TWC has to configure on its CMTS's. Again, there is no IP assigning needed to do on CMTS's.
And BTW, most CMTS's are routers, and the ones that it looks like TWC mostly uses, Cisco uBR's and Motorola BSR's are definitely 100% routers. Duh. And Earthlink still needs routers to interface the CMTS to their network to provide service through their peering agreements.
Earthlink does not have routers in TWC facilities. Yes they do.
the IP's are configured directly on the CMTS. No they aren't. That's what a DHCP server is for.
If you don't know what you're talking about or how any of it works, you should discontinue replying. I'd suggest you take your own advice.
And yet it is NOT A BUILD OUT. There is still a lot of equipment needed to be build for this to work. It isn't done by magic. | |
| | | | | | | | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Re: Interoperability You have no idea how it works.
I have very intimate knowledge of configuring CMTS's, as well as DHCP servers, and intimate knowledge of exactly how the Earthlink cable Internet access is configured.
The IP addresses MUST be configured on the CMTS, how else would the router ahead of it know where to send the packets destined for those IP's? Magic?
If you don't put the IP address block on the CMTS, the modems and the PC's behind them don't get IP's, not to mention the other upstream routers not knowing the CMTS also has those IP's behind it. Case closed.
Earthlink does not interface directly with the CMTS's. Earthlink has NO EQUIPMENT in TWC facilities. I know this, for a fact.
I'm not sure why you're arguing about something that I definitely know you have no idea how it works.
Earthlink had to build no network for their cable internet customers to use the Internet. Earthlink already had a network in place, and their cable internet customers reach Earthlink services through the Internet, using the same routers as TWC customers.
Again, a SIMPLE TRACEROUTE from an Earthlink customer to an Earthlink DNS server reveals that, yet you ignore that in your replies. | |
| AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
| OCAP... You do realize OCAP is akin to saying you can use any device to connect to our network as long as it's running my operating system and I get to control the software you run - right?
OCAP definitely has a role and can benefit both consumers and providers alike, but it is a far cry from an open specification that allows third party devices to connect. | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| I feel like I'm missing something I don't understand what this technology will accomplish in the long term. The short answer is "use interactive TV without cable boxes". To me it sounds analogous to "use broadband on your computer without cable or DSL modems". Which in theory its nice to get rid of a box, but then there are questions... how much more is a TV with this tech going to cost? Can I connect multiple TVs? Will I have to get a new TV when the technology is upgraded?
I don't have any problem with cable boxes, it's the lack of outputs on them, and extra cost to use multiple TVs, and maybe noise and slowdowns in performance. The value of "tru2way" will be how many of these issues it solves... but they could have been solved in a set top box, without making people buy new TVs, so I doubt the will is there to solve them. | |
| xenophon
join:2007-09-17 | More HD is all that matters I don't care what standards occur as long as there are more HD channels on cable. Thinking about switching to DirecTV. | |
| | 
Trimline
Premium
join:2004-10-24
Orlando, FL | Re: More HD is all that matters I just counted the HD stations, here in Orlando, we have 36 HD stations on Brighthouse, plus the on-demand stuff. It would be interesting to see the what others are receiving.
--
FWD#537129 | |
| 
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| It called a cable Box To me this is just make work bureaucracy. The cable box provides the connection between TV be it my “ancient “analog or those no fangled LCD or Plasma sets. A long as the box has analog and digital video output jack I do not see the need for the FCC to get involved. | |
| 
anon coward
@optonline.net
| It's all about Java tru2way (the standard formally known as OCAP) is based on Sun's Java technology. Blu-Ray is also based on Sun's Java Technology. OCAP is based on Europe's MHP standard which is also based on Java. These 'standards' are really all based on different ways to get a standard that we all know and love on our cell phones and computers to be used on set top boxes.
So where does it really leave us? Things have not changed. Only the name OCAP has changed to tru2way, that's it. Cable MSO's are slowly deploying it, only testing it in certain markets. There has yet to be a full deployment of OCAP by any MSO. Advertisers and iTV developement companies are slow to invest money in these systems due to slow returns and worries that they will have to support too many systems simultaneously.
Also think about all those boxes that are already in the field. The majority of boxes in the field cannot even run OCAP/tru2way. So it will be a long time before you will really have to worry about it. tru2way is at least 2 years away in most markets, even though every MSO is making a committment to deploy in 08 and 09. It will only affect the new set top boxes in the field because the legacy boxes are just too slow.
Read up on JSR-242 OnRamp to OCAP which is an effort by the industry to support OCAP on these legacy boxes. It's a far way off. | |
| | | |
|
|
I'm sure electronic will eventually take over, but you're talking a while here, DVD is here to stay for a while.
·
Comcast to support portable DVR/player for tru2way