# DTLA tells FCC they intend to appeal CableLabs' refusal to approve DRM (DTCP-IP)



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518808482



> The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the Digital Transmission Licensing Administrator, LLC, content protection technology known as DTCP for Internet Protocol (DTCP-IP), and the refusal by CableLabs to approve DTCP-IP as a digital output protection technology for Unidirectional Cable Products under the DFAST License.
> (...)
> The representatives also discussed the provisions of the Second Report and Order permitting appeal to the Commission of a decision of refusal by CableLabs, and the intention of DTLA to invoke those provisions.


Should be interesting to watch.

Note ... this is exactly Tivo's issue with MRV / eSATA / etc (for encrypted digital content). They need CableLabs' approval of their "digital output protection technology".

DTLA (which is Sony, Toshiba, Intel, Matsu****a, Hitach) is going through the exact same thing with their "digital output protection technology", DTCP-IP.

Should be interesting ... There were some very big plans for DCTP-IP by some very big companies (ie, Intel's Viiv platform) ... but w/o that CableLabs approval ...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Seems to me cable is being really stupid- No? 

Can they really argue that those big guns are putting forth some tin can easy to break method?

Isn't it highly likely the FCC overturns the cablelabs refusal and then cable looks like it's petty, anti-competitive, and obstructionists?

What do you think dt_dc, is cable pissing into the wind here?

( i guess cable can argue they approved MS and REAL so they are being open minded?)


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

I wish people would just ditch cable. IMO it's a rip off when you get 6+ channels free (and now they look perfect too). And the way the cable industry behaves...


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Can they really argue that those big guns are putting forth some tin can easy to break method?


Ummm ...

AACS (IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, Disney, Warner Brothers), HD-DVD (Toshiba, NEC), and BluRay (Sony)

VS.

The Doom9 forum and SlySoft

Big guns 0
Tin can 1

Yes, yes ... keys will be updated ... software patched ... bound to happen ... planned for, ecosystem still intact ...


MichaelK said:


> Isn't it highly likely the FCC overturns the cablelabs refusal and then cable looks like it's petty, anti-competitive, and obstructionists?


Like I said, it'll be interesting to watch. Interesting to see what the parties have to say.

Quite frankly I would _not_ expect security / hackability / robustness to be the issue ...

I'd expect licensing, revokability, downstream licensing, etc. to be the issues. Maybe the distance issue ... maybe the move issue. But mainly ... licensing, revokability, downstream licensing and technologies, etc.

Look at AACS. Ok, so some clever folks figured out a weakness in someone's implementation. But ... Sony and Toshiba and some studios are all part of the AACSLA and everyone's being calm and no one is suddenly revoking keys or threatening indemnities. It'll all be (rather quietly and calmly) addressed. Maybe successfully ... maybe not ... but, the point is nice and calm and cooperatively.

But ...

Let's say the same thing happens to a CableLabs approved "digital output technology" like DTCP-IP. When does CableLabs have the authority to start revoking keys? How much of a chance will DTLA get to address the issue before it comes to that? How much say does CableLabs have in what downstream technologies DTLA appoves? Stuff like that ...


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

"Downstream licensing"...I wonder how far and how deeply "downstream" CableLabs thinks they should be allowed to dictate and control technology, computers, home networks, CE devices...

I've always wondered what Microsoft thinks about CableLabs, OCAP, and the whole cable DRM hairy mess. I would think they would absolutely hate OCAP, and would want to put serious limitations on things like CableLab's "downstream" control. But I never hear a peep out of them...never see a petition from them to the FCC...etc. Dt_dc, are there major efforts underway behind-the-scenes to reign in CableLabs?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Puppy76 said:


> I wish people would just ditch cable. IMO it's a rip off when you get 6+ channels free (and now they look perfect too). And the way the cable industry behaves...


In 5.5 years I've never seen an OTA station look perfect. There is always pixelation with bright flashes or fast moving objects. Plus I know I want more HD content than the OTA channels. That was the reason I left cable 5 years ago to go to DirecTV. Now I'm in the process of returning to cable since they are offering more, plus TiVo. While DIrecTV is shunning TiVo.


----------



## FourOhFour (Apr 4, 2001)

Puppy76 said:


> I wish people would just ditch cable. IMO it's a rip off when you get 6+ channels free (and now they look perfect too). And the way the cable industry behaves...


Oh, wow, six whole channels! I can watch all the Survivor and Judge Kangaroo Court I want!

Which would be zero.

Where's Mythbusters? Battlestar Galactica? Stargate? Daily Show?
Oh, that's right, those are on cable.

Maybe if the broadcast networks showed something I care about (well, to be honest, they do... Jericho, The Unit, 1 vs 100), I'd be more willing to give up cable. They don't. I'm not.

Now, to try to drag this back on topic...
Of course CableLabs is stalling. They won't approve a damn thing until they are forced to, sadly. (and even then, they'll restrict it so much it'll be useless... any bets on them finally allowing TTG but requiring the picture to be degraded to VHS quality?)


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Saxion said:


> "Downstream licensing"...I wonder how far and how deeply "downstream" CableLabs thinks they should be allowed to dictate and control technology, computers, home networks, CE devices...


Well ...

If _I_ was cable and DTLA licensed content to be output to some downstream device by some downstream technology that licensed content to be output to some downstream device by some downstream technology by some manufacturer that couldn't keep their keys in their pants (er, out of unencrypted memory) and I had perfect digital torrents start popping up of HBO and out-of-market sporting events and so on and so forth and content owners were yelling at me and threatening to pull content and so on ...

I'd want the ability to start revoking keys when I saw fit.

Doesn't mean I'd start revoking keys right away. Yes ... give DTLA and whomever some time to go through their own upgrade / revocation / renewal process and get things fixed and secure with minimal customer disruption and whatnot ...

But ... push comes to shove ... I want the ability to start revoking keys as I see fit. DTLA and whomever can't get the problem fixed and keep telling me it's 'almost' there and just hold on a little bit longer and ... Revoke keys. They can deal with the customers and figure out a renewal process and so on ... but in the meantime ... kill the torrents.

OTOH, if _I_ was the DTLA I would want to make sure cable can't just go off half-cocked and start revoking keys just because some anonymous poster on some anonymous forum claimed to have maybe, possibly, got access to some keys and maybe, possibly, here's a way to do it and maybe, possibly here's some unencrypted high value content.

I'd want to make sure there was an actual security issue and make sure I had time to address the issue and make sure I had the ability to everything I could do before ... yes, maybe, at some point it will be neccesary to start revoking keys and dealing with the consequences.

Everyone sees the need for key revocation and controlling downstream devices and technology and licensing agreements that do so and allow so and so on and so forth ... but ... everyone wants their (own) group to have as much power / say in that process / licensing / so forth as possible ...

That's why Sony and Toshiba (and a couple studios) _had_ to be part of the AACSLA. Only way to get everyone in agreement. They couldn't be relying on some other group to decide when to pull the plug and revoke the key on some new HD-DVD / BluRay player (from Sony / Toshiba's standpoint) ... or not pull the plug (from the studio's standpoint). They all had to be part of the group / process.

OTOH, the CableLabs 'approval' ... where you've got CableLabs and DTLA ... or CableLabs and Tivo ... or CableLabs and DNLA ... or CableLabs and whomever ...

I can see where it would be difficult to work things out ... to the point that each side / licensing authority was confortable ...

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what the two groups have to say ...


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> In 5.5 years I've never seen an OTA station look perfect. There is always pixelation with bright flashes or fast moving objects. Plus I know I want more HD content than the OTA channels. That was the reason I left cable 5 years ago to go to DirecTV. Now I'm in the process of returning to cable since they are offering more, plus TiVo. While DIrecTV is shunning TiVo.


Could be where I live, but mine all look perfect, and I get at least 11 channels.



FourOhFour said:


> Oh, wow, six whole channels! I can watch all the Survivor and Judge Kangaroo Court I want!
> 
> Which would be zero.
> 
> ...


You can get things like Netflix to suplement. (Which would be a lot cheaper.)

I'm just saying there are alternatives. I've got what seems to be one of the cheapest cable systems in the United States, but IMO it's still a rip off, and then you add on stuff like the cablecard issues...

(Oh, and I do get Stargate OTA  )


----------



## Derek Nickel (Oct 7, 2003)

Puppy76 said:


> I wish people would just ditch cable. IMO it's a rip off when you get 6+ channels free (and now they look perfect too). And the way the cable industry behaves...


So what should people who can't get OTA (in a shadow) and don't have a direct line-of-sight to the south (hill) do?


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

Derek Nickel said:


> So what should people who can't get OTA (in a shadow) and don't have a direct line-of-sight to the south (hill) do?


Pray for FIOS or Project Lightspeed?


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

What's Project Lightspeed?


----------



## Jazhuis (Aug 30, 2006)

Saxion said:


> "Downstream licensing"...I wonder how far and how deeply "downstream" CableLabs thinks they should be allowed to dictate and control technology, computers, home networks, CE devices...


Yes.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Puppy76 said:


> What's Project Lightspeed?


 SBC's fiber to the node (not fiber to the home as the "last mile" will use some form of DSL).


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

FourOhFour said:


> Where's Mythbusters? Battlestar Galactica? Stargate? Daily Show? Oh, that's right, those are on cable.


If you're willing to watch a little behind the current season, Stargate is on broadcast in syndication. Not really your point, I know.


----------



## Roderigo (Mar 12, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> ...
> by some manufacturer that couldn't keep their keys in their pants (er, out of unencrypted memory)


This put a smile on my face today!


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> I wish people would just ditch cable. IMO it's a rip off when you get 6+ channels free


hehe, your a funny guy. 6+ channels.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Ummm ...
> 
> AACS (IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, Disney, Warner Brothers), HD-DVD (Toshiba, NEC), and BluRay (Sony)
> 
> ...


true true true

ROFL!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Well ...
> 
> If _I_ was cable and DTLA licensed content to be output to some downstream device by some downstream technology that licensed content to be output to some downstream device by some downstream technology by some manufacturer that couldn't keep their keys in their pants (er, out of unencrypted memory) and I had perfect digital torrents start popping up of HBO and out-of-market sporting events and so on and so forth and content owners were yelling at me and threatening to pull content and so on ...
> 
> ...


serious question (and I think someone has made this point to the FCC if I recall)- if you are cable then why are you in a hurry at all to start revoking keys. It's none of your business- it's between the content owner and the device that screwed up- if the content owner wants the key pulled NOW then cable should go ahead and do it but cable shouldn't do a darn thing being the middle man if I had say.

it's like cable applying CCI 0x02 to every channel under the sun. Cable in the classroom clearly allows copies. So get cable should get out of the way. If history wants to to restict the 22 hours a day that they dont want copied then let them apply 0x02 upstream on those hours and 0x00 on the cable in the classroom hours and cable should just pass it along.

You dont see the phone companys rushing to control what people do on their DSL lines (and I dont think cbale does either?)- the ISP's demand a court order to rat on the pirates and only shut them down when someone asks (maybe even only with court orders?). If cable isn't actively looking to see what their customers do on bit torrent sites then why do they want to be in charge of copy controls for tv?

I dont follow. Please explain.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Ummm ...
> 
> AACS (IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, Disney, Warner Brothers), HD-DVD (Toshiba, NEC), and BluRay (Sony)
> 
> ...


and i guess my point to summarize my piosts in theis thread is why does cable want the responsibility?

If I was them I would avoid it. I would except any control that looks like it tries to do the right thing. Then if there was a problem and the studious or the content providers came a knocking I'd point them to MS or Intel or Tivo or whoever and say "take it up with them".

By insisting on being the keymaster they open themselves up to the liability of pulling keys too soon and getting sued by CE or by pulling keys too late and getting sued by content people.

So why not get out of it all together like they do when the RIAA calls to complain that some kid is posting 1 terrebyte of mp's?

Did the content people somehow force this responsibiity on cable?


----------



## snathanb (Sep 13, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> In 5.5 years I've never seen an OTA station look perfect. There is always pixelation with bright flashes or fast moving objects. Plus I know I want more HD content than the OTA channels. That was the reason I left cable 5 years ago to go to DirecTV. Now I'm in the process of returning to cable since they are offering more, plus TiVo. While DIrecTV is shunning TiVo.


That a shame... in the Dallas area, OTA is THE best way to to get HD, at least for the networks. Leaves cable, dishnet, directv in the dirt.

Several people I know who have dish and directv still use OTA for HD of the networks because it looks so much better than the hd-lite crap the satellite companies serve up.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

The DTLA's petition / appeal has shown up.

PETITION OF DIGITAL TRANSMISSION LICENSING ADMINISTRATOR LLC: APPEAL OF CABLELABS REFUSAL TO APPROVE DTCP-IP AS A DIGITAL OUTPUT PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY

Attachments / Exhibits

MPAA Comments

CableLabs / FCC Ex Parte meeting

Anyway, some interesting insight into some of the likely similar issues that Tivo / MRV / TivoGuard is going through with CableLabs.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> and i guess my point to summarize my piosts in theis thread is why does cable want the responsibility?
> 
> If I was them I would avoid it. I would except any control that looks like it tries to do the right thing. Then if there was a problem and the studious or the content providers came a knocking I'd point them to MS or Intel or Tivo or whoever and say "take it up with them".
> 
> ...


Ok, let's just say some hole / flaw / hack / exploit / whatever is found for some (theoretical) CableLabs "approved digital output protection technology" ... like DTCP-IP ... and perfect digital torrents of HD movies and out-of-market baseball games and the like starts showing up ...

MPAA to DTLA (Intel et al) - Um, there's a problem ... we'd like you to fix it.

DTLA to MPAA - Ok, well, we're working on it. But you see it's difficult and we don't want to strand legacy customers and (blah blah blah)

MPAA to DTLA - No really ... fix it now.

DTLA to MPAA - See, here's the thing. We don't have a licensing / technical agreement with you ... we have a licensing agreement with CableLabs and as long as we're following that ... we're pretty much good to go and can do what we want to fix this (or not) at our leisure.

MPAA to DTLA - Ok, good point.

MPAA to CableLabs / Cable companies - This needs to be fixed now.

CableLabs / Cable companies to MPAA - Well, it's a flaw but everything passed our licensing and technical agreements so there's not much we can do about it but wait for some fix from DTLA.

MPAA to CableLabs / Cable companies - Ok, good point. Untill this is fixed, certain high value / premium content will not be available to channels carried on cable. certain high value / premium content will not be available for cable PPV / VOD / etc. Certain high value / premum content will be available for channels that are exclusive to DBS / Fios / etc. Certain high value / premum content will be available for DBS / Fios PPV and VOD. Have fun, let us know when the issue is fixed.

BTW, CableLabs _does_ allow for the MPAA / studios to be the 'gatekeepers' and hand the responsibility to them. That's the clause in the CableLabs agreement about approving a technology if it meets MPAA approval. However, to get that you'd need to get all the technical and licensing issues straightened out with the MPAA. Basically, in the example above, the MPAA is going to want to make sure (through the licensing agreements) that they've got the ability / authority to step in and force the issue with DTLA if need be.


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

dt_dc said:


> The DTLA's petition / appeal has shown up.Anyway, some interesting insight into some of the likely similar issues that Tivo / MRV / TivoGuard is going through with CableLabs.


Thanks for the link. Interesting argument from the MPAA.


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> Ummm ...
> 
> AACS (IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, Disney, Warner Brothers), HD-DVD (Toshiba, NEC), and BluRay (Sony)
> 
> ...


Check


> ecosystem still intact ...


For small values of "intact"..

The failure of all existing deployed DRM systems to actually work as advertised should not be a surprise -- it's inherent in the constraints on the problem. As far as I can tell (as someone who builds cryptographic security systems for a living) the only interesting question is how long it will take the content producers to recognize that they're wasting $$ trying to build DRM systems which will never stop large-scale piracy and which will always fall apart whenever anyone with a clue looks at them funny, because you simply cannot build a reverse-engineering-proof mass-market DRM player at prices consumers are willing to pay.

The clever content producer will work on alternate business models which don't depend on DRM systems to work as advertised..


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

Puppy76 said:


> I wish people would just ditch cable. IMO it's a rip off when you get 6+ channels free (and now they look perfect too). And the way the cable industry behaves...


I'm fortunate that I have line-of-site with all my broadcasting locations and all my digital OTA stations are prefect. I definitely get better quality and reliability compared to cable. If I could get those network channels like Sci-Fi and NGC without it, I'd ditch cable in a second. Digital OTA is wonderful.


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

CraigHB said:


> I'm fortunate that I have line-of-site with all my broadcasting locations and all my digital OTA stations are prefect. I definitely get better quality and reliability compared to cable. If I could get those network channels like Sci-Fi and NGC without it, I'd ditch cable in a second. Digital OTA is wonderful.


Yeah, and that combined with Netflix will be fine with me (and far cheaper than cable)


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Thank god for Itunes and Unbox and Netflix and anybody else coming along where I can download TV and movies the next day.

Not everybody has the bandwidth yet but those communities that do will create great markets where we can bypass cable and satellite and all their package bundling , settop HW control, and general price issues.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

wmcbrine said:


> If you're willing to watch a little behind the current season, Stargate is on broadcast in syndication. Not really your point, I know.


syndication == chopped up to be loaded with even more commercials.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Has everyone forgot about CO's still number 1 problem of Cable Theft?

Here in the Dallas Area, it was on the news the other night. about 12 people were arrested for theft of TWC's cable.

That I do beleive is the CO's biggest concern & why they want Encrypted DVR's

TexasGrillChef


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> Ok, let's just say some hole / flaw / hack / exploit / whatever is found for some (theoretical) CableLabs "approved digital output protection technology" ... like DTCP-IP ... and perfect digital torrents of HD movies and out-of-market baseball games and the like starts showing up ...
> 
> MPAA to DTLA (Intel et al) - Um, there's a problem ... we'd like you to fix it.
> 
> ...


But this is all moot. CableLabs already approved DTCP over FireWire, complete with all the associated downstream licensing issues. It's done: DTCP is fine. This concern _now _ with downstream licensing is a red herring. The only thing different with DTCP-IP is that scary "I" word in it, which I swear has become a 4-letter word to old media dinosaurs.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Saxion said:


> But this is all moot. CableLabs already approved DTCP over FireWire, complete with all the associated downstream licensing issues. It's done: DTCP is fine. This concern _now _ with downstream licensing is a red herring. The only thing different with DTCP-IP is that scary "I" word in it, which I swear has become a 4-letter word to old media dinosaurs.


My only point was why CableLabs even looks / cares about digital output technologies and doesn't just say "I dunno ... let the MPAA deal with it".

As to the differences between DTCP/1394 and DTCP/IP ... and CableLabs and DTLA ...

The disagreement / differences seem a whole lot less related to 'downstream licensing' ... and a whole lot more related to some specific video transport issues. The DTCP/1394 approval specifies MPEG transport streams and certain mappings ... while the more generic DTCP/IP (that could be used for all kinds of different video transports) doesn't.

But ... that's just based on a first-glance of the FCC filings.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Ok, let's just say some hole / flaw / hack / exploit / whatever is found for some (theoretical) CableLabs "approved digital output protection technology" ... like DTCP-IP ... and perfect digital torrents of HD movies and out-of-market baseball games and the like starts showing up ...
> 
> MPAA to DTLA (Intel et al) - Um, there's a problem ... we'd like you to fix it.
> 
> ...


You are exactly proving my point.

I can short circut that whole thing in the first sentance- cablelabs just shouldn't approve anything. Leave it up to the CEA/DTLA and the MPAA(and the like) to come to terms and cable is just the middle man passing the MPAA's flags to the CEA/DTLA's devices. If stuff hits the fan it's between the MPAA and DTLA and cable can sit back and laugh.

As it is now cable insisted upon being the master of DRM so now if anyone screws up potentially cable gets in trouble for it. Say dink company Y invents a drm/ouput/whatever that looks rock solid to cablelabs and they approve it. After a year they go out of business and their head engineer is pissed his last paycheck bounced and moves to the rainforest but posts a hack to the new DRM as he gets on the plane. MPAA sues dink compnay Y to do something. The bankrupcy judge laughs at them. What happens Now? MPAA sues cablelabs and says "why the hell did you approve that?" They have created liability for themselves that gets them NOTHING in return but gried (the cynics will argue that they take the liability becasue they can use the DRM excuse as a way to use their monopoly powers to keep out competition like tivo)

Did cable invent a drm scheme and approval system for audio files that I can download off their broadband? Nope- so Again why do they want to get involved in video?

WHy not set it up like the broadcast flag would have done- the content people would be responsible for senting a certain digital flag- the device manufacturers would be required to respect the flag some. This all should could be a discussion between the MPAA and Moto/sa/tivo/panny/etc/etc/etc. Cable should merely be required to pass on the flags that the content people send to the box people.

If I was cable that's the best way for me NOT to get in the middle of some mess.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

CableLab's objections just seem so disingenuous at best. What's to keep someone from building a box with a DTCP/1394 input and a DTCP/IP output? That's the whole idea behind DTCP...handoff content control, in a generic fashion, to approved devices over secure links. Once the content leaves the cable box over 1394, CableLabs has no say over what subset of downstream devices it is allowed to move to. Yet that's exactly what they are trying to do to DTCP/IP when it is integrated into a cable box...create a new type of video data ("cable content") that gets locked down to a private subnetwork of approved "cable content" devices....

Ridiculous, and easily circumventable via 1394. Something is just not right here...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

eric_mcgovern said:


> They can argue all they want, but when local cable franchises are marking every station as CCI 0x00 (even premiums), is the point even worth arguing? I can grab a cable box with firewire output and grab everything I want until my heart is content. ....


tough call to know what really goes on becasue there are so many idiots involved. BUT logically at some point the MPAA's members tell HBO that they need to encode their movies with CCI OXO2 and if I understand correctly a CCI flag put on at the initial point of distribution overrides all the values someone might want to set downstream.

(again it makes no sense that the local cable franchise want's to set the flags at all on their own- all they can do is offend their customers or piss of content providers by setting a flag too high or too low. they should set their headend to take the value from hbo et al and get the hell out of the way)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> My only point was why CableLabs even looks / cares about digital output technologies and doesn't just say "I dunno ... let the MPAA deal with it".
> 
> .....


just to clarify my point- NOW they have to care- but if cablelabs NEVER got in the DRM/approved output game and just punted to the MPAA YEARS AND YEARS ago than things would have been different (and I'd argue BETTER) for cable.

Not sure if things would get approved anytime sooner but I suspect like everything else if we keep out yet another party things might go sooner.

There would be one place to get an answer.

What happens now if tivo wan'ts to make a box for cable, and another for dbs, and another for telco iptv? Right now they need to get approval for their system from cablelabs, directv or dish, att, itunes, or verizon (all hyptohetical players at any point) . WOuldn't it make more sense it tivo had to go to the MPAA (or maybe the FCC?) ONCE and then be allowed to use that system on any platform?

And in reading the MPAA's comments it seems they already get involved with cablelabs for approval of things- so why in the first place did cablelabs ever want to get int eh middle? Poor decision? Or was there/ is there a reason they want to be gate keepers even though they own no content (as a general rule)


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Why? Why? You guys are kidding.

OpenCable represents a comprehensive system strategy modeled after that of Microsoft. The goal is to propagate your network and software into all hardware. It is a system strategy not limited to specification of home network protocols and approved output formats. The mature environment uses a system stack controlled by the CableCo. This environment is end to end- control the access to the content from the point it leaves the Cable server until the point it reaches the viewers eyeballs. That means OCAP not just in the DVRs, but in Video display devices, PCs, and handhelds etc. etc.

There are certain advantages to having your software running on all multimedia devices in the home.

This is why Microsoft, Sony and Intel are making such a big stink about it. If Cablelabs is entitled to specify the only platform that is permitted to display protected content from the single largest source of video in America, then virtually every manufacturer is forced to support the Cablelabs platform. 

And that would mean the Cablecos are would be in the enviable position of leveraging those aforementioned certain advantages.

You can't blame them for trying- it's a business routine out of an old old playbook- get the government to hand you a monopoly. What is baffling is why they think that Sony, Intel and Microsoft wouldn't comprehend what they were doing, and effectively counter it.

Seems like a colossal waste of time to me, but maybe they are just used to being the biggest gorilla in the room and don't understand the concept of other large immovable objects.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I get that is their end game completely. OCAP is so overt it's laughable.

BUT can't you keep control of everyone without playing god with DRM? The governemnet already handed them control by permitting cablelabs to be the standard bearer. Tivo, sony, intel, panny, etc, etc already have to play nice with cable just to get cablecard approved- so what does cable get by teaking responsibility for DRM approval? They do get a little more control but they do so at a huge risk of being partly liable when someone's method gets ripped to shreds and they approved it. 

To me it's a small upside with a HUGE potential downside.

And by doing it they make they become more overt- they give the other parties one more thing top point to when they say cable is evil and shouldn't have the power.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

You don't see the upside. Clearly, Microsoft could go with RealNetwork's DRM for the same reasons (avoidance of liability). They don't because the upside is immense.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> just to clarify my point- NOW they have to care- but if cablelabs NEVER got in the DRM/approved output game and just punted to the MPAA YEARS AND YEARS ago than things would have been different (and I'd argue BETTER) for cable.
> 
> Not sure if things would get approved anytime sooner but I suspect like everything else if we keep out yet another party things might go sooner.


And again, if someone wants to go directly to the MPAA and get approval from them ... they can. Heck, they don't even need the entire MPAA ... just 4 (out of 6) studios.


> http://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/DFAST_Tech_License.pdf
> 
> DFAST License
> 
> 2.4.4 Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that CableLabs is advised that four (4) member studios of the Motion Picture Association approve a digital output or content protection technology that provides effective protection to Controlled Content against unauthorized interception, retransmission or copying, such output or content protection technology shall be deemed approved by CableLabs pursuant to this Section 2.4.4, and upon receipt of notice by CableLabs of such approval by the four studios, CableLabs shall amend these Compliance Rules to include such output and/or content protection technology.


Don't want to go through CableLabs? Fine ... get 4 studios to approve. The path you are saying should be there ... is already there. Two possible paths to go ... gotta allow for more possibilities than just one path. And then, there's the third path too (FCC appeal).

Now, as to why CableLabs would want to have their own approval process instead of just always / purely punting to the MPAA? Well ... look at what the MPAA is asking for from DTLA / DTCP-IP ...

Just my high-level impression ... but ... the MPAA seems to want DTLA to put features into DTCP-IP that would give them leverage over the _cable / MSO / MVPD network_ and home entertainment network. Two can play that game ... CableLabs seems to want DTLA to put features into DTCP-IP that would give them leverage over _content providers / MPAA / etc_ and home entertainment network. Quite frankly, alot of what the MPAA is asking for ... CableLabs doesn't seem to give a flip about ... and vice versa.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> You don't see the upside. Clearly, Microsoft could go with RealNetwork's DRM for the same reasons (avoidance of liability). They don't because the upside is immense.


help the ignorant understand- 

what's the upside?

MS I see blowing off Real becauase I figure they want to charge a fee to include the ms rdm on things. Cable isn't creating anything that they can charge a fee for. They are merely deciding who can charge that fee. So far they have decided that for moving content around a network only MS and real can charge that fee. UNless cable owns a stake in MS or Real I dont understand how they benefit from making Real and MS the only approved methods.

(assuming that it's not someone's brother in law at real)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> And again, if someone wants to go directly to the MPAA and get approval from them ... they can. Heck, they don't even need the entire MPAA ... just 4 (out of 6) studios.Don't want to go through CableLabs? Fine ... get 4 studios to approve. The path you are saying should be there ... is already there. Two possible paths to go ... gotta allow for more possibilities than just one path. And then, there's the third path too (FCC appeal).
> 
> Now, as to why CableLabs would want to have their own approval process instead of just always / purely punting to the MPAA? Well ... look at what the MPAA is asking for from DTLA / DTCP-IP ...
> ....


But still- what does cable get by approving stuff if people can't get 4 MPAA members to agree? Seems all they get is liability. What does cable care if Tivo, MS, or Real can be approved to move content? Do they get any benefit at all by approving methods that 4 mpaa members wont? It seems they just put themselves in the middle of a huge potnetial mess.

(i'm not ragging at cable- I can't see any reason why they want in the middle of this hornets nest- that's what I'm trying to figure out.)


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> There are certain advantages to having your software running on all multimedia devices in the home.


Of course there is ... which is why DNLA (Microsoft, Sony, Intel et al) insisit on Intel's DTCP-IP being used as the underlying 'link protection' which must be used under all other DNLA-approved DRMs and Microsoft's UPnP being used as the underlying way for communication and ...

Anyway, everyone plays the same game.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

I like games when there is more than one player.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> I like games when there is more than one player.


For each of these seemingly insolvable industry questions between intractable industry players, I just always ask myself, "Self, what decision here results in more competition in the marketplace, and more options for the consumer?" And lo and behold, in every case, the answer is clear. Should CableLabs approve DTCP-IP? Should all cable companies be forced to use the same seperable CA mechanism? Should OCAP be optional? Should the FCC reject CableLab's OCAP-only proposal in favor of CE's OCAP-optional proposal? Just ask the question, and the path is clear.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> But still- what does cable get by approving stuff if people can't get 4 MPAA members to agree? Seems all they get is liability. What does cable care if Tivo, MS, or Real can be approved to move content? Do they get any benefit at all by approving methods that 4 mpaa members wont? It seems they just put themselves in the middle of a huge potnetial mess.
> 
> (i'm not ragging at cable- I can't see any reason why they want in the middle of this hornets nest- that's what I'm trying to figure out.)


Cable gets to carry all the wonderous programming Hollwywood produces.

If Hollwywoold doesn't approve of the DRM Cable, and by extension CableLabs, approves, Cable leaves themselves open to having high-value content pulled from them by Hollywood, either right off the bat, or if there is a percieved piracy problem with the DRM.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicsat said:


> Cable gets to carry all the wonderous programming Hollwywood produces.
> 
> If Hollwywoold doesn't approve of the DRM Cable, and by extension CableLabs, approves, Cable leaves themselves open to having high-value content pulled from them by Hollywood, either right off the bat, or if there is a percieved piracy problem with the DRM.


and again- so what can cable win be approving 3rd party DRM? THey might accidently approve some junk and then get Hollywood angry with them.

THe easy answer for cable is "sorry we dont approve DRM- go take it up with the MPAA- since we want their content then we will only permit what they say we can permit."

In fact- the MPAA's comments in this case indicate that Cablelabs frequently asks them what they think and sort of winds up asking for MPAA approval anyhow.

So why spend the reosurces to approve stuff when you just have to go ask the MPAA anyway?

How 'bout I ask my question backwards- 
What would cable lose by just throwing their hands up and telling everyone to get approval from the MPAA or the FCC in the first place? I dont see anything.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

CableLabs: really nice portable media player you have there. I tell you what. If you put this software and this security chip in your device, then every time it connects to the home network, we will download free programs onto the consumer's device so that they can play video they got from our service. We won't pay you anything for this, but if you do this, we will take care of the java applets that run the UI on your portable. 

Creative: You want us to perform this work for you, and add this hardware, so that you can force download your programs, take over our user interface, so that you can sell portable services, charge our customers per view fees, sell additonal advertising time etc etc. And you expect not to pay us? You are kidding.

Cablelabs: Not at all. You will make more money on sales of your PMP's because they will be much more popular. Has Realnetworks delivered the content for you? Has Microsoft? If you want the content, come to the folks who own the firehose. Your customers will have far greater choice if they can also play video from the cable company. It will cost less that iTunes downloaded video, and the video downloads will be much faster due to our private non IP network downloads over cable. All we ask is that our conditional access system be in place so that the copyrights of the owners of the content are respected.

Creative: And if we refuse?

Cablelabs: There are many Chinese companies ready to build devices to this specification. And look- we also have reference designs for how you can add VOIP handset capability to your portable media center. Only, it is not just VOIP around the home. People can use their portable handset almost like a texting cell phone. So long as you are nearby an OpenCable Digital Household (tm)- you can be in touch and get your video, text and phone messaging anywhere in the country. - For a very reasonable fee.

-For instance.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

DTLA gets their (conditional) approval from (4) MPAA member studios for authorizing DTCP-IP as an approved digital protection technology under the DFAST licence:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519531905


> With DTLA's follow-through on these studio requirements, CableLabs can now add DTCP-IP as a digital output protection technology in DFAST.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

No explicit mention of OCAP or Microsoft WMV format that was mentionned in the same breath as DTCP in the November shot across CableLabs' bow in the MS/Sony/Toshiba/Intel letter to the FCC.

What's the additional follow through work to be done?



> The approvals provide for additional clarifications and adjustments in DTLA licensing to provide for additional clarifications and adjustments in DTLA licensing to provide for revocation messages in the event of device compromise; clarification of DTLA's intellectual property statement; and a role for CableLabs with respect to such matters as changes, new outputs or redistribution from DTCP, and representation of programmer interests that are otherwise not covered by the current DTCP license.


Well, OCAP software is a programmer interest not covered under DTCP. Must senders and recievers of DTCP support OCAP?.

Is the Tivo positioned to do DTCP if Cablelabs blocks TivoGuard? Beats the crap out of me.

The popular broadcom chips that did not make it into the S3 (the 7400 and 7401) can encrypt cablelabs content to DTCP specs before such content even leaves the chip. Maybe S3's 7402 can do it- the spec mentions only that DTCP can be programmed for memory to memory transfers, but nothing like the 7400 description of dtcp integrated as an option for any PCI output.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

It may be that the programmer interest vaguely referenced has to do with stuff like the issue with content that is not covered by independent agreement with DTLA but that Cablelabs is obligated to protect under their separate agreement.

The Sony letter is particularly clear that Cablelabs will have no veto on future changes to DTCP regarding expansion to future devices. They get a single vote, along with the other members. 

Maybe DTCP instead of TivoGuard MRV? I doubt it.

Even though it is "only" a wrapper protocol, and you could simply run TivoGuard over DTCP-IP like one can run NetBIOS over IP, the other device has to be able to do DTCP decryption. So for MRV, can Series II's be retrofitted? I have no idea, but it seems really scary to me, and my assumption is that this couldn't even theoretically be applied to MRV from S3's to S2's. 

Would a vanilla PC be qualified for DTCP? They can be compromised easily, so I doubt that any non Vista machines will qualify. So no TTG to PCs either via DTCP.

So maybe you could do S3 to Vista or other Vista machines with cablecard content. 

That's screwed. We need cablelabs to loosen up with TivoGuard now.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Well, OCAP software is a programmer interest not covered under DTCP. Must senders and recievers of DTCP support OCAP?.


No, not for (unidirectional) UDCPs. Bidirectional devices are ... of course ... subject to the ongoing two-way work / negotiations.

"Programmer Interests" = content provider interests ... ie, MPAA studios and other people that provide DTCP protected content. In a nutshell, CableLabs is to be given the same status as any other "Content Participant" under the DTLA licensing agreements / processes / liability statements / etc. They will have a (single) vote equivalant to the studios and other Content Participants (as opposed to the CE vendors and the like who are "Adopters" and sign the "Adopters" license agreement) when it comes to changes, revocations, and the like.


Justin Thyme said:


> Is the Tivo positioned to do DTCP if Cablelabs blocks TivoGuard? Beats the crap out of me.


I would doubt so for any already deployed / manufactured products ... but ... beats the crap out of me too.

If interested you can dig around in the DTCP specs and licensing agreements and probably find an answer:
http://www.dtcp.com/


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Note ... this is exactly Tivo's issue with MRV / eSATA / etc (for encrypted digital content). They need CableLabs' approval of their "digital output protection technology".


But TiVo is not proposing to use this actual technique, right?

Doesn't that leave open the questions of if TiVo would and if TiVo could use it on their existing installed base and their next HD unit?


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

HDTiVo said:


> Note ... this is exactly Tivo's issue with MRV / eSATA / etc (for encrypted digital content). They need CableLabs' approval of their "digital output protection technology".





HDTiVo said:


> But TiVo is not proposing to use this actual technique, right?


Um, not sure what you mean by "actual technique".

My above comment was not intended to imply, state, or give the impression that Tivo plans on or will be using DTCP-IP. I wouldn't think so ... but ... no clue (have I).

To enable MRV, TTG, etc. of protected, encrypted digital content from the CableCard ... they (Tivo) need to either 1) use an existing, CableLabs approved digital output protection technology or 2) get CableLabs approval of a new digital output protection technology.

#2 is the process DTLA has been going through with CableLabs for DTCP-IP ... #2 is the process Tivo would have to go through for "TivoGuard" or some other new / different form of digital output protection technology (not covered under the existing licensing agreements) ...

That's all I was saying.

They have to go through this same, actual _process_.

They do not neccesarily have to (nor neccesarity want to, nor neccesarily could easily do so) use this same, actual _technology_ (DTCP-IP).

Note: eSATA has since apparantly been covered by the (modified) DFAST license agreement noted in other posts.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> I would doubt so for any already deployed / manufactured products ... but ... beats the crap out of me too.
> 
> If interested you can dig around in the DTCP specs and licensing agreements and probably find an answer:
> http://www.dtcp.com/





JT said:


> The popular broadcom chips that did not make it into the S3 (the 7400 and 7401) can encrypt cablelabs content to DTCP specs before such content even leaves the chip.


Doesn't sound terribly promising.

Could TiVo actually be doing this work now - which is why its taking so long to re-write the code for the S3?

Its all beating the [email protected] out of me too.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> they (Tivo) need to either 1) use an existing, CableLabs approved digital output protection technology or 2) get CableLabs approval of a new digital output protection technology.


That's why I've been saying from ages back that TiVo is using the wrong strategies and needs to join with much bigger - and likely successful - players. The mistakes are hurting TiVo and us now.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dt_dc said:


> No, not for (unidirectional) UDCPs. Bidirectional devices are ... of course ... subject to the ongoing two-way work / negotiations.


Of course. It's the big shoe that is hanging in the air. I am looking for signs of what this smaller step implies to where and when that other shoe will hit. The studios basically saw no need for CableLabs to have any significant power over DTLA for unidirectional, so perhaps there is grounds for optimism that the studios will also side (regarding rights protection) with DTLA over bidirectional. So if and when DTLA produces specs for a two way scheme that has credible security for the integrity of the cable networks, and the content owners say they are satisfied on the content security issues, then it seems like a real possibility that FCC would break the bidirectional impasse and shove it down CableLabs' throats.

Of course DT you are aware of all this, but I am just turning this over a few times for my own benefit and readers who may be in the DTCP-WTF? boat.

Anyways... Tivo is not a member of DTLA nor do I recall them saying anything warm and fuzzy about it. Although part of the Viiv platform, the Tivo desktop for Viiv thing had nothing to do with DTCP- it was just a 10 foot interface for Desktop. Certainly, there wasn't anyone stopping Tivo from using DTCP in the past, and it would not be without some utility- for example it would permit Tivo to legally squirt any unflagged show directly to any authenticated DTCP Sink device- eg a DVHS recorder, a portable media device etc. The other device would not have to understand TivoGuard for their connectivity.

It is no wonder the studios like it- it's got all the DRM bells and whistles- downresing flags, options for setting retention limits, flags for preventing second generation copying, barring anything but downressed content from analog or unprotected digital outputs- yada yada yada.

The big picture of course is that rights protection schemes have been creating these separate "small pond" content ecosystems that give greater market power to the participants- especially those that some sort of gatekeeper power over the software, or content delivery systems (like cable or telcos). It's not a great scene for folks trying to make money off of hardware that can interop with all those ponds- (the Toshiba's, Sony's and Hitachi's of the DTLA initiative on cablecards). They build boxes that try to support a number of the protection schemes but there is only so many protocols you can squeeze into one low price point box and one development schedule. If you make the wrong bets on which scheme to support, it could severely impact sales. So there has been long time speculation on TCF about Tivo support for it because DTCP is meant to address the problem- EG Realnetwoks Helix asks the device if they are in the DTCP club, and if they authenticate themselves with the club handshake, then they can transmit data free of Helix encryption, and would be legally in the clear to assume that the device will keep the data secure on the other end of the DTCP pipe. So DTCP becomes the Lingua Franca of the home network- a bunch of islands with their own internal DRMs, but all trusting each other to send data without their DRM on the wire, and instead use DTCP-IP.

I don't know that software will be able to retain DTCP credentials on non Vista machines needed to recieve data (a sink device), but they could certainly send it. Maybe that is part of the reason why Jobs has appeared to change his spots regarding DRM. Unless he can implement sufficiently protected memory for video, he not only isn't going to get CableLabs certification, but he won't get DTCP Sink device certification and DTCP devices won't be sending him data either.

So anyway, interoperability has been limited to families of products that support the same solution. In some respects, Tivo has benefited from being the only DVR on the block with a strong video export capability via IP. But there are some illusions about the benefits. DTCP doesn't mean it will be any more likely that you can copy content that is currently flagged using other schemes. It mostly means that instead of fewer devices being able to export the few number of shows that aren't flagged as uncopiable that a larger number of devices will be able to copy the same few files. Yay!

To me, the eyebrow elevation comes from the implications for a future two way protocol. DTLA demonstrated they can maneuver their way out from being under the thumb of a protocol that cablelabs invented or has any significant control over. Will DTLA be able to out maneuver Cablelabs on 2 way? Then DTCP would be important for Tivo, because the 2 way proposal made last november was only for DTLA approved (DTCP or WMV protected) mechanisms.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> So if and when DTLA produces specs for a two way scheme that has credible security for the integrity of the cable networks, and the content owners say they are satisfied on the content security issues, then it seems like a real possibility that FCC would break the bidirectional impasse and shove it down CableLabs' throats.


Okay JT, you lost me on that one. How could DTCP-IP have an effect on the impasse over OCAP? Are you envisioning an OCAP box (without a UI) that contains the CableCARD/DCAS decryption engine, which then gets remotely controlled from a separate device (like a TiVo) using DTCP-IP for both video data and upstream control data?


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> In 5.5 years I've never seen an OTA station look perfect. There is always pixelation with bright flashes or fast moving objects. Plus I know I want more HD content than the OTA channels. That was the reason I left cable 5 years ago to go to DirecTV. Now I'm in the process of returning to cable since they are offering more, plus TiVo. While DIrecTV is shunning TiVo.


That's the only reason I'm with Comcast now. They support TiVo. It's the ONLY reason. I got much more reliable service from DirecTv. I just wish they'd stayed with TiVo. Ah well... There's always hope for the future if Comcast doesn't succeed in ruining TiVo's reputation for reliability.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Saxion said:


> Okay JT, you lost me on that one. How could DTCP-IP have an effect on the impasse over OCAP? Are you envisioning an OCAP box (without a UI) that contains the CableCARD/DCAS decryption engine, which then gets remotely controlled from a separate device (like a TiVo) using DTCP-IP for both video data and upstream control data?


I'm sorry that I was not clear. I am still turning this over and over so I haven't made up my mind about some of the things I wrote about, but as for the OCAP observation, it is not a technology implication, but a process implication.

Just to replay what happenned- DTLA goes to CableLabs, and Cablelabs stonewalls. DTLA makes an appeal to the FCC, but just as importantly lines up support from the studios, so Cablelabs is politically isolated. They basically walk away from this with shredded underwear- very little control over what DTCP does in the future. I am adding dramatic flair for effect, but you get the picture.

Ok, so I was just asking- what does that tell us that could happen with process regarding two way and OCAP? After all, there are some similarities here.

These same parties have been stonewalled by CableLabs on two way for the last 6 years or so. The implications are that CES and DTLA could do the same thing to Cablelabs, and in fact they mentionned studio support in their November 3 (I think it was) letter to the FCC that they propose to bypass CableLabs and invent their own two way protocol that supports VOD and Switched Video. If CableLabs finds itself similarly isolated, they may well be bypassed again, and no one but fools (or those being subsidized by the Cable industry) will implement OCAP boxes.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> These same parties have been stonewalled by CableLabs on two way for the last 6 years or so. The implications are that CES and DTLA could do the same thing to Cablelabs, and in fact they mentionned studio support in their November 3 (I think it was) letter to the FCC that they propose to bypass CableLabs and invent their own two way protocol that supports VOD and Switched Video. If CableLabs finds itself similarly isolated, they may well be bypassed again, and no one but fools (or those being subsidized by the Cable industry) will implement OCAP boxes.


Is it as likely that the studios would care about 2-way (which maybe is more an "internal" cable industry issue) as much as DTCP which directly affects protection of their content and the ability to sell and move it around to the customer? And if not, who else might become such a similar ally?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

If the Studios' sole interest was maintaining the highest security for their data, then adding a protocol is inherently more risky than the current scheme that suffers from no serious breaches. Cablecos currently move video around the home, why add some new fangled other that uses- egads- internet protocol on a home network that also connects to the rest of the world? 

Perhaps the Studios feel that increasing the variety of innovations possible and that the vigor of private industry will be best able to find best fits between new technology and untapped demand for video in the home. Such new products would thereby increase the market surface area that their products can sell into. Perhaps the motives of the studios are something else. Whatever it is, if content protection were the only motive, then the safe move is not to make changes to a system that has had satisfactory security. 

So if the Studios cared enough about a security protocol governing CE devices downstream of cablecard devices in the home, then why should they not take an interest in a security related proposal that affects the variety of cablecard devices themselves?

Cablelabs has attempted in the past to justify their grandiose designs by enlarging the security issue to mean not just the protection against physical damage and theft of service, but security and enhancement of the value of the IP of the studios. If the studios say no, we are satisfied that the non OpenCable proposal statisfies all of the issues related to our IP rights, then where does that leave CableLabs?

They must attempt to make the bold (some would say preposterous) assertion that protection against theft of service requires a Java virtual machine.

I am just guessing at the dynamics here. If anyone can point to some evidence of what the real picture is, please chime in.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Definitely needs alot more thought.

What if the studios felt it was important to get DTCP done to create an environment where alot of the devices might get into homes so the content can get delivered and moved around, but they felt that they'd just assume sell a greater share of the content directly, bypassing the cable cos, than enhance cable's ability to be a middle man via 2-way capability?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

More channels are in the supplier's interest, as any supplier knows that has dealt with a distributor that owns all access to a particular market.

But neither do they forget the bird in the hand they have now with efficient distribution of video into the home. That volume of video is not going to take a new pathway into the home overnight. I agree with you that if they were smart they would be hot and bothered about developing alternate channels but if they have gotten religion, I certainly haven't seen it.

It they were serious about it, they'd take immediate steps against the huge problem they have that this may well be the last generation that buys anything from their vast movie collections. No one is going to buy Casablanca or probably much of anything from their collections if ripping rather than unbox librarying becomes the consumer pattern. Repression won't cut it any more than it did with MP3's. To fight it, starting today, they have to

release the bulk of their collections for electronic download sales on unbox and blockbuster.
promote the unbox concept of buy a copy for life- unlimited downloads from the blockbuster or unbox server
allow dvd resolution quality for purchase
drive sales with tie in promotions on dvrs- eg. "would you like to upgrade to a dvd version of [movie title recorded from satco or cableco]?"
So how does 2 way fit into Hollywood's death match- struggle for survival?

If it is unrealistic for the Studios to expect that these new channels will have an immaculate conception and spring up full bore, with enough bandwidth to satisfy a household's entire viewing appetite then- they will have to consider how such a channel would phase in.

It would have to be augmented from content from the current dominant distributors- meaning it would have to have a hardware platform competitive with that of the satco/cableco's. Meaning- that such a box would have to support two way- Meaning...

You see where I am going.

Do I think they will do it? Maybe not soon enough. Do I think their libraries will be worth substantially less- probably. American management has a real real hard time focusing on horizons further than two years out. Let alone valuing managers who do, at the price of near term profits.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *Justin Thyme*
> If the Studios' sole interest was maintaining the highest security for their data, then adding a protocol is inherently more risky than the current scheme that suffers from no serious breaches.


If the studios' interest was in maintaining *any* type of security they would have shut down several satellite providers years ago. Basically all content (SD & HD) can easily be stolen/recorded and up to this point there has been nothing the MPAA or anyone else has been able to do about it.

All this crap about trying to restrict moving content around at the consumer level is just smoke an mirrors and will do nothing to actually protect content from entering the black market. All cable cards need to do is provide relatively secure universal encryption/decryption method. The MPAA should wake up and stop this nonsense.

Thanks,


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Here is something extremely interesting...



> Solekai Systems  wants to become the go-to service for anyone who needs to test the interoperability of digital-video devices and applications -- potentially competing with the industrys own Cable Television Laboratories for business.





> Solekais previous customers for design-consulting work included DirecTV, *TiVo * and chip makers AMD and Conexant


----------



## Blahman (Mar 4, 2002)

Meh, the stalling on Cablelabs part has nothing to do with protecting content.

I can steal (potentially, but don't) and post more content online using the Cable company provided STB boxes and their required firewire ports that I could or would even try with a Tivo. To be clear I don't steal or post content online but if I wanted to the Cable Company provided box would be my first choice tool.

It has to do with protecting their respective corporate rental fees on these cable boxes. They pay between $50 - $100 per DVR box to companies like Sci-Atl and motorola. They rent the box for $5-7 per month and then the DVR service for another $10 per month. In most cases it's profit for them in no time.

They don't want the lower profit for them devices using Cablecard to have the features they are rolling out internally (like the new Sci-Atl boxes with MRV). 

Basic monopoly tactics 101. Until the Cable monopoly is truly broken this will continue.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

DTCP-IP was approved by CableLabs today. Now that it's real, one has to wonder if it would be easier for TiVo to implement this than try and get MRV approved.


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

I wish Tivo would just allow you to transfer anything except stuff recorded through a cable card. I have the terrible feeling the cable industry wouldn't even allow THAT (which is crazy...)

I'm not buying a Series 3 until I can transfer ALL my SD AND HD shows to my computer, as I watch probably at least 50% of my shows on my computer.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Puppy76 said:


> I wish Tivo would just allow you to transfer anything except stuff recorded through a cable card. I have the terrible feeling the cable industry wouldn't even allow THAT (which is crazy...)
> 
> I'm not buying a Series 3 until I can transfer ALL my SD AND HD shows to my computer, as I watch probably at least 50% of my shows on my computer.


That is essentially their current plan I believe. It is just the software needed to do that is still "in development".

DTCP-IP would be a further delay. If it were feasible, I'd expect something late next year or early the year after that.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Puppy76 said:


> I'm not buying a Series 3 until I can transfer ALL my SD AND HD shows to my computer, as I watch probably at least 50% of my shows on my computer.


wouldn't a slingbox HD almost give you what you want?


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

mattack said:


> wouldn't a slingbox HD almost give you what you want?


No, because I wouldn't be able to use that kind of bandwidth.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

mattack said:


> wouldn't a slingbox HD almost give you what you want?


The stream content from a Slingbox HD is actually downrezzed to SD. But I think it is mpeg4.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

What really irks my butt is this.

The industry is spending millions & millions of dollars on developing, using DRM on their content. Via Movies, Music, Cable, Satalite etc....

Yet there are many thousands of hackers out there breaking DRM content.

DVD's, Blu-ray, HD-DVD have allready been hacked as well as many other DRM schemes.

The MILLIONS of dollars CONTENT PROVIDERS spend on developing and using DRM on their content IS in fact passed along to us in higher prices for DVD's (including Blu-ray & HD-DVD), Music, Cable, Satalite etc... THUS WE as consumers are PAYING for DRM that we as CONSUMERS have no desire for!

As far as I know there hasn't been a single DRM developed that hasn't been hacked in some form or another.

I am just hoping that the FCC gives the DTLA their appeal that they are asking for. Maybe that will help other CE devices get the features we as consumers want.

TexasGrillChef


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

pkscout said:


> DTCP-IP was approved by CableLabs today. Now that it's real, one has to wonder if it would be easier for TiVo to implement this than try and get MRV approved.


If TiVo is forced to support AACS, I'm not sure how easy it would be for TiVo to do so. I'm pretty sure TiVo's hardware doesn't support AACS and it would probably be too much of a performance hit to do via software. TiVo may be able to use this agreement to get their own DRM approved though since TiVo's current ToGo/MRV implementation is similar to to what was agreed upon:



> DTCP-IP will respect programming flags such as "copy never," and in order to enforce that restriction


TiVo already does this, check.

On a side note, if DTCP-IP is implemented, the cable companies will need to make sure they don't artificially set the CCI 0x02 flag since it will prevent the entire scheme from even working. For a while Comcast in my area was setting CCI 0x02 on all digital channels. They eventually changed this to only set it for premium channels, but in reality the content provider is the one who should be setting the flags, not the cable company.



> DTCP-IP will use the "same level of protection, functionality, and treatment of content" that exists in the AACS DRM technology. That means that the movie studios will be able to revoke a device's keys...


Here's the sticking point. TiVo does not use AACS DRM, it uses it's own DRM, but they are very similar. Both TiVo's DRM and AACS DRM can revoke the ability to view/transfer protected media (TiVo can do this on a per TiVo basis as opposed to AACS which can only mass ban specific hardware/software devices) and both (in theory) prevent unauthorized viewing of protected content on a PC.

TiVo's DRM was much easier to work around because of the way it was implemented, but since AACS has also been cracked I'm not sure that means much in the long run.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

morac said:


> If TiVo is forced to support AACS, I'm not sure how easy it would be for TiVo to do so. I'm pretty sure TiVo's hardware doesn't support AACS and it would probably be too much of a performance hit to do via software.


From what I can tell, DTCP-IP is not an adjunct standard to AACS, though they both incorporate AES encryption. What encryption algortihms do the S3 TiVos support?
DTLA has different licensing options, you can purchase a certificate per device or buy common device certificates to be duplicated in multiple instances of your hardware.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

vman41 said:


> From what I can tell, DTCP-IP is not an adjunct standard to AACS, though they both incorporate AES encryption. What encryption algortihms do the S3 TiVos support?


The Broadcom hardware in the Series3 and TivoHD supports AES/1DES/3DES/CSS/CPRM/DTCP.

In fact, some HD-DVD and Blu-ray players are based on the Broadcom BCM7411, which is a chip found in the Series3. The TivoHD uses a newer variant of that.


----------



## Globular (Jun 9, 2004)

megazone over at the TiVoLovers blog
speculates that TiVo has been working on DTCP-IP all along in advance of this announcement. Sounds reasonable to me.

http://www.tivolovers.com/2007/08/25/cablelabs-allows-digital-cable-content-out-of-its-box


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

so tivo would use DTCP-IP instead of TivoGuard?


----------

