CableCARD In-Depth

Atvtg writes "Ars Technica has an excellent article on CableCARD, and where it's heading. After discussing the history of the initiative and some of the technical details, they cover how CableCARD may meet its end shortly after the launch of 2.0 (the bi-directional spec) because of DCAS. The real surprise, however, is that CableLabs, which controls the CableCARD spec, has to certify computers to use CableCARDs for DVRs and the like. Ars points out that the upshot of this is that it will not be possible to build your own DVRs using CableCARDs. Will this kill the DIY market?"

Comments

DIY

[Vellmont]

Will this kill the DIY market?

No, but all the DRM restrictions and nonsense about having a guy come to your house to provision the dam thing will probbably kill cableCard. The DIY crowd will just record off the analog out, it's really at the "good enough" state anyway. I read this article earlier today, and I still can't figure out why anyone would want this thing. It sounds like it was mandated by congress, but the cable companies didn't want to do it so they made a device that's so crippled no one will want it.

Re:DIY

[jmp_nyc]

The DIY crowd will just record off the analog out, it's really at the "good enough" state anyway.

Not for HDTV. The advantage of cablecard is that it allows the device to directly access the compressed digital signal. Analog out is just fine for recording SDTV. If you want to record unencrypted HDTV, you won't get very much bang for your storage buck...
-JMP

Re:DIY

[plover]

The DIY crowd will just record off the analog out, it's really at the "good enough" state anyway.

Not an option. My cable box doesn't have an analog out for HDTV. It has an HDCP stream coming over the HDMI cable.

I was perfectly happy with my analog-based ReplayTV, but it was relegated to the "little" TV once I got an HDTV set. I had to pay to lease the Comcast DVR cable box since it's the only game in town for recording HDTV. However, it sucks -- the software is more buggy than the ReplayTV software ever was, and the interface is much less friendly than the ReplayTVs. Plus, with the cable company firmly in control, they don't let me do things like "hide" unwanted channels. Like I'm ever going to watch QVC, or why I'd want to skip over 60 pay-per-view sports slots that I'll never watch?

Yes, my TV has a CableCard slot, and yes, it's most likely going to sit there unused forever. I want a DVR more than I want "one less component".

I'm thinking of buying an HDCP decoder so I can build my own DVR using the cable box anyway. But those decoders are still about 400 euros.

Um, as a consumer there isn't much appeal

[jandrese]

So, the industry has been working on these cards since 1997 or so. The biggest hurdle seems to be how to encrypt the video stream umpteen times because they're dead paranoid about hackers. As a result, 8 years later, the technology is ready but is already outdated because consumers started demanding more from their cable provider (thank you TiVo) and the 1997 designed cards couldn't handle it.

Oh, the industry says, lets fix that in the 2.0 release. So they begin work on it. Unfortunatly, that's still vapor and it looks like the 2.0 release might be ready just about the time it's getting killed off by yet another technology.

Why does it take so long to develop these things? Well, a big reason is that they have to figure out new and exciting places to encrypt the datastream again. Also, there is a requirement to make it as annoying to the end user as possible by denying them the use of their DVRs and making it so you have to buy your computer from an OEM if you want to watch TV on it. At the end of the day, if the technology actually takes off, it will probably be hacked anyway (probably with mod chips/special remote codes for TVs and DVRs that enable the output regardless of state of the no-copy flag).

Basically, this is a technology that the cable companies didn't want to implement in the first place (Congress forced them to), and they've done everything in their power to make it unappealing to the end user to discourage adoption and let them extend the deadline passed by Congress and the FCC for as long as possible. It's also an example of DRM concerns basically killing what would otherwise be a pretty decent product.

Re:The reality is...

[Jordan Catalano]

The DIY market IS the market recording, ripping, and sharing. Are the torrents that are available 10-15 minutes after a show finishes airing the work of someone with their TiVo hooked up via coax to a 27" TV, or the guy with a DVB card in his PC, hacking a satellite stream, and dumping shows directly to his networked RAID?

DIY? No it will just move up a step

[Marxist Hacker 42]

How BeyondTV looks like they may get around it is by having Haupage create a capture card computer with a USB 2.0 interface- thus they'll only need to certify the periphereal.....

Layer upon layer of encryption sounds so much...

[CyberLord Seven]

...like the uneducated people on the encryption newsgroups who don't understand that you cannot secure something by piling weak encryption upon other weak encryption until you've built a MOUNTAIN no one can climb.
Computers are getting faster -- I have a ...to hell with what I have...MY WIFE has a 1.4GHz box I built for her two years ago. I can now build her a 64 bit box with dual cores today.
This will not remain safe for one very good reason: It is more fun to show these people how STOOPID they are by breaking their multi-level encryption than it is to sit and watch the latest crap spewing out of televisions.
Entertainment, though not the kind the cable and satellite companies envisioned, has taken a GREAT step forward. :)