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

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.

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?