DirecTV Can Disable HDTV Reception Remotely

Marty writes: "Most of us are still waiting for HDTV to arrive. There have been some alternatives available to people who don't live in an area with a HDTV-broadcasting station, like DirecTV. However, it looks like DirecTV has chosen to go the content-control route with the MPAA. Their set top boxes now contain the CGMS, or Copy Generation Management System. Part of the scheme allows for the remote disablement of the HDTV (480p, 720p, and 1080i) analog outputs on the set-top box, allowing the user to only view the low-grade 480i picture, even though the programming is broadcast in HD. So, now that you've spent $2000+ on your HDTV, $1000 on your DirecTV HDTV box, and your DirecTV subscription, someone else decides whether or not you can actually take advantage of that investment. You can read the full details here at E-Town."

Comments

EEs - possible to bypass?

[AntiNorm]

Part of the scheme allows for the remote disablement of the HDTV (480p, 720p, and 1080i) analog outputs on the set-top box

As an EE student in college, that for some reason sounds like it would be possible to bypass in hardware. Solder the output pin(s) of this chip here, break this connection, etc. Can any real EEs comment on this?

---
Check in...OK! Check out...OK!

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[tzanger]

As an EE student in college, that for some reason sounds like it would be possible to bypass in hardware. Solder the output pin(s) of this chip here, break this connection, etc. Can any real EEs comment on this?

Unfortunately the various signals you're looking for probably don't exist on any pins; the chip which does teh decode also does the conversion for various output formats. Flip a bit in a register and certain outputs are disabled from within the chip itself.

As a longtime hacker The proliferation of ASICs and FPGAs are disheartening. As a designer they're great. It's not easy being me.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[ddstreet]

Sure, anything's possible. However, I doubt if it would be obvious (even to an EE) and may require extensive modification, e.g. if a microcontroller is used for the control. It's not easy to reverse-engineer hardware (I didn't say it's not possible, just not easy).

Of course, there are people out there with enough time and knowledge to do it and spread the info, but I doubt if an inexperienced or unmotivated person could do it.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[mikethegeek]

"Maybe if they started charging reasonable rates for their product, people wouldn't feel the need to copy it without paying for it."

I think this is the rub. By locking down "protections" and control over digital technology that they didn't legally and technologically have with analog, they are setting the stage where they simple CAN charge out the wazoo.

And rates have been climbing towards unreasonable for quite some time. Basic cable rates of $40/month?!! DVD movies costing $25-30??!

While I do NOT advocate piracy, in some ways, the threat of piracy is a check on the power of cartel monopolies like the MPAA/RIAA. By knowing that their media CAN be pirated and that it WILL be widespread if given enough reason to, the MPAA/RIAA knows there is a limit to how much they can charge.

What they want is a world where there IS no threat of piracy at all. However, people like Valenti are babes in the woods when it comes to truly understanding how technology works. They simply do not understand that the more onerous, annoying and intrusive their "copy protection" becomes, the greater the chance that it WILL be broken. Also, the higher the price becomes, the greater likelyhood that a larger number of people WILL pirate.

Since consumer video and recording tecnology HAS to have a certain shelf-life (most peope will simply NOT put up with replacing their players, TV's etc as often as we upgrade computers), advancing technology will pretty much render ANY copy protection obsolete and crackable.

However, the existance of the DMCA does suggest that they have at least thought of this in some ways, by getting these circumvention devices declared illegal.

But, it's only a matter or time until at least some of the teeth are jarred from the DMCA. By striking first, the MPAA was able to handpick their man ("judge" Kaplan) and get the ruling they wanted. In the near future, DMCA cases are going to be heard in a lot of locales by a lot of different judges. I have to be optimistic and hope that Kaplan only represents an extreme minority. If he does represent the typical judge, then you might as well order your jackboots, and practice singing your Corporate Hymn.

They'll quickly realize this won't fly...

[Gendou]

DirectTV may, as soon as customers realize that their investment of a large sum is in danger, reconsider. Now, they most likely put this in the fine print (a TOS perhaps?) that most people won't read, but there is no way that this is going to be quiet. Also consider the salesperson level of the deal. They'll be sure to point out the cons of a cheaper product (I think :).

I'm not sure on this, but I'd wager that this will seriously hurt their business and they'll change if they want to survive.

Is it just me or is HDTV DOA?

[evilned]

With all of these content restrictions, wont HDTV pretty much be dead? I mean really, are you gonna tell me what I cant video tape? It really sounds like the big corporate giants want to kill it, from the bitching about broadcasting at 1080i, the content controls, the slowness with which it is being rolled out, I get the distinct feeling that the broadcast industry just created this HDTV thing to get the free bandwidth, and not to actually improve TV. My thoughts? Take back the spectrum, and auction it. These jokers dont seem to be in any hurry to use it.

Re:Is it just me or is HDTV DOA?

[mikegross]

I think the major problem with HDTV is the cable companies. They don't want to shell out the dough to bring fiber to the curb, so HD over cable is still not feasable. I just got Adelphia Digital Cable, and while it's a nice image, almost DVD quality, my $5000 Mitusbishi HD1080 is going to waste. People don't want to put up ugly antennae on their roofs just to see Leno's chin in glorious 1080i, nor do they really want to shell out the outrageous cash needed for DirectHD. If cable companies were bringing HD into the home over cable people already have, then we'll definitely see a lot more people buying TVs they know they'll get good use out of without a whole lot of extra costs (I still haven't bought an HD decoder, because, why do I need it?). When people have the TVs, then we'll see full broadcast schedules in HD. Maybe even with some interactive features!

Let's all scream and yell, DON'T READ the article

[alexhmit01]

Okay, I love hysteria, but this is silly. DirecTV can cut off HDTV... They can also cut off your service in general. That is how it works, you pay them for service, they give you service. Remote stoppage is useful. They aren't rendering your TV dead, they are rendering your DSS system for them dead.

If they were to use stuff like this randomly, they'd lose customers. Come on people. DirecTV isn't a necessity, it's a luxury and a monthly service that they can end (barring a contract).

Alex

I still don't get it

[kreyg]

How much money does the MPAA lose from average people taping stuff that's being freely transmitted? ZERO? How much are they going to lose if people get fed up with these sorts of restrictions and find something better to do with their time?

I see two possibilities for such absurdity:
1. Somebody's getting paid a lot of money to LIE to the management of these companies (paid by the company as consultants I would imagine). This person would cease to be paid if there were no problems, so they get created artificially.
2. These companies are consciously trying to monopolize content distribution by making all distibution methods under their sole control.

There are probably more, these just popped into my conspiratorital (that's not a word, is it?) little mind the most quickly.

&LTsigh&GT

Re:I still don't get it

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

Sure they lose money if a home viewer copies it. See, if that viewer copies it, then that viewer isn't likely to buy it. Have you seen the ads on places like the History Channel offering to sell you a tape of the show you just saw for $20? Have you then thought to yourself, "I don't need to spend $20 for their tape. I'll just tape the show the next time it airs." Now do you see their angle? With copy controls on digital broadcasts, they can put an end to your taping session before it even begins. As for your speculation about why they're doing things like this, I'd say your second choice is closest to the truth. My guess is that the content owners see the situation this way: 1. We own the content.
2. Consumers want the content.
3. We have the technology to make consumers pay us in various ways for the content.
4. We will therefore charge whatever the market will bear and impose whatever restrictions are necessary to ensure that we are paid the price we have set.
5. Piracy shall not be viewed as a protest of these charges. It is a criminal act that we will stop in whatever ways necessary. If we can eliminate piracy, consumers who may have pirated content will have two choices: pay for the content or do without. People here have often commented on the failure of the DiVX format as an example of how consumers will reject such intrusive content restrictions. This may be a valid point, but another lesson can be learned from it: If you're going to impose a system such as DiVX on the marketplace, then you'd better make damn sure that a less restrictive alternative, i.e. DVD, is not available. In other words, if the entertainment industry had it to do all over again, my guess is that they would still roll out DiVX, but they'd never allow standard DVDs to see the light of day. In such a scenario, DiVX might just succeed, since the consumer has no alternative. They'd probably even make the argument that if a consumer wants unlimited viewing rights, he can stick with VHS. If, however, he wants better quality, he's going to have to pay the higher price of DiVX. If enough consumers buy into this view and start using DiVX, then the content owners turn a profit. For those who don't see this as fair, well, they'll just have to find something else to do to pass the time. My point here is this: If you feel that content restrictions such as the ones discussed daily on Slashdot are harsh/unfair/immoral/whatever, then you'd better either figure out a way to organize one hell of a boycott and make it stick, or you'd better lobby for legislation to prevent or regulate these practices because, if you don't, the content owners are going to push these things as far as they can. If they could find some economical and legal way to have a guy looking over your shoulder 24/7 to make sure you comply with whatever content restrictions they devise, they'll do it and feel completely justified in doing so. From their point of view, they're protecting their property, and if that's somehow inconvenient for you, that's just tough--unless, of course, that inconvenience has a negative effect on their corporate well-being.

Eh?

[microbob]

Hmm, I need to do some more investigation. Currently I get two channels in HD (1080i) from DirectTV, one HBO and a demo channel that shows other stuff (the Discovery-HD rules!!).

But, I can get three local channels too: CBS and local weather (oh boy!).

Having experienced full 1080i I'll never go back to regular TV.

Even the digital channels on DirecTV blow away a regular TV tube on my 62" HTDV.

Down with analog TV.

Unless you have tried it, don't bitch or you'll be a fool.

Micro

Re:Eh?

[Shotgun]

Having experienced full 1080i I'll never go back to regular TV.

Down with analog TV.

Unless you have tried it, don't bitch or you'll be a fool.

I haven't tried it, but I'll bitch about it anyway and not be a fool. I've got DTV (mainly so that I don't have to worry about returning tapes on time when I want to rent a movie), but I switch over to regular broadcast every Tuesday to get my fill of Buffy and Angel, since DTV doesn't broadcast the WB.

Guess what. HDTV and all the other new, expensive, 'better' display technologies can kiss my ass. There I am, with my snowy reception through a pair of rabbit ears, completely engrossed in the story line, plot, and character development of the only show that makes TV worth the electricity. I'm totally oblivious to the snowy picture.

Why is that? For the same reason that my kids enjoy me reading them "The Chronicles of Narnia" more than they like the Cartoon Network. A movie/show that is about telling a good story will always beat out 2 hours of eye candy. HDTV does nothing to improve the situation of the good script writers and actors. It just make the execs think that all a movie needs is something blowing up or a clearer picture of some singer's half exposed buttocks.

I go back a forth between the digital DTV and regular broadcast on a regular basis, and I can say with a straight face that I don't give a damn which I have. Just put something worth watching on the signal. At that point, the technology really won't matter.

George Orwell was close

[Gunnery Sgt. Hartman]

Big Brother isn't watching you. He just doesn't want you to watch.

EchoStar Advertisement

[tokra]

Although the article is quite informative, I find it to be advertisement for EchoStar. How convenient is it to point out that DishNet offers equipment without the circuit. Hmm! I have the RCA DTC100 with DirecTV and have NEVER had them switch HDTV OFF. HD HBO is awesome if you have ever seen it on a real good HDTV Set. If they choke the chicken with this circuit they will cook their goose in regards to my being a customer. I don't think they will do that personally. At least I hope not :-)

Re:typical /. overreaction

[bmetz]

s-video is NOT digital. It simply splits the analog signals in a different way to help minimize distortion compared with RCA or coax.

A napster for video has them wetting their pants

[eclectro]

It's quite interesting really. When CDs were first invented, napster was nowhere in anyones imagination. Not to say that it couldn't have been done through a dialup BBS, just that it never crossed anybody's mind. However, the RIAA was in the fray with demanding all sorts of copy protection on DAT and successfully killed that format (except for hi-end audio yadda yadda yadda).

The thing about movies is that unlike a song, once you see it, you're not gonna play it over and over.

So, if their is ANY way that a consumer can trade a copy with somebody else, they want to stomp it out before it is ever invented. If history is any indication, HDTV is a form of visual DAT.

I really don't see HDTV off the ground by 2006 when the FCC is suppose to shut off regular TV. I'm not gonna spend $2000 on a TV set. maybe $300, but any higher and I start reading more books.

Who knows, maybe this will usher in an era of literary renaissance. :-)

Re:typical /. overreaction

[Jeffrey Baker]

You are misinformed. No consumer television display technoloy uses digital transmission between the video source and the video display. This is certainly true of television. Today's most advanced telelvision sets use either YPbPr component inputs, or RGBHV component inputs. The latter is likely the technology you use to connect your computer and your computer monitor.

Analog does not equate to poor quality. Given the bandwidth required for a video component, and the distance needed between the source and the display, it is easy to make that connection in the analog domain with everyday cables. 1080i and 720p look stupendous using analog connections.

The only people that have digital video technology today are those that are playing DVDs on their computer and running the signal out via a DVI connector to a digital LCD flat panel like this Apple Studio Display. These people have spent significantly more than $3000 just to watch movies on a digital display that can't even display a proper black.

Last point: any CRT-type television with digital inputs will not have any significantly better performance than an analog model. All the digital model will do is move the video DACs closer to the guns, and allow a longer run between the source and the display. Big deal.

Re:Pananoia?

[Valdrax]

Not really. Movie studios make their money from controlling the distribution of a product. Modern technological advances make cost-free distribution and duplication of materials a possibility. To justify selling something with potentially $0 manufacturing cost beyond the original movie production, they have to have absolute control over its distribution so that they are the only source. If they have competition who can offer their product for less than them, they won't make up the original cost of production, much less the rich profits they rake in beyond it.

If they can go further and make sure that they not only control the hard copy distribution but also the individual viewings of the material they own, as they are moving to do, they can force even greater profits out of the pay-per-use model that companies are working towards.

Modern companies realize that they have 3 choices:
1) Compete with people offering their own products for free.
2) Squelch that competition and go about business as usual.
3) Squelch that competition and take advantage of the copy control schemes to squeeze even more profits than they have now out of users of their products.

Guess which one any publicly-owned corporation, who has nothing to answer to except their stock owners and the pockets of their executives, would pick?

Simple Solution

[tbo]

Don't watch TV. I don't. Once you break the addiction, you'll be amazed how much more time you have, how much more you get done, and how much happier you are. Read or play on the internet or get some exercise instead.

If you're feeling like you really need to do something, write to your local cable provider/broadcasters and everyone else behind Digital TV, and tell them why you decided to stop watching TV.

Writing your Congressman about important issues like copyright, 'net censorship, etc, is a good thing, but don't waste their time on TV. Not being able to tape Star Trek is not and should not be a Federal concern.

Worst case--only you and a few other people stop watching, and you discover how much more time you have. Best case--consumers start leaving TV en mass (already happening), and companies change their tune. Capitalism will work for you if people actually give two shits.

I agree that this is part of a larger, worrisome trend, but if TV is the issue that finally gets us off our collective asses, what does that say about us? Does it mean that we don't care about our basic liberties, but not being able tape Simpsons is a crisis? What a sad social commentary that would be.

Scream and Yell, but at DirecTV directly!

[dschuetz]

DirecTV has a feedback form right on their main page. I just went there and posted this complaint and request for information.

Your comment or question:

I currently have Cable TV, but plan to move to Satellite when our new house is completed early next year. However, an article at E-Town ( http://www.e-town.com/news/article.jhtml;$sessioni d$H1OHSLYAABGNNTYPVYXSFEQ?articleID=3944 ) says that DirecTV is now requiring installation of devices that can allow for remote disabling of HDTV-quality analog output. This, to me, is totally unacceptable -- anyone who pays for a signal, especially for an HD-quality signal via DirecTV, should be able to view that signal at full resolution with no restrictions. Discussion is raging about this issue at Slashdot ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01%2F01%2F23%2 F2032213&cid=&pid=0&startat=&threshold=1&mode=nest ed&commentsort=3&op=Change), and it may behoove your company to read and contribute to the discussion there, especially if people are misinformed. However, if we are NOT misinformed, and Hughes/DirecTV feels it is their right to restrict how your customers view contenty they've already paid for, then I can promise you that your company will no longer be my choice for a satellite provider. Thank you for your time.

I don't expect to hear anything, but if they get /.ed through this kind of customer feedback chain, then maybe they'll say something publicly or set the record straight. It's worth a shot.

www.callmeaconsumerandillkickyourduff.com

[SubtleNuance]

Please, write your representatives, but for God sakes dont call yourself a fucking "CONSUMER" when you write your members. Calling yourself a consumer only reenforces the image that every person's sole purpose for existance is to function some way economically. Conceiding that you are a 'CONSUMER' is fucking absurd.

Try calling yourself a 'citizen' or 'person' or 'individual' or 'constituent' or anything else.

While your writing these notes; why not add that you feel the USA should remove itself from the WIPO and WTO also.

Thank you MPAA for improving my mind

[Phaid]

My wife and I are at the point in our lives where we're starting to think seriously about having children. And we're the sort who, while we read a lot, do tend to watch a fair amount of television (not mindlessly mind you, and not more than a couple of hours a day -- Iron Chef, Junkyard Wars, X-Files, Farscape, Voyager, Sunday morning cartoons, stuff on Discovery/A&E, the news, etc).

The point is, we don't want to raise kids who are glued to the set all day. So we've been planning to wean ourselves off television, set time limits, etc, so that when we do have children we won't reflexively turn on the tube. But now it seems that the MPAA is kindly helping me to make that transition a lot easier. I no longer feel any desire to buy a big bad TV with HDTV and 1024 lines of resolution and such, just to pay $60 per month for channels chock-full of commercials whose content I can't timeshift or record at one set and watch on another. On the practical side, it's just much more inconvenient than TV is currently ; on the moral side, I don't want to be made to feel like I can't be trusted with the valuable "content" that these media companies are kindly providing me out of the goodness of their heart.

I refuse to spend money on hardware that is deliberately crippled just so that I'm forced to watch these shows when and how someone else says I have to. At least with books -- paper books, thank you very much -- I can start reading in the living room and finish in the bedroom without asking the publisher's permission.