all right,thank you for this enlighting thread about this US cable television evolution.. i very appreciate all the relevant links you made to clear the on-going debate..
BTW, i'm newbie here so i really can't feel all the subtle details (where the devil is, usually.. ;-)
so just some random comments intertwined.. David Broberg wrote:
Andrea Venturi wrote:(albeit i really don't get the pun behind tru2play.. if you want to tell me)First you can read more details about the making of the brand here: http://www.siegelgale.com/dialogue/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/tru2way.pdf
now i get it..
The significance of the press release is that the tru2way system is being embraced widely in the USA. Through a number of compromises by both sides the objections of those most strongly opposed have now been overcome.Perhaps Mr. Hughes has missed some of those recent developments? I have provided some corrections to his response below: (enjoy)-David Broberg [dB]-----Original Message----- From: Kilroy Hughes Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:04 PMAndrea,Let me give you some facts, opinions, and history that might you can use to make your own guess as to the future of "Tru2way" AKA 2-way CableCard.[dB] Please note: Tru2way describes a complete system solution which is implemented on a voluntary, cooperative basis, while a CableCARD is one single element that only satisfies the mandatory separable security element of the FCC requirements.
i've just seen this FCC chairman "Manifesto":http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/kevin-martins-open-network-manifesto/index.html?ref=technology
"The cable operators won't license a device that integrates Internet video content with their content," he said. "I'm saying that's wrong, and I am trying to get the other commissioners to address it."
tough position or just smoke in the eyes of consumer's organizations?
OCAP was designed to support resident applications installed by the cable operator so they can take over your TV, settop box, etc. and control the primary user interfaces, such as EPG, VOD, provisioning, messaging, and other cable services with their own branding and advertising.[dB] Well, it is not exactly like that. Yes, it was designed to support two types of applications "bound" and "unbound". The bound apps are tied to the program and are ephemeral. These are much like the MHP applications. The "unbound" applications can be deployed by either the maker of the box or the provider of the service and remain running as long as needed to satisfy the applications purpose. Multiple unbound applications may coexist on the box. Since each cable operator in the US may use different VOD providers and different signaling protocols, a custom application is needed to interface with each proprietary system. The VOD and guide application are installed by the specific cable operator as an unbound application that enables a retail product to work with any VOD system on any cable system in the country. Without such an application the box is unable to select and view VOD content.
so, for me from far Europe, it seems that the real scope of OCAP is still unknown! :-)
it's so exciting! BTW are there already OCAP deployment ?
/*...*/ */ /*CableLabs made the obvious choice to require anyone who wants to make product to connect to their network to give them hardware control via network specific CableCards supplied by the cable operator, and software control by requiring all two-way devices to run OCAP so the cable operator can download their own applications to control the user experience. Enhanced broadcast content like interactive sports scores and play along game shows are the last thing they care about. [dB]As I explained above, the replaceable hardware and software elements are necessary to enable innovation and portability.
just to add more stuff on the plate..if there's so few interest in added value above plain simple audio and video, why they do introduce mandatory interactivity in bluray disk player for BD-J
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BD-J high-def is not enough as a selling point?this stuff is making BD player bloody expensive. (i know that microsoft has been so kind to help take this stuff more cheap..)
as BD-J and OCAP are sister technologies, don't you believe, anyway, a potential for interactive content to flow from one medium to the other?
IMHO, if we want interactive tv to succeed, i.e. to find "some" killer apps above plain simple multimedia (be it social network, gambling, or whatever..), it's a matter to keep low barriers for the entry of new "creative people".. so that many will try, most will fail and some will get it right.
if we stick with bridge and trolls, the show stops here! :-) ...
for sure they are getting sued a lot.. lastly from our Italiana Mediaset too! :-)Internet delivery of both user generated video and TV shows is skyrocketing. When users interact with Internet TV, behavior, expectations, and capabilities are drastically different. You may have heard of a recent startup with the silly name "Google" that thought interactive internet advertising might be worth something. Their net worth is probably more than the top US broadcast networks combined, so maybe they have something there.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKL04549520080730?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0don't know how this case will sort out, but it seems a bit exaggerated as a request..
Once you take TV to the Internet with thousands of shows online, "interactivity" in the form of recommendations/social, searching, virtual channels, targeted advertising, animated/interactive advertising, social viewing/chatting, viewing and interacting from any IP device ... that creates a whole new context and possibilities for "interactivity".[dB] Yep. Every aspect of this can be delivered using the tru2way solution.The idea of broadcaster or content provider generated "program enhancements", like MHP, is still doubtful. Production, deployment, and especially testing adds a lot of difficulty and expense at each emission point, on top of just getting audio/video/subtitle done well and on time. Is it an audience builder? Certainly not in the near term, given the chicken/egg problem (not many people even have the equipment to see it). Is it a revenue builder? (for the content maker? The broadcaster?). Not short term, and questionable long term.[dB] Agreed, but there will be certain content that lends itself to such applications like NASCAR or other sports programming and certain reality or game shows. The real value of the tru2way platform is for more user control including the kid of managed advertising that is mentioned above.It scales much better to host a web page in Milan that will play video with interactivity and advertising, which becomes immediately accessible to a billion users anywhere in the world who have IP video capability.[dB] There is no barrier within the tru2way system to such a service, in fact for the first time it enables a single nationwide platform to enable such applications directly to the TV screen.
this is ([dB]) the same exact opinion i have too.i.e. internet as a carrier is perfect for long tail content, few viewers and so on. broadcast is good for the masses.
BUT the PC is a complex device with a messy user interface (actually!) and a STB is a stupid proof one.
let's the user pull the content over the internet on the TV thru a "simple" STB but not that simple, and OCAP/JAVA/MHP could give the user that boost for the second half of this century!
don't see the reason to put everything inside a web browser window with a point and click interface just because this content flow on an IP net. we don't have only one nail!
but the cable networks will not so happy to share tv set and eyeballs with THE OTHER network! i can get it
bye andrea venturi
begin:vcard fn:Andrea Venturi n:;Andrea Venturi org:Avalpa Digital Engineering SRL adr;dom:;;Via dell'Arcoveggio 49/5;Bologna;BO;40129 email;internet:a.venturi@xxxxxxxxxx title:CEO tel;work:+39 0514187531 tel;cell:+39 3477142994 url:www.avalpa.com version:2.1 end:vcard