There have been quite a few announcements in recent months about cable’s progress towards deploying tru2way, but unfortunately, there continues to be some confusion in the blogosphere about the future of CableCARDs and exactly how tru2way devices will work.

For example, I see tru2way described as “CableCARD 2.0,” which is cute but not technically correct. I see questions about when there will be a “two-way CableCARD,” when in fact all CableCARDs are capable of accessing two-way cable services such as video-on-demand. I see people expressing expectations that the introduction of tru2way means that CableCARDs will go away, when in fact tru2way devices require use of CableCARDs.

It’s great to know that so many people are passionate about these issues, but the misinformation is a little frustrating.

I thought I would back up and walk through a very brief history of CableCARDs and tru2way, so as to hopefully clear up this confusion.

The Beginning of CableCARDs
In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress sought to foster competition in the set-top box market by enacting a new provision of the Communications Act, section 629, whose purpose was to make set-top boxes available for retail purchase. Specifically, that provision called on the FCC to adopt rules to ensure the commercial availability of “navigation devices” (e.g., a set-top box). But you couldn’t jeopardize the signal security of the provider (e.g., your local cable operator).

The FCC determined that this could be accomplished by separating security (i.e., conditional access) from the function of the device. The security functions would instead reside in a separate security module that you would get from your local provider. These security modules were first known as Point-of-Deployment (POD) Modules and later were named CableCARDs.

An FCC order in 1998 required the cable industry to develop PODs which it did by 2000, but, for a variety of reasons, there were no retail devices built with which the PODs were intended to work. By December of 2002, a “Plug & Play” agreement was reached between major cable operators and major consumer electronics companies setting the stage for the release of the first wave of devices – such as digital “cable ready” television sets – which would work with CableCARDs. These DTVs could be sold (and moved) anywhere in the country and allowed cable subscribers to receive one-way digital cable services without the use of a set-top box by obtaining a CableCARD from his or her cable operator. CableCARDs allowed cable customers to view encrypted digital programming after being authorized to do so by the cable operator.

That “Plug and Play” agreement took effect in the Summer of 2004. As of August 2004, there were approximately 700 CableCARDs deployed by the top 10 MSOs. NCTA just reported new numbers to the FCC and we found that there are 372,000 CableCARDs that the top 10 operators have supplied to date to customers who requested them for Digital Cable Ready TV sets or other CableCARD-compliant products, such as some TiVo digital-video recorders.

In addition, as a result of the FCC’s “integration ban” requiring that cable operators use CableCARDs in their own leased set-top boxes, we just reported that major cable operators have deployed more than 6.2 million digital set-tops with CableCARD conditional-access systems since July 2007.

One-way versus two-way
It’s good to stop here and point out that the 2002 agreement was an agreement for building devices to access one-way cable services such as linear (e.g., TNT, ESPN) and premium (e.g., HBO, Showtime) digital channels, including high-definition channels, but not two-way (“interactive”) services such as video-on-demand.

The reasons for this are long and involved and include technical, business and legal issues, but the short answer is that the cable and CE industries decided to adopt a one-way agreement as a first step to a “two-way” agreement. But agreement on a two-way agreement proved to be much more difficult and complex than a one-way agreement.

In particular, two-way services involve high-value content and we have three affected industries: cable, content providers (such as studios) and consumer electronics manufacturers. Not all of the companies within each industry have all the same views and not all of these industries have the same views. It’s a hard thing to accomplish.

The Story of tru2way
Now, I need to back up one more time and point out that something else was going on at almost exactly the same time. In the fall of 1997, came the beginning of the cable industry’s OpenCable project. Its mission was to provide a set of hardware and software specifications for the next generation of cable’s set-top boxes and other two-way devices. The software involved was called the OpenCable Applications Platform or OCAP, now known as tru2way. The tru2way hardware and software forms the basis for interactivity in two-way retail devices, as well as cable operator devices, and is used in conjunction with – not as a substitute for – CableCARDs which are still needed to provide access to secure cable services.

These are two separate stories
Now, let’s put it all in context. CableCARDs came from a government mandate to separate security from “channel surfing” functionality in set-top boxes, making them available at retail. The CableCARD itself can handle one-way or two-way communication, but the first Digital Cable Ready sets were one-way, because that’s all that was negotiated.

Meanwhile, tru2way comes from a decade of development and was focused on developing specifications that would allow interactive services to be deployed – and interactive services are two-way by definition. Two-way Plug & Play negotiations have been going on for some time, since the one-way agreement was finally settled.

In the meantime, the tru2way specification emerged as an option for building two-way Digital Cable Ready devices. Major CE companies such as Panasonic, Samsung, LG, and Sony have agreed to use tru2way technology to build two-way Digital Cable Ready devices (IT companies such as Intel have also endorsed tru2way). And, as noted, tru2way devices still require a CableCARD for security.

After all, without such security, you can’t have content. Cable operators typically have contracts in place that they have to guarantee conditional access and other limits on unauthorized distribution.

So, there you go. It’s understandable that there’s confusion over CableCARDs. After all, customers with Digital Cable Ready devices represent probably less than 1% of cable customers. But I hope this post will serve to bring some clarity to the issue. If anyone wants a more detailed history, the best one I have seen can be found here.

Just met with Robert Scoble of fast company.tv . . . fun to meet with one of the leading bloggers in the tech sphere, and we both agreed that more conversations between those of us who do Washington policy work and those who do (and write about) technology should take place.  We covered the usual suspects . . . net neutrality, media and first amendment issues etc.  And we talked about how technology has changed, not just since we were teenagers but in the last five years, and what’s coming down the road.  My basic pitch:  the trend of the last 10 years is that consumers have more competition and more choice than ever before, and it is not likely that trend would continue with more government regulation.

Recently, I mentioned the PointSmart.ClickSafe. Summit, which took place in Washington, D.C.  Here is some more information about what took place.

Joe Laramie, from the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, spoke at the Summit, appearing on a panel entitled “Children’s Online Safety in Context: The Health/Prevention Science View.” In this interview, he speaks about the best ways to address cyberbullying. During his panel, he noted that law enforcement has to be careful about addressing online safety concerns. Both intent and content must be weighed, he cautioned, and teachers and parents should be the first line of defense.

Alan Simpson, Director of Policy for Common Sense Media, moderated a panel during the Summit on the topic “The Parent View: Defining Best Practices in Online Safety and Literacy.” Common Sense was one of our partners in putting together the Summit, along with the Internet Keep Safe Coalition (iKeepSafe) and Cable in the Classroom. In this video, he offers some advice for parents.

There was general agreement by speakers that education is the best weapon in addressing online safety. Dr. Michael Rich, Director of the Center on Media and Child Health, said that we can’t rely on legislative fixes, hardware fixes or software fixes; instead we have to fix user firmware – the mindset of parents and children.

On Friday morning, Tom Tauke took to Verizon’s blog to post thoughts on the rumored FCC decision reversing the bureau’s suggested dismissal of cable’s complaint about the telco’s “retention marketing”.  NCTA President Kyle McSlarrow drafted a response here and on Verizon’s blog.  The back and forth went on late into the night with Kyle posting his final word after 8pm.

Due to the relatively unprecedented nature of this direct, and public, debate between major industry players, a lot of people took notice.

Sidecut Reports called it a tussle that only telecom policy wonks could love.

Maybe it’s a tussle that only telecom policy wonks could love, but if you are at all involved in the regulatory sphere you’ve just got to love that the battle of the corporate titans has now moved, Web 2.0 style, into the blogosphere, with Verizon and the Cable companies now using blogs to take pokes at each other…  If you are really interested in the argument, follow the links and join the conversation. We are going to spend the rest of the day worrying whether or not direct competitor blogging means that pundits are out of a job — again!

From the Technology Liberation Front:

Verizon’s Tom Tauke and NCTA’s Kyle McSlarrow take to fisticuffs in their comments (well worth reading and remarkably… candid) on the Verizon Policy Blog after Tom asked “Will Cable and FCC Thwart Consumer Choice?”

Dave Zatz at Zatz Not Funny writes:

In the talking typing heads policy battle currently raging across the blogosphere, I hereby declare the NCTA as winner. I actually have very little interest or knowledge of the topic at hand, however there can be only one… and Verizon’s lobbyist is still ending sentences with two spaces, while Cable’s lobbyist linked his rival’s blog. (Bonus 1/2 point to Cable for using WordPress, though they haven’t upgraded to 2.5.* yet.)

Perhaps the most salient point, and possibly the briefest, was made by Insight Communications CEO (and NCTA Executive Committee Member) Michael Willner (a blogger himself) after Tom and Kyle suggested taking the debate offline.

NO! Resist going back to the old Washington ways!! Don’t settle this in a beltway gin mill. This is the 21st Century and we all want a front row seat!!

We wouldn’t consider it.  When Kyle launched this blog, he spelled out its purpose clearly.

But we didn’t start this blog just to tell you all that. We launched this blog to talk about telecom policy. Today’s vibrant public policy discussions are driven by conversation and debate taking place online, so we hope this blog will contribute to that dialogue. We’ll be talking about proposed legislation and regulation at the federal, state, and local level. We’ll voice our support for changes that would lead to a better, more competitive technology landscape. When we think legislation is unnecessary or detrimental, we’ll talk about that, too. And, while we will certainly express our views, our goal is to have a dialogue… So, we’ll… invite people with whom we may not agree to engage in debates across their blogs and ours. We’re looking to cross post ongoing exchanges in an effort to provide you with the kind of information that helps you decide for yourself.

This was obviously an example of that, but this is only one salvo in a much broader and ongoing discussion and debate over telecom issues.  Keep your eyes peeled, there’s more to come.

(On two sidenotes, you can find NCTA’s statement on the FCC Decision here.  A sidenote to Dave Zatz: We’re big fans of WordPress, but haven’t upgraded due to a dependency on one plug-in that hasn’t yet upgraded.  Hopefully we’ll find a 2.5 compatible plug-in soon.  I’m working on it.)

[Ed. Note: This is in response to a post on Verizon's Policy Blog, by Tom Tauke.]

Tom, I have great respect for you but your blog this morning was a little over the top.

“Thwart consumer choice?” C’mon, Tom. This is really about Verizon trying to thwart competition . . . again.

Here is what is really going on. For the first time in history, Verizon’s entrenched incumbent position in the phone marketplace is being challenged successfully by cable competitors providing digital phone service, a relatively new marketplace development that gives consumers more choice, better value, and — according to J.D. Power and Associates — provides consumers greater satisfaction in every region of the United States. Not to put too fine a point on it: Verizon is losing customers.

Naturally, you’ll do everything you can to retain them. I get that. But, the law is very clear: Verizon can market to its heart’s content 362 days of the year to its customers. However, when customers make a decision to leave you, you are obligated to honor their decision to request that their phone number be transferred to their new provider, and respect their privacy by porting their current number within 4 days without harassing them with marketing retention calls. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and the FCC have previously recognized that integrity in the number porting process is essential for true competition to flourish.

You are right that this is about consumer choice . . . but when consumers have made a choice, they deserve to have their choice implemented. That’s why there are rules preventing you from undermining that choice by invading their privacy.

You also call this an “intriguing” development. You refer of course to a decision that has not yet been announced (although there have been press reports). I agree that it is “intriguing.” First, this is a rare “restricted” proceeding. That means no one is supposed to speak to anyone at the FCC about this proceeding unless all parties to the complaint are present. It’s “intriguing” that someone in the FCC apparently leaked a decision that apparently goes against Verizon. And it is “intriguing” that the leak was apparently choreographed in a way that gives Verizon a shot at debating this in the press and the blogs.

One solution we should all agree on is to reduce the “porting interval” – the period of time it takes to shift a phone number from the losing provider to the winning provider, regardless of whether it is a shift from a phone provider to a cable provider or the other way around. That’s what consumers really want and deserve. And, the temptation for mischief is reduced. I invite you to work with us to ensure the FCC actually makes a decision soon to shorten the ridiculously long 4 days that consumers are forced to tolerate for simply making a choice in favor of the competition.

One other thing: you make the usual “apples to oranges” argument that because cable is engaged in win-back marketing when a cable video customer decides to switch to FIOS service, Verizon should be able to market during the porting interval for phone service. Oh, and you also throw in the same old tired refrain of “rising cable prices.” Are you really unaware that Verizon’s video service is priced about the same as cable providers? Did you miss the press release where Verizon announced perhaps the greatest video price hikes in the country last year? And, of course, what you also leave out is that a FIOS customer won’t cancel service until Verizon has already wired up the house and is ready to turn on (or has turned on) the service. So, it’s a done deal at that point. Of course the cable company may try to win back the customer. But it’s not doing it with inside information.

Intriguing? You bet.