End of QAM tuners ?

[MrVining]

Comcast - Woodbury, MN
I'm down to locals, CSPAN, home shopping channels, and Bravo (saying bye to Bravo soon I'm sure).

Personally I could care less about the cablecard issue, there are very few things I want to record off Cable, and most of that stuff goes to DVD soo quick. I use 3xHDHomeRuns to record off air. I planned on getting a few R5000 or what ever they are called, but I'm too worried the boxes would die. I worked for Comcast out here for 5 years, at least 5% of my service calls were bad boxes. I use the term bad box loosely, most of them were dead because of firmware updates not working out.

I can't wait to see the HD-PVR in action, but I don't want to buy before I try.

[Electronicbuff]

Comcast in Dearborn Michigan started forcing customers to their digital tuner boxes. They are currently providing FREE digital tuners for each TV in the house.

This is forcing a buddy of mine to to get a work-around so Sage will be able to change the channels on the Comcast tuners. Not a cheap fix.


So far I've lucked out. Wide Open West, my CATV provider, has not opted to do anything like this. Currently they have no plan to do this, but only time will tell.

[Fuzzy]

Sadly, the real best option WOULD still be the cablecard system. It provides the broadcaster with the ability to control subscription access, and provides the user with their choice of tuning devices. Sadly, since CableLabs was 'forced' into the CableCard issue, they are being babies about it and non-supporting the concept.. (much like California forcing GM to make the EV1.. to the same results).

Still kind of happy I've got the R-5000 in a Dish ViP-211, just wishing i could upgrade past WinXP and still use it...

[Djc208]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Sadly, the real best option WOULD still be the cablecard system. It provides the broadcaster with the ability to control subscription access, and provides the user with their choice of tuning devices. Sadly, since CableLabs was 'forced' into the CableCard issue, they are being babies about it and non-supporting the concept.. (much like California forcing GM to make the EV1.. to the same results).

While I agree with that CableCard would be a good compromise my understanding is that the problem isn't CableLabs, it's that the cable companies don't want much to do with it. The cards rent for less than a cable box, don't offer two-way features, and are less reliable since the interface with the TV can be different between brands vice a known cable box.

I know the Cable Card in my TV is much more finicky than the cable box hooked to the HD-PVR.

[mwareman]

Originally Posted by reggie14

That would have to be quite a box. It would have to decrypt every channel in real-time. That's a lot of data to process. I'm not saying it's not possible. Certainly there are line encryptors/decryptors out there that process similar amounts of data, but those aren't cheap devices.

Me thinking: What about a box that does SDV in the house? It would only have to have x decryptors - where x is the number of simultaneous channels. Then, we've have ClearQAM SDV capable tuners in our TVs, HDHR and PVRs..

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by Djc208

The cards rent for less than a cable box, don't offer two-way features, and are less reliable since the interface with the TV can be different between brands vice a known cable box.

Not quite true. The original CableCard was only one-way. But all new CableCards are two-way. Just to prove the point I have an SA box from Cox with a built-in CableCard. It does all the on-demand stuff just fine.

I think the problem actually lies in device support for two-way CableCards.

[Sparhawk6]

The HD-PVR is not our long-term answer. That's why I believe that there is not real competition for the device. The cable companies can close the analog hole whenever they want. HDMI connections are becoming more and more ubiquitous. Frankly, it's only a matter of time before component connections are completely gone. Why spend money in creating a device who's functionality is entirely left up to some third party, government sanctioned mega-monopoly?

This, my friends, is the power of monopolies or companies with very limited competition. All the more reason for the FCC to regulate the industry. These companies have government-sanctioned monopolies, so the FCC has to protect the consumers' interests. Sad to see the recent FCC ruling that is not in our favor.

[evilpenguin]

Personally, I don't think they'll ever "plug the analog hole", at least not until component video becomes obsolete naturally, so I'm not worried about that.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk6

The HD-PVR is not our long-term answer.

Depends on the definition of "long term". But regardless, if it's not the answer, there isn't one. It's quite clear nobody in a position to do it has an interest in supporting recording of TV on PCs. CableLabs has been no help (OCUR tuners only exist because CableLabs can't prevent it). Dish and DirecTV have deep-6'd tuners for their services.

"Long term", recording unencrypted outputs of provider STBs is the only solution, and that means analog either directly or via decryption/analog converter devices.

That's why I believe that there is not real competition for the device. The cable companies can close the analog hole whenever they want.

Easier said than done.

[hufnagel]

i just got an HDHR in today and saw the articles about the possible disapearance of clearQAM late last night. if they're going to do it better they do it in the next 30 days so I can send the damn thing back.

oh and I'll be canceling my TV service totally at that point. I've had it with this.

[simonen]

I am one step away from canceling cable. I can get all the major networks over the air and the extra stuff can be gotten by other means, but I would really like to see more online support from sage. Hulu is my #1 wish and then I can say goodbye to cable.

[hufnagel]

oh and I gotta give mad props to the HDHR people. that thing installed like butter. even with me being the classic Alpha Male and not RTFM'ing it I still managed to get it installed and working perfectly after a couple self-inflicted false starts. That part in their instructions (when I did finally read them) about going through and mapping the station call ID's to match exactly with the zap2it listing was dead on though. missing a couple of those was the cause of most of my problems. oh and the HDHR effectively doubles my storage capacity now too!

[gplasky]

More info

Clear QAM HD isn't going anywhere!


Gerry

[Djc208]

Only problem with that article is that it kind of misses the point. Sure the locals are supposed to stay un-scrambled, and most all CQAM tuners will do OTA as well, which will continue to be an option.

The issue is the analog tuners that currently can get all the expanded basic cables in the clear. You'll need a cable box and IR blaster to get the same SD content into your machine once they go digital with these scrambling routines.

So the issue IMO seems to be less the death of CQAM and more the death of analog tuner cards at all. There will be little point for anything other than QAM/OTA digital tuners and analog SD and HD capture devices without tuners.

[Taddeusz]

The problem is that the FCC can't do anything to force the cable companies to carry any more than the local stations in the clear. And the only reason the FCC can force that is because it becomes an issue of public safety.

So it's really only by the good grace of the cable companies that we receive anything other than just the locals in the clear. That's how the cable networks want it so the cable companies play along so that they don't lose them. I bet the broadcast networks would have it that way if it weren't a matter of public safety.

[mwareman]

Originally Posted by Djc208

The issue is the analog tuners that currently can get all the expanded basic cables in the clear. You'll need a cable box and IR blaster to get the same SD content into your machine once they go digital with these scrambling routines.

If you have recently purchased a 'Cable Ready TV' that happens to come with a Clear QAM tuner you (may have) had the oppurtunity to watch extended basic in SD/Digital if you are a subscriber (ie: channels not tapped off). For nearly two years now, I've been watching extended basic on such TVs in my house because I've had such TV sets. I also record, using SageTV, EB channels via Clear QAM. When privacy mode is switched on - then such a TV (and SageTV recordings) will get dumbed down to only the OTA channels - unless you pay for a DTA for every single tuner in the system.

Sure - Comcast give you 2 for free (at least for the first year). What if you have 3 or 4 TVs like that and 4 tuners in your HTPC (not unusual, I suspect, in this community). If you are 'old school' (so to speak) - if you want to be able to record on your VCR on program whilst watching another - we'll your just out of luck.

Personally, I'll need 6 DTA boxes to continue my current setup and am only being offered 2 without any extra payment to Comcast. So - it's an extra $11.94/month (or $143.28/yr) just to keep being able to watch what I have now. That's not counting the power strips needed for another wall-wart and the cost and environmental impact of the power consumption of another box that you cannot turn off. That's a lot of money - considering these DTA boxes are estimated to cost ~$50-60.

For me, the issue is not about the separable security module. We've already seen CableLabs bully their way around that one by implementing strict licensing requirements on devices that you plug the cablecard into. IMHO - this effectively undermines the intention of the FCC policy.

Even if I was fine about the physical box - I'd like to buy the boxes I need - not rent them. I'd like to be able to pay more to get additional features like composite out and serial port control - and not be stuck with shielded IR blasters and having the signal pass thru multiple tuners, degrading the quality before I'm able to capture it for later viewing.

The HTPC community needs to rise up to the FCC & your local senators and representatives - complain and attempt to force the likes of Comcast, Road runner and/or Motorola (who make the privacy mode chip for Pace) to make available the privacy mode chips to manufacturers like Hauppauge, ATI and Silicon Dust at cost. Cable Companies need to be required to activate such devices - although I suspect (even though they may not like it, such legislation is already in place).

We need to lobby them at least as hard as Comcast / Time Warner and the rest of the Cable community lobbies for their protections.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

The problem is that the FCC can't do anything to force the cable companies to carry any more than the local stations in the clear. And the only reason the FCC can force that is because it becomes an issue of public safety.

I'm not convinced. Perhaps strictly speaking you're right, but they could have done a couple things.

1) They could have refused to give the separable security waiver, thereby effectively requiring Comcast and other companies to provide some things in the clear. Or,

2) The FCC could have interpreted their legislative mandate under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 differently to give the notion of separable security more teeth. I don't think CableLabs/CableCard really lives up to the spirit of that law, and I think a lot of that is the FCC's fault. That wouldn't necessarily mean things would be in the clear, but it might make the encryption issue a moot point.

I bet the broadcast networks would have it that way if it weren't a matter of public safety.

I'm not convinced its about public safety. It's sort of too late for them now. If they encrypted the OTA signal then no one would be able to get it. If they would have been thinking they would have tried to make sure every digital TV sold had a decryption key built-in. I would think they could have gotten that. Then its sort of tough for the public safety argument to work because every "legitimate" TV would be able to pick up the signals.

I'm not saying the broadcast networks wouldn't love to encrypt their signals, I just think the reason they don't is because they missed the opportunity ages ago.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by mwareman

For me, the issue is not about the separable security module. We've already seen CableLabs bully their way around that one by implementing strict licensing requirements on devices that you plug the cablecard into. IMHO - this effectively undermines the intention of the FCC policy.

I'm going to sort of contradict my previous message (not really though). I disagree this undermines the intent of the FCC policy. Really, the separable security requirement was put in to allow people to buy their own STB-like devices.

It's arguably reasonable, and entirely expected, that content creators and providers would want to be able to put restrictions on what happens to the digital video streams. Doing so requires some sort of certification program to ensure devices are properly implementing the DRM. Nothing in the legislation prohibits that (or even implies that its bad). That being said, I think it would have been reasonable to require that the certification process be independent of CableLabs and the cable companies.

[mwareman]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I'm going to sort of contradict my previous message (not really though). I disagree this undermines the intent of the FCC policy. Really, the separable security requirement was put in to allow people to buy their own STB-like devices.

It's arguably reasonable, and entirely expected, that content creators and providers would want to be able to put restrictions on what happens to the digital video streams. Doing so requires some sort of certification program to ensure devices are properly implementing the DRM. Nothing in the legislation prohibits that (or even implies that its bad). That being said, I think it would have been reasonable to require that the certification process be independent of CableLabs and the cable companies.

<rant> (sorry!)
I think the issue is that DRM was not really considered during the drafting of the legislation. There was a realization that the cable companies need to restrict access to premium channels to only those that subscribe to them. In the past - this was accomplished by means of putting filters on the cable that enters everyone's house - filtering the frequencies carrying the premium channels. As we moved into a digital age - the only *reasonable* way to accomplish this is to encrypt the channels - and (somehow) provide the subscriber with the 'key' to decrypt, if authorized. The FCC (rightly, IMHO) realized that this might produce lockin - the inability for a subscriber to purchase their own STB with whatever features the consumer desired rather tan being forced to rent the STB of the provider. So - the separable security requirement.

The cable industry got together (CableLabs) - and produced the CableCard. This, technically, seems to satisfy the FCC requirement (since the CableCard itself is separable) - but (and this is the key issue to me) fails to satisfactorily comply to the intent of the legislation because CableLabs (representing the distribution) overstep their bounds to regulate access to the content beyond providing a selective access device.

Allow me to explain.

If I buy a TV with a CableCard slot (certified by CableLabs). I use it for a while. All is good. Now, I decide I want a TiVo. So - I go and buy one - because the CableCard is separable - I can just move it - right? Wrong. I must contact the provider to re-authorize the card in the new slot - since there is a key exchange that binds the card to the slot it's inserted into, and that binding is what authorizes access to all content. The card on it's own is *not* enough to authorize. In fact - the key that is provided by the slot must be signed by CableLabs - who decide who they are going to grant the privilege to (they will only certify devices that provide for onward 5c protection). I cannot simply move the card between slots. It provides the exact same end result for the consumer - the feeling that they are locked in with their STB choice at the whim of their provider if they are going to allow the new device you've just purchased.

There in lies my issue. By policy, CableLabs are enforcing 5c protect for all content beyond the CableCard for *all* content - not just content where the content producer has required 5c.

To my mind - this means (necessarily) that he security system is actually divided between the CableCard AND the device - and not fully seperable. Only one half of it is removable. Ultimately - I feel that this division of responsibility and partial inclusion of security into the STB itself ultimatly violates the intent of the law.

I don't know about you - but in my book if a third party can disable the equipment on their terms (as they can if they feel the key in the slot is compromized) - then I don't *own* it, despite the fact that I was the one that paid for the equipment.

To my mind - the issue of selective access and rights management are two different issues - and we (consumers) tend to confuse the two. If the rights holders insist that content *must* be encrypted to the display (5c) - fair enough. We home DVR'res are stuck with the 'analog hole' for such recordings.

But when the provider is not requiring such content restrictions - who is Comcast to blanked *all* channels with such restrictions? To my mind - this is where the problem lies. There is not FCC requirement that prohibits arbitrary encryption of channels by the distributer of the channel - when the producer has not required it.

I 100% agree that the device certification must be independent of the cable companies. I further strongly suggest that such certification must also be independent of the content producers.

Surly it's possible to protect their rights, the rights of the distribution (cable/satellite) companies (who's only rights - surly - are to get paid for the channels they distribute and not have consumers access channels they are not paying for) - the the rights of end users to exercise fair use for the content they are subscribing to?

Why can't a device be made that uses a CableCard - but doesn't enforce 5c nor require a certified slot - result is a system that continues to allow access to the channels the consumer subscribes to but not allow access to content where the producer requires 5c? So - any uncertified cablecard device could be used for most channel authorization - but 5c programming would continue to require a 5c certified path between the card and the display. *This* would be a reasonable use of the tech to me - providing for selective access based on subscription - allowing fair use of content that the producer is OK with - and protecting high value content as demanded by the content producers?

I *should* be able to *buy* an STB with a *completely* *separable* *security* *device*. By definition - this takes in the encrypted signal - determines if I'm authorized - and outputs a decrypted signal. Sure - I won't be able to access content that requires 5c (because the onward auth would fail) - but everything else should be available. Likewise - I *should* be able to buy a card for my SageTV that accepts such a separable security device, providing access to non-5c content only on authorized channels. This is all I'm not holding my breath for..

</rant>

Michael.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by mwareman

<rant> (sorry!)
As we moved into a digital age - the only *reasonable* way to accomplish this is to encrypt the channels - and (somehow) provide the subscriber with the 'key' to decrypt, if authorized. The FCC (rightly, IMHO) realized that this might produce lockin - the inability for a subscriber to purchase their own STB with whatever features the consumer desired rather tan being forced to rent the STB of the provider. So - the separable security requirement.

This wasn't entirely unique to the digital age. There were analog cable scramblers used before that time period to do access control. You're also giving the FCC more credit than they deserve. They didn't come up with idea to do separable security, or anything like it, Congress did with the 1996 Telecom Act.

The cable industry got together (CableLabs) - and produced the CableCard. This, technically, seems to satisfy the FCC requirement (since the CableCard itself is separable) - but (and this is the key issue to me) fails to satisfactorily comply to the intent of the legislation because CableLabs (representing the distribution) overstep their bounds to regulate access to the content beyond providing a selective access device.

I disagree that there's anything in the legislation that forbids that sort of thing.

So - I go and buy one - because the CableCard is separable - I can just move it - right? Wrong. I must contact the provider to re-authorize the card in the new slot - since there is a key exchange that binds the card to the slot it's inserted into, and that binding is what authorizes access to all content.

By itself this doesn't seem so bad. I don't see anything suggesting that this would prohibited by either law or regulation.

The card on it's own is *not* enough to authorize. In fact - the key that is provided by the slot must be signed by CableLabs - who decide who they are going to grant the privilege to (they will only certify devices that provide for onward 5c protection).

Of curse that's the way its going to work. Personally, I think its a little sketchy that cable companies own CableLabs, and CableLabs decides who does and doesn't get certified, but that isn't really the issue. The issue is that only devices that obey DRM rules will get certified. And that's why its so hard to imagine CableCard add-on cards for PCs.

How do you think this ought to work? The CableCard would just blindly decrypt any of the channels for any device? IMO, that's unrealistic.

I cannot simply move the card between slots. It provides the exact same end result for the consumer - the feeling that they are locked in with their STB choice at the whim of their provider if they are going to allow the new device you've just purchased.

I completely disagree. The provision in the 96 Telecom Act was inserted to allow third parties to develop front-ends, essentially, for the cable system. And it's worked, basically. We wouldn't have the TiVoHD if it wasn't for CableCard. Sure, it would be nice if there were more choices, but before the advent of DVRs there wasn't much of a reason to seek out other STBs.

Sure, signatures on compatible devices could get revoked from a technical perspective. But, without good reason, it would violate FCC regulations. And, it would almost certainly be a dumb move on CableLab's part, as it would invite tighter regulation in this area.

By policy, CableLabs are enforcing 5c protect for all content beyond the CableCard for *all* content - not just content where the content producer has required 5c.

What do you mean by this? First of all, I don't think CableCard uses the 5C/DTCP system, just something with similar goals. Certainly CableLabs is going to demand that CableCard devices understand different DRM levels. They don't require that certified devices treat everything like it's marked copy-never. It's academically an interesting question whether CableLabs should provide a DRM-free CableCard certification that would let devices access encrypted, but unrestricted, digital cable. But, ultimately, I think it's just an academic question. If they did I bet you'd quickly find all the cable companies move to various forms of restricted cable.

To my mind - this means (necessarily) that he security system is actually divided between the CableCard AND the device - and not fully seperable.

Basically, I agree with you there. Security functionality is not completely removed from the device. Does that violate the FCC's original regulation on separable security? Perhaps. I think that's basically what happens when you get non-techie lawyers writing policy- they just don't get it. Security can't just be a single module that you can plug into devices. You can't just install some single magical software module to your OS of choice and suddenly make it secure. The original FCC regulation made no sense. Subsequent regulations clarified this and let host devices perform some security functions.

But, keep in mind, the original language in the 1996 Telecom Act doesn't require any strict form of separable security. Separable security is just what the FCC came up with to carry out that law.

I don't know about you - but in my book if a third party can disable the equipment on their terms (as they can if they feel the key in the slot is compromized) - then I don't *own* it, despite the fact that I was the one that paid for the equipment.

Wow. You've bought a lot of things in your house that you don't own, given that your utility companies can turn off electricity/power/Internet/CableTV with a flick of a switch.

I see your point though. But, I'd interpret it a different way. Suppose a device of yours actually does get decertified. Depending on the circumstances, I'd say one of two things happened: 1) If decertification was justified, then the hardware vendor sold you a defective product. or 2) If decertification was unjustified, then CableLabs did the remote equivalent of breaking into your house and smashing your TV. Just because someone can smash in your TV or sell you defective equipment doesn't mean you don't own it.

I think we're getting to a point where ownership is hard to define. We're definitely moving towards some concept where ownership has a lot of shades of gray. And I don't think there's any going back on that. To some extent I think its the natural extension of intellectual property.

To my mind - the issue of selective access and rights management are two different issues - and we (consumers) tend to confuse the two.

They're certainly different. The problem is that a cable card can't enforce rights management, which is why you need host certification. The alternative is to basically tell content providers and distributors that they can't do rights management, which seems wildly unrealistic, IMO.

There is not FCC requirement that prohibits arbitrary encryption of channels by the distributer of the channel - when the producer has not required it.

Why in the world would the FCC forbid this? The underlying assumption of DRM is that it actually works at preventing piracy. In the cable TV environment I don't think it does, given the threat model, but let's just suppose it does. In this case, the cable distributor also has a (arguably) legitimate financial interest in protecting this content from further, unauthorized distribution, as it would cut into their profits.

I 100% agree that the device certification must be independent of the cable companies. I further strongly suggest that such certification must also be independent of the content producers.

Yeah, I agree. Although, I don't think that's really what's holding things back here. It's tough to make secure devices that will enforce DRM. It's also tough (read: expensive) to test them.

Why can't a device be made that uses a CableCard - but doesn't enforce 5c nor require a certified slot - result is a system that continues to allow access to the channels the consumer subscribes to but not allow access to content where the producer requires 5c?

Because I would imagine companies quickly deciding they're going to put restrictions on use on all channels in such a scenario.

I agree it seems like a reasonable idea- probably one that should have been explored more- I just don't think it would change anything now. The HTPC market is too small to really drive anything in this area. And, I think beyond TiVo, there isn't much of a market for third-party STBs (and TiVo can deal with the current rules of the game). Maybe things would be different if we started that way, but now there's very little disincentive for content providers and distributors to just put restrictions on everything.

Disclaimer: Bear in mind that there's a huge difference between how I think content providers/distributors should operate, and how I think they should be forced to operate. I think DVD/Blu-ray encryption is moderately successful at preventing casual piracy, but I don't think any of the DRM we see in cable systems is effective in any way at reducing piracy of TV shows.