End of QAM tuners ?

[stanger89]

Yeah, that we can't get a CAM system like Europe has is quite frustrating.

[mwareman]

Originally Posted by reggie14

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.

Basically - yes. If I'm authorized to receive the channel AND the content producer has not requested 5C (copy never).

Originally Posted by reggie14

but before the advent of DVRs there wasn't much of a reason to seek out other STBs.

Not completely true. Many consumers were attempting to find out why TV manufacturers were not able to build the selective access technology right into their TV or VCR - so a separate STB was not required at all. Then the explosion of 'Cable-Ready' TVs that didn't need an STB - unless you wanted to access high-value content that was scrambled. Many people watched like that for years - no STB on most TVs, and an STB on the 'main' TV. We are now entering an area where an STB is needed on *every* TV to receive all content (I'm talking about EB content here where the producer does not request 5c protection - has never scrambled the channel etc). That's wrong.

Originally Posted by reggie14

They don't require that certified devices treat everything like it's marked copy-never.

Unfortunately, thats the end result of CableLabs requirements for certification.

Originally Posted by reggie14

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.

Honestly - I wonder what the uptake would be if they tried. Certainly - companies like Silicon Dust have placed significant investment into ClearQAM access devices. Whilst that continues to be marginally useful for may with poor OTA reception - I'm fairly confident that channels that have to pay the likes of Comcast for distribution and carry advertisements for revenue would actually value the additional viewership that allowing continued non-5c access to their data stream would provide. I'm pretty sure many would consider the value of allowing their subscribers to access their content - but the point is that it would be the content producer making the decision - not the cable company.

Originally Posted by reggie14

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.

But I didn't claim to have purchased the power plant, the DSLAM or the cable head end. I subscribe to those facilities. I own a generator for those times that electricity is not available to me from my regular supplier. I would not expect ComEd to be able to shut that off if I don't pay my electric bill - but I would expect it's usage pattern to change. Likewise - I would not expect the cable company to be able to shut down (completely) a STB that I own - but would expect them to be able to limit channel availability based upon my subscription choices.

Originally Posted by reggie14

They're certainly different. The problem is that a cable card can't enforce rights management,

Agreed.

Originally Posted by reggie14

which is why you need host certification.

not 100% there with you. If the content indicates that DRM is required - then Yes. Host certification should be required. But if (as is the case with most (all?) EB content today) no DRM is requested - then why should host certification be required? The cablecard, in this mode, should simply be providing conditional access and decryption - releasing the data knowing that the producer has not requested it be kept secure and the subscriber has actually paid for the channel.

Originally Posted by reggie14

The alternative is to basically tell content providers and distributors that they can't do rights management, which seems wildly unrealistic, IMO.

I don't see how my idea takes away this choice from the content producers. If they want to add rights to a specific piece of content - they can. Those without certified hosts wont receive it then. The consumer can then complain to the content provider if it's felt unjust..

Originally Posted by reggie14

The underlying assumption of DRM is that it actually works at preventing piracy.

And the complete failure of DRM to prevent music piracy is clear evidence that all DRM ends up doing is increasing costs for everyone and annoying the most important party - the customers.

Originally Posted by reggie14

In the cable TV environment I don't think it does,

Agreed.

Originally Posted by reggie14

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.

Also agreed. In such cases - those producers could/should still require 5c, just as they do today. I'm looking at you, HBO, Starz, Shotime etc..

Originally Posted by reggie14

It's tough to make secure devices that will enforce DRM. It's also tough (read: expensive) to test them.

Which is why I think there should be a class of uncertified devices that are allowed to utilize a cablecard for conditional access only for channels without 5C protection.

Look - I can extract via Fireware all content from my Comcast STB today. It's completely silly that I *must* rent that STB in order to do so. It's a waste of power, resources and my money. right now - I can do *exactly* what I'm proposing - but for each simultaneous tuner I must also rent or purchase a STB and deal with controlling it.

I don't know of any non-PVR but certified STBs available to consumers - do you? If so - I'd buy 4 of them in a heartbeat instead of renting boxes.. I really think that spending a $1000 (or *much* more for a multi room system equivilent to my Sage setup) on a TiVi or Moxi is high if I won't want their DVR functionality.

Ultimately, I'm simply suggesting that I should be able to do away with the STB and plug the cablecard directly into a PCIe card without rights management - and still be able to receive the exact same channels as I can today thru Firewire, but with less equipment and power consumption. Those requiring 5c would still not come thru (just as they don't today thru Firewire) - but now we are being kinder to the consumers pocket, the environment etc. Because of the lack of DRM certification - such devices would avoid that cost - meaning the cost differential would only be marginal - but the advantages to everyone large. Is that really so tough?

Originally Posted by reggie14

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

Maybe.. But shouldn't they be doing that already if they are *that* concerned about their pirated signal? Within 15 mins of Showtime shows airing - they show up on Usenet. If they really care about their signal - they really need to do better. Until then - why make life so difficult for everyone else that actually subscribes to the channel paying them money for the content? However, I'm not advocating that channels requiring a protected path be forced to allow access - far from it. What I'm saying here is everything else..

Originally Posted by reggie14

The HTPC market is too small to really drive anything in this area.

I *really hate* this statement - it's a chicken-and-egg type situation. The HTPC market is currently being suppressed by the lack of consumer choices. However, it remains perfectly big enough for Hauppauge, SiliconDust and AVerMedia to survive. Given that such uncertified devices would not carry the (high) cost of certification - yet they would (obviously) command a premium for the product - it would surly make sense? Right now - CableLabs prohibits such devices altogether.. so we'll probably never know.

Originally Posted by reggie14

I don't think any of the DRM we see in cable systems is effective in any way at reducing piracy of TV shows.

100% agreed. All it's doing is making it much harder for a subset of subscribers - you know - the people paying their salaries. As online, ad supported access to media becomes more and more ubiquitous, I can see many people that really care about this stuff simply opting to receive their media that way - directly bypassing the cable company. Despite Hulu's intentions to keep off all STB devices, I (like most here I think) have a Windows PC hooked up to my TV for SageTV. Guess what - I throughly enjoy watching Hulu now. It's even easier with Hulu Desktop and a remote - how nice of them. Now - if only we could make Hulu work well thru the extenders... hmm...

Michael.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by mwareman

Many consumers were attempting to find out why TV manufacturers were not able to build the selective access technology right into their TV or VCR - so a separate STB was not required at all.

You make a good point about building this into devices that people already had to buy. I was thinking about third-party STBs, like TiVo's, but hadn't really considered stuff built into TVs. I think there would be some desire for that, I just didn't think there was a desire for third-party STBs.

I'm fairly confident that channels that have to pay the likes of Comcast for distribution and carry advertisements for revenue would actually value the additional viewership that allowing continued non-5c access to their data stream would provide.

I think the odds that there would enough devices out in the wild that wouldn't support DRM to impact anyone's decision-making is pretty small. Sure, there might be a small number of stations that would either be too lazy to care, and just do whatever happens by default, or perhaps an even smaller number that take a sort of public stand against DRM. But, I don't think you'd see any "major player" do that.

If the content indicates that DRM is required - then Yes. Host certification should be required. But if (as is the case with most (all?) EB content today) no DRM is requested - then why should host certification be required?

I agree this would have been interesting, and almost certainly preferable. I just wonder if it would have changed anything. And, if not, then you're adding a fair amount of complexity to the system for no particular reason.

I don't see how my idea takes away this choice from the content producers. If they want to add rights to a specific piece of content - they can. Those without certified hosts wont receive it then. The consumer can then complain to the content provider if it's felt unjust..

I didn't mean to imply it takes choice away from content creators. I think it takes away choice from distributors. This will probably lead to another philosophical argument over what should and shouldn't be allowed, but I don't think you're ever "buy" a TV show with cable- you're buying the (potentially restricted) right to watch it. That's distinct from redistributing it. So, I think it makes sense, and is mostly fair, to say distributors would want to prevent you from being able to redistribute content to other people, even if the producer doesn't care.

Think of it sort of like Internet access. Comcast doesn't want you buying a single Internet connection and reselling it to 10 of your neighbors.

And the complete failure of DRM to prevent music piracy is clear evidence that all DRM ends up doing is increasing costs for everyone and annoying the most important party - the customers.

I don't think that's completely accurate to say DRM is, and will always be, a complete failure using music as an example. The pirated music you see almost certainly isn't unDRMed from iTunes (when they used DRM). They're from something that is basically DRM-free: CDs. CDs have been a major source of casual piracy ever since CR-R drives got cheap. People copied them regularly. That expanded online because you could fairly quickly find and download music files.

We don't see as much casual piracy of movies. Certainly we see some, but, in general, we don't see the kind of casual DVD copying that we saw with CDs. Anybody really determined (or even just a little determined) can copy a DVD or download a pirated movie, but its on a completely different scale than music. Part of that is the size of files, part of it, in my opinion, is the DRM.

Look - I can extract via Fireware all content from my Comcast STB today. It's completely silly that I *must* rent that STB in order to do so. It's a waste of power, resources and my money. right now - I can do *exactly* what I'm proposing - but for each simultaneous tuner I must also rent or purchase a STB and deal with controlling it.

I think you're drawing more conclusions from that than you should. Just because TNT hasn't forced Comcast (or whoever your CTV provider is) to flag their channel copy-once or copy-never doesn't mean TNT doesn't care if its relatively easy to get pure digital video streams of their channel. Just like you can't point to the numerous people out there whose cable provider does 5C encrypt TNT has proof that TNT does care. We're talking about things that, for the most part, are so far outside mainstream they're not really heavily considered when these people are making decisions.

I don't know of any non-PVR but certified STBs available to consumers - do you?

I think there just isn't much of a market for that sort of thing. If you're not doing a DVR there's relatively little reason to have a separate STB. If you're likely to care about this sort of thing, first you're likely to also care about having a DVR, and second, you're likely to have a CableCard ready TV (or were likely, back when CableCard TVs were common- now even Samsung and others just assume everyone wants a DVR). Beyond that, a third party STB isn't likely to give people features they want, but can't get in STBs from the cable company. Maybe, just maybe, a customer could save money in the long run by buying their STB, but I'm not convinced it makes a lot of sense for the vast majority of people.

Is that really so tough?

It would now, because that's not the way the current system works. You'd almost certainly need to redesign the CableCard specification to do something like that. Probably in a way that kills backward and forward compatibility.

But shouldn't they be doing that already if they are *that* concerned about their pirated signal? Within 15 mins of Showtime shows airing - they show up on Usenet. If they really care about their signal - they really need to do better.

I'm not sure you understand how non-techie people think. I do a lot of work talking to non-techies about computer security. If something seems sufficiently complicated, they don't care. You can have them watch someone hacking into their system right in front of their eyes, but if it doesn't look like something they could do they won't think it will be done enough to matter. You can try to explain to them that maybe only one person has to do something to cause a horrible security violation and its just going to seem foreign to them.

In these people's minds its a completely different thing to have to go to the effort that we have to to record off of firewire than to be able to go to the store and buy a product that does the hard work for you. I agree it doesn't make sense. But, a lot more of these people will start caring if it looks like they could start recording, compressing and posting digital HD video using easy tools purchased at Best Buy.

I *really hate* this statement - it's a chicken-and-egg type situation.

I agree to some extent. But I think you're kidding yourself if you think CableCard is really what's standing in the way of PC-based DVRs. This is going to be a niche market no matter what. I don't think a cable company is going to attract a lot of customers, or a politician voters, by being HTPC-friendly.

Despite Hulu's intentions to keep off all STB devices, I (like most here I think) have a Windows PC hooked up to my TV for SageTV.

I think Hulu's ban on extender-like devices is pretty effective at keeping Hulu off TVs. I sort of have a computer hooked up to a TV, but it can't play back Hulu in full screen because flash video's scaling algorithm is so processor intensive.

In the short term, I think this strategy works for the broadcast networks. For the most part, people today don't look at Hulu as an alternative to cable/satellite/OTA TV. But, I think that people 25 and under, people that grew up watching movies on laptops in their dorm rooms, don't really care. Some of these people might just go with it, and watch episodes on their laptops. Over time I suspect they'd find ways of putting it on their TVs, but it won't be a prerequisite.

[Fuzzy]

In a way, I believe Msft is actually a bit on our side on this one. If you've read through the Windows Media Foundation SDK, you'll find that it seems to be particularly tailored for receiving and handling this DRM'd media in a secure manner, while still maintaining some fair-use rights. The Protect Path allows any WMF application to play back a DRM'd file, as long as the playback device and all filters in the path are certified, and the appropriate license is installed on the machine. This, in theory, would still work in a Sage style DVR, as long as there was method of disseminating that license to client machines. This SHOULD allow CableCard support for any application that chooses to implement the WMF protected path, though with Msft apparently getting out of the DVR market, I'm curious if there is going to be enough pressure to get it going in this direction.

[Monedeath]

One thing I'm finding interesting about this is an engadgethd article from a week prior to this.

While we have this on august 25th:

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=180850

he Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Bureau has granted three-year waivers to Digital Terminal Adapter (DTA) devices made by Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO), Motorola Inc. (NYSE: MOT), Thomson (NYSE: TMS; Euronext Paris: 18453), and Pace Micro Technology

We get this on the 19th:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/08/19...ns-with-rvu-a/

Needless to say we continue to look for the perfect solution, and we think that the RVU (R-vue) alliance might be just what we ordered. In addition to DirecTV, Cisco and Samsung, the chip maker Broadcom is also one of the founding members of the alliance, but it is their goals that get us excited.

The concept is that you'd get a RVU server from your content provider (like DirecTV but it could also be cable or anyone else) and plug it into your home network. Then you'd buy HDTVs from the likes of Samsung with a RVU client built in, or you could even plug the RVU server directly into the TV. Then you can go to any TV in your house that is also an RVU client and access the exact same experience. This experience includes the ability to watch or record the same shows that you can from any other TV. Now the key part that get our minds going is the fact that Samsung obviously wants to sell TVs with this built in, otherwise why join the alliance? And then there is Cisco and DirecTV, both companies that make DVRs. So obviously they have interest in creating an RVU server. So as you can see this concept holds some real of potential.

Sound like something that generally exists already... Just not as completely integrated as they're talking about?

Further reading:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Verizo....html?x=0&.v=1

Verizon joins Broadcom, Cisco, DIRECTV and Samsung, in the alliance to develop a specification for a new “pixel accurate” Remote User Interface (RUI) that will form the core of the new RVU home networking technology.

That brings two service providers (DirectTV and Verizon) into the fold for replicating functionality SageTV and others already generally provide... Just not in the "secure format" that the content providers are wanting. Will be interesting to follow at least, see if they also decide to drop the ball on this.

Perhaps of interest to Sage themselves, from that yahoo biz blurb:

About RVU Alliance

The RVU Alliance is an Oregon-based non-profit mutual benefit corporation formed to develop a specification for the new RVU technology including a full-featured “pixel accurate” Remote User Interface (RUI). Founding Promoter members are Broadcom, Cisco, DIRECTV, Samsung and Verizon. The RVU Alliance complements and benefits existing industry interoperability initiatives and underscores its founders’ commitment to the sharing of digital content in the connected home. For more information about the RVU alliance, please visit www.rvualliance.org

[EdwardATeller]

I looked at this article:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/08/28...oing-anywhere/

in light of my cable company's plan to encrypt every single channel and require a cable box to view anything. The article misses the point. There is no prohibition on encryption, as long as the channels are still viewable with a cable box. RCN is going to give me one free cable box, and therefore the FCC's rule does not come into play.

Don't kid yourselves, clearQAM signals are going the way of the dinosaurs, and any investment in the technology is pure consumption at this point.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by EdwardATeller

There is no prohibition on encryption, as long as the channels are still viewable with a cable box. RCN is going to give me one free cable box, and therefore the FCC's rule does not come into play

In fact, there is a general prohibition on encryption for local broadcast networks. FCC Sec. 76.630. Take a look:

§ 76.630 Compatibility with consumer electronics equipment.
(a) Cable system operators shall not scramble or otherwise encrypt signals carried on the basic service tier. Requests for waivers of this prohibition must demonstrate either a substantial problem with theft of basic tier service or a strong need to scramble basic signals for other reasons. As part of this showing, cable operators are required to notify subscribers by mail of waiver requests. The notice to subscribers must be mailed no later than thirty calendar days from the date the request waiver was filed with the Commission, and cable operators must inform the Commission in writing, as soon as possible, of that notification date.

There is a potential "out" for cable operators, but I think they'd have a hard time arguing to the FCC that they have a "substantial problem" or a "strong need'. It's important to note that while people have been getting warnings about the move to digital, they are not the notifications discussed in the FCC regulation above.

They probably could get a waiver if they really wanted to, I just don't think it would be worth their effort just to encrypt signals that are already available in the clear over the air. I don't think "basic service tier" is terribly well-defined. It includes local broadcast networks (and public access stations), but I don't think it necessarily requires that the HD versions of those stations be available unencrypted form. But again, I don't think it would be worth it for them to press the issue.

Clear QAM is almost certainly here to stay for local networks, probably in HD form.

[EdwardATeller]

Thanks for clearing that up, but I believe my cable company is going to encrypt all the channels. It is what they say when I call them, it is what they say on their website, and it is what they say on their commercials. Did they get a waiver? What chance do I have of getting that question answered if I call their 800 number?

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by EdwardATeller

Did they get a waiver?

The link I posted above contained text that would have to go in any notification to customers prior to the FCC granting a waiver. If you never got that notification, they definitely didn't get a waiver. I'd be incredibly surprised if they did get a waiver. I think someone would have noticed.

What chance do I have of getting that question answered if I call their 800 number?

Well, you'll certainly get it answered... The real question is whether you'll get it answered accurately. If they're going to encrypt the channels then I'd say you'd have a 95% chance of them answering the question accurately. If they're not going to encrypt the channels then I'd say you probably have a 5% chance of them answering it correctly.

Basically, the cable companies don't support clear QAM tuners. The technical support people, and the cable installers, often don't even know what QAM is, and that digital cable can be encrypted or unencrypted. Every time I've talked to Comcast tech support they've always maintained you need an HD box (or cable card) to get HD signals, despite the fact that you can get the locals over clear QAM. It's not that they're lying, or trying to trick you into getting a box, it's just that they don't know any better.

[stanger89]

Yup, because unfortunately it probably cuts down on support costs to just say boxes to everyone, whether they need it not. Rather than saying "x, y and z channels are clear QAM and work with your TVs QAM tuner, but the rest aren't" and then dealing with the support calls from people without QAM tuners expecting it to work, and those with them wondering why they can't get channel "u".

There's channels in clear QAM on my parent's provider that aren't even in their channel lineup (it's a local subchannel).

[Fuzzy]

Basically, the only real answer is to wait and see what happens. Every market will be different in regards to what is clear or not. It may even come down to the local tech who's setting up the equipment. It really isn't worth worrying at this point, because you really have no reliable information to base your worry on. When the time comes, if you don't ahve the channels you want, get a STB and go that route. If you DO still have the channel you want, rejoice and carry on. Until then, just relax and enjoy what you are currently getting.

[EdwardATeller]

Good advice, Fuzzy. I've relaxed about it and look forward to whatever happens. Clearly the simplest thing for them is to drop the analog, tell people they need a box, but still provide the locals in the clear. The sheep get fleeced, but no waiver is required.

[Ryokurin]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Yup, because unfortunately it probably cuts down on support costs to just say boxes to everyone, whether they need it not. Rather than saying "x, y and z channels are clear QAM and work with your TVs QAM tuner, but the rest aren't" and then dealing with the support calls from people without QAM tuners expecting it to work, and those with them wondering why they can't get channel "u".

There's channels in clear QAM on my parent's provider that aren't even in their channel lineup (it's a local subchannel).

No, I don't think it's a issue of techs not knowing what's going on. It's clear in the documentation and faq that they will eventually turn qam off. They even point out in one of the config options that a QAM HD set will get lifeline/broadcast HD only if you choose not to use a cablebox. Anyhow, unless they are waiting to throw the protection switch at a later date I'll know Tuesday.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Ryokurin

It's clear in the documentation and faq that they will eventually turn qam off. They even point out in one of the config options that a QAM HD set will get lifeline/broadcast HD only if you choose not to use a cablebox. Anyhow, unless they are waiting to throw the protection switch at a later date I'll know Tuesday.

You're right. Comcast does directly address the QAM issue in their FAQ. Maybe that means Comcast techs will actually start to admit that people can get local broadcast HD channels over clear QAM, but I doubt it.

[EdwardATeller]

Looks like my QAM tuner setup is going to be useless.

http://blogs.mcall.com/watchdog/2009...s-to-work.html

[hufnagel]

Originally Posted by EdwardATeller

Good advice, Fuzzy. I've relaxed about it and look forward to whatever happens. Clearly the simplest thing for them is to drop the analog, tell people they need a box, but still provide the locals in the clear. The sheep get fleeced, but no waiver is required.

that's pretty much where I am now. hopefully it's far enough down the road where I don't feel like I just wasted $150 on the HDHR, but what will be will be. if it comes down to it I'll just cancel cable all together and hope the antenna works well. or I might just stop watching broadcast TV all together.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by EdwardATeller

Looks like my QAM tuner setup is going to be useless.

It won't be worthless- you just won't be able to record anything but the locals using your QAM tuners. You'll need to get an HD-PVR and an STB to record other HD channels, or hook up your analog tuners to an STB. I'm sort of surprised you're able to get anything besides the locals with your QAM tuners as it is.

I did read the comment from one person complaining the basic tier is encrypted. That's certainly against FCC regulations. Maybe the commenter didn't know the difference between basic and expanded basic.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by reggie14

It won't be worthless- you just won't be able to record anything but the locals using your QAM tuners. You'll need to get an HD-PVR and an STB to record other HD channels, or hook up your analog tuners to an STB. I'm sort of surprised you're able to get anything besides the locals with your QAM tuners as it is.

I did read the comment from one person complaining the basic tier is encrypted. That's certainly against FCC regulations. Maybe the commenter didn't know the difference between basic and expanded basic.

I don't think there are any regulations requiring them to keep the basic tier unencrypted. All that is required is that local broadcast stations be left clear. Aside from that, they can encrypt anything else they so choose.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I don't think there are any regulations requiring them to keep the basic tier unencrypted. All that is required is that local broadcast stations be left clear. Aside from that, they can encrypt anything else they so choose.

That is basic tier. Actually, the basic tier is the locals and the public access channels. I think a lot of people read the FCC regulation prohibiting encryption on the basic tier channels and they think that refers to TNT, USA, etc. (the expanded basic lineup).

[Fuzzy]

well, the definition of basic tier definately varries between cable systems. I know in the past, charter has included quite a lot more than locals when you order the 'basic' analog only package.