Will We Need A SmartCard to Watch Digital TV?

An anonymous reader writes "This story on EE Times points out that Hollywood and major electronics manufacturers are in agreement on a SmartCard requirement for digital video interconnectivity. Note that the article talks about them 'closing the analog hole.'"

Comments

Next time they will make you pay for the service..

[BibelBiber]

Why not Credit Cards instead of Smart Cards. Oh maybe then its easier for Hackers to get the key without paying. Hm, sounds just like another great idea without any use.

To quote famous phrases....

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

I'm not profoundly religious or anything, but do I need to quote specific verses from Revelations before it's too late?

Or do I just go ahead and get my number and be quiet?

-------
Those who don't understand, will probably vote (-1, Offtopic)

Re:To quote famous phrases....

[oPless]

You already have your number.

Expect the lamb next year sometime, I guess.

I wonder...

[GMontag]

I wonder if the satellite cracking guys might have a solution to this "speed bump" in, oh, about 45 seconds after release?

Sounds like these folks need to read Cringley's "Curtain Call" article and stop wasting so much effort on things that are doomed to fail.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cards are the equivalent of the new DirecTV P4 cards, then yes we will.

'nuff said

Re:I wonder...

[GMontag]

If the cards are the equivalent of the new DirecTV P4 cards, then yes we will.

I misspoke, meant more like "will the satellite crackers lend a hand and crack it in about 45 seconds". But you get the idea.

Probably a stupid question, but...

[SteweyGriffin]

My 35" TV is probably eight years old and ready to be replaced. Is now a good time to buy a new TV, or are there worthwhile developments in the pipeline (Bluetooth?) that make it worth waiting 12 months?

Re:Probably a stupid question, but...

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Nice troll. Could have been a bit smoother. 35" was overkill. Bluetooth - good one."

I don't know why you think he's trolling. He's got an interesting point. What would one do with a Bluetooth enabled TV?

I can imagine a PVR talking to a TV and vice versa. "Hey, I'm recording a show this guy likes. Turn to the channel I occupy!"

I can also imagine using a PDA or computer to talk to the PVR via Bluetooth to schedule recordings. Imagine going to TVguide.com, clicking a button to record, and Bluetooth does the rest.

I'm not aware of anything like this happening down the road, but the BT idea would be interesting. I know I like my laptop talking wirelessly to my phoine.

Re:Probably a stupid question, but...

[IamTheRealMike]

I don't know why you think he's trolling. He's got an interesting point. What would one do with a Bluetooth enabled TV?

Well firstly, he's a known troll. He posts on trolltalk for instance. It's a game to him. 35 inch TV 8 years ago? Please. He tries to get replies and mods. It's quite amusing to watch, at least, when you catch them :)

Secondly, Bluetooth doesn't have much use in a TV. Note that a PVR doesn't need the TV to be tuned to the actual channel, it contains its own decoding engine.

Thirdly, Bluetooth is very short range, like 10ft at maximum, water in the air blocks it (which is why those frequencies were chosen). Your computer would have to be very near the TV, for little gain.

I'm not aware of anything like this happening down the road, but the BT idea would be interesting. I know I like my laptop talking wirelessly to my phoine.

That's different. That's a) short range, b) low bandwidth and c) a useful way to exchange information. A TV typically doesn't have or need much information exchange. Maybe we'll see bluetooth TVs in the future, but I doubt it.

Don't even think of using BT to transfer video data, it's severely bandwidth limited.

Re:Probably a stupid question, but...

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Don't even think of using BT to transfer video data, it's severely bandwidth limited."

I was never talking about using BT as a way to transfer video. I was talking about using it as a method for other computers to control it. Right now I have a cell phone that talks to my laptop via BT. I thoguht that sounded gimmicky until I actually played with it. Now, I can set reminders etc so that my phone will remind me. Do I need to get up early on Saturday to catch a sale? No prob, plug it into Outlook and on Sat morning my cell phone's alarm goes off with a text description of why I need to wake up.

I didn't anticipate anything like that when I got the phone. It was a pleasant surprised. It really makes me feel that BT's has a lot of potential to be explored.

So yeah, I think there are uses we're not even thinking of that would make a BT interface on TV useful. Hell, I'd love the idea of my laptop talking to my TV. I could program a channel 'playlist'. "At 7, change to channel 12 so I can watch the Simpsons. At 7:30, change to 3 so I can watch Drew Carry, at 8 change to AMC because there's a movie I want to watch.." and so on.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking.

Re:Probably a stupid question, but...

[IamTheRealMike]

Oh sure, don't get me wrong, Bluetooth is cool, but little use in TVs (unless you want to put your laptop physically on top of the TV to control it). Bear in mind with PVRs you can already program such playlists without needing a laptop though. We used to do it with the Tivo, it worked pretty well.

Re:Probably a stupid question, but...

[Alien Being]

"35 inch TV 8 years ago?"

Yeah, what about it?

Re:Probably a stupid question, but...

[jedidiah]

You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Don't be quite such an ass.

There are charities (and quite likely even individuals) that would gladly take that old set off of his hands. There's absolutely no reason that it should end up in a dumpster.

If you want the world to be a greener place, adjust your own perspective first.

Secure smart cards

[SoCalChris]

I'm sure these cards will be nice and secure, just like the ones that satellite providers use.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch free HBO.

Why are they picking on me ?

[AnalogHole]

Note that the article talks about them 'closing the analog hole.'"

Should I be alarmed ?

Re:Why are they picking on me ?

[dagg]

Yes. They are on to our shenanigans. Dagg nabbit.

Dear Hollywood - Get a cluestick

[91degrees]

I am not going to buy any technology that is not at least as flexible as my existing equipment. Flexibility is more important than image quality.

Specifically:

• I want to be able to view anything on any device.
• I also want at least some capability to make a single copy. If this is limited to 1 generation, then this will be acceptable to me, but possibly not to everyone.
• I want to be able to record any broadcast for later viewing. Including Pay Per view.
• This must not be location limited at all.

It is not my concern that the media cartels have a business model that divides the world into regions. It is possible to make a profit without region control. They should adapt their business model to what the consumer (i.e. me) wants.

Re:Dear Hollywood - Get a cluestick

[PurpleFloyd]

I am not going to buy any technology that is not at least as flexible as my existing equipment.

You won't get much out of your old equipment, flexibility or no. In a few years, due to FCC demands, analog broadcasting will go away. Forever. You will either watch nice DRM-enabled TV, or no TV at all.

Personally, I don't think I will get a new idiot box when I am "required" to. These new rules and regulations are just too much. No time shifting? Fine, no TV.

Re:Dear Hollywood - Get a cluestick

[singularity]

I also want at least some capability to make a single copy. If this is limited to 1 generation, then this will be acceptable to me, but possibly not to everyone.

While I agree with you, I do want to clarify one thing - I want to be able to make a single *digital* copy. If I miss a digital broadcast, I should not be punished by having to tape it on an analog VCR.

I agree, though, that I want a single copy. I think that is a workable "fair use" compromise. There are some problems with it (families, for example), but a single digital copy (and an infinite number of analog copies) could definitely be worked with.

Re:Dear Hollywood - Get a cluestick

[C0deM0nkey]

My prediction is there will be about 100,000 people in the US who won't switch. A year later, it'll be 2,000 people who haven't switched. 2 years later, it'll be 100 people.

Have you ever stopped watching TV? The hard part is probably the first month or so...after that, it gets significantly easier as you find other ways (most more productive) to occupy your time. By the time you are a season or two out, you don't care anymore and have already replaced your TV time with other activities. If 100,000 people don't switch and remain non-switchers for a year or so, they probably won't go back without compelling reason.

My wife and I gave up television for over 5 years. During that time the only thing we missed was the ability to watch videos in our own home. We bought a TV this past summer for two reasons: 1) I have a son who is going on two years old and we wanted to be able to get videos for him and 2) DVDs offer enough extra value for the buck that we thought they were worth the expense.

We do not subscribe to cable television and do not watch local, broadcast-through-the-air-spectrum-whatever-you-ca ll -it TV either (I think we can get a few local stations in but they are hazy and we never turn them on).

When I stopped watching TV it was because I was fed up with all the commercials, the cost for the value, and the lack of what I considered "quality programming". I missed a few shows (I was a big Trekkie, was just getting really into Farscape, etc.) but I got over it. After the first month or so, I barely even thought about it.

From talking with others who have kicked-the-boob-tube habit, this pattern seems pretty common. Of course, your experience may be/may have been different

codemonkey

Re:Dear Hollywood - Get a cluestick

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Then my existing DVD collection will have to do. I can live with that.

Re:Dear Hollywood - Get a cluestick

[Koatdus]

I am already down to 1 show per week (which I end up missing about once a month because I am too busy having a life that night to watch someone elses pretend life).

All my news comes via the internet.

Three predictions for you...

1) In five years one eighth of the population will use a cell phone for their primary number and will either not have a land line at home or will have local service only with no long distance.

2) In five years streaming video will be good enough that video over the internet will be the "TV" of choice for most of the /. crowd and will be making the same waves in the main stream press that Linux and open source is making now. (with the same dire predictions from the entrenched dinosaurs)

3) Said dinosaurs will be announcing a new encryption standard for video which is "Unbreakable! Unlike the last standard which was hacked 14 days after it was announced..."

Re:Dear Hollywood - Get a cluestick

[Danse]

Exactly. Getting them to switch to DRM-hobbled A/V equipment should be like convincing them to buy a Geo instead of their Ford Excursion.

Re:Dear Hollywood - Get a cluestick

[bnenning]

In a few years, due to FCC demands, analog broadcasting will go away.

I'm very confused by the orrery of errors being perpetrated by the Hollywood cartel and the FCC, but don't those regulations only apply to over-the-air broadcasts, leaving cable unaffected? I remember reading somewhere fairly recently that cable companies were blowing HDTV off.

Re:Dear Hollywood - Get a cluestick

[jedidiah]

Sure, and they will also CRY BLOODY MURDER when they are deprived of the conveniences that they have grown accustomed to. The cat is already out of the bag when it comes to basic time-shifting and place-shifting.

The last thing that the Media Moguls want to do is to allow the average SUV driving schmuck to realize that they're getting screwed.

Joe Sixpack is simply too numerous to ignore.

Re:Dear Hollywood - Get a cluestick

[jedidiah]

What presures?

Maybe SUV drivers catch a lot of flak from tree hugging bicycle riders in Berkeley. However, in the rest of the country there are no negative pressures to get rid of them.

Compared to what you would likely replace the average SUV with, an SUV is better in any concievable respect except gas mileage.

Will We Need A SmartCard to Watch Digital TV?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Will We Need A SmartCard to Watch Digital TV?"

Will I need to buy a Digital TV if they make it too hard for me to watch? Seriously, all this 'flags' crap makes me want to avoid it all together.

TV needs me, I don't need TV. Without my eyeballs on the commercials, they aren't making money. They should consider that before they try pushing restrictions I don't want.

Re:Will We Need A SmartCard to Watch Digital TV?

[teslatug]

You are overestimating your value to them. You probably think about the purchases you make too. They are going after the sheep, and they will follow their shepperd. We're all screwed.

Yeah

[IamTheRealMike]

Yes, you'll need a smartcard (for pay tv) and yes, it will be cracked pretty quickly. At least, if the experience in the UK is anything to go by.

Here ONdigital collapsed after pirated cards flooded the markets. The Canal+ card/crypto system was broken. There was later a scandal when it was revealed that the team of hackers who broke it appeared to have significant backing from News Corp who operated the rival Sky TV which used its own crypt system.

This article talks about watermarking which is a tad more advanced than what's used here, but it makes little difference. The cards will be cracked, cloned, whatever. They should see what is going on outside their own borders.

Re:Yeah

[swillden]

The cards will be cracked, cloned, whatever. They should see what is going on outside their own borders.

I'm sure you're right. Here's why I think you'll always be right:

Content protection for broadcast media is a fundamentally hard problem. Other smart card systems can make use of key diversification and card blacklists to limit the damage that can be caused by breaking one card. The idea is that in a system where every card has its own, unique keys, stealing the secrets from one card only allows you to duplicate that card, so if the system can recognize and blacklist duplicate cards relatively quickly, crackers will give up because it's just too much work for too little gain.

For broadcast systems, though, there's a problem: every card (or at least large sets of cards) has to have the same keys, because you can't generate a different data stream for each card. At best you can encrypt the datastream with time-varying keys and have a separate keystream consisting of a zillion copies of the current datastream key, each encrypted under a different card key. Scale that up to a large system with tens of millions of subscribers, though, and you either need vast bandwidth just for the keystream (keep in mind that in practice there are a bunch of different datastreams, all of which must be keyed independently so you can sell different channel), or you need to make some cards with duplicate keys (actually, a possible way to address this just ocurred to me... but there's probably a flaw in it).

If some legitimate cards are duplicates, then you can't blacklist illegitimate duplicates without killing paying customers, and pissing off paying customers is very bad business. Not to mention the fact that in a broadcast environment, it's fairly difficult to *identify* illegal duplicates. In most other smart card systems there is a back channel for sending data to a central system where it can be correlated to look for anomalies. Such auditing is a crucial part of most secure smart card systems.

Building secure smart card systems (like building any secure systems) isn't about making smart cards completely impenetrable, because no real-world system or device ever is (particularly not when you place a key component of the system in an attacker's unsupervised hands!), it's about structuring things so that the cost of breaking the card exceeds the likely benefit. In most environments, this is feasible, and, hence, smart cards are useful secure tokens. In broadcast content protection, however, many of the techniques used to limit the benefit of breaking a card are simply unavailable. And where benefit exceeds cost by a significant margin, someone will surely see a business opportunity...

Re:Yeah

[Dave Walker]

"If some legitimate cards are duplicates, then you can't blacklist illegitimate duplicates without killing paying customers, and pissing off paying customers is very bad business."

Couldn't prove it by me. Two recent examples:

DishTV (relevent, I think). I moved across the street. After reinstalling, aiming my dishes, and running the cable, was only able to hit two of the three birds I pay to get, and those only on one of two receivers I pay for. After many calls to their tech support, many frustrating hours of trying different LNBF's and switches (on the advice of their tech support reps), I threatened to go to DirectTV with their free install/two receiver deal. The service rep pretty much said "That's your decision. Go for it."

White Castle. Yeah, the belly bomb place. They recently decided that it's too much trouble to put mustard on your hamburger for you. But they'll happily provide you with mustard packets. One of the neat things about White Castle hamburgers is that they're easy to handle in the truck for lunch on the go. Ever try and open a mustard packet and put it on a hamburger while you're driving? (And the mustard in the packets just isn't as good as what they put on in the store.) THEIR reply when I flat out stated I wouldn't be back until they changed this policy? "We've made this decision because it was taking too long to serve our customers. We hope it doesn't affect your purchasing habits with us." Sounds like a training problem to me. I haven't been back since, and they probably haven't noticed.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the Kroger card, lol. They probably don't miss my business either.

Re:Yeah

[CharlieO]

Perhaps you`d like to explain why Sky, the market leader in the U.K. has never been cracked

Care to explain that one?

I have seen and handled all in one homebrew cards for the Analogue system that worked look here

I have seen and handled cards that connected to a laptop to do decryption on the digital system - to be fair not working at the time I saw it.

You can also make attempts at cloning smartcards if you feel you're l33t enough try Cardman for some hardware - but don't please ask him *how* to do it - he got burned by some of the flack around the ITV Digital pirating issues and is now sticking firmly to just supplying hobbists tools to stay well clear of the allegations. Spend some time looking if it interests you.

One of the problems in broadcast systems is the system is only as secure as the people that run it. As soon as a disgruntled tech leaks some info about the encryption used then you have a chance to brute force it. Self authenticating systems are only secure when they can 'phone home' otherwise tech savvy consumers pop the lid off and start sticking the logic probes around the EPROMS - maybe this is why the Sky Digiboxes have to be connected to a live phone line or they have a paddy?

Now issues that do concern me with Sky is that the various broadcasting regulations in the UK mean that any digital reciever should be able to display free to air broadcast. This is because the operators with a license to broadcast nationally are obliged to carry the national stations (BBC) that people have already paid for through thier TV license. This is via cable / terrestrial or sat. They are also required to provide support for other broadcasters decrypt cards - this is designed to prevent monopolies by one company flooding the market with 'free' STB's - the ON Digital boxes mostly had two slots for a reason.

But on Sky the 'free to air' channels are encrypted - you have to apply for the 'free to air' decrypt card. And this is on the very boundry of breaking the conditions. There is also no capability of taking an extra decrypt card, nor as in the old analogue system adding an external decoder.

Additionally if the Digibox does not receive a signal from one of the Astra (Sky's own) series of satellites for a while then it resets its memory.

Why is this done? Well the Digibox is 'free' - of course it actually isn't it costs around 300 UKP. Now Sky doesn't actually pay for the boxes, a company called OPEN does - and they run all the online side of Sky's operation and build the operating environment on the STBs. They rely on a certain number of the customers using the charged for services that the Digibox can provide to make thier money back.

Canny independant dealers realised you could get the 'free' Digibox, hook it up to a good positioning dish and one cheap free to air system to go!

Hence the need to apply to Sky for the 'free' card and the reason for the memory wipe - not so long ago they closed down a company that sold an offboard backup system for thier Digiboxes because as well as great to save you the pain of reprograming after a power cut, it also bypassed thier 'wipe the memory' system.

This is what a major broadcasting company is doing in the UK - a country where we are used to free quality programming, and have a culture of regulation that tries (most of the time) to keep things fair.

I'd be very concerned over in the USA that your broadcasters don't just ram control into your front rooms.

Re:Yeah

[seaan]

I'm more pessimistic, but perhaps as someone in the security industry I over estimate the ability of what can (or will) be done. But first let me ask if you have ever heard of someone breaking the DIVX (DVD) system? I never did.

The examples you (and most people who make this argument) draw on are largely on satellite broadcasts, and they have a lot of design constraints that make good security pretty much impossible. It would be a mistake to use those systems as a comparison basis for good security design.

In a properly designed system, every client has a different key. At best, if you break one key, you only get the access that the original system had. Since everyone has unique keys, it is very easy to shut-off individual units (as soon as they are identified).

The subject of identification brings us to the other major difference - two way communication. The current satellite systems have no idea what is on the other end of their broadcast. That means it is very difficult to detect cloning, you really need to find out about it from outside sources. A two way design usually detects cloning fairly quickly, thus limiting the value of the clone. This makes the system much harder to abuse, from a cryptographic standpoint.

Of course, there is still the issue of protecting things once they have been converted into something a human can perceive, and aside from really obvious and nasty watermarks (resulting in decreased quality), this is a lost effort . I am very much anti-DRM, and one of the reasons for this is because I do believe they can be designed and implemented much more effectively than the average person does.

it's more than piracy

[citroidSD]

and I quote: Other problems remain, though. For example, some insiders say Hollywood studios are demanding that the DVB copy protection group consider a way to add geographic limitations to where content, once legally obtained by a consumer, can be viewed. The plan is similar to an unpopular regional coding scheme used for DVD content scrambling

What does this have to do with piracy? Nothing, they use piracy as an excuse (and remember piracy is not a legal term, it's called copyright infringement) to help maintain a failing busines model. They want to control how and when people consume media, under the guise of protecting the consumer from the dangers of pir^H^H^H unauthorized consumption of copyrighted content.

The Truth?

[9Numbernine9]

Frankly, some of those additional requirements [demanded by Hollywood] have nothing to do with copy protection, but a lot to do with studios' own business models," Jaboulet said.

Truer words were never spoken. A desire by Hollywood to protect its copyright is one issue, but trying to restrict my right to do whatever I want with my property is another. [Oh right, I forgot I don't actually own that DVD - Fair use, anyone?]

Besides - any guesses as to how long it'll be before this is circumvented? Place your bets!

Re:The Truth?

[russotto]

OK, so the mice vote to bell the cat. What if the cat (that is, the "consumer") ain't buying? People are already not-buying digital TV in droves. The FCC is going to hate it, but even they are unlikely to be able to force the shutdown of analog TV under current conditions, and use-crippling technology isn't going to help at all.

Re:The Truth?

[Mitreya]

The FCC is going to hate it, but even they are unlikely to be able to force the shutdown of analog TV under current conditions, and use-crippling technology isn't going to help at all.

Excuse me? What was that? FCC NOT able to force shutdown of analog TV?? Havent they already set the date for analog TV phase out?

In a few years you'll only be able to buy digital TVs... and I still can't figure out why that is being done (what good is it for me as a customer that is). I could point out plenty of useful things FCC could do instead of this.

Re:The Truth?

[Coyote]

"The FCC is going to hate it, but even they are unlikely to be able to force the shutdown of analog TV under current conditions..."

You'd think, hunh? After all, the FCC said that if at least 85% of homes can't get DTV, they'd stretch the dark date.

Oh, but some of our illustrious congressmen have decided to "solve the DTV problem." Reps Tauzin and Dingel propose to:

1. Force the end of analog TV on Dec. 31 of 2006. Forget about whether you don't want to buy a new DTV or if you give a fat furry rodent's behind about hi-def programming.

2. Force all TV stations to pass network programming without changing to a lower resolution. So what, you ask.It means that your local cable system (who 'must carry' local broadast stations) will have to give up the bandwidth of 4 cable channels for every broadcast station taking a hi-res feed. 'nother good idea!

3. Force the broadcast flag into every DTV receiver built after a 6-month period. Are you listening Hollywood? We're Congress, and we're here to help.

4. After 2005, no TVs could have analog outputs. Sure, you can have a big screen, and it can have 4-channel Dolby sound. BUT YOU CAN'T HOOK IT UP TO YOUR STEREO.Great.

And you thought the FCC had some bad ideas.

And what of existing equipment???

[TopShelf]

The question is, will existing digital equipment handle content that's protected in this manner? Or will it be like the case with my Jornada, for which there are basically no decent eBooks available, since it preceded the version of Windows CE that had built-in protections like this...

Yet another reason DTV will FAIL.

[sulli]

And fail miserably. Seriously, if DTV replaces analog in 2006, I will eat my hat.

Re:Yet another reason DTV will FAIL.

[the_2nd_coming]

you won't be the one eating your hat, the out of work CEOs will since the companies they work for will colaps when they stop makeing money due to the drop in consumer demand for their crapola.

Re:Yet another reason DTV will FAIL.

[Zathrus]

Whatever.

2006? Nah. 2012? Probably. The 2006 figure was never taken seriously by anybody with a clue. Screw replacing the TVs - that's chump change. Replacing every bit of electronics in the broadcast chain, including the tower, in 10 years? When there was absolutely nothing available in 1996? No f'ing way.

But if you think that DTV is going to outright fail, well, you're just as blind as those who thought it would be nationwide by 2006.

Re:Yet another reason DTV will FAIL.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Sure, but it may fail in that most of the companies betting on it are going to lose money due to the slippage.

Re:Yet another reason DTV will FAIL.

[gl4ss]

maybe in usa..

but i don't see why it would fail around here, since i can see the price of a set-top box coming tumbling down by that time(to the point where the price is something ridiculous, like 30e).

oh yeah, the broadcasts begun a over year ago... if i wouldn't have cable, i'd probably buy a set top box, or digi tv card for my computer, just because of the few extra channels.

iirc they plan to stop analog around 2006 to free up the air, i'm not sure what they plan to do with the frequencys though.

'here' is in finland.
i would be more skeptic of the stopping of analog if they were still sketching the standards and planning to air in the 'near future'..

Re:Yet another reason DTV will FAIL.

[marauder404]

You're confusing digital television with HDTV. They just want to get the final broadcast in a digital format which uses a lot less bandwidth and can accomodate some nice features, like station identification and programming information, but is not required. It's the same move as digital radio, which was approved a couple of months ago by the FCC. Expect to be able to see it in stores within a year. It offers the ability of stations to broadcast their signals using digital signals. No change is made to anything except the transmitter, though other things may be upgraded as well. This is a huge boon to AM radio stations who, for a fairly low price of $50k-$100k, can simulcast on digital radio. AM talk radio shows can now enjoy the clarity of their FM counterparts.

For consumers, this means that they'll likely have to purchase a digital TV receiver. By the time it hits, it'll be available for less than $50 and probably less than that. All new TVs will have them built in. Chances are, they won't have all the DRM stuff that most posters here are fearing, but it may arrive in the future at a date later than 2006. HDTV will still be expensive and be considered a premium, high-end piece of electronics and entertainment, but digital TV will not.

Re:Yet another reason DTV will FAIL.

[Zathrus]

Yes, including the tower.

You have two different stations that you have to broadcast currently, and to do that you need two towers. Especially since they're on different frequencies.

As for how many broadcast digitally - most of the stations got extentions last May. Since then the number has been slowly climbing. And while some do broadcast analog via digital, all of the major networks (except Fox) do have true HDTV content for at least a few hours a night. Rubert Murdoch, being the jackass he is, refuses to broadcast anything better than 480p on Fox, so they're rapidly becoming the bastard stepchild of the DTV industry. Hell, even WB and UPN are doing better.

Re:Yet another reason DTV will FAIL.

[Zathrus]

confusing digital television with HDTV

Nope, I understand the difference quite clearly.

Oh, and DTV does not use any less bandwidth than analog - it's still spec'd at a 6 MHz band, because it requires that much for 1080i HDTV (yes, I do understand the difference between DTV and HD, but they're broadcast using the exact same standard and on the same frequency - it's just up to the broadcaster to chose the resolution). The sideband protection is less though, since there's considerably less concern for interference now.

As for digital tuners - all TVs 36" and up will have digital tuners in 2004. By 2007 all TVs will incorporate digital tuners, period. This was one of the more recent FCC decisions, and one of the most controversial (since the vast majority of the American public no longer uses the built in tuner for TV reception, but instead gets TV via cable or sat). Stand alone digital receivers are already available, although for $300+. Mass production will cut that price drastically, and I don't think you're far off with the $50 figure.

Re:Yet another reason DTV will FAIL.

[jpc]

> Oh, and DTV does not use any less bandwidth than
> analog - it's still spec'd at a 6 MHz band,
> because it requires that much for 1080i HDTV

I really dont belive that. Basically you can multiplex six or so lowdef channels in the space of i HDTV channel. This will happen. The great thing with digital (from the broadcasters point of view) is you can just turn up the compression and sell more channels at no additional cost. Thats why nowhere in the world except th US is bothering about HDTV.

Re:Yet another reason DTV will FAIL.

[Zathrus]

Yes, but those are sub-channels on the main channel. You're not going to find Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC all multiplexing off channel 40, so you're not going to see any reduction in bandwidth usage. You may see an increase in channels available over-the-air, but if the subchannels are riding on the local network carriers then they'll be switched off whenever the network prime-time programming comes on (which, with the exception of Fox, is in HD).

Thats why nowhere in the world except th US is bothering about HDTV

Whatever you want to believe. Quite a few countries have rolled out or are rolling out high definition broadcast TV. The UK's failed initially, possibly due to corporate politics, but it's likely to come back. Japan has high-def broadcast, but it's analog. The EU as a whole is now looking at HD digital broadcast as well -- they're unlikely to adopt the ATSC standard because: A) it sucks, B) NIH syndrome (on both sides of the pond -- c.f. point A).

Oh, and you can't just turn up the compression -- the MPEG-2 codec has definite lower limits before you start seeing massive degredation. And they can't just throw away data since the standard defines resolutions. Nor can you switch to a different compression (like MPEG-4) since the standard doesn't incorporate anything but MPEG-2.

Frankly, if you look at the current stations broadcasting in digital, none of them are using the multiplexing feature. Yeah, a lot of them mumble about using it, but it's not being done.

To close the analog hole

[Student_Tech]

The only way to truely close the analog hole is to not have any analog information. That means our eyes get pulled out or supplimented with digital receivers because that last step in any system is a analog transmision from the screen to our eyes. Any flags that get set to no copy well not be there in that step and a camera aimed and synced with the TV could record it and turn it back to a digital form free of what ever flags were set.

Re:To close the analog hole

[crgrace]

A Watermark is non-audibly / visually distinguishable pattern overlayed onto the signal. An example would be a 50Hz once-per-second spike added to heavy
rock music. Your ears would never notice it, but it would be in the analog signal, and digitally-resampling the sound would just put it straight back into the
digital form.

This is why the article talks about D/A (Digital to Analog) and A/D (Analog to Digital) converters.

Then filter it! If you can't hear it then filtering it out wont hurt anything.

Re: To close the analog hole

[zenyu]

That means our eyes get pulled out or supplimented with digital receivers because that last step in any system is a analog transmision from the screen to our eyes.

I think you're one step removed, even without eyes you might still have an illegal copy of the copyrighted work in your brain, damn memory. Although I'll be heading for Cuba before they remove mine.

New geek motto?
Sure communism sucks, but the zombies suck your brains.

Re:To close the analog hole

[tgibbs]

Watermarking will not work. The whole point is to make it so you can NOT watch a copy of it. If you can display it on ANYTHING it can be copied. Screen scraping if it comes down to it.

Effective watermarking depends upon compliance by A/D converters. This means that for this scheme to work, there have to be serious restrictions on ownership of A/D code.

Re:Hmm....

[pyros]

They aren't coming anywhere near my girlfriends "analog hole".....

Maybe there aim is off.

As popular as the original Divx.

[IvyMike]

"Please, sign me up for this new technology. It offers me no benefits, costs me money, and gives up my rights."
-- You. At least, you in the eyes of Hollywood.

Waste of effort

[corvi42]

This is such a waste of effort. All this means is that the person to first rip the data and then let it loose on gnutella ( or morpheus, etc. pick your fav. p2p ) will have to pay for the privelege. How is this different from buying a movie ticket and then taping it with your handycam and giving / selling the result?

Someday these corps. are going to have to realize that digital is _more_ easily copied than analog, not less. No matter what clever locks and barriers they put up, the data is the same, and so it is inherently easy to reproduce. The demands of digital secrecy/security are fundamentally opposite to the demands of broadcasting and never the twain shall meet.

You mean easier free TV?

[rickthewizkid]

Geez when I had cable, I had to tinker around with 75-100 pF variable capacitors, copper wire, and metal RadioShack boxes to get free TV! Then I graduated to sattelite, and all I needed was a smartcard programmer! This is great news!

(Score: 5, Funny)
-RickTheWizKid
(And to think, I don't even _own_ a TV anymore... is this a bad thing?)

Vote with My Wallet and then my Ballot

[awitod]

It looks like I'll just be one of those wierd old guys that still listens to music on vinyl. I also enjoy books.

I bet my kids will hate me for it.

On the other hand, now might be a good time to learn how to fix the current generation of 'disposable' kit and start hoarding parts. It might eventually become a nice little niche market.

Re:Vote with My Wallet and then my Ballot

[HiThere]

The intention is that they stop broadcasting in analog. Repairing old equipment won't help. It's not as if TVs were stand-alone pieces of equipment, if you want to watch, what you watch is selected from what's shown.

That's one of the reasons they hate VCRs.

Re:Vote with My Wallet and then my Ballot

[Reziac]

Heh, that's a lot of why I've become a computer components packrat. Anything from first-gen Pentium onward is welcome in my computer graveyard. (I did finally start turning up my nose at 486 and older stuff.) I saw the writing on the wall with the first ATX machines, where the user had no control over power on/off. That was a very small thing, but to me it looked a lot like a camel's nose.

I would rather have a slow old machine (of whatever species -- computer, TV, music player, whatever) that does what *I* want, than latest and greatest that answers to someone else.

Same for TV. If I have to jump thru digital restriction hoops to view ordinary content, to hell with it. I have books. And vinyl LPs, too.

[eyeing 19 year old Panasonic VCR, and thinking that I should break down and fix its slipping belt after all]

Re:Bill and Orwell...

[sulli]

Except that .NET has nothing whatsoever to do with this. But don't let that stop you.

Bloody great for society as a whole

[HisMother]

If it gets too hard or too expensive to watch TV, people may be forced to

• Read a book!
• Go outside!
• Participate in democracy!
• Volunteer for charity!

This guys may be the best thing that's happened to western civilization since before Ed Sullivan sucked our collective brains out.

Re:Bloody great for society as a whole

[HisMother]

I absolutely see your point, and I'm definitely a free-speech advocate, but I'm also a somewhat old geezer who remembers the days before "convergence" was a buzzword. The fact that my work-related computing choices are tied up with the entertainment industry's policies at all, is galling to me. There are days when I wish they'd come up with a fool-proof, unbreakable way to keep commercial music and video inseparably tied to special industry-approved hardware, and then leave my computers the f2k alone.

Re:Bloody great for society as a whole

[porky_pig_jr]

Totally agree. Majority of TV viewers are those who like to do something which requires the least amount of effort, that is, snoozing in front on TV, with 6 pack and some chips. Having something so complicated as a SmartCard will be well above their mental capabilities, so most likely they will revert to something like listening the Radio talk shows + 6 packet and some chips. I really really hope it will happen so the number of TV viewers will decrease. Well, probably a few will read the book, go out, etc, but I believe the majority of TV viewers are what I've just described. Cheers.

Re:Bloody great for society as a whole

[Quixadhal]

Read a book! Sure, I can do that with /usr/bin/less

Go outside! ummmm, you mean ssh out of my local subnet? Ok.

Participate in democracy! I vote in the slashdot polls, and Cowboy Neal *STILL* isn't King.

Volunteer for charity! No, I never moderate.

'closing the analog hole'

[X_Bones]

There is no such thing as 'closing the analog hole.' No matter what scheme you use to protect your content, it *has* to be decrypted somewhere. And then some enterprising team will take apart the decryption mechanism, figure out how it works, and build a stand-alone decryption box.

It needs to be done, if only because people have been spending thousands and thousands of dollars on flat-panel TVs, HDTVs, etc. and they're all loath to buy another one anytime soon.

I had a point but I forgot what it was, so I'd better stop now.

make something to much of a hassle

[the_2nd_coming]

and people will not use it.

I uess paper books will be the next target of this "analog hole"

so once people decide to stop watching TV, and begin to read more books, the publishing industry will begin to fase out paper books in favor of e-books....got to close that analog hole right.

wooo...now we will have a new underclass, those who can not afford electronic equipment...

will content publishers learn that when they try to keep control over the published information that it looses all value becasue no one wants to buy there crap? no, they will not and this is what will send us into the next dark age.

Re:make something to much of a hassle

[Reziac]

Actually, I think we've already entered that next information "dark age". The key factor being that the younger generation no longer has the breadth of education nor depth of experience that the previous several generations had, and as copyright expands and DRM restricts, more and more material is removed from access. In another generation or two, it may well be that education and experience are controlled by content providers, rather than being available for all to study and enjoy.

The worst thing is, the next generation will have no experience of any other system, so won't even know what they're missing.

Re:make something to much of a hassle

[Reziac]

That may well be the worst-case scenario in a couple centuries -- basically a return to the endentured apprenticeship system. We'll educate your kids, they work for us when they grow up.
While not necessarily an evil system, it does tend to restrict the child's knowledge -- and restricted knowledge (by being in the hands of or controlled by a select few) is a pretty good definition of a dark age.

Just a little bit of help ?!

[-Grover]

Courtesy of this /. article which links to this story on Information Week, you can see it's all pretty much summed up here.

For SmartRight to be effective, it would have to be adopted by makers of high-definition TVs, set-top boxes, digital video recorders, and PCs. Thomson makes high-definition televisions, set-top boxes, and satellite television hardware, but it would need the cooperation of computer makers and legislators, who would have to mandate the inclusion of the technology in future hardware

Seems to me this is still a ways off even if Philips decides to adopt it as there is still plenty of resistance from other angles. I wouldn't be shivering just yet. Just because HDTV mfrs. are out putting these things in their TV's is basically now just a waste of money, since there is nobody that utilizes the technology. It's going to be a stalemate a while yet as broadcasting companies, as well as film studios won't put the encryption in until everyone has one, and TV / set top mfr's won't add the cards, since it's a waste of money. Since IANAL I won't even get into the logistics of getting something like this passed through proper legal channels and all the hoopla that will create....

A blessing in disguise

[dsfox]

Hopefully we will soon need a smartcard to buy cigarettes as well...

IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital TVs watch YOU!

This really sucks for local anime clubs

[rsilvergun]

After years without seeing anime (I used to watch Robotech as a kid) I was reintroduced by my local club that twice a month runs screenings for shows unreleased in the states. I don't know how/if these clubs will survive all this DRM garbage. It'd be really sad to see these great clubs go away (some are over 20 years old I think) in 5-10 years because the content gets locked down. I just hope these drm tv's and what not bomb as hard as divx (the original where you paid everytime you wanted to watch your dvd).

Re:Next time they will make you pay for the servic

[MrLint]

This is actually very disturbing to me, looks like hollywood wants to merge its 2 payment models while at the same time removing the consumer decision from the loop. it goes something like this, You pay a monthly subscription for your digital TV signal (probably cable) You pay a subscription fee to use your smart card to wtch the shows you pay for (like satellite tv) Oh and that 'free tv' that gets paid by advertizing,, well that all bonus revenue for the media copmanies because they are just going to *assume* you are a 'criminal' andyou are using your pvr ( that they convienently sell you and chage you a mothly subscription fee to use (because theyhave to off set the prediefined amount of people skipping the adverts, See: the minidisc built in piracy RIAA tax) [and to head you off TiVo provides you with a service for you fee stop shut your whine hole before you open it] So bascially you as the consumer.. you have to buy a big buck digital tv (or a cheaper digital to analog converter foryour old tv, you dont get to control what you watch (really) you dont get to control what you can record and watch later.. and the media copmanies get fatter. and of course the coropratoin friendly FCC doenst seem to mind at all, because even if they get kicked out for conflict of intrst, they get coushy jobs in media. (see: the political/corporate revolving door.) All your money are are belong to us.

Unplug

[Gothmolly]

As long as Americans continue to keep their media-created, instiable appetite for broadcast video and audio, this will work.
Why not unplug? Listen to the radio, read a book, go for a walk..
What's so special about Law & Order, Pay-per-View Heart concerts, and even, dare, I say, the Discovery Channel? Go to a library, INTERACT WITH PEOPLE. The only reason that the population will turn into a mob of wallscreen-watching zombies is if we decide to.

I can live with this...

[roybadami]

Nothing too unexpected or draconian here at least at first sight -- surprisingly reasonable, in fact.

This is very much what the home cinema press (here in the UK, at least) has been predicting for years, and it seems to be an improvement on the current impasse.

Currently, you receive an encrypted data stream through your digital cable or satellite system, and it's decoded by a smartcard, but you're never allowed to get your hands on the datastream at all.

Under this proposal, you'll be able to get your hands on the encrypted datastream, and pipe it around your home network, save it to disk, whatever. You'll still need a valid smartcard to be able to decrypt and view it, but you need one now already. It even sounds like they are thinking about not requireing you to have a smartcard for every TV (or keep moving your smartcard about), but instead allow one card to serve an entire home AV network.

As for 'closing the analog hole' with digital watermarking techniques, this really doesn't sound any different from a souped-up Macrovision. We already have analogue signals tagged with a 'do not record' marker, so there's nothing really new here.

Now, there are still ways they can screw this up; I'd really like them to drop the regional coding idea. And I hope that if I record a datastream for later viewing, that datastream doesn't become inaccessible to me if I subsequently cease to subscribe to the cable or satellite operator it was recorded from.

Overall though this sounds promising, and I feel moderately optimistic that this will end up being a system I can live with...

-roy

Re:I can live with this...

[mrkurt]

Here in the states, this is not how it was supposed to work. The expectation with digital TV was that it would be a broadcast medium, and the spectrum is considered to be operated by broadcasters who are operating as a public trustee. This is how it's supposed to work in theory. We have been promised a range of services, from high definition broadcasting, which is just taking off, to simulcasting up to four channels over the expanded bandwidth (which is what our local PBS station said they wanted to do). Now comes $Hollywood and their demand to be in charge of this technology. If I want just movies and don't mind paying for the privilege of getting them, I'll subscribe to cable and HBO. I don't want that, I want expanded programming choices and a much improved signal. This is what digital TV was supposed to deliver, not another channel for the content providers to extract more quid from viewers.

Price - Worth waiting.

[FreeLinux]

Take a look at the cost of new televisions that are HD capable. The prices are ridiculous right now. 35" HD TVs start at about $2000. There is absolutely noything about HD TV components or technology that justify the cost. The high cost is simply because they are new and are'nt strong sellers, yet. In a year or two the price will be down to that of a regular TV. Then you buy.

Re:Price - Worth waiting.

[jedidiah]

It's more like a genuine CD versus a 128kbps MP3. Sure, there are SOME people that can percieve the differences. Fewer people still actually care.

Meanwhile, you've got all of these PVR geeks running around watching things at sub-NTSC anyways to get good compression and lots of stuff on their TiVo's.

Nevermind the fact that there is NO high resolution content on DVD. Once HDTV comes out in full force, you'll have to replace your DVD collection to take full advantage of it and even if your PVR supports hi-res then you might not even bother with it to get more hours of recording time.

WHO CARES if you can watch Will & Grace in high res. This is the absolutely MOST worthless use for an HDTV.

Re:Price - Worth waiting.

[aslagle]

It's more like a genuine CD versus a 128kbps MP3. Sure, there are SOME people that can percieve the differences. Fewer people still actually care.

You must not have seen a true HDTV signal. A lot of consumer electronics shops (even the big ones) used to display the same old standard definition (SD) signal on their HD-ready sets.

Every time I've shown HD content to someone who hasn't seen it, they can't believe the difference. There is 6x more information in a HD picture than in a SD picture. It's immediately noticeable to someone who isn't half blind.

Re:Price - Worth waiting.

[jedidiah]

You assume too much. You also didn't pay attention to what I posted.

Many people CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE, others SIMPLY DON'T CARE.

Plenty of people are 'half-blind' or simply don't mind being subjected to crummy merchandise. The dominance of MS-DOS should have clued you in on that one.

Plus, there's no content yet. What's the point without content. Will & Grace doesn't count as content, Killer Klowns from Outer Space does.

Re:Price - Worth waiting.

[aslagle]

No, I'm not assuming too much.

As for the content, the big 3 broadcast networks have the bulk of thier primetime programming in HD right now.

Many major cities have all of their local stations broadcasting in HD. If you're not lucky to be one of those, both satellite providers have multiple channels of HD content. There's Showtime, HBO, HDNet, and Discovery HD Theater. Band of Brothers was shown in HD and 5.1 audio. The programming is out there.

Maybe you haven't seen much HD content because you haven't looked for it.

And how you can say that someone can't tell the difference between 480i and 1080i, I'll never be able to fathom. I've shown HD on my own set to many, many people, and not one of them has said they can't tell the difference.

And the people who have told me they "don't care" hadn't seen HD before. Once they had, they immediately wanted to know what they had to do to get it.

You can't just rule out a whole class of content and say it doesn't count. Some people like 'Will & Grace'. (I don't, but I'm told some do.) Just because it's not content you care for, doesn't mean you can exclude it to make your point.

Re:Price - Worth waiting.

[jedidiah]

Sure I can. It's like with "inferior music CDs". If the public has been happy with the product in the past, why will they pay exhorbitant prices to upgrade to something else. Most TV content gains little if anything from the extra resolution.

It's not about "liking Will and Grace". It's about whether or not you want to pay THOUSANDS of dollars to see it in greater clarity or on a larger screen.

Not every TV viewer has $100 to burn, nevermind thousands.

That alright, I'll be...

[randomErr]

That's alright.

I'll be broadcasting my own analog stuff on the unlicensed spectrum and bypass digital all together.

Re: Will We Need a Smart Card to Watch Digital TV?

[mrkurt]

More to the point, will we need to pay for the privilege of buying the smartcard so we can watch digital TV? IIRC, digital TV was supposed to be a free, broadcast medium, available to everybody, just like analog broadcasting. Why is it necessary to have some kind of technology to control who is watching? More to the point, if the copying of digital content so bothers the movie studios, why don't they just opt not to release their flicks for digital broadcast? Oh, that's right, Jack Valenti and Co. threatened to take their toys and go home from the digital party unless something was done. This really scared the broadcasters and electronics makers.

Apparently, this was that "something." It could be used to extract payments from folks with digital TVs; I guess they feel they can't get these couch potatoes to go to the cinema or get up and go to Blockbuster and buy DVDs. Once again, it's all about control and DRM (Digital Reach for your Money). If these measures are necessary, why is it that the movie studios don't seem to mind if their product (rubbish, for the most part) is broadcast on analog TV all the time? Even after the Betamax case, they don't seem to mind that one can record movies on a VCR-- that is a copy, right? (no pun intended) I am rather surprised that they allow their flicks to be broadcast, rather than lose all that revenue.

All I conclude is that these industries aren't serving my interests as a potential customer. Once again, Big Media has attempted to put their grubby fingers on emerging technology.

TV just isn't worth this.

[Asprin]

The day HDTV and SmartCards become a requirement is probably the day we stop watching TV shows altogether, though we'll likely keep the TV around for watching movies and playing games and the like. I don't know who they think they're kidding, but the crap they're trying to protect just isn't worth this kind of annoyance.

Case in point - Why do we need 14 channels of HBO in our cable package -- is it so we have more choice? No, it's because exclusivity deals and vertical ownership mean they have to be a Time-Warner billboard. Oh, that and the movies suck, so they have to have 14 channels of it to make it seem like you're getting your money's worth. When I was a kid, we got 1 HBO channel, but they ran primo movies every night, and it was generally worth the subscription fee. Now, it's 14 channels of Sex&City reruns and crap movies from the 80's and (early)90's. Screw them. Don't **EVEN** get me started on "Slowtime" - the premium cable network for morons and the terminally horny.

Now they want me to get a smart card and an encryption ID key for the priviledge of watching Will & Grace? Sorry. I'll do without - It's more fun playing with my wife anyway.

What about my material

[gr8_phk]

What about "content" created by others? Do I get to put "copy protection" on my own material? I suspect they are also trying to prevent any new competition. You won't be able to "protect" your (or your companies) content without paying them. Individuals work will not be privy to the new protections at all.

Paul

Re:What about my material

[Reziac]

As I've said before, a MAJOR objective is clearly to prevent any new players (including independents and individuals) from entering the marketplace. If they rig it so only copy-restricted content can be propagated, and only **AA members can receive the required copy-restriction (whether thru prohibitive cost or regulation), that effectively locks out all the independents.

It's not about the money or about "piracy"; it's about maintaining an effectively 100% marketshare, and making sure no alternatives are available.

Future Scenario

[RichMan]

TV: All viewers must insert their identity cards and authenticate with the Viewing System before playback can commence.

TV: This TV can see 4 potential viewers and a dog in the room. Three viewers are on the TSN subscription plan and have automatic access to the broadcast. These viewers have household authentication and have validated within the last 24 hours. Viewing is authorized. The forth viewer, Bob Neighbour has inserted his viewerID(tm) card but not authenticated and will need to authorize the use of credit to enable the viewing. TSN allows dogs to watch Monday Night Football for free.

TV: Viewing paused. Awaiting authorization or departure. TSN thanks you for your viewing habits.

Congressmen beware

[deanpole]

Americans love their television. Not even
God can save a Congressmen who lets
smartcards come between Americans and their
free television.

Re:Congressmen beware

[Kanasta]

but it takes just one fall guy and the system's in. for good.

one stupid Congressmen to be duped by campaign contributions.

doesn't sound so unlikely now, does it..

Re:I'm all for it...

[Rogerborg]

True, but once you've been told you're a filthy thief and you can't be trusted, what's your incentive to play by the rules. Reward is not the same as non-punishment and there's no reward for doing it, because you can't earn their trust.

I'm not saying it's right to access more streamed data than you're paying for, just that it's getting harder every year to condemn those that do it.

Parallel with e-books?

[thorrbjorn]

With a few exceptions here and there, commercial e-book operations have been a financial failure. There's a lot of conjecture floating around as to why no one seems to want these e-books. My own conjecture is that its due to the simple fact that people don't want to pay more for less (in a rational universe, this would go without saying for anyone with any business sense.)

Its too early so say for sure, but I see the possibility of the same thing happening here. Even leaving aside issues like playing media on Linux desktops, if Joe Sixpack can't do all the same stuff with this newfangled digital technology that he could do before with the old, if it is inconvenient to him, if he is getting less for the same money or more, he ain't gonna want it.

Next for radio, etc.

[mbogosian]

Next, they'll have them put in your radio. Does anyone see this as analogous to Microsoft's secure computing initiative? Imagine you have to pay for a smart card when all you want to do is listen to NPR or watch PBS. Is this like trying to run Linux on Palladium hardware?

Re:Next for radio, etc.

[eclectro]

They don't need to put them in radio because radio is dead anyway (with the exception of NPR -- the butterfly in the roach motel).

All the more reason to kill your television ...

[Buskaatt]

... and pick up a book.

Still locking themselves out from PC displays

[hamjudo]

I know one person who owns an HDTV. I'm lead to believe that that is one more HDTV owner than most people know.

Modern PC's have more than enough CPU power to decode and display digital video streams from the ethernet. Monitors have more than enough resolution to display HDTV. 100mbit ethernet is fast enough for HDTV. We just need cable boxes with ethernet ports.

HDTV could have an order of magnitude more viewers, if the entertainment industry would get over their computer phobia.

I know why they complain about piracy.

[Quebec]

Distributors claim that piracy is making them lose
big money even if we read about serious studies stating that losses are marginal or non-existent.

But I think I know why, it's because they want to
control the market in order to raise the pricing
of all their products.

In brief they want to bleed us to death and they
know that if piracy is too easy it will flourish
when they raise those prices.

If ever they get rid of piracy one way or another
we will pay the price, those movies will be
unaffordable.

Those big corporations are not treating their
customers as they should.

I hear the people answering to me "It is the
way it happens in a capitalist society" and I even
hear some people trying to tag me as a communist,
to them I answer right now that controling a market is the opposite of a free market and I don't like it.

Big corporations colluding together to create
an environment where the customers are deprived
of features, commodities and freedom should be
considered as illegal because it is the exact same thing as a monopoly.

I get angry each time that I read such news in Slashdot and it is not healthy. Soon I'll be forced to stop reading Slashdot for health reasons.

Come on people, wake-up, some big guys in big offices want to steal you your way of life, they would charge you the air you're breathing if they ever find a way to do it. Tell them now that it is unacceptable.

A question Hollywood needs to ask itself...

[tkrotchko]

What if they make it so hard to watch that nobody cares anymore and they stop watching?

Its the missing link.

The assumption is we'll watch however it suits the studios.

We'll see how it all plays out. I've got a hunch though.

Dear big M&E,

[porkface]

Good luck Hollywood! Please, this time around keep track of how much you spend on these shenanegins vs how much you save. Be realistic about how much money "piracy of television" is really costing you. I, for one, just don't see any hope of this paying off, and I don't want to have to go through this again when you fail to learn your lesson. If my $1500 HD-ready TV isn't adaptable to the new system, I'm going to chuck it through your window and demand my money back.

stupid question / stupid industry / beware!

[frovingslosh]

Making a move right now would be a big mistake. The problem is that almost all those big screen devices and the fancy plasma displays claim that they are digital ready and that you hook up an external digital tuner to get great DTV, but there are no digital tuners to let the consumer hook up to them and get the maximum high resolution that DTV offers. The industry has been fighting this for years and, as the article cited here shows, will simply not let the high quality high resolution signal be available without their not-yet-available copy protection system and copy protection every step along the way.

What this means for consumers is simple: No matter what the sales clerk tells you, and no matter how much you spend on a fancy digital ready monitor or plasma display today, there will never be a tuner that puts out a signal that your expensive monitor will accept at the high definition resolutions you want and expect. Buy now and you will be screwed! Once they figure out how to copy protection hobble the system, then and only then will you be able to get a display that might someday display the full promise of DTV, but unless you plan on being part of a massive class action consumer lawsuit, stay away from any new equipment until they figure out how they are going to cripple the equipment you pay for.

Re:stupid question / stupid industry / beware!

[Cyclone66]

The new TVs have HDCP copy protected DVI ports which should solve this issue. (should..) The problem is with TV's that have only component out or unencrypted DVI. Those early adopters will get the shaft.

Re:stupid question / stupid industry / beware!

[Nogami_Saeko]

You are absolutely on-the-money, and it's the reason why I won't go anywhere near a big TV which claims "HD/Digital" right now.

That said, if new digital sets are crippled as much as the entertainment industry is trying to make them, I won't go near them either.

Sorry folks, I have NO problems staying with a decent analog picture if it's free.

Even if they put smartcards of some sort in TV sets, what are they going to do, tell everyone who has purchased a set that "in 6 months we'll be altering the encryption, you must now go and purchase a new card for your TV or you won't receive any signals".

Oh wait, yes, that's EXACTLY what they're going to do. And I won't have it.

The funny thing is that the entertainment industry has been absolutely whining up a storm about DVD piracy, but the fact is that DVDs are selling incredibly well (far better than VHS tapes used to), and as an added benefit, they cost less to produce.

Just goes to show the greed of the industry...

Competition already here - don't worry. Satellite

[noahbagels]

Hey,
I got satellite TV last week. I won't say the brand (don't accuse me of advertising) but suffice it to say it was one of the two major players.
Picture quality: best I've ever seen. Far better than cable (analog) and far, far, *far* better than the crappy digital cable we here have in San Francisco (Thanks AT&T-crapola).
Restrictions: NONE!!!
I purchased a PVR that has no monthly fee - and I can record to outside devices such as VCR without macrovision - even from the PVR recorded content.

Now - I just got this last week - but must say: I'm 110% very happy with it. So flame away, but I'm sure that as soon as they *force* us on to digital TV, and *force* us not to record shows (hmmm - any TIVO fans???) there will be mass exodus from the evil *them* and people will start using alternatives.

Other thoughts: how about TV via DSL/other broadband in 5-10 years??? I think it's possible. Satellite - definitely possible.

For those of you who will flame that they "don't have access to satellite" due to landlords or physical space considerations - I'm sorry & just like many of us look for broadband with our next apartments/homes, I'll be looking for a clear view to the south :)

And Inside their own borders

[emkman]

While you provided excellent examples in the UK, there is no need to look any further than US satellite services. Directv and Echostar both use smart cards that have been hacked since the beginning. When one gets swapped out for a new one, that one gets hacked in a matter of months. Nothing new.

Whole new meaning to the....

[nlinecomputers]

That just gives a whole new meaning to the DMCA.

And to think I thought being a certifed asshole was in the public domain. Now the feds are gonna sue me...

Re:Next time they will make you pay for the servic

[Spudley]

In the UK and in the EU ... the box requires a smart card to be inserted for use.

Yes, and look at how many hacked cards there are over here.

In fact there was even a story a while ago that one pay-TV provider was deliberately hacking the smart cards of another. (I can't find the reference, but I'm sure it was right here on /.)

Re:Next time they will make you pay for the servic

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

Radical notion -- opt out.
Step one - realize that you are NOT the consumer for broadcast entertainment -- you are the product. The consumer is the advertiser, the "content" is the vehicle for delivering the product (you) to the consumer.
Step two -- get sick of being sold
Step three -- look at your "favorite shows" in a whole new light

--

ALL of their demands..

[nyet]

.. including what THEY call copyright protection have EVERYTHING to do with their business models. The fact that Jaboulet didn't say as much either means he's an idiot or paid quite well. You choose.

Citizen, you have committed an error.

[No Such Agency]

That is all :-)

The day this is enforced..

[nurb432]

Is the day i stop watching tv or listening to music. Screw them.

Good for you.

[No Such Agency]

That makes two of us. The loudest thought that came into my head as I read this was "Well, I guess that If this sort of restrictive nonsense becomes the only TV/movie option I'll just stick to reading books". Hell, even if publishing paper books becomes illegal tomorrow, I'll still have two lifetimes' supply of reading - and that's only including the best books ever written.

Of course, there's always the chance that Joss Whedon will throw a big monkeywrench in my plan at some point... ;-)

You can't "close" it...

[No Such Agency]

But you CAN make the penalties for being caught with one of these boxes so extreme that it's not worth the risk. Remember, in America you can go to prison just for possessing certain dried plant material, and hurting nobody but (possibly) yourself. Emerging YEARS later with bad Bic-ink tattoos, a permanently distended rectum, and a criminal record that makes you unemployable. Big Media can easily buy a comparable law for digital TV piracy. Free cable sounds less appealing now, doesn't it?

Sort of forgot one

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the article:

With support from nearly every level of the digital industry, including Hollywood studios, Internet technology companies, computer and consumer electronics suppliers, and chip vendors, the DVB's ad hoc group on copy protection technology "stands the best chance" of finding a solution that all parties to the debate will accept, said Peter MacAvock, executive director of the DVB Project Office in Geneva.

Nearly every level, except the most important one: the consumers themsevles. Time will tell whether this will be a boon for the broadcasting industry or a DIVX debacle on an epic scale...

Books are next..

[nurb432]

The final goal is total control of *all* informational content.. Dont let them fool you.

" Im sorry sir, but your lease to read that title you are requesting, 'the US constitution' has expired.. please come to the center, we will be waiting in the white zone for you.. "

'proverbial'

[WndrBr3d]

More like they want to 'plug' the 'analog hole' with their money wrapped 'digital dick'.

Thats just my take on it though, I could be wrong.

They've been trying to do this for ages!

[ian stevens]

"Note that the article talks about them 'closing the analog hole."

How is this news? Anyone who reads Slashdot regularly knows that Hollywood and electronics manufacturers have been seeking to close our analog holes every chance they get!

Sorry, I couldn't resist pointing out the obvious. :)

ian.

Cheap DTV

[Detritus]

You don't need to replace the tower and the entire broadcast chain. You can get by with keeping all your NTSC gear and buying an ATSC encoder/exciter and a new transmitter. It will not be HDTV, but it will be DTV and enough to meet FCC requirements.

Re:Competition already here - don't worry. Satelli

[/dev/trash]

Not sure if you were being funny or not but - I got satellite TV last week. I won't say the brand (don't accuse me of advertising) but suffice it to say it was one of the two major players. - there are only two Satellite providers.

I wonder...

[erroneus]

...how many people, after this, will stop watching TV?

Asside from enjoying your favorite movies or the public broadcast news, which will and must always be available for free due to national security and other emergency needs, what else do we need TV for?

Generally speaking, I've already stopped watching TV years ago. I think when people start paying more for it, they'll decide to dump it too. Then again, look at all those people spending billions on cigarettes... humanity is doomed so long as it continues to feed upon its own weaknesses.

my thought

[drDugan]

[long ass rant]
what pisses me off about this whole arena of digital information control is it only works -- we are only event talk ing about it -- if the legislators (that the big money buys) are on board to make LAWS that make all this stuff happen. No one on earth would voluntarily submit to technology that costs more, reduces rights, etc. etc. EXCEPT if they are forced by laws.

The terrible thing is that only through more stringent laws will the "digital content industry" be able to survive. long term I just don't see it happening. we cannot legilate to all humans worldwide that everyone supports a system of information-access control just so 7 big media conglomerates can continue to maintain the hedgemeony.

the fact we even consider this crap is such a GD joke it's pathetic.

[/long ass rant]

sorry.

best buy morons

[Sabalon]

My in-laws went to buy a DVD player. They were gonna get one of the combo DVD/VHS players, but the best buy dweeb started going on about how in 2006, VCR's won't work anymore.

He probably talked them into buying something cheaper since it wasn't a combo (hopefully they didn't buy the super-whiz-bang one).

They asked me about it when they called this weekend - I felt bad for them...they are definatly 12:00 flashers. For years they thought their VCR was broke and couldn't record. My wife (engaged then) used to call me from their house asking how to set the time.

It'll be interesting to see what smartcard solutions come out for this major portion of the populace.

WAKE THE FUCK UP

[Lonath]

the SmartRight group will incorporate features that not only detect watermarks at an A/D converter, but also generate watermarking at a D/A point.

Ok, everyone reading this. You all need to stop giving money to the copyright industry forever. That means no Star Trek and NO FUCKING HOBBITS EITHER!!! NO MONEY FOR THEM AT ALL!!!

Question ....

[ProfMoriarty]

Are the big media conglomerates going to strap everybody into chairs like in A Clockwork Orange to force us to watch their drivel?

And what about all of the current analog TV's that are out there ... will it be illegal to own one? Even if you had a digital converter box, that box HAS to output analog signals to a current (non-digital) TV.

Hmmmm ... maybe time to stock up on supplies for the coming revolution.

Regarding "holes"...

[Jugalator]

They can close my "analog hole" with that, if I can close their anal hole with something. ;-)

great way to kill an industry

[geoff lane]

First hate your customers; then accuse them of stealing; then make it difficult for them to get your product; then force them to sit and watch at the time the broadcaster wants to show the program; then fill the screen with logos and constant promos (and fit the programs in the gaps.)

If I were a production company with a successful series (say Friends) I'd look very seriously at distributing the program via DVD possibly stuck to the front of a "Friends" monthly magazine. Then the production company would be free of the broadcasters commercial insanity. The advertisers would love the demographics of such a product.

Re:You have it backwards

[sxpert]

now, somebody will have to explain to me why companies that build *hardware* such as PBX's use dongles to protect the software... dammit, you won't even know what to do with the CDs if you don't have the hardware...

Re:It's also called OpenCable

[sxpert]

more like "closedcable"

Nice to know

[Quixadhal]

that Hollywood and the Major Electronics Manufacturers are in agreement. I wonder how long it will take poor sales to show how the Consumers whom they are supposed to serve (IE: their reason to exist) feel.

Tivo

[tgibbs]

and to head you off TiVo provides you with a service for you fee stop shut your whine hole before you open it

Actually, you can regard Tivo as a cheap device with a monthly fee, or as an expensive device with no fee, depending upon which service plan you choose.

Your all wrong

[racerx509]

What you all don't know is that secretly this whole Digital Television encryption and watermarking biz has been sponsored by Tv Turnoff.org. By ensuring that all future television becomes a pain in the ass watch, they are finally able to get everybody turn off ther tv sets.