Cable, TV Makers Agree on Digital Standard

shylock0 writes "Reuters has this article about the digital cable standard agreed upon today. Amazingly enough, it places little or no copyright restrictions on content -- and it even includes specification for 1394/FireWire output to PVRs. I think this is a victory for fair use. Let's hope the FCC approves."

Comments

Standards.

[Spudley]

Just because it's a standard doesn't mean that anyone will actually use it.
I can hope something like this becomes a standard, but more to the point, I should rather be hoping that companies actually impliment it.

spectrum loss

[dirvish]

Originally designed to be complete by 2007, the switch to digital has yet to take off due to copyright concerns, limited programming and high equipment prices.

And mostly because they don't want to lose their existing analog signal, so they are stalling. The know that spectrum is worth big money and they are going to do everything they can to either make sure they don't lose it or make a lot of money selling it.

Re:spectrum loss

[Audacious]

Although companies "own" the right to use certain spectrums of the airwaves. I feel that it should simply be returned to the public domain/commons. After all, it is a resource which is truly owned by the people of the country even though the government seems to think otherwise. Further, these companies have had the use of the airwaves for almost a century. They have made billions (if not trillions) of dollars using them as is. It is time for them to give back what they have been using at our leave.

Notes: You know, if the government was smart (sorry - I know that is an oxymoronic statement) it would lease the airwaves to radio and tv stations (instead of selling them) and use this as a way to reduce income taxes (and possibly eliminate the need for them altogether - although that is probably a pretty far reach given the present way in which things are going). It is like copyrights. I don't mind every fourteen years having to refile for my copyrights. If you haven't made $10.00 in fourteen years - then the item isn't worth copyrighting again. But the important part is - it is a way to collect taxes without bothering the individual. Even if they went by the "one generation (ie: twenty years)" method (instead of the fourteen year method, and allowing one additional filing after someone has died) the government would have quite a bit of money coming in each year just from people/corporations refiling their copyrights. But I'm digressing.

So where is it?

[swordboy]

I'm assuming that this will remove the "analog hole" since there will now be encrypted digital signal right into the TV, correct? Does that mean recordings can only be performed in analog?

In that case, go pick up a few HDTV tuner cards for the PC before they lock those down. Currently, you can time shift and record the full HDTV stream. But its only a matter of time before those are regulated.

Or will they change the standard such that these will become obselete? The article isn't clear on this but this would also mean screwing over current HDTV customers, since they do not have an integral decoder...

copyright and DRM

[g4dget]

it places little or no copyright restrictions on content

Copyright is a legal issue, not a technical one. The "copyright restrictions" on the content are the same as they always have been.

What appears to be the case is that it doesn't try to put a lot of technical DRM restrictions on the content, and that is nice. DRM generally restricts use of content much further than copyright.

cat got my toungue.

[garcia]

If approved by the FCC, the roughly two-thirds of U.S. households that subscribe to cable-TV services would be able to enjoy digital pictures over high-definition sets without shelling out more money, as some consumers do now, for set-top boxes to read the signals.

Great, so I don't have to pay for the box. I still have to pay for the service. More channels of little or no worthwhile content and a fancy menuing system (yes, nice, but worth triple the cost... no).

I'm really annoyed w/recent changes in the cable system moving premium channels to digital only. I don't think that cable systems should be allowed to do that. That's DOUBLE charging for HBO. Although w/the recent "slips" by the censors (Cher anyone?) maybe regular-old cable will end up carrying much the same content as HBO... We can always hope.

wow .. .No MPAA involvement!

[Anonymous Coward]

While the agreement outlines some copy-protection guidelines, it was drafted without the input of Hollywood or consumer groups, which have strong opinions and powerful friends in government. [emphasis me]

Wow! Nothing from the entertainment industry at all. There's the answer to why there's little-to-no DRM.

Somehow, I think the FCC will get some nice gifts from that industry sometime soon.

Re:wow .. .No MPAA involvement!

[The_Guv'na]

While the agreement outlines some copy-protection guidelines, it was drafted without the input of Hollywood or consumer groups, which have strong opinions and powerful friends in government.

Some guy once told me there was a time long ago when the people had strong opinions and powerful friends in government! Heh, fuck knows what he was smoking...

Ali

The great thing about standards..

[RumpRoast]

There are so many to choose from.

I think the most important part of this article was this line:

While the agreement outlines some copy-protection guidelines, it was drafted without the input of Hollywood or consumer groups, which have strong opinions and powerful friends in government.

So essentially, this "standards agreement" is meaningless.

Cable Companies and Electronics Companies

[Happy Monkey]

This agreement is obviously great for cable companies and electronics manufacturers, since it provides free added value to their products. But who's missing from this little equation? Ah, yes - Hollywood. They'll certainly do what they can to subvert this agreement. And they've got a few congresspeople. This agreement is obviously great for cable companies and electronics manufacturers, since it provides free added value to their products. Fair use may have won a skirmish, but it's not a victory until the products are available in stores.

That said, it's certainly a happy skirmish win.

Re:Is the FCC Expensive?

[rodgerd]

More likely the cable companies are too expensive to buy. They aren't likely to want to encumber their customers with too many restrictions - people like recording the movie of the week, and why would CableCo want to take that ability away?

Let's get ready to rumble

[theMightyE]

Cable, TV Makers Agree on Digital Standard

The title isn't suprising. With an agreed-upon standard, cable companies can charge more for HD-format programming and TV manufacturers can sell more units as everyone moves to the new systems. These parties have a lot to gain from getting together and working things out. But...

While the agreement outlines some copy-protection guidelines, it was drafted without the input of Hollywood or consumer groups, which have strong opinions and powerful friends in government.

The Hollywood crowd has a lot to loose if perfect copies of their works are easy to record, and the equipment becomes standard enough to get cheap. Given that people are pretty much accustomed to being able to record anything that comes down their cable, many more people are gonna notice when this stops working than noticed when a few Brittany Spears CD's stopped working in their computer drives. Get ready to watch an interesting fight when the MPAA and it's lobbyists are pit against the wrath of Joe Average when he finds out that his attempt to record Everyone Loves Raymond failed shortly after coughing up a good chunk of money for HD cable and a new set.

I think this is a victory for fair use.

Not yet, it's not... but since it'll put politicians in a tough spot between lobbyists and lost votes, it could become a victory if the MPAA gets too greedy with their restrictions.

Mod Parent Up!

[bughunter]

The referenced article is much more informative and revealing than the Reuters twinkie-bite of a story and brings up issues that deserve discussion.

Namely:

The proposed regulation would allow consumers to make at least one copy of most programs, with the main exception being those delivered via pay-per-view and video-on-demand services. Programs that cannot be copied could still be delayed as long as 90 minutes by viewers with personal video recorders...

Now wait a minute... either you can record a copy of a PPV program or you can't. Delaying and pausing using a PVR is done by recording, so does this proposed regulation imply that a PPV program can be recorded, but is then somehow erased or locked?

I have a couple of problems with this. First, I don't want the cable provider (or anyone) to have that much control over data on my media. And I think the average Joe Six-gig is going to feel the same way.

Which leads me to the second misgiving: someone will find a way around it. What if I hack my TiVo? What if I turn it off, or lose power, or otherwise interfere with the deleting or locking process? This will just give the cable companies (and Hollywood) the excuse to impose more and more restrictions on their content, or demand more and more access and control over the contents of my mass storage devices.

And why 90 minutes? Who decided that was fair? Why not 24 hours? Where was the consumer included in this decision? Oh... I forgot, this is not about the consumer, it's about 3) PROFIT!!!

Nosir, it doesn't look settled yet...

Re:Whiipee dooo!

[AaronW]

> Why didn't american's just borrow the standard.

Because the Japanese standard was ANALOG and was a huge bandwidth hog and as far as I know been abandoned. From what I understand they are replacing it with basically the US standard.