Slashdot Mirror
Open Cable Standard Not So Open
Mike Hicks writes "A few days ago, I heard about the FCC approving new rules for standardizing digital cable in the US. This involved using a set top box or tuner integrated into a TV along with a smart card (much like digital satellite services). Unfortunately, it looks like the standard (believed to be OpenCable) is meant to tightly control the hardware and software that can be used, probably making any open-source implementation very difficult if not impossible. I seem to be having a case of deja vu"
The cable industry is already worried enough about piracy and you can't figure out why they don't want open source set top boxes? Wow.
with a Captain Crunch whistle blown directly into the infrared port of the TV.
Does this really come as a surprise? Like cable modems, cable companies will simply issue out cheap hardware for a monthly fee. I suspect that they made several attempts to ensure that they get their piece of the pie. Just follow the money trail.
Satellite TV was the best thing that ever happened to cable TV. Satellite boxes will still be required for this aspect, bypassing this new standard entirely. This should not affect the geek world much.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
That is exactly what Micro$haft thought when they released the X-box.
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Open is closed
I wonder if the "legitimate" hardware list will include TV cards for PCs or TiVo. I'm sure they're trying their hardest not to allow it (especially since TiVos run Linux)
Analgo boxes weren't designed to be open either. For example you need a box provided by the cable providor to watch PPV or other scrabled channels. Also, most cable systems aren't using an open standard on their digital cable right now.
While an open (but secure for the operators) standard for digital cable be nice and probably better? I think it would. It it going to happen? Probably not. Cable providors have never been very interested in having open systems.
This reeks more of the big boys wanting to ensure that their business model is not broken more than ensuring that a strong, open, and extensible specification is designed.
Sort of like some other technology vs. business model battle we've been discussing here lately...
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Actually, what about the U.K? Does anyone know if current UK digital cable systems are based on any single standard? I ask simply because the Pace box my cable company uses is simply crap, and I'd love to be able to use an alternative if possible. Am I dreaming here?
Anyone with an abysmal Motorola DCT2000 terminal can tell you, this is a damn shame. Channel changes take over a second, the online menu and guide are slow as molasses, the GUI is clumsy and inefficient, and it's pretty much the only choice in Comcast areas. An integrated PVR and cable terminal would open up a ton of possibilities for consumers. Unfortunately it looks like the FCC and cable providers will be dictating what features we are allowed to have out of our TV.
Now the fears about open source aren't completely irrational - it's true that closed implementations make hacking digital cable much harder. There is currently no working digital cable descrambler, and DSS is getting harder and harder to decrypt. The industry knows that restricting the information and licenses does work. It's just too bad that this means consumers are stuck with a minimal set of features, ugly, slow, beasts like the DCT2000, and higher prices due to proprietary technology.
TiVo is fine. You should be surprised to learn that the TiVo from DirecTV is a one box solution - it does the decryption and recording all by itself. TiVo is careful not to piss off the networks, cable providers, and FCC so they are able to market products like this. Hopefully they'll be able to release something like the combo unit for digital cable once it becomes standardized.
"Open" means non-proprietary, free for public perusal. This could mean open hardware specs, open source, open meetings, etc. "Open Source" means that the source code is freely available to the public. Why the hell do half the front-page stories that mention open hardware/open standards/open foobar use "Open-Source" and "Open" as if they mean the same thing? They don't, so STOP DOING IT.
read this
OpenCable uses MHP for its middleware, it's based on Java and all the specs are available from ETSI, open implementations should be possible, of course this is only part of OpenCable but if everything is encrypted to start with it doesn't matter if you can implement open versions, you're stuffed (until its broken).
Not that that makes a difference either. None of them want what the "other" guy has.
I worked for a cable company while attending tech school, and they always made sure "something" was different from other local providers, so equipment could not be "modified", and used on their system.
There is in fact an opensource implementation..
its more than what you read in that its a move towards HAVi-DVB-DHP an iTV set of apis..
Sun in fact asked the FCC to make it a requirement that the bigest cable operator that bought DirectTV to accept the standard as part of the acceptance of the DirectTV buyout as part of FCC normal powers..
I believe there are two Linux projects dealign with both this standard and itv but I have forgotten the project names..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Maybe I've just being stupid because I've got a case of the Mondays, but how can it be open if the all of the key buzzwords are trademarked?
To wit, from the nav menu on the front page:
Cable Modem/DOCSIS(TM)
CableHome(TM)
PacketCable(TM)
OpenCable(TM)
Go2Broadband(SM)
VOD Metadata
Well, OK, VOD Metadata isn't, but still, doesn't the trademark/servicemark grant the markholder the right to control ALL use of the said mark, thus restricting non-partners from using them?
Have other "open" projects TM/SM their key buzzwords?
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Look, here's the deal. In the United States, the Set-Top Box (STB) market is dominated by Motorola and Scientific Atlanta. Between the 2 of them, they have about 90% of the total STB sales here. This is for mostly historical reasons, but the way they hold onto it now is that they have monopolies on the conditional access (content protection) systems, which are hardwired into the boxes.
The cable companies (Comcast, Time Warner, et al) want to open up the standards provided to set top box manufacturers so that consumer electronics companies (Sony, Samsung, et al) can compete with Moto and SA for the business, driving the prices for STBs down. STBs are one of the largest capital costs/subscriber acquisition costs for a cable company. The secondary goal (beyond lower STB prices) is moving the STB purchase into the retail chain, so that cable companies don't have to carry that burden unless they want to). The way they plan to do that is a conditional access module in the form of a PCMCIA card (more or less), which the user purchases or leases from their cable company, and repurchases or leases if they move with the STB they own.
So "Open" is only "Open compared to the current system, which is completely closed." It doesn't mean what the typical slashdot reader would think it does.
Of course, if they rigged it so they only sent you the channels you pay for, they wouldn't care what set-top box you used. Then you could have an open-source solution - a box from the store, your PC running an app, whatever.
How difficult is this for the cable companies - obviously the sat company can't do it, but since the cable co knows who's paid for what, and has control of the cable running all the way to their door, then controlling what gets sent shouldn't be too difficult. Or am I being a touch naive?
What next? Are they going to create proprietary sidewalks and force us to wear certain shoes to walk on it, yet call it an open standard?
This is bullshit.. I have had a Hauppauge WinTV card in my computer for 7 years (okay in a few computers, but still the same card). Works great, saves me a lot of money and space, as my computer is my full entertainment center. If these people think I am going to have buy a device with a TV built into it to use the cable service, they are sadly mistaken. If i am forced to do this then I am going to do one of the following:
1. Go to satellite
2. Get the device required, hack it (oh and it will be hackable no matter how much they try to hackproof it, if it can be built, it can be hacked). Get shitloads of karma on slashdot, and maybe get myself on the front page.
3. Say to hell with cable tv or satellite all together and just buy DVD's, and get DSL for internet access.
I think the cable tv companies should learn a thing or two from the RIAA before they start their own major campagins, that is if they want to remain profitable...
In this digital age, the consumer has more organized power, and you don't want to piss the ones giving you your bread and butter, and your dodge vipers off.
I don't need open source on my TV. I already run Linux on my GE ice maker, BSD on my microwave, and GNU Turd in my watercloset.
I mean, it's cable fucking TV, so they want you to buy a TV for it to work...
whoop-ti-shit
I'd love to see how some of you people live. I can picture it now. I'd walk in to the kitchen, see a mesh of coat hangers with some bread stuck to them jammed into an electric socket. I'd ask what the hell it was and recieve the reply, "Oh, that's my Open Source Toaster"
Xaotik Designs
This reeks of something those in the Department of Homeland security would love. I mean an all in one access system. Although there is no mention of monitoring one could infer that if they can auth and or revoke info remotely, then there is a possibilty of monitoring which means I, for one will not fsck with it.
Conventional wisdom suggests that one could take the specification and build an open implementation around that would interoperate with the cable company's proprietary POD and everyone would be happy.
This wording is a bit dangerous. On the one hand the author is concerned with bringing an Open Source solution to the community, mainly Linux as mentioned in his comments. On the other hand, the cable companies probably don't want to share their proprietary information which wouldn't make sense and wouldn't be 'Open".
My suggestion, wait about a month or so after this implementation is out, and it's likely someone will end up reverse engineering it. Now opinionated, I would really love to know who the hell watches cable television on their PC's. Me personally I have an HDTV which stomps any of my compmonitors to the ground... Sure it would be nice to have an option to do so, but (now this is a question not some sarcastic remark) honestly how many people are using their machines for cable...
MoFscker
If they are standardizing digital cable to use a certain set of codecs, encryption, etc... What will happen to all of the people who have purchased set top boxes today? I realize this is just the definition of the format to use for TV tuner cards, but as a result, you have to figure the change in format is going to impact all of the people currently using a digital set top box today. I myself almost purchased a Scientific Atlanta set top cable box, as the monthly cable fees my provider charged ( Rogers ) for the box rental were insane. Is this change basically going to screw all the people that bought a box in the past few years?
;-).
;-) Hopefully, this goes through... but also, hopefully there will be some form of backward compatibility so everyones current cable and satelitte boxes still work.
Also... given that this is a PnP standard for integration into TV sets themselves, I wonder if the satelitte industry is going to follow suit itself. I sure as hell hope not... as my quasi legal DirectTV box no doubt isnt going to get that much support
Although, it is kinda good to see a standard ratified... HDTV has been delayed wayyyyyy too long. Im sick of seeing "HDTV Ready" boxes... knowing fullwell, that means if I want HDTV, im going to have to buy a 300$ tuner sometime down the road. It has been what has prevented me from buying a nice 42+ inch display all these years... well... that and lack of cash!
...When is he going to answer our questions?!?!?!?
It's been 6 months since the interview!
they want a closed source system that will be hard to reverse enguineer the hardware/software for a reason.
how would it be a good thing for the industry if some hardware/software hacker decided to reporgram his tv or set top box so that he could get stuff for free or (more sad that we would have to think about doing this than anything) over ride watermarking which stops recording of events.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
every content provider is looking to incorporate more and more DRM as the quality, cost, and ease of creation of copies improves.
the music industry doesn't care about people copying songs off the radio. it didn't even really get its panties in a bunch when CD-Rs first hit the market. or when mp3s hit the ftp servers. It went ballistic when anyone could download a single application and instantly find a never ending stream of perceptibility loss-less perfect digital copies.
likewise with the MPAA and DVD encryption, likewise with the new Cable Set-top standard.
They want to cut out MythTV, Tivo, splitters, H-cards, and cable descramblers. It's becoming too easy to get at the current data, so they want a change.
with the analog system working (fairly) well as is, why else would they create a new 'standard' for the digital system? It certainly isn't in the interest of the consumer.
Why doesn't Sony support the Blu-Ray with its stock rewritable feature?
Why did Disney/Circuit City/et al try to push (the bad) Divx onto the market in the first place?
It isn't because consumers are clamoring for less control or cheaper movies.
The time is coming when content producers are going to have to realize that their profits will no longer come from format-updates (repurchasing 8-tracks as CDs, VHS classics as DVDs, etc), and will -not- come from service-style access to data. Classic TV advertising may even have to give way to pure product-placement campaigns.
Cable will realize that a move to pay-per-channel is the way to support content without advertising in our new time-shifted digital reality. Some people -will- pay $1/mo for TLC. Home Depot will still pay for product placements in Trading Spaces. Maybe the Super-station will go away - but the cable companies, and popular channels, need not.
the film industry has already shown that the theatre experience is not losing out to cheap cam copies. they've learned that feature-rich dvds or dirt-cheap dvds are preferred to the customer over hacked-together recompressed copies on filesharing networks.
The record companies will need to realize that to win with digital music requires providing the best quality, with the least hassle. They will need to realize that they must beat file-sharing on features. People will give up hunting around for a good (not mislabeled)256kbps rip of Britney's newest song - if they know they can just hit iTunes or its ilk and cough up $1.
Fair Use needs to win out. These purported 'losses' from file-sharing need to be revealed to be grossly overestimated fabrications. (A PSA from a supposed union set painter claiming that file sharing is killing the movie industry, and threatening his job - airing during it's highest grossing year of all time is particularly tactless)
DRM is the tool of the content dinosaur. If they concentrated on actual content piracy rings - where big money is being made off black-market copies, and abandoned their fruitless DRM research - their profits could be higher than ever.
But such is not the reaction of anti-competitive cabals. Being forced to -compete- is not what they do. Suing, threatening, bullying, bribing - these are the blunt instruments they wield instead of the precise tools of innovation, imagination and competition.
So in the meantime - expect every advance to carry DRM in the fine print.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
...that getting a high quality recording off of these cable boxes is not going to be allowed.
Glad I haven't bought that DVD recorder yet.
Oh Panasonic, how you tant me with your DVD-R goodness.
Political correctness is the newest form of slavery.
Stop caring about TV so much. I mean, if your freedom to control the way you access information is that important to you, than any of the few (what seems to me at least) shows that might be worth watching are worth giving up.
Just opt out. If enough people do, that would change the industry quick enough. Chances are that won't happen, most people don't feel like these types of restrictions interfere with their freedom in a significant way.
Chances are that people who do care are just going to have to get used to opting out more, like people I know that feel strongly about worker rights won't buy stuff from companies that abuse them. You really don't need those designer Nike sneakers in the end, if you think about it.
People who have strong political feelings about things are willing to put up with the troubles, and something dangers, of living a life in accord with their beliefs.
All you can do is try to raise awareness of the issues, lobby for change, and try to not be too dissappointed from time to time when the powers that be exercise their power. Offering an alternative is also good, like trying to promote using the internet as a way of accessing news and entertainment.
Peace, or Not?
Peace, or Not?
Check list for open systems:
(x) Intel
(x) Microsoft
Using similar reasoning I'm sure Michael would agree OpenCable is open too.
The way I've read it, I don't see how the open standard couldn't still be implemented in an open source settop box or tuner; the only place it wouldn't be open source would be inside the smart card.
Although it's likely that there would be some requirements ala DVD for ensuring that whatever copy protection schemes are supposed to be implemented get implemented.
You'll probably never see an OpenCable PCI card or a DirecTV PCI card. We can't have that "valuable content" traveling over an unencrypted bus, now can we?
Once it's standard, it gets integrated into the TV. Then you lose access to the video signal - no recordings, no playback, no nothing unless you subscribe and get a "smart card". Me, I still don't have cable. If you didn't either, those good programs would migrate to broadcast.
From all that I've seen, TiVo is a sub-standard ReplayTV-like device. You can't stream from it, you can't share shows, and you can't automatically skip commercials. Why are Slashdot fanboys of all people supporting this company? Just because it runs Linux doesn't mean it's a good product. They go out of their way to make it so you can't "hack" it.
Cable is such a waste of money anyways.
I could see TV content providers building some of the hardware into the tv such as a decoder device that works with all devices. So the situation would be this. Get your receiver box from your cable/satellite company (or pehaps some module that plugs into the tv) that grabs the signal and determines if you are allowed to view it and pumps it into the TV using 1394 or something like that and then the TV decompresses it on the fly to the screen. By removing the analog middle man (moving the meat of the hardware to the tv) they could significantly limit the ability to record "unauthorized content" Then they could add an "analog out" port on the tv that delivers only authorized recordable content.
The content has to be secure all the way to the phosphors on the screen; it can't exist unencrypted anywhere that Bunnie could tap into it.
I know it's not my point - other people have said it before me, and probably more succinctly. But piracy is boarding a ship on the high seas, robbing the ship and possibly kidnapping or killing the people on board.
Theft of information is still theft. Stealing is still stealing and violating a copyright is still violating a copyright. But none of those things involves boarding a ship on the high seas.
Equating those things with killing people for what they have on their boats is an attempt to increase the perception of the magnitude of the crime. There IS a tangible difference between physically robbing someone, and stealing information. Both are wrong, but both are not "piracy".
On another note, September 19th (this Friday) is talk like a Pirate day.
Arrrr.
"I seem to be having a case of deja vu"
Probably because you've already seen the FCC push some not so open standards in digital broadcast radio.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
In the UK, we have Smartcards tied to the customer, plugged into the set-top box. I believe that it is impossible for the Set top box (STB) to decrypt the signal comming in, without accessing the key from the smartcard. The smartcard is fed encrypted packets that the STB cann't understand, but these packets are decrypted and recognised by the card to mean things like 'Active channel' or 'suspend service', or 'Key for the next 10 seconds on this channel is xxxx'.
With this setup, I can't see why open source can't be used. The only way the open source program can decrypt a particular channel, is by access to the key, which it does by querying the card. This card is under full control of the cable/satellite services, who will still be able to dictate if you are able to watch a channel or not.
"We don't need a standard - we have Pace :o)"
And they're shit. My ntl Pace box takes ages to change channels, and its GUI is unbelievably slow and badly designed (organising the list of channels is a nightmare). And I have to reboot it every week, because in that time it somehow loses the ability to give me anything other than a black screen, which nothing but a power cycle or reboot will solve.
Incidentally, the engineer who came to fix my setup the first time this happened showed up within three hours of my call to ntl, and he gave me some good tips in exchange for a Win2k cd. Befriend your support people, folks; it's the best way to be.
Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
OpenCable is designed to be a standardization amongst cable companies (they all have slightly or widely different standards right now) and equipment manufacturers (head equipment through to televisions). This is good for the consumer.
I'm not sure how or why you think that the "open source community" is ignored...how many OSS guys are going to design their own TV or set-top box?
-psy
Time Warner (at least in my area) has their own spin on tivo - PPV with fast forward, rewind, etc. etc, you pay for a movie and you get to watch it for 24 hours.
They're offering a similar service for "premium" channels (hbo, sho, max, etc..) for a few bucks a month.
I've already got a tivo, but if I didn't, it might be appealing.
OpenMyAss. OpenCable project? Did CableLabs try to wear the "Open" name bandwagon in hopes to win OSS proponents over with a privately held Trademarked name? GAH! What fools. What OSS proponent would not gag on their own vomit when they see it?
The OpenCable project is an open, collaborative forum that allows multiple interested participants to help shape the specifications for digital cable products so that the cable industry continues to keep pace with emerging technologies and service opportunities.
Access to the confidential section of the OpenCable Web site, which contains draft specifications not available to the general public.
Participation requires only that you return the "OpenCable Confidential Information Access Agreement" signed by an authorized representative of your company. This simple non-disclosure agreement (NDA) can be downloaded here.
Non-Disclosure? Confidential? Not available to the general public? Tell me again why this is called an "open collaborative forum"?
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
The cable industry is already worried enough about piracy and you can't figure out why they don't want open source set top boxes? Wow.
The problems the cable industry is having with pirace are big, despite all the secrecy that has been asosiated with the systems in the past.
Today there is indeed an Open standard for digital satelite and cable services. And almost all of europe is using it.
As long as the encryption keys are kept in tamper proof smartcards there is no need to hide the algoriths or the inner workings of the hardware.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Geez, if people would only take some time to read the original article and take a look at the opencable specs for a few minutes, a lot of misinformation would be cleared up. An opencable set top box by itself can ONLY receive IN-THE-CLEAR content, such as provided by the broadcasters delivered over cable. The PCMCIA compatible cablecard (formerly known as POD) is required to 1) decrypt encrypted content and 2) access the two-way out-of-band data channels. The cablecard is provided by the cable operator. However, an addition component is needed. That is the Open Cable Application Platform (OCAP) layer (http://www.opencable.com/downloads/specs/OC-SP-OC AP1.0-I08-030808.pdf).
This layer of software permits interoperable applications to run on any opencable platform with OCAP on any cable network, something that was not possible before the opencable and OCAP specifications. These specifications, which have industry support, will enable, amongst other things, cable set top boxes to be sold at retail rather than lease.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
Because TiVo is a work of genius for those of us who just want to timeshift and control our TV watching, and who aren't a bunch of anal-retentive geeks who want to archive every episode of The Simpsons they ever watched.
Compared to TiVo, ReplayTV is a piece of shit. Once you've used TiVo for a while, nothing else is acceptable. It's the software, stupid.
Something that my Cable Company is getting ready to roll out is Pre-Paid cable Cards, so that people can use one Smart Card, or a series of Smart Cards, to control the cable in their house. What happens is that after the credits are used up on the smart card, the DCT (Digital Cable Tuner) blacks out all channels, and shows a "Please call your Operator" message, reminding the user to purchase more credits.
One positive side for this may be ala-carte pricing for the channels you want, that way you're not paying for fluff you don't want (like the High Def, Digital, Religious Channel), but for things you want (Digital Sci-Fi).
or at least, that's how it was explained to me.
I disable sigs...do you?
CableLabs(R) OpenCableTM
Confidential Information Access Agreement
In consideration of being given access to certain non-public information relating to the development of a new generation of
set-top boxes that are interoperable that is (1) is marked "confidential," (2) resides in the vendor-only partition of the web
site, www.opencable.com (3) is designated as subject to this agreement, or (4) is oral information that is later confirmed in
writing as Information hereunder (the "Information"), the undersigned (the "Recipient") agrees as follows:
THE RECIPIENT AGREES THAT THE INFORMATION WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE
DISCLOSED BY THE RECIPIENT IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AND SHALL NOT
BE USED OTHER THAN IN CONNECTION WITH THE CABLELABS OPENCABLE PROJECT. The Recipient shall be
responsible for any breach of this confidentiality by its affiliates, agents, employees, representatives, former affiliates, former
agents, former employees, and former representatives resulting from the Recipient's disclosure. Moreover, the Recipient
shall agree to transmit the Information only to its affiliates, agents, employees, and representatives who need to know the
Information for the purpose of participating in the CableLabs OpenCable Project and who are informed of the confidential
nature of the Information. Information shall not include information which: (i) was lawfully in the possession of the
Recipient prior to the Recipient receiving it hereunder, as shown by files of the Recipient in existence at the time the
Recipient received it, and at a time when the Recipient was under no obligation to CableLabs or any of its member
companies to keep such information confidential; (ii) is or becomes available in the public domain through no act of the
Recipient that violates this Agreement; (iii) is received by the Recipient from a third person or entity that is not known by the
Recipient to be sharing such information in violation of rights of CableLabs; (iv) is developed by or on behalf of the
Recipient without any use of the Information; (v) is at any time furnished to a third party by CableLabs without restrictions
on the third party's rights to disclose; or (vi) is used or disclosed by the Recipient in any manner after the third anniversary of
first receiving the Information. Recipient shall have the burden of proving the applicability of any of the exceptions in the
immediately preceding sentence that the Recipient claims may apply. Notwithstanding the above, the Recipient may disclose
the Information when and as required by law or regulation, provided that the Recipient first notifies the CableLabs in
sufficient time to allow for an opportunity to contest such required disclosure. Recipient shall observe and abide by all
policies of CableLabs, including the CableLabs Safety Manual, Handbook of Antitrust Guidelines, and the "Rules of
Engagement" as available on the CableLabs website and/or posted in the CableLabs laboratories, and such policies are
hereby are incorporated by reference in this Agreement.
While the Information provided is believed to be reliable, no representation is made by CableLabs as to the accuracy or
completeness of such Information. Each Recipient is urged to make its own evaluation of the Information provided. BY
RECEIPT OF THIS INFORMATION, THE RECIPIENT AGREES THAT CableLabs SHALL HAVE NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY MIS-STATEMENTS OR OMISSION OF FACT OR FOR ANY OPINION EXPRESSED
AND THE RECIPIENT RELEASES AND FULLY INDEMNIFIES CableLabs FROM ANY LIABILITY IN
CONNECTION WITH LOSS OR DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE RECIPIENT RESULTING FROM THE
RECIPIENT'S USE OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED.
Their definition of competing is to win. The best way to win is to force the competition out. Thus, non-competition is the best form of competition.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
I look at articles like this, and others related to it, and simply laugh.
I don't have cable TV. I don't have satellite TV, I don't have regular TV, in fact, I don't even *own* a TV.
I haven't owned a TV since 1989 and I don't miss it one single solitary bit.
What I *do* have, is a library of over 1000 books. History, science fiction, biography, operating systems.
All the time I have saved by not watching the boob tube has allowed me to do things (like getting out and getting a life, girlfriend(s), clubs, etc.) that TV slaves can only, well, watch on TV.
So don't just sit there watching the nth rip-offs of star trek, or endless re-runs of beevis and butthead, kill your TV and go *do* something!
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
You missed *my* point. ;) It was merely a joke, but it certainly illustrates what they likely think of anyone interested in building such a box. Even if they have techies inside the company explaining that the encryption is separate, they see the sat card drama and all this other stuff with all these people who want *free* this and *free* that and the last thing they're going to is hand them the specs for the set top box. They probably don't understand it very well, so it's easy for them to just want to say "fuggit" and lock everything down for some hope of preventing more "piracy."
This is just taking the authentication module out of the digital box and standardizing it. This way, a costumer can purchase whatever set top box they want and use it with any cable company. Additionally, costumers will have the option to purchase televisions with digital tuners built in so they don't have to have an external box cluttering their entertainment center.
If you can create an opensource box that will communicate with the card as well as modulate and demodulate MPEG-II QAM and QPSK signals, go to it.
As for the copy protection issue: headends have planned for this for a long time. The option already exists in the headend's interface to copy protect a stream and has been there for years. I'd assume the reason they don't currently use it is due to the backlash they'd get from their customers.
Missing the point?
Why is it... that a cable box needs to be "open source". I mean, it is after all designed for the single purpose of distributing licensed video content. If it's not doing that, then what is it doing?
As for Chris espousing the merits of a Linux PVR -Does it *really* matter if it's linux or some OS written specifically for delivering/securing content?
As far as DRM goes - cable companies are WELL WITHIN their bounds to distribute content and secure it to the best of their ability. Why shouldn't they?
Where do you people come up with this stuff!?
Duh
. You're a cable company. You make a living selling access to a stream of media delivered out of Hollywood. If you're not directly owned by a media publisher you are in close alliance with them. Are YOU going to make your next generation hardware platform "open" so that any chinese supplier can deliver $150 tivo boxes to your customers that allow them to "digitally duplicate" all your content at THEIR convenience? Are you going to learn nothing at all from the Disney V. Sony case? Are YOU going to give up the ability to control how your users use your service?
This story, while perhaps interesting, comes a year or two late. You might as well make the next story "Joe says sky blue in daytime, film at 11."
You're right. We (Comcast users) are running the TV Guide software which is very, very slow. I've seen the DCT with the default software and it's not as fast as I'd like but it's much better than the TV Guide crap.
OMGOMGOMG one response, you are TEH MAN!!!111
Its not like you're forced to buy the crap. If it sucks don't buy it.
Satellite piracy has and still is a big problem for the provider DirecTV. About 4 years ago or so when I first heard about it, it was easy for people to write or freely download scripts to put on those cards that the recievers used to decode the signal. The cards are more than a storage device for your account information, they do actually do the work of decoding the signal. That is why the use of the cards hasn't been circumvented by crackers. Recently, it has become very difficult for people to do this and a lot of them just do it as a hobby, like a cat and mouse game.
If digital cable is to be standardized and completely open, then it may be just as easy for people to pirate it. And why would large cable providers spend the money to invest in this open technology if it will lead to more piracy?
Maybe the answer is part open and part closed. If somone wants to make a linux set top box to decode the signal, then the techinical details about interfacing with the card should be open and public. But the exact inner workings of how the card decodes the signal should be private so this doesn't become another cat and mouse game with crackers and media providers.
I was, how shall I say.. pissed off! I contacted the FCC and was told that while they could not prevent me from setting up a dish (provided that my apartment had an apropriate skyview), they had no obligation to allow me access to cable TV. Oh, and cable internet was not a regulated service, so the FCC had no jurisdiction over it.
So I got hold of the Federal Trade Commission, to ask if this weren't some sort of restraint-of-trade. The FTC told me that ROS actions must be pursued by the victim (meaning the cable company, in this case) and anyway, the FCC was responsible for regulating cable.
Sooo.... I called the cable company, who told me that yes, it sucked, and no, the parent company didn't care about losing a mere 0.5% of its customers and anyway, internet was just a sideline.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sure they're trying their hardest not to allow it (especially since TiVos run Linux)
Cable companies are some of the largest investors in TiVo (e.g., Cox Communications owns a shload of TiVo shares) so in fact, it's quite likely that TiVo will be allowed to participate in the new DTV era.
-Tom
-Tom
In a world of really cheap DVDs, what is the point of delivering entertainment by a broadcast medium like cable?
" I wonder if the "legitimate" hardware list will include TV cards for PCs or TiVo. I'm sure they're trying their hardest not to allow it (especially since TiVos run Linux)"
The whole point of an open standard is that anyone can build their own digital tuner box after they pay all the licensing fees, etc. There's no reason TiVo can'r license this technology and build it into their box. Of course their may be legal hurdles if it's deemed that recording digital content is illegal.
but TV sucks anyway. There is nothing useful on and the bills for cable (esp in florida) are outrageous. They want 50 bucks a month for basic, bare-bones cable. They wanted 120 a month for the digital package. Plus, they are the only game in town so I'm stuck with them since my apt. wont let me have a dish. I'll stick to reading books because TV sucks.
Just as getting that tyrant out of Iraq was like "cutting the head off the snake", just as taking the profit out of the overpriced, bundled, piss poor entertainment will do the same to America.
--They don't make you buy a hat and gloves when you go to buy a pair of shoes, why shouldn't Americans have the choice to pay for *only* the content they want?
Well, if they get too restrictive in that regard they will open themselves to antitrust litigation. If anyone in big government even cares anymore, that is.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Thing I really don't get is why US companies insist on developing their own standards, instead of working with other organizations, (some of which are indirectly supported by organization that the US actively supports.)
There's been a lot of research, and a lot of products available for DVB based systems, why not just do that, almost 0:00 time to delivery of services.
TiVo was never meant to be unhackable. The box itself runs Linux. TiVo personnel also encouraged the hacking up to a point (they disapprove of, obviously, hacking it to get free service, and hacking it to get video streams off the box). Slashdot even covered this topic here.
The biggest TiVo hacks seem to be hard drive space upgrades, Web-based remote administration done via a Web server running on on the TiVo box.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
My day job (for one of the OpenCable technology providers) is helping OpenCable succeed. I'm seeing some wrongheaded remarks here I'd like to address.
First of all, the OpenCable specification is widely accessible, although certainly not open by the definition many here would desire. You can download it by agreeing to a few fairly reasonable (in my opinion) terms. The conditional access (CA, or security) component is not in any sense open - it's highly guarded by the companies who provide it. That piece has been isolated, however, so that the rest of the box can be built by anyone who chooses to, and on any platform. There will absolutely be PC cards allowing your PC to be a digital settop box. You'll still need the CableCARD from your cable company, but you'd have lots of leeway in implementing the rest of the platform.
Cable is a service. The cable companies have spent billions of dollars to lay infrastructure allowing them to deliver you video, high-speed data, voice, and other services. If you don't like the service you get, get a satellite dish, or wait a few years for telco-based video service. Competition is working, satellite is taking cable customers, and the cable companies are (finally) waking up to that. Better service will result. Much of the price increases are due to "essential" broadcast networks like ESPN jacking up their prices 10% every year.
The software platform for OpenCable (OCAP) is Java-based, and in fact is the only instance where Sun has granted IP rights allowing anyone to clean room the Java specification without having a distribution agreeement with Sun. The fact that OCAP has survived in the face of intense anti-OCAP activity and $11B+ in cable industry investments by Microsoft is a testament to the strong desire of the rest of the industry not to allow MS to control the TV industry in the way they control the desktop.
The DCT-2000 is a piece of crap. The hardware is crap. The software is crap. No matter what you do to it, it's crap. It has about the same hardware platform (processor and memory) as the original Palm Pilot, and has buggy, inflexible firmware which you can put other software on top of, but which you can't replace. It's a perfect example of how Motorola and SA's duopoly has resulted in bad, expensive, non-innovative hardware. The OpenCable agreement will allow Sony, Philips, Samsung, Panasonic, and many others to produce much better, cheaper, more innovative settop boxes.
OpenCable is a good thing.
It would also have put them in bed with Microsoft, and exposed all those cable boxes to the bazillions of (circa 1998) windows security vulnerabilities.
You can laugh about "security through obscurity" all you like, but this is obviously the game Hollywood (er, I mean the cable companies) are banking on. It's the way they played it before and all signs are they are counting on the courts and their IP-restrictive laws to protect them again.
Time Warner's worse nightmare is for those 12.5 Million subscribers to have cheap chinese video recorders that would instantly obsolete most of their planned "video on demand" services.
If it were about "not being a store" then all they would have to do is hop in bed with Mild Bill. He's a willing partner and as soon as those cable boxes are running windows the hardware becomes a commodity - but it's a commodity that has to compete on store shelves, which means feature creep that the zoots don't necessarily endorse. They saw what happened when cheap PCs could grok Redbooks CDs and DVDs and they ain't about to take that risk again. That would mean even more court battles, perhaps even some fines for their new "partner" but it won't matter in the end because MS has all the money. And a few million cable subscribers with commoditized, cable optimized tivos that cannot be zombified at the push of a button in Burbank is the kind of scenario that gives Jack and his crew night tremors... especially when their new "partner" could buy and sell the entire fucking city and cast his own "Oscar party."
Sun allows Set Top Box manufactures to use non-Sun developed JVM's provided they are clean room implementations, or they allow them to use Sun's own JVM for *free* provided the rest of the implementation is free, or they charge no more than $1 per box. The whole system is very open and easy for anyone to enter the market. Now since most of us here dont manufacture set-top boxes you'll probably be waiting for a linux driver for your OpenCable PCI card. You'll not run into any problems with the DMCA because you wont need to reverse engineer the CSS card - just use it.
OpenCable is a good thing and allows great STB's like Sony's DHG-55 which has 128Mb or RAM and a 430MIPS processor. Its not your DCT2000. So please stop your righteous outrage that someone should use "Open" to refer to something other than a GPL'd value proposition.