FCC's Broadband plan re cablecards (Sage filed something?)

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by samgreco

Did I miss read something? I thought that there was mention of a conference call Sage was involved in. Seems to me, a lot more than a letter from some small company.

I for one am at least encouraged that a company like Sage is that involved and that someone at the FCC is actually listening to them.

The federal government isn't some all-powerful entity overseeing the daily lives of citizens and businesses. Seriously, if you can get the phone numbers or email addresses of people working on a project, and you can give them any reason at all that they should listen to you, they'll almost certainly talk to you. It doesn't surprise me in the least that Sage was able to get a conference call with a group of people from the FCC. But, it's a little impressive that they actually cited Sage's letter in their report, as that implies that Sage did a good job of getting their points across.

[panteragstk]

I'm glad to see that the FCC seems to be attempting to be fair. Sure, it helps when microsoft and tivo are having problems of their own with cablecard, but sage has no previous use of cablecards and (as we all know) would like to stay DRM free.

While it is nice to see the FCC aknowledging the problem I don't see anything significant coming from this for a while, or at least until something other than cablecards comes out for the third party guys.

An example of the fcc royally screwing things up is the Digital TV conversion. Sure, it tried to open up the airwaves so we would be able to cram more wireless communications through the air, but when it mandated the specific frequencies that would be "off limits" if failed to realize that some companies were already using them. I sell PA and recording equipment at one of my jobs and it is a pain to have to tell customer that if they have a certain wireless microphone system that it is technically illegal to use it because it is interfering with TV reception. The fcc completely forgot to see if these frequencies were being used. The microphone companies sent letters just like sage is, but eventually they had to stop selling systems that oporated on those frequencies. The fcc inadvertantly bricked hundreds of thousands of mic systems. That was much bigger than sagetv's issue with cablecard and it got ignored by the fcc, granted by the time they realized what was happening it was too late but it sure did create a huge headache.

The thing that hurts any 3rd party company when trying to deal with someone like cablelabs is that they honestly don't care if your product gets a fair deal or not. They would love to limit us to stb's from the providors and that's it. The FCC made them create cablecard so third party companies could give their customers the same (or better) experience than the stb the cable company has. That tells me that cablelabs intentionally made cablecard hard to work with, either that or they just didn't try very hard to make it work well. Everyone in the cable industry that I know hate cablecards because of how much of a nightmare they are to get working correctly.

ok, rant over...

[fresnoboy]

Originally Posted by samgreco

Did I miss read something? I thought that there was mention of a conference call Sage was involved in. Seems to me, a lot more than a letter from some small company.

I for one am at least encouraged that a company like Sage is that involved and that someone at the FCC is actually listening to them.

From what I am seeing, this FCC leadership seems to lean way more towards the consumer side than the last.

Yes. The cable industry will fight this, but the FCC direction is really good here. One thing the engadget story didn't get quite right was the assertion that changing certification just meant that sage could go to msft and get a DRM license without paying a lot to cablelabs. The example in the FCC plan was just making sure the device would not "damage the network". There was nothing about DRM in there.

Again, there is no rule requiring DRM. The thing they refer to is the DRI spec, which WMDRM is the only CABLELABS approved DRM scheme. If cbalelabs is out of the approving business, that restriction should go away too.

On the 5C stuff that ran over 1394, that was the FCC approving an industry spec and requiring that agreement be implemented, not them asserting that DRM was required. Obeying the CCI bits is required however...

There is no way to have an open spec that meets the standard in the NBP plan for the gateway device and use any DRM scheme in existence today because of the licensing issues.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by fresnoboy

One thing the engadget story didn't get quite right was the assertion that changing certification just meant that sage could go to msft and get a DRM license without paying a lot to cablelabs.

I agree that Engadget was wrong about Sage's point in their FCC comments. I can't imagine Sage actually implementing PlayReady in their software and devices. But, I think Engadget was being a little more realistic about what the lack of software certification might mean in practice.

Obeying the CCI bits is required however...

As I said before, if you're concerned about copy protection, and given the FCC's nod to the CCI bits I think they are, then I don't see how you can deal with that without a DRM scheme.

There is no way to have an open spec that meets the standard in the NBP plan for the gateway device and use any DRM scheme in existence today because of the licensing issues.

What makes you say that? An open specification doesn't mean any IP has to use completely unencumbered. Obviously that's what everyone (except the for IP holders) generally prefers, but it often doesn't work out that way. The very bullet point that referenced Sage's letter said that "Any intellectual property should be available to all parties at a low cost and on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms." And I have a feeling "low cost" and "reasonable terms" mean different things to the FCC than they do to Sage.

[fresnoboy]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I agree that Engadget was wrong about Sage's point in their FCC comments. I can't imagine Sage actually implementing PlayReady in their software and devices. But, I think Engadget was being a little more realistic about what the lack of software certification might mean in practice.



As I said before, if you're concerned about copy protection, and given the FCC's nod to the CCI bits I think they are, then I don't see how you can deal with that without a DRM scheme.



What makes you say that? An open specification doesn't mean any IP has to use completely unencumbered. Obviously that's what everyone (except the for IP holders) generally prefers, but it often doesn't work out that way. The very bullet point that referenced Sage's letter said that "Any intellectual property should be available to all parties at a low cost and on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms." And I have a feeling "low cost" and "reasonable terms" mean different things to the FCC than they do to Sage.

The FCC can fine and take off the market any product that fails to implement the CCI bit logic properly. Content owners can file complaints and the FCC will act. Trying to enforce this through DRM is a separate issue.

Here's the problem. If you get into DRM being required, you basically end up having to decide what are "good devices" - that is, those who implement the DRM properly or don't have easy workarounds (rot13 for crypto, etc..) and bad devices. But then the question is who decides which are good devices and bad devices? Cablelabs? BAD IDEA.

The FCC? Do they really know how to do that? MPAA? BAD IDEA.

You see the issue? The moment you get into mandating some way of implementing security, someone has to be judge of how that is implemented. And people who care about it don't have openness and availability of 3rd party devices at the top of their priority list.

The better way is to punish people who do bad things.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by fresnoboy

The FCC can fine and take off the market any product that fails to implement the CCI bit logic properly. Content owners can file complaints and the FCC will act. Trying to enforce this through DRM is a separate issue.

You still have the same problem here that you were concerned about: somebody has to decide if a system does not follow the copy protection bits. This would be really hard to do in software, because whose fault is it if you manage to workaround the CCI bits outside the main DVR application?

And even if the FCC does decide a product does not follow the CCI bits properly, they might not be able to do much about it. If the device is constructed and sold on the Internet, it's going to be a little hard to stop it. It would be even harder to stop open source programs that disobey the CCI bits. And, of course, pulling products from the market does nothing to stop products already sold.

Here's the problem. If you get into DRM being required, you basically end up having to decide what are "good devices" - that is, those who implement the DRM properly or don't have easy workarounds (rot13 for crypto, etc..) and bad devices.

If you have any requirements on the system, someone has to decide if the system meets them. There's nothing particularly special about DRM and copy protection. And as I said above, you can at least imagine a process where its very easy to license and use a DRM scheme, and that the punishment for improper implementation would be the revocation of your cryptographic keys necessary to use the DRM scheme. Although again, I think you would still need some sort of testing process to make sure the system meets some minimum bar.

It's not like security testing is all that weird of a thing to do. The financial industry does it all over the place, with the payment card industry having a regular process set up for it. There's the Common Criteria program and test labs that do it for all kinds of products. Cryptographic modules have a security testing program. Slot machines in Vegas go through all kinds of security tests. And so do voting systems.

To be honest, I kind of think a lot of the copy protection stuff is pretty silly with things like the HD-PVR around. At least for the near-term, I don't see how DRM and copy protection really helps, at least when it comes to expanded basic channels which need to be at least put out copy-once. Buth, content providers and creators are probably looking ahead to a time when analog outputs are shut down and they can use things like HDCP to protect video outputs.

[Sparhawk6]

On the FCC's agenda for its April 21st meeting:

CableCARD NPRM: A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes changes to the CableCARD rules for set-top boxes used with cable services, to improve the operation of that framework pending the development of a successor framework.

Crossing my fingers...

[Fuzzy]

I think it is promising that a relatively open specification for the gateway device has already been proposed and is being considered by the FCC. Obviously, the FCC can't say "Yes, that standard is good, and everyone has to start using that one", but the fact that market players are interested enough to develop the standard, and submit it as an example that "This system is workable" is a good thing. From what I've gathered in references, it seems the proposed standard involves a cableco/satco provided 'gateway' that receives, tunes and demodulates the stream, and offers the streams up to a standardized HTTP based protocol over an ethernet port. This would allow 3rd party devices (such as a SageTV Server, or Media Center PC), to request from the gateway the list of channels available, and request a certain channel(s) be streamed out over the network. Honestly, it seems that if they provided these boxes, even with a reasonable lease fee to offset the loss of DVR fees, that it would be an easier alternative for the cable companies.

It also seems that this is something that could be rolled in with the cable modem and even the cable phone to a common residential gateway device, greatly easing installation and maintenance burdens on the cablecos. If they can bring in a slightly lower revenue stream, with a drastically lower operating cost, they will win out in the end.. at least until competion from the competing sat and phone system based offerings brings the price to a market equalized value...

[Fuzzy]

Also, I wonder if it's worth donating a working sage system to each the FCC board member's families... I'm thinking once their wives get a hold of them, they will be more motivated to making this happen.. ;-)

[bdraw]

Originally Posted by davenlr

DirecTv is already working on a gateway DVR (HMC30) to be used with tuner-less set top boxes. I should think in their design, they will make it proprietary, but leave themselves the option to "open it up" if so required by law.

Actually DirecTV's HMC30 is based on DLNA for video and RVU for the remote interface. It is all standards based and will work with a few of the newer TVs.

[bdraw]

Originally Posted by fresnoboy

Yes. The cable industry will fight this, but the FCC direction is really good here. One thing the engadget story didn't get quite right was the assertion that changing certification just meant that sage could go to msft and get a DRM license without paying a lot to cablelabs. The example in the FCC plan was just making sure the device would not "damage the network". There was nothing about DRM in there.

Again, there is no rule requiring DRM. The thing they refer to is the DRI spec, which WMDRM is the only CABLELABS approved DRM scheme. If cbalelabs is out of the approving business, that restriction should go away too.

It might not seem like it but we still live in a free country, so if there is no rule AGAINST using DRM, then it is legal to do so. And the new changes would remove CableLabs from the equation in regards to software, not hardware. So in other words since Copy Once material comes out of the OCUR encrypted, if Sage didn't support PlayReady, it wouldn't be able to watch the content.

Originally Posted by fresnoboy

There is no way to have an open spec that meets the standard in the NBP plan for the gateway device and use any DRM scheme in existence today because of the licensing issues.

I'm not sure why you say this, but there is NO way the operators will ever agree to distribute all of their cotent without DRM -- at least not anytime soon.

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by bdraw

I'm not sure why you say this, but there is NO way the operators will ever agree to distribute all of their cotent without DRM.

I don't know about that.. I said that same statement about the music industry but they have finally learned their lesson.

I think a gateway is the best option and kill the drm once it leaves the gateway.

[bdraw]

Yeah good point, I needed to add a qualifier.

[Sparhawk6]

In the latest Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding CableCards, the FCC actually quotes Sage:

In reply comments filed in response to NBP PN #27, SageTV described the CableCARD certification process as having limited the capabilities of the SiliconDust HDHomeRun CableCARD tuner, a device that can send cable content throughout the home using Ethernet:
The major issue with this device is its requirement of CableLabs certification for anything it communicates with; which limits it exclusively to Microsoft's Windows Media Center PC software use. Removal of the CableLabs certification for allowing communication with this device is another short-term solution which the Commission could adopt in order to immediately begin to open up the market for retail navigation devices. We intend to clarify that CableLabs or other qualified testing facilities may refuse to certify digital cable ready products only based on a failure to comply with the procedures we adopted for unidirectional digital cable products. Accordingly, we propose to modify our rules to clarify that the certification process may require only such testing; conformance tests outside of our adopted procedures would be at the UDCP manufacturer’s discretion.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...CC-10-61A1.pdf

Unfortunately, while the FCC mentions that commenters have criticized the cost of the certification process, it doesn't appear that they have done anything about that cost in this NOPRM. Bummer. As I understand it, that is Sage's biggest hurdle to supporting a CableCard tuner.

[MitchSchaft]

DRM is their biggest hurdle.

[Taddeusz]

Here's an interesting story on the FCC asking for commentary on a proposed system they're calling "AllVid".

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...llo-allvid.ars