# TiVo's Position on Broadcast Flag issues on S3 Units?



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Out of all the issues surrounding the S3 this one has the greatest impact as it directly affects the usability of the box. As such it's in TiVo's best interest to resolve this issue with the broadcasters. Is TiVo looking into this? Are they doing anything about it? Lastly what's TiVo's position on these issues?

I hope it's not one where they throw up their hands and say talk to someone else. So what is it? What is the latest scoop on these issues TiVo? Pony, Jerry, Opsmgr?

Edit: For the new people joining the discussion this thread is about all forms of Broadcast Flag even if the technical term might be something different. Some broadcast flag like implementations are:

Broadcast Macrovision protection
The actual Broadcast Flag technology
Cable Card CCI flagging

In each case these devices are used in the broadcast stream to control how copies are handled by the TiVo and other compatible devices.


----------



## MediaLivingRoom (Dec 10, 2002)

they have no control, but to comply with CableLabs. Which SUCKS.


----------



## mbhuff (Jan 25, 2004)

Tivo should at least provide a mechanism to report and followup on cable companies that are not complying with the FCC mandate.

If they are able to get away with it, the cable companies will start inserting "copy never" flags randomly, just to get people to not trust third-party DVRs while theirs work fine.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

While another thread references this entire article, I thought putting this one excerpt in would be better.



> The FCC imposed some limits on DRM, but it is hard to determine the extent to which the service providers are abiding by those rules. For example, in its first review of the TiVo Series3 HD,38 CNET had trouble using the analog output to save content to a VCR or a DVD recorder. Was this a random technical glitch, or could it have been a purposeful use of selectable output control in violation of the FCC's ruling? The answer is not clear.
> 
> If you run into any problems like this, submit complaints to the FCC here:
> http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475.cfm
> ...


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

mbhuff said:


> Tivo should at least provide a mechanism to report and followup on cable companies that are not complying with the FCC mandate.
> 
> If they are able to get away with it, the cable companies will start inserting "copy never" flags randomly, just to get people to not trust third-party DVRs while theirs work fine.


If their DVRs ignore the copy never flag can't we get the FCC to fine them?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

loubob57 said:


> If their DVRs ignore the copy never flag can't we get the FCC to fine them?


That's really a major problem. Who is going to report them so that they can no longer record shows? If something isn't done or some sort of resolution come about over, this HD recorders will be completely obsolete before they ever take off in the third party market.

The feeling I have right now is the same one I had when I found out that MRV and TTG weren't on the S3. I'd certainly like to know what TiVo's plan is on this, because it looks like the digital recorder market is gonna die in the tracks.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

You have to keep in mind that most people come to these forums to complain, so we tend to have an overly negative view on how things really are. The number of people actually experiencing this problem are probably small. And as I said in the Jericho thread I suspect the majority of them are caused by defective CableCARDs and not actually some evil plot by the cable companies. Just like the Macrovision DRM on the S2 units this problem will most likely only effect a very small percentage of S3 owners and if the users actually put in the time to complain to their cable companies they can probably get the issue resolved.

Dan


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

come on Stormspace - you knopw full well this same issue came up on Series 2 when the new macrovison liscense was introduced and TTG and TiVoCast were put in the code. TiVo worked then to educate the broadcaster and all the cases turned out to be a re-broadcaster who did not know how to configure their equipment properly.

The same will happen here without having to make a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> come on Stormspace - you knopw full well this same issue came up on Series 2 when the new macrovison liscense was introduced and TTG and TiVoCast were put in the code. TiVo worked then to educate the broadcaster and all the cases turned out to be a re-broadcaster who did not know how to configure their equipment properly.
> 
> The same will happen here without having to make a mountain out of a molehill.


I agree with both you and Dan. The problem this time is that it's not really clear if the cable companies have to comply by removing the flag. They may be completely within their rights to keep the flag on for whatever reason as long as it isn't affecting STB customers. If they are in their rights to have it on then what is the incentive to research it and turn it off? There are already reports of finger pointing, some at TiVo, some at the broadcaster, and others at the cable company. This is going to have to get resolved and until there is a clear precident people are going to keep pointing fingers and not do anything about it.

TiVo should take a stand against DRM now, before every show has a copy never flag on it. If they wait until then it may very well be too late. I'm not trying to be an alarmist here, really. I truly hope it's just a mistake, but this time it's not clear if it's also not legal.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> They may be completely within their rights to keep the flag on for whatever reason as long as it isn't affecting STB customers. If they are in their rights to have it on then what is the incentive to research it and turn it off?


 Assuming they can legally do the flag, which I have no idea about right now, the flag/show would have to work the same on the cable company DVR or TiVo would have a pretty clear cause of unfair competitive practice. So the cable company would have to dump on their own customers as well and thus degrade DVRs use in general. I do not think cable companies would want to do that. now indeed, it will take people calling in and complaining and perhaps specific examples documented to the FCC but that can happen.

still think it is a molehill and not a mountain.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

Umm...the original poster was asking about the Broadcast Flag...this has nothing to do with cable, or CableLabs certification. The Broadcast Flag is proposed legislation in Congress backed mostly by content owners (it hasn't passed yet). It would insert a flag into OTA (not cable) broadcasts, that would restrict how and if the content could be recorded. I believe the poster was asking what TiVo's position is wrt the proposed legislation, and whether TiVo is actively working to defeat it.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Assuming they can legally do the flag, which I have no idea about right now, the flag/show would have to work the same on the cable company DVR or TiVo would have a pretty clear cause of unfair competitive practice. So the cable company would have to dump on their own customers as well and thus degrade DVRs use in general. I do not think cable companies would want to do that. now indeed, it will take people calling in and complaining and perhaps specific examples documented to the FCC but that can happen.
> 
> still think it is a molehill and not a mountain.


The problem with DRM is that it's a contract negotiated between the AA's and the providers. Apple and other online music retailers each have their own DRM restrictions that they negotiated with the RIAA. What's to say that the cable providers who have better relationships with Hollywood don't have an agreement to provide things differently and TiVo has to negotiate their own rights to record?

DRM muddies the waters and as you can clearly see is a pet peeve of mine. Mountain or molehill DRM is bad news and people should know how it can effect them and these little mistakes demonstrate what it could be like if we let them.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> The problem with DRM is that it's a contract negotiated between the AA's and the providers. Apple and other online music retailers each have their own DRM restrictions that they negotiated with the RIAA. What's to say that the cable providers who have better relationships with Hollywood don't have an agreement to provide things differently and TiVo has to negotiate their own rights to record?


 I think that still goes to anti competitive practices. IANAL but I can not see it flying that content owners can say only one company can record off the same exact signal. The whole idea of cable card was an attempt to open up for 3rd parties. So I still stand by sure the content owners, not bound by FCC restrictions, could say - no one can record this content but that would put them at jeopardy of people not opting to pay extra for that channel. I just do not see how they could limit it only to one company's DVR.


> DRM muddies the waters and as you can clearly see is a pet peeve of mine. Mountain or molehill DRM is bad news and people should know how it can effect them and these little mistakes demonstrate what it could be like if we let them.


 no fan of DRM either but human nature clearly makes it needed. That said, of course consumers should fight back against overly restrictive things like can not record at all or only the cable company can record. and fight back they will.

I hear an army of hackers already at work on the S3


----------



## dieman (Sep 21, 2006)

The problems people are having is with macrovision detection -- this is not the 'broadcast flag' as the broadcast flag was knocked down by the courts already. The FCC tried to legislate something they shouldn't have.

Now the macrovision thing, tivo does that voluntarily as far as I know, and its really crappy when it doesn't work right because its screwing peoples programming left and right it sounds.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Can you imagine if each production company applied their own copy-protection, requiring you to purchase a separate DVR for each one? The FCC's legislation helps you avoid that.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

dieman said:


> The problems people are having is with macrovision detection -- this is not the 'broadcast flag' as the broadcast flag was knocked down by the courts already. The FCC tried to legislate something they shouldn't have.
> 
> Now the macrovision thing, tivo does that voluntarily as far as I know, and its really crappy when it doesn't work right because its screwing peoples programming left and right it sounds.


Actually in this case the problem people are having is with the CCI flags used in the CableCARD specification. TiVo is required to support CCI to be a CableCARD certified DVR.

Dan


----------



## srothkin (Sep 13, 2006)

It would be nice if instead of deleting the program, the TIVO simply locked it for some time so that if the user proved it shouldn't have been flagged in the first place, tivo support can remotely unlock it and allow the user to view the program.

I record 95% of my programs from network and pbs channels. I should be able to record and watch those programs whenever I want. I can live with not being able to copy them to an external device.

BTW, I think that the implementation as I've seen it described is wrong. What I've seen written is that if the flag says copy never, you will not be able to record or view it and if it says copy once you will be allowed to view it but not copy it to an external device. What I think that really should be is copy never should allow you to record/view it but not to output to another device. Copy once should allow you to make one (and only one) copy to an external device (though FWIW I typically watch my programs on the DVR and then delete them -- no reason for me to output to another device).


----------



## JDguy (Jan 16, 2006)

Saxion said:


> Umm...the original poster was asking about the Broadcast Flag...this has nothing to do with cable, or CableLabs certification. The Broadcast Flag is proposed legislation in Congress backed mostly by content owners (it hasn't passed yet). It would insert a flag into OTA (not cable) broadcasts, that would restrict how and if the content could be recorded. I believe the poster was asking what TiVo's position is wrt the proposed legislation, and whether TiVo is actively working to defeat it.


+1

And Broadcast Flag was about internet retransmission (which is why Tivo originally submitted MRV & TTG to the FCC), but has NOTHING to do with making a recording on an internal DVR. The Broadcast Flag is not "copy-protection" at all.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

does any one know the LEGAL status of the cable companies applying the copy never (as I belive the 90 minute self destruct CCI=00x03 is called)?

I cant find any law, regulation, or ruling that specifically says what is or is not allowed. 

It appears the original memorandum or understading between NCTA (cable) and the CE(consumer electornics people) for "plug and play" - says that this flag is ONLY to be used for PPV and VOD. That was in 2002 and then sometime later in 2003 the FCC "rubber stamped" that agreement. But I cant find the actuall text of that MOU nor can I find the actually FCC rulign about it- all i can find on the fcc website are all kinds of press releases about it saying they did a swell job by approving the agreement. But I cant find any enabling regulations or even a list of bullet points of what sections of the MOU the fcc agreed with.

My cable provider is puttign the damn flag on like 2/3rds of the HD channels. On 'cable channels' like discovery, premium channels like hbo, and even sporadically on boradcast stuff (See my post n the Jericho thread- and even nailed NOVA on PBS the other night).

I would like to know exactly what the laws or regulations or ruligns say so that i can effectivley beat them over the head- LOL.

any help is much appreciated.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I cant find any law, regulation, or ruling that specifically says what is or is not allowed.
> (...)
> I would like to know exactly what the laws or regulations or ruligns say so that i can effectivley beat them over the head- LOL.


Go here ...
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html

Specifically ...

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/...cess.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr76.1904.htm

Or if you'd prefer the pdf ...
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/pdf/47cfr76.1904.pdf

47CFR76.1904


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

srothkin said:


> .
> 
> BTW, I think that the implementation as I've seen it described is wrong. What I've seen written is that if the flag says copy never, you will not be able to record or view it and if it says copy once you will be allowed to view it but not copy it to an external device. What I think that really should be is copy never should allow you to record/view it but not to output to another device. Copy once should allow you to make one (and only one) copy to an external device (though FWIW I typically watch my programs on the DVR and then delete them -- no reason for me to output to another device).


I believe (but certainly could be wrong) that copy never means the show can be "paused" for up to 90 minutes then must self destruct. The way tivo implements this is they allow you to record it and it appears in the now playing then it gets flagged with a red blinking flag where the green/yellow/or red dots normally are. (while recording the red dot blinks in now playing) After 90minutes it deletes itself and puts a message in the history that it was deleted to comply withteh copyright holders wishes. This it the CCI 00x03 flag.

I think copy once puts it on the tivo but would not permit MRV or TTG if such features ever were to be implemented. I believe this is what the CCI 00x02 flag does- as my provider assigns that to certain programs- but it appears to have no effect on the tivo- so i assume if MRV/TTG were ever to be implemented that it would not be allowed. (interesting question would be is the single "copy" on the originating tivo allowed to get moved to a second tivo?- So if you recorded it on one would tivo be allowed to move it to a second and not allow the second to play back untill it got confirmation that the original was destroyed?)

I have no idea what CCI 00x01 does.

CCI 00x00 seems to be the default do nothing flag.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Go here ...
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html
> 
> Specifically ...
> ...


i was just going to pm you but didn't want to bother. I KNEW you would know.

YOU DA MAN.

So looks like 
1: cant restict broadcast content at all
2: PPV/VOD is llimited to 90 minutes
3: pay, premium, free conditiaon access can be resticted to one copy

am i reading that correctly (specifically #3)?


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> So looks like
> 1: cant restict broadcast content at all
> 2: PPV/VOD is llimited to 90 minutes
> 3: pay, premium, free conditiaon access can be resticted to one copy
> ...


Sorry ... I've got my own (mind numbing) legalese to go through right now ...

But ... yes ... in a nutshell ...

The most prohibitive copy protection (that can be applied by the _cable company_) is:
OTA broadcast - Copy Freely (EMI=00)
PPV / VOD - Copy Never (EMI=11)
Anything Else - Copy Once (EMI=10)

Of course ... less prohibitive protection can always be applied.


----------



## cassiusdrow (May 21, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I have no idea what CCI 00x01 does.
> 
> CCI 00x00 seems to be the default do nothing flag.


CCI byte EMI values:
00 - Copy freely
01 - Copy no more (a copy once that has already been copied once)
10 - Copy once
11 - Copy never


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

can you guys translate those emi values to the ##x## values for CCI as shown on the cablecard screens?


----------



## cassiusdrow (May 21, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> can you guys translate those emi values to the ##x## values for CCI as shown on the cablecard screens?


CCI byte EMI values (in hexadecimal or binary):
0x00 or 00 - Copy freely
0x01 or 01 - Copy no more (a copy once that has already been copied once)
0x02 or 10 - Copy once
0x03 or 11 - Copy never


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:



> can you guys translate those emi values to the ##x## values for CCI as shown on the cablecard screens?


The CCI is eight bits ... defined in the POD Copy Protection spec ...

http://www.scte.org/documents/pdf/ANSISCTE412004.pdf (see page 42)
http://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/DFAST_Tech_License.pdf (see page 20)

The 00x00, 00x01, etc. are a representation of that ... see cassiusdrow's post above.


----------



## Roderigo (Mar 12, 2002)

dieman said:


> Now the macrovision thing, tivo does that voluntarily as far as I know, and its really crappy when it doesn't work right because its screwing peoples programming left and right it sounds.


Dan already pointed out the problems reported are with CCI issues from the cablecard (and only impact digital channels).

Macrovision is only related to analog. And, it's not voluntary for the S3. Part of the cablecard spec requires the host to be certified by Macrovision.


----------



## srothkin (Sep 13, 2006)

Let me rephrase -- based on the plain english meaning of the terms "copy once", "copy never", etc., I believe the software should be changed to implement them as I described above.

IMHO, recording onto the TIVO's hard drive does not constitute copying.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

> CCI byte EMI values (in hexadecimal or binary):
> 0x00 or 00 - Copy freely
> 0x01 or 01 - Copy no more (a copy once that has already been copied once)
> 0x02 or 10 - Copy once
> 0x03 or 11 - Copy never


OK-

here's an oddity

my cable company seems to have the CCI set to anything but 0x00 on all digital stations.

I'm currently recording a show with 0x01 and the tivo isn't freakign or anything. No blinking red light, no flag on the description page. (on one of the nick SD channels no less)

So either 0x01 doesn't mean copy no more. Or tivo is ignoring it. Or the CCI that tivo says is there is not correct.

Go figure.


----------



## cassiusdrow (May 21, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I'm currently recording a show with 0x01 and the tivo isn't freakign or anything. No blinking red light, no flag on the description page. (on one of the nick SD channels no less)
> 
> So either 0x01 doesn't mean copy no more. Or tivo is ignoring it. Or the CCI that tivo says is there is not correct.


My guess would be the TiVo wouldn't allow any more copies to be made (such as TTG or MRV if they were enabled) when CCI = 0x01.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

srothkin said:


> Let me rephrase -- based on the plain english meaning of the terms "copy once", "copy never", etc., I believe the software should be changed to implement them as I described above.
> 
> IMHO, recording onto the TIVO's hard drive does not constitute copying.


doesn't matter what you or we or tivo thinks. Those are the terms and actions as defined by cablelabs and that's all that matters. Tivo is required to respond in that manner to those particular flags.

I am not certain but i beleive the terms were coined based upon copyright meanings or something. Copy never is not really a copy, but you are allowed to pause for 90 minutes. Experimenting some tonight- tivo really follows the 90 minutes very closely. I went to a half hour show with 10 minutes left- tivo told me that since there were only 10 minutes and the show was longer i was likely going to be disappointed watching it and having it delete mid way. Then on top of that- it would only allow me to watch the last 10 minutes. It was smart enough to figure out that the first 20 minutes was more than 90 minutes old and therefore expired. THe progress indicator bar at the bottom of the screen showed were i was and behaved normally, but if i was in the first 20 minutes it was black and gave me a message that that section was no longer viewable as the copyright holder didn't want it to be availible anymore.

Pretty impressive- it adds nothing to the device from the consumer perspective (in fact you could clearly say it takes away) but updating the software for cablelabs approval must have been some work after all..


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cassiusdrow said:


> My guess would be the TiVo wouldn't allow any more copies to be made (such as TTG or MRV if they were enabled) when CCI = 0x01.


oh so it's more of "record/copy this time and then no more"

and 0x02 is "record/copy this time and then one more time."

So 0x00,01,02 all will allow basic DVR functionality while 0x03 is the only really evil flag for DVR use. 00 is great. 01 probable kills MRV or TTG. 02 wold allow one MRV or TTG. (unless tivo figures out how to "move" the one copy between devices)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

So if/when MRV or TTG get's implemented there's going to be an exponential amount of these threads. RIght now only people with 0x03 even notice all the 01's and 02's wont know until later...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> come on Stormspace - you knopw full well this same issue came up on Series 2 when the new macrovison liscense was introduced and TTG and TiVoCast were put in the code. TiVo worked then to educate the broadcaster and all the cases turned out to be a re-broadcaster who did not know how to configure their equipment properly.
> 
> The same will happen here without having to make a mountain out of a molehill.


i hope so. Personally I'm working on educating my provider my self but tivo doesn't seem all that interested to get involved at this juncture for whatever reason(s).

I dont see any of the tivo peeps hopping into any of these threads to take names or provide guidance on who to contact or what to say. They seem to be quick to tell you to call them to get a conference call to get cablecards but i haven't seen any posts to call them to work out these CCI issues. A few people report that callign in gets you no where so the scripts dont seem to be written to funnel you higher at tivo support either.

Hopefully they are just busy right now with the initial launch and plan to jump into this issue with both feet at some point later on (hopefully sooner)


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> Pretty impressive- it adds nothing to the device from the consumer perspective (in fact you could clearly say it takes away) but updating the software for cablelabs approval must have been some work after all..


The whole point of a DVR is to time-shift, not pause live TV. 90-minute mandatory deletion is in practice indistinguishable from "must watch live", and therefore makes a DVR virtually worthless. The question is, who benefits from such a mandate? My best guess is that as long as Nielsen refuses to count DVR users while counting live viewers, from a broadcaster's point of view losing (for example) 20 DVR viewers is A-OK if you could gain 1 live viewer in return. In effect, it's good business to screw every customer your revenue model doesn't count.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

tivogurl said:


> The whole point of a DVR is to time-shift, not pause live TV. 90-minute mandatory deletion is in practice indistinguishable from "must watch live", and therefore makes a DVR virtually worthless. The question is, who benefits from such a mandate? My best guess is that as long as Nielsen refuses to count DVR users while counting live viewers, from a broadcaster's point of view losing (for example) 20 DVR viewers is A-OK if you could gain 1 live viewer in return. In effect, it's good business to screw every customer your revenue model doesn't count.


90 minute pause is only legal for PPV VOD. Basically cable doesn't want you to record those at all but some how (thankfully) the CEA got the FCC to allow pausing so you can pee or answer the phone during PPV or VOD.

For anything that is broadcast or on cable they legally must allow recording to a dvr to do with as you please. For cable it's a little more complex in that they can control save to vcr, MRV, TTG, etc. (but can not screw with the first DVR copy at all)


----------



## windracer (Jan 3, 2003)

I might be smeeking but this issue showed up in a boingboing posting today:



> The Macrovision DRM in the new TiVo Series3 recorders is so broken that just having the wrong piece of equipment attached to your TV can cause it to register some shows as un-savable to your VCR, DVD recorder, etc. TiVo characterizes this as a glitch, but that's not the whole story.


http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/36012281/tivos_selfdestruct_b.html

_edit:_ ah, the boinboing post was referencing this CNet article:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6650194.html


----------



## ac3dd (Mar 2, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> 90 minute pause is only legal for PPV VOD. Basically cable doesn't want you to record those at all but some how (thankfully) the CEA got the FCC to allow pausing so you can pee or answer the phone during PPV or VOD.


Overzealous DRM and copy protection driving away paying customers, as usual.

Before I could record PPV (via DirecTiVo), I didn't buy any PPV except one or two $4 movies PER YEAR, because I was always worried that something like a phone call would interrupt my viewing and make me waste my money. When DirecTiVo came along and would record any PPV I told it to, I started spending over $100/year.

Now I'm in a new apartment and have cable instead. 90-minute pause isn't good enough to convince me to spend $30-$50 for a PPV fight. It typically takes 3-4 hours of undercard bouts to get to the main fight, and I often fall asleep and end up watching the main event the next day. If I can't record PPV for at least 48 hours, I'm not spending anything more than the occasional $4 movie.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

ac3dd said:


> Overzealous DRM and copy protection driving away paying customers, as usual.
> 
> Before I could record PPV (via DirecTiVo), I didn't buy any PPV except one or two $4 movies PER YEAR, because I was always worried that something like a phone call would interrupt my viewing and make me waste my money. When DirecTiVo came along and would record any PPV I told it to, I started spending over $100/year.
> 
> Now I'm in a new apartment and have cable instead. 90-minute pause isn't good enough to convince me to spend $30-$50 for a PPV fight. It typically takes 3-4 hours of undercard bouts to get to the main fight, and I often fall asleep and end up watching the main event the next day. If I can't record PPV for at least 48 hours, I'm not spending anything more than the occasional $4 movie.


DirecTV has just as much capabilities to apply "copy never" to PPV content as cable does. It's just that they don't do so (for now). Cable usuaully doesn't do so either (for now) ... but ... since you're dealing with thousands of cable plants instead of just a few sattelites ... makes generalization difficult so YMMV.


----------



## ac3dd (Mar 2, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> DirecTV has just as much capabilities to apply "copy never" to PPV content as cable does.


As long as they didn't actually apply it, I was happily buying and recording PPV shows. Now my Comcast DVR (which will be replaced with an S3 once it's past the early-adopter nightmare phase) won't record PPV so I don't buy any such shows.


----------



## Roderigo (Mar 12, 2002)

windracer said:


> > The Macrovision DRM in the new TiVo Series3 recorders is so broken that just having the wrong piece of equipment attached to your TV can cause it to register some shows as un-savable to your VCR, DVD recorder, etc.
> 
> 
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/36012281/tivos_selfdestruct_b.html


Ah - a semi-accurate article then made completely inaccurate.

A) The issue isn't with Macrovision - as that only applies to analog content. Tivo's UI and website should be clarified to talk about digital cable copy protection.

B) The Boing Boing article has the wrong cause... Attaching the JVC receiver doesn't cause the S3 to incorrectly detect copy protection - it's something the cable company put onto the content, and the S3 has always been detecting it. What's being noticed, is that the S3 is required to black the content out if it can't negotiate HDCP. This could be the S3's fault, or could be the receiver's fault - it's clearly not the S3 completely not handling HDCP, as it worked with other brands of HDMI equipment.

C) 


> By including Macrovision with its products, TiVo is designing a product that is intended to control its owner and treat its owner (TiVo's customer) as an attacker.


Not quite sure why Tivo's getting all the heat for the DRM issues. As soon as Tivo decided to build a cablecard product, they were required by the cable industry (and them by the content industry), to include these restrictions (just like any other cablecard product). Other than lobbying to get the DRM restrictions removed (not blody likely), the choice was to either play by the cable industry rules, or not build the S3 at all.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Roderigo said:


> ...
> 
> Not quite sure why Tivo's getting all the heat for the DRM issues. As soon as Tivo decided to build a cablecard product, they were required by the cable industry (and them by the content industry), to include these restrictions (just like any other cablecard product). Other than lobbying to get the DRM restrictions removed (not blody likely), the choice was to either play by the cable industry rules, or not build the S3 at all.


exactly.

ignoring the fact that this is apparently a cablecard/CCI issue-

Isn't macrovision required by LAW on all current DVD burners and VCRs? I seem to recall a big fuss about the last go video vcr/dvd burning combo a couple junes ago that didn't contain macrovision?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Sorry ... I've got my own (mind numbing) legalese to go through right now ...
> 
> But ... yes ... in a nutshell ...
> 
> ...


maybe you should just right the cablecard/ocap/CCI faq- LOL.

I want to confirm these 3 points above. OTa and PPV seem fairly straighforward in the reg- but are you certain that everything else can only go EMI=10 (=0x02)? (as opposed to 01 or 0x01)

Basically my provider seems utterly clueless and about slapping the wrong flags all over the place. Although they were genereally very quick to reply to me earlier they seem to be ignoring several requests to fix the situation. I think i need to get strapped in for a big nasty throw down so I want to understand the facts as best I can in anticipation of the nastiness that they seem to be looking for.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> maybe you should just right the cablecard/ocap/CCI faq- LOL.


Hmm:
http://www.opencable.com/

Oh, and then there's:
http://www.scte.org/

And:
http://www.ansi.org/

Oh, and you may need:
http://www.dvb.org/

Don't forget:
http://www.fcc.gov/

The problem with trying to FAQ / paraphrase standards (and federal regulations) is that the people writing them are actually pretty dang good / efficient at saying exactly what needs to be said as clearly and precisely as possible (although even THEN there's still always room for various interpretations or misinterpretaions) and as soon as you start trying to "boil things down" ... you are doomed to failure.

Seriously, a good FAQ / explanation of any spec / regulation needs to be (exponentially longer) than the specs / regulations in question ... and even my (admitedly often voluminous) posts are still usually only partial / mostly incomplete summarizations ...

There are some good books on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/s?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=Opencable


MichaelK said:


> OTa and PPV seem fairly straighforward in the reg- but are you certain that everything else can only go EMI=10 (=0x02)? (as opposed to 01 or 0x01)


The _*cable company*_ certainly should not be applying EMI=01 (No Further Copying Permitted) to "pay television transmissions, non-premium subscription television, or free conditional access delivery transmissions".


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

thanks


----------



## JKay (Feb 8, 2001)

I would think cable companies dont really care if you even turn your TV on as long as you pay your monthly subscription fee. Sure they want you to use VOD and PPV live, but recording a network show and watching it later is not much of an issue. Providing a PVR is really more of a nuisance demanded by some subscribers. 

Broadcasters on the other hand have a vested interest in discouraging time-shifting. By making sure the modern Digital recorder will obey any restrictions they can use at the present or may be allowed to use in the future is very important to them.

DRM is a can of worms for consumers and considered a life saving device by both the music and broadcast industries. I want to upgrade to the new Series 3, but I am concerned that in the digital world, TiVos path is strewn with boulders.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Just some feedback about my small provider. As you can see from above they were setting the 0x03 flag on 10+ HD cable channels. I couple of us contacted them and they corrected them all and set them to 0x02.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Cool! Did they look into your random 0x03 issue on broadcast channels?

Also, FYI, if any of those 10 HD channels were broadcast channels then they are required by law to set those to 0x00.

Dan


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

As a CA Manager for an MSO here is what I can control in regard to content copy protection. As stated previously in this thread there is one for digital, CCI, and one for analog, Macrovision. 

The famous "broadcast flag" has nothing to do with any of this. Never has.

With CCI I can set the levels to "Copy Freely", "Copy Once", "Copy No More", "Copy Never", OR "EXTERNALLY DEFINED". Obviously the definitions of these various states have been discussed previously so I won't go over the specifics. 

On the Macrovision side I can either block copying all together or constrain the image in multiple ways.

When these levels are set on the MSO side, they are applied to the ENTIRE channel and NOT individual programs within a channel. This is where the "Externally Defined" setting comes in. "Externally Defined" means that the stream that comes out of the satellite receiver from a provider passes through the encryption device untouched. We don't add CCI/MV protection to the stream (ie Copy Never) and we don't take CCI/MV protection off of the stream (ie Copy Freely). The content provider, on the other hand, can implement CCI protection on a program-to-program level, OR on the channel level.

When an MSO signs a contract with a content provider, say HBO, for example 99.9% of the time there is going to be language in that contract that implicity states what an MSO can and can't do with their feed. You may be able to remultiplex the feed, alter MPEG's, PID's, and PMT's, and maybe even rate shape, but in nearly every case altering CCI or Macrovision protection is grounds for litigation. This is why nearly all of my channels are set to Externally Defined. If I have a channel with no such language in the contract it's ALWAYS set to Copy Freely, including PPV. 

I will add that as employees AND customers we like to be able to manage our own content as well...but we too are forced to bow to our Hollywood overlords and their army of lawyers.

Cableric


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

JDguy said:


> +1
> 
> And Broadcast Flag was about internet retransmission (which is why Tivo originally submitted MRV & TTG to the FCC), but has NOTHING to do with making a recording on an internal DVR. The Broadcast Flag is not "copy-protection" at all.


Thats what they said but what it required was that tuners could not be sold unless they encrypted the signal as close to demodulation as possible and it must remain encrypted all the way to the display with HDCP. They also had to downconvert component outputs to 480p if the flag was present. The law also required that two major studios approve the design before it could be blessed by the FCC.

It basically outlawed nearly all PCI ATSC tuners. Only way to do a HTPC would be something like windows media center edition that can support HDCP. If it had gone through I'm sure it would have been applied to outlaw in the clear QAM tuners cards.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Cool! Did they look into your random 0x03 issue on broadcast channels?
> 
> Also, FYI, if any of those 10 HD channels were broadcast channels then they are required by law to set those to 0x00.
> 
> Dan


no random 90 minute nuking lately but I have only had 2 in the past few weeks so I wont feel comfy for anothee couple weeks. Also the .b update might have resolved those issues?

But non of the broadcast channels were ever regularly 0x03. (But the 2 random 90 minute nukes I had were on jericho on wcbsdt and nova on wnetdt).

But they do have the broadcast channels all on 0x02 right now (and before too for that matter) which still is not 0x00. And some cable channels are on 01 when they can only be on 00 or 02. My email to the operations VP linked to the req and I summarized the 3 allowable cases in the req for OTA, PPV/VOD, and cable. But i was more specific to being really pissed about the 03 flags. So i'm not sure my point about the broadcast channels needing 00 was clear. I plan to politely point that out too at some point- it really doesn't matter now as tivo likes 00, 01, and 02, so it's not a big deal but if MRV ever gets enabled I dont want to have to start all over again about that- as I think 01 WILL and 02 MIGHT screw up MRV.

Also to be honest I plan to ask them if they can send the broadcast channels unencrypted. Becasue of TiVo's lack of any public comment on all these issues I'm wondering if some of the random things might be related to Tivo's side of things- if nothing else the failure to authenticate defaulting to 03 is enough in my mind to not trust the whole CCI flag thing anymore than I have to. Point is I'd rather they not encrypt and use the CCI flags at all so there is nothing to mistakingly set the 03 flag.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cableric said:


> As a CA Manager for an MSO here is what I can control in regard to content copy protection. As stated previously in this thread there is one for digital, CCI, and one for analog, Macrovision.
> 
> The famous "broadcast flag" has nothing to do with any of this. Never has.
> 
> ...


thanks for sharing.

Do you know with 'externally defined' are providers putting their own restictions or is everything basically copy freely at this point?

Is 'externally defined' a universal thing with all head end equipment? If there is such a thing i might suggest to my provider that they just get out of the loop and let the channels themselves set it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

kb7oeb said:


> ... The law also required that two major studios approve the design before it could be blessed by the FCC.
> ...


i think you are mistaken or there is some miswording there.

If I understand correctly -
There never was a law at all. The FCC on their own created a REGULATION for the broadcast flag. Regulatory agencies are not permitted to just make up regulations that they feel like- they must be directed by a law passed by congress and the president to create regulations. The courts decided that the FCC had no such mandate from congress in regards to creating boradcast flag rules and as such overturned the regulation.

Congress currently is being lobbied to create a law that basically would just take the tossed out regulation and make it into a law so that the FCC isn't even involved.

again- that is if i understand correctly. (certainly wouldn't be the first time I was wrong-LOL)

Also I was under the impression that downconverting analog outputs was never approved and was specifically verboten.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

MichaelK said:


> Also to be honest I plan to ask them if they can send the broadcast channels unencrypted.


Your broadcast channels are encrypted? That's illegal too! 

Dan


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> i think you are mistaken or there is some miswording there.
> 
> If I understand correctly -
> There never was a law at all. The FCC on their own created a REGULATION for the broadcast flag.


You're right, the rule was to go into effect on June(or July) 2005 but the court struck it down before then saying by the FCCs logic they should be allowed to regulate washing machines. There have been some attempts in congress to give the FCC the power to force the broadcast flag but so far the attempts have failed.



MichaelK said:


> Also I was under the impression that downconverting analog outputs was never approved and was specifically verboten.


Could be, it changed a couple times and was overly complicated and unnecessary seeing as how CBS is still doing HD in the clear ( they threatened to stop doing HD if the BF didn't happen).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Your broadcast channels are encrypted? That's illegal too!
> 
> Dan


OK-
ROFL
round 2 coming up!

can you point me to that regulation please?

(where is dt_dc with the link when you need him!)

kidding aside - i need some more edumacation. So go ahead and learn me so i can learn my cable company...

I am not certain by any means- but wouldn't the presence of a CCI flag mean it's encrypted? Would they bother sending a CCI flag (even 0x00) if the content was unencrypted and "in the clear" who would give a crap what the CCI flag says since anyone could watch it with a QAM tuner?

That aside the cablecard screen sure says "encryption: DES" so that means they are encrypted no?

If I ***** at them to turn off the encryption then wont that get rid of the CCI?

Sorry for my ignorance but i need to learn someplace.

Mike

PS- my response was kidding but I really could use the exact link to the relevent CFR (or the number)- I look up OSHA, DOT, and EPA regulations on a daily basis for work and have no problem getting what i need in quick order but for some reason I cant find my way out of a paper bag looking for FCC regs either at the GPO or FCC websites.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

kb7oeb said:


> ... the FCC...regulate washing machines. ....


do you think the washercards would work?

the FCC cant even enforce the mandates they have and then they waste time on stuff they aren't even supposed to....


----------



## cassiusdrow (May 21, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> OK-
> can you point me to that regulation please?


 Code of Federal Regulations Title 47, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 76, §76.1904, paragraph (a):

" (a) Commercial audiovisual content delivered as unencrypted broadcast television shall not be encoded so as to prevent or limit copying thereof by covered products or, to constrain the resolution of the image when output from a covered product."


----------



## Roderigo (Mar 12, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> wouldn't the presence of a CCI flag mean it's encrypted? Would they bother sending a CCI flag (even 0x00) if the content was unencrypted and "in the clear" who would give a crap what the CCI flag says since anyone could watch it with a QAM tuner?


There are two forms of encryption that are in-play.

First, the Conditional Access (CA) encryption. This is encryption applied to the video stream as it comes over the cable. The Cablecard's job is to decrypt this, if you're cards are authorized for the particular channel. This is completely proprietary to the headend/cablecard, so no one external knows how that system works.

Then, if the channel has copy protection applied to it (non-zero CCI), the card re-encnrypts it, before it gets sent to the host. The host then needs to decrypt that level before it can show a picture. In your case, the card is using DES CP encryption. I forget if there are other encryption policies allowed on cablecard to host link. I also don't remember if the card always shows the type of encryption it's going to use, regarless of the content that it's current receiving (i.e the card may be saying I'll use DES if I have to do CP encryption).

So, the summary is, it's possible to have something without CA encryption, but with Copy Protection & CP encryption. But, as you point out, that would be very silly, as there are no restrictions on the content if you're not using the cablecard.


----------



## Roderigo (Mar 12, 2002)

cableric said:


> As a CA Manager for an MSO...


Thanks for posting! Nice to get some technical details from the MSO side of the whole Cablecard thing.



cableric said:


> On the Macrovision side I can either block copying all together or constrain the image in multiple ways.


Are you talking about the APS bits within the CCI? That controls what macrovision the host has to put on it's analog outputs, but not what policies is has to enforce on it's own recordings/digital outputs. Or, can you control the Macrovision level on analog channels?



cableric said:


> This is where the "Externally Defined" setting comes in. "Externally Defined" means that the stream that comes out of the satellite receiver from a provider passes through the encryption device untouched.


Do you know if any provider is changing the CCI on a per-show basis? There's a report somewhere in here of someone doing a long manual recording, where the CCI changed in the middle. Do you guys get a log of what's going on w/ the Externally Defined channels, so if a customer calls to complain, you can figure out what went wrong?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cassiusdrow said:


> Code of Federal Regulations Title 47, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 76, §76.1904, paragraph (a):
> 
> " (a) Commercial audiovisual content delivered as unencrypted broadcast television shall not be encoded so as to prevent or limit copying thereof by covered products or, to constrain the resolution of the image when output from a covered product."


apparently there's a debate as to what the h_ll that means. And there's no clear cut answer I can find anyplace what that means. One of the recent EFF or CNET links even says somethign like the FCC declined to say if that means HD locals cant' be encryted.

It's like i have to hire a friggin lawyer to get my cable company and tivo to get along and behave nicely. I'm getting fed up with TiVo's frigging lack of comment, suppoort, etc about these issues. If it's not there issue than they should say so loud and clear. It would also be nice for them to provide some guidance since clearly they have people that know all this stuff way better than an average joe like me.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Roderigo said:


> ...
> 
> Do you know if any provider is changing the CCI on a per-show basis? There's a report somewhere in here of someone doing a long manual recording, where the CCI changed in the middle. Do you guys get a log of what's going on w/ the Externally Defined channels, so if a customer calls to complain, you can figure out what went wrong?


I dont KNOW anything. But the longer TiVo stays mum on the matter I'm starting to think that these random per show screw ups are a failure of the tivo software/hardware to properly authenticate the CCI bits. The spec says under such cases then everything should default to 0x003 which is the 90 minute kill.

Clearly it's not universal- and only some providers and particular stations on those providers are prone to this. So there seems to be other factors involved that trips up the handshake.

All just idle speculation but without a statement from TiVo who knows....


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> can you point me to that regulation please?
> 
> (where is dt_dc with the link when you need him!)


Regarding locals and encryption ...

http://archive2.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=2201139&&#post2201139

I would read it as ... locals (even HD locals) need to be unencrypted. HOWEVER, the FCC has never really explicitly stated / ruled / clarified that. There are even a few Reports & Orders where the FCC has said "well, perhaps HD locals can be encrypted, perhaps not, we should really make a ruling on that at some point, but for now we won't".

Basically ... it's an issue that's never been pushed / clarified. Although I would say that under _existing_ regulations locals should be unencrypted ... but ... if ever pushed and appealed to the FCC ... dunno what the end result would be.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Regarding locals and encryption ...
> 
> http://archive2.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=2201139&&#post2201139
> 
> ...


thanks for that thread.

but your commentary is exactly my point. WIthout a frigging lawyer how am i going to win that fight with my cable company? If I tell them it says they cant encrypt and they disagree (maybe they have actually read those waffling reports and orders) then I loose credibility fighting all these other CCI issues I'm having. The CCI thing seems cut and dry based upon the regulations and I'll keep my complaining at the current time to that. They seem to have cleared out the 0x03 tags but still have 01's on some cabel channels and 02's on broadcast channels- no biggie now but if tivo ever pulls off MRV that will be a pain. Seems as long as tivo is handling the things correctly then encryption doesn't matter to me as the cards will do whatever the cards do.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

I should have prefaced my original post by stating that my system is Motorola based (as opposed to Scientific Atlanta) so any information I pass on MAY only be applicable in the Moto environment.

We also recently finished a major upgrade to our CAS system which added the "Externally Defined" feature to the CCI level. Prior to that nearly all channels in my system were set to "Copy Freely". We were one of the first MSO's to upgrade to this new CAS version. Moto will be spending the next year upgrading other MSO's throughout the country to this version (3.1.1-7). When that happens nearly all CCI control will be handed over to the content provider (i.e. HBO) via the "Externally Defined" feature. Translation; MSO's will have little to no control over CCI levels.



Roderigo said:


> Are you talking about the APS bits within the CCI? That controls what macrovision the host has to put on it's analog outputs, but not what policies is has to enforce on it's own recordings/digital outputs. Or, can you control the Macrovision level on analog channels?


No, my Macrovision control is over ANY channel, Digital or Analog, on the analog output ports of any host device. For example S3 analog out to a VCR or DVD Recorder.



Roderigo said:


> Do you know if any provider is changing the CCI on a per-show basis? There's a report somewhere in here of someone doing a long manual recording, where the CCI changed in the middle. Do you guys get a log of what's going on w/ the Externally Defined channels, so if a customer calls to complain, you can figure out what went wrong?


I'm not sure if content creators/providers are intentionally altering CCI's on a per show basis, as I haven't been able to find any consistency, but it does happen. Maybe this is meant to frustrate and confuse, I really don't know. There are no logs. The providers do not give us a "list" of what channels, programs, etc are affected by their CCI implementation. As an MSO we have zero visibility in this matter. Inquiries to providers have been met with, "It's our stream, our content, and we'll implement copy protection as we see fit. You just set your controller to pass everything through (per contract) and we'll do the rest."

Regarding a prior post that threw out a wild allegation that MSO's might be implementing one CCI level for S3's and another level for their own set-tops (to the S3's detriment) this is completely false.

There seems to be this notion that MSO's make ALL this money off of their Moto or SA boxes and they will do anything to protect this "HUGE" revenue stream generated from set-top leasing. In fact the opposite is true for us. In most cases we LOSE money on set-tops, with the low end stuff we MIGHT break even. If you look at the cost of a DCT-3416 we're paying about $500 a box. Leased out at $9.95 per month it's going to take about 50 months to break even. 50 months! Over 4 years! At the rate technology in the industry is moving the box will be obsolete (or broken) in 2 years. (Actually sooner with pending OCAP requirements hitting in July '07).

So needless to say we can't wait for the day when consumers can go to BB or CC, pick out their own box --absorb the cost themselves-- bring it to us and we'll activate the service.

Let me know if you guys have any other questions.

Cableric
_____________________


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cableric said:


> I should have prefaced my original post by stating that my system is Motorola based (as opposed to Scientific Atlanta) so any information I pass on MAY only be applicable in the Moto environment.
> 
> We also recently finished a major upgrade to our CAS system which added the "Externally Defined" feature to the CCI level. Prior to that nearly all channels in my system were set to "Copy Freely". We were one of the first MSO's to upgrade to this new CAS version. Moto will be spending the next year upgrading other MSO's throughout the country to this version (3.1.1-7). When that happens nearly all CCI control will be handed over to the content provider (i.e. HBO) via the "Externally Defined" feature. Translation; MSO's will have little to no control over CCI levels.
> 
> ...


thanks for the info.

If I have moto cablecards is it safe to assume my compnay's hadedn is moto too?

II hope evveryone quickly moves to the extreanlly defined model ASAP. THen it's much cleaner without 1,000 middlemen to deal with.

Question on your rental DVR's- some seem to be saying that those boxes see other copy protection info and dont look at the CCI bits. That the CCI bits are only for cablecard. Is that a correct understanding? It sounds right becasue my provider seems to have been running with the CCI bits for the HD teier bascailly all set to copy never for months and months and I'd think their own DVR subs would call to complain if they were efected? Do you know?


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Re: EMI>00 on (CA) unencrypted content

BTW, CableLabs / SCTE calls this state "undesired"

http://www.scte.org/documents/pdf/ANSISCTE412004.pdf


> ANSI/SCTE 41 2004
> POD Copy Protection System
> 
> 7.4 CP-SCRAMBLING AS A FUNCTION OF CA-SCRAMBLING AND EMI VALUE
> ...


But does the CableCard apply CP-scrambling to CA-unscrambled content? This (to me) has always been one of the most unclear / unspecified / uncertain parts of the CableCard specs ... CA-Unscrabmled content with EMI>0 ... is it delivered from the POD to the host CP-Scrambled or not? Or heck, is it left up to the CA implementors (CableCard, firmware)?

If I was developing a host ... I certainly might read the above and think CA-Unscrambled content would always be delivered CP-Unscrambled (despite the EMI). Quite frankly ... I might even think any CP-Scrambling on CA-Unscrambled content was an error of some sort ...

In response to ...


Roderigo said:


> So, the summary is, it's possible to have something without CA encryption, but with Copy Protection & CP encryption. But, as you point out, that would be very silly, as there are no restrictions on the content if you're not using the cablecard.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> Re: EMI>00 on unencrypted content
> 
> BTW, CableLabs / SCTE calls this state "undesired"
> 
> ...


Hmm, okay let me try and bring this into the real world so people can understand. I'll use our system for an example.

We provide all of our network channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.), both SD digital and HD, to our subscribers unencrypted. We are a 100% digital system so that's why I specify both SD & HD. Any customer with a clear QAM tuner can access these channels. Our contract states that these "must carry" channels have to go out unencrypted in our plant IF the broadcaster is also providing them free to air. Now even though the Broadcast Flag was struck down on the OTA side, I don't know if there is anything that prevents the broadcaster from flipping a CCI switch on us, EXCEPT that I have defined these channels as "Copy Freely", so even if it comes in "Copy Never", it's going to go out with my "Copy Freely".

Based on everything I know, I don't know how a clear QAM network channel could legally justify copy protection on an unencrypted channel. But it a sneaky way it would technically get around their loss of the Broadcast Flag, unfortunately only affecting cable subscribers. I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS HAPPENING! I'm just saying it's POSSIBLE.

Cableric


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

cableric said:


> In most cases we LOSE money on set-tops, with the low end stuff we MIGHT break even... So needless to say we can't wait for the day when consumers can go to BB or CC, pick out their own box --absorb the cost themselves-- bring it to us and we'll activate the service.


Of course the MSO are willing to lose money on the STB because they gain complete control over the customer facing UI. They gain sales opportunities through advertising on the guides, MRV (for Verion at least) sales of PPV and VOD and who knows what else.

If you could stick the customer with paying for the STB and keep control over the UI it would be a huge windfall for the MSOs.

This is why I find it totally ridiculous that anyone would pay for a retail STB that forces the use of the MSO guide apps.


----------



## Dark Helmet (Sep 15, 2006)

cableric said:


> So needless to say we can't wait for the day when consumers can go to BB or CC, pick out their own box --absorb the cost themselves-- bring it to us and we'll activate the service.


I don't doubt what you're saying, but I have a question for you. If cable companies can't wait for the day when consumers can order their own box, how come it seems like they're dragging their feet when it comes to CableCard? It seems that cable companies should be overjoyed that consumers are buying S3 Tivos ... but instead it seems like the MSO's attitude toward the S3 ranges from indifference to active hostility.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

cableric said:


> Hmm, okay let me try and bring this into the real world so people can understand. I'll use our system for an example.
> 
> We provide all of our network channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.), both SD digital and HD, to our subscribers unencrypted. We are a 100% digital system so that's why I specify both SD & HD. Any customer with a clear QAM tuner can access these channels. Our contract states that these "must carry" channels have to go out unencrypted in our plant IF the broadcaster is also providing them free to air. Now even though the Broadcast Flag was struck down on the OTA side, I don't know if there is anything that prevents the broadcaster from flipping a CCI switch on us, EXCEPT that I have defined these channels as "Copy Freely", so even if it comes in "Copy Never", it's going to go out with my "Copy Freely".
> 
> ...


Welcome aboard Cableric, I remember you being another helpful member from the Moxi boards on AVSforums.

Got a question on this last post: Are you saying that if a broadcast network is using a CCI option to limit recording that you are over-riding it with your "Copy Freely" rather than what you stated in an earlier post that you used normally?(Externally Defined)

To sum that up somewhat:

1: on broadcast you are setting "Copy Freely"?
2: on all other cable channels you are setting "Externally defined"?


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Dark Helmet said:


> I don't doubt what you're saying, but I have a question for you. If cable companies can't wait for the day when consumers can order their own box, how come it seems like they're dragging their feet when it comes to CableCard? It seems that cable companies should be overjoyed that consumers are buying S3 Tivos ... but instead it seems like the MSO's attitude toward the S3 ranges from indifference to active hostility.


MSOs want you to buy STBs and still grant them control over the UI. Basically they want to keep their cake and eat it too.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

ah30k said:


> Of course the MSO are willing to lose money on the STB because they gain complete control over the customer facing UI. They gain sales opportunities through advertising on the guides, MRV (for Verion at least) sales of PPV and VOD and who knows what else.
> 
> If you could stick the customer with paying for the STB and keep control over the UI it would be a huge windfall for the MSOs.
> 
> This is why I find it totally ridiculous that anyone would pay for a retail STB that forces the use of the MSO guide apps.


We don't control the guide. We are a TV Guide customer, as there are few other options for operators, and at their mercy. We don't receive one dime of guide advertising, TV Guide gets it all. In the current one-way cablecard environment we do lose out on VOD revenue, although we really don't see much of that $3.99. With PPV, the customer can call to order in our system, even with a CableCARD. However this all becomes moot with OCAP. Compliant boxes can be purchased anywhere and would be functional with PPV, VOD, and other interactive services. It's a win for the subscriber and a win for MSO's.

Cableric


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ah30k said:


> ...
> 
> If you could stick the customer with paying for the STB and keep control over the UI it would be a huge windfall for the MSOs.
> 
> ....


HEEELLLLOOOOO OCAP


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

Dark Helmet said:


> I don't doubt what you're saying, but I have a question for you. If cable companies can't wait for the day when consumers can order their own box, how come it seems like they're dragging their feet when it comes to CableCard? It seems that cable companies should be overjoyed that consumers are buying S3 Tivos ... but instead it seems like the MSO's attitude toward the S3 ranges from indifference to active hostility.


Granted, it's common knowledge that some MSO's that have been initially unwilling to support the Series 3 in any way. I really don't understand this mentality as the whole industry is moving toward this environment VERY rapidly. So to a certain extent I can't comment on why other MSO's may appear to be dragging their feet. I know that when we've been accused of such it's typically related to card availability. There have been multiple times where we didn't have them in stock and it was 6-8 weeks before Moto could supply us with more.

Outside of that MSO's are stuck in the middle of a multi-billion dollar "chicken and egg" scenario. CE manufacturers have been reluctant to build Mcard compatible devices until mcards are widely available. CA (Conditional Access) vendors have been reluctant to ramp up Mcard development and production until CE host devices are available. This struggle seemed to go back and forth for some time. To the point that some television manufacturers started to remove CableCARD capabilities from their products citing reports that they weren't widely used and it would allow them to be more competitive in the HDTV price war.

So what are consumers left with now? Motorola will be releasing their own host device (set top box) to stick their own Mcard in. Congratulations, they just reinvented the DCT by calling it a DCH and having a CA card that slides in and out. Functionality is the same. Initially, from the consumer standpoint, it's going to be the same old thing but it DOES open up the possibility for CE manufacturers to step up to the plate, innovate, and bring a product to market that beats Moto and SA at their game...it really shouldn't be that hard.

Cableric


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

Leo_N said:


> Welcome aboard Cableric, I remember you being another helpful member from the Moxi boards on AVSforums.
> 
> Got a question on this last post: Are you saying that if a broadcast network is using a CCI option to limit recording that you are over-riding it with your "Copy Freely" rather than what you stated in an earlier post that you used normally?(Externally Defined)
> 
> ...


It's funny all this is comming up now as I just got out of a "State of the Union" seminar by Motorola on the future of Separable Conditional Access. I'm trying to get clarification on wheter or not my CCI levels that I set in the DAC overrides anything that is already embedded by the content provider. It looks like it does not. I can create my own, but not necessarily strip one out. That's another process entirely and obviously not "legal".

Cableric

p.s. I do still LOVE my Moxi but feel bad for the customers who's MSO's didn't keep up with bug fixes and "proper" installation practices. They were truely left with a buggy, partially (or non) functional device.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

cableric said:


> We don't control the guide. We are a TV Guide customer, as there are few other options for operators, and at their mercy.


If you are Comcast, TW or Cox you spec out exactly what you want in your guides and the three major guide apps sell out their grandmothers to gain the sale.

In fact, if you are Comcast, you are a majority owner of the TVGuide/GuideWorks vendor.

I simply don't buy that you have no control.

Are you telling me that the guide vendors are the ones who don't allow me to turn off HBO from my guide view because I don't subscribe? I think the MSO insists that it remain there even though I don't subscribe to increase the chances I will impulse buy it when I stumble across a good movie.


----------



## Roderigo (Mar 12, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> BTW, CableLabs / SCTE calls this state "undesired"


Thanks for posting the reference.. I was being too lazy to point to that part of the spec when I typed up my comment. I was just pointing out that "undesired" is not equivalent to "unallowed" or even an "error." Thus, it's technically possible. The host isn't involved in CA encryption at all. It just passes a transport to the card, and gets a transport out of the card. Whereas, the host has to be involved in CP encryption, as it needs to decrypt the CP encrypted transport stream.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

ah30k said:


> If you are Comcast, TW or Cox you spec out exactly what you want in your guides and the three major guide apps sell out their grandmothers to gain the sale.
> 
> In fact, if you are Comcast, you are a majority owner of the TVGuide/GuideWorks vendor.
> 
> ...


Again I'll state that I only speak for my MSO, but yes the guide vendors (in our case TV Guide) does not give us the ability to turn off, or not display, channels that are not subscribed. However, we do provide that capability in our Moxi service and have no problems doing so.

You are correct in the fact that Comcast does control their own UI with their GuideWorks partnership. Alas, we are not Comcast. We don't see any sweatheart deals with guide vendors, STB manufacturers, or anybody else.

I know a lot of people have had bad experiences with cable, and will take every opportunity to vilify them, but I'd like to get back topic of this thread. As more and more content providers exert their DRM schemes, through the use of CCI and Macrovision, cable operators will be powerless to stop it. At that point blaming cable for your inability to copy content is like blaming Best Buy that DVD's are copy protected.

Cableric


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

cableric said:


> Again I'll state that I only speak for my MSO, but yes the guide vendors (in our case TV Guide) does not give us the ability to turn off, or not display, channels that are not subscribed. However, we do provide that capability in our Moxi service and have no problems doing so.
> 
> You are correct in the fact that Comcast does control their own UI with their GuideWorks partnership. Alas, we are not Comcast. We don't see any sweatheart deals with guide vendors, STB manufacturers, or anybody else.
> 
> ...


The big issue here is that being consumers people don't have much power individually, so they contact someone that has more power than them and the means to communicate to those that are causing the issue. Then the CC's special interest groups and industry organizations that are currently trying to stall integration adoption will focus on the real issue, and that is to remove CCI flags from cable and HD content.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

cableric said:


> However this all becomes moot with OCAP. Compliant boxes can be purchased anywhere and would be functional with PPV, VOD, and other interactive services. It's a win for the subscriber and a win for MSO's.


First, it's unfortunate that this thread has veered away from discussing TiVO's position on the proposed Broadcast Flag legislation, as I think that's an interesting discussion. But when in Rome...

To your point, I would hardly call OCAP in its present form a "win" for subscribers. Everything that runs on an OCAP device must receive the blessing of, be installed by, and may be removed (at any time) by *the MSO*! All this talk about OCAP providing a competitive platform on which to develop third-party applications is baloney.

A perfect analogy would be if Microsoft required complete control of everyone's PC, including validating every program that gets installed on it, deciding which programs to run, installing and removing them at will, forcing third-party software developers to design everything to Microsoft's specifications, etc. Don't like Word or Windows Media Player? Too bad, those are the only word processing and media management programs allowed to run on your PC. Furthermore Microsoft will install them for you, and not allow you to remove them or modify them in any way.

Of course, this would violate every tenet of antitrust that exists, and no one would ever stand for this...yet it is EXACTLY what is happening with OCAP. Is this really what we want? Does OCAP benefit consumers by fostering competition for applications running on an OCAP device? Of course not. This is a huge loss for competition and for consumer benefit.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

cableric said:


> I really don't understand this mentality as the whole industry is moving toward this environment VERY rapidly. So to a certain extent I can't comment on why other MSO's may appear to be dragging their feet.
> 
> Cableric


I think it's just another major thing that they have to support. (assuming cable is like other electronics industries I've experienced)

It's not like they don't have any problems with the boxes they already have. Now they have all these other problems on top of it. They have to order and support Cablecards, support all these other third-party devices they have no control over, resolve incompatibility issues, schedule installations, increase and train customer support, etc. And all this for a box that does LESS than the boxes they currently rent out. Just look at this forum to see all of the extra support they have had to give this past month. They take an unknown, FCC-mandated loss on supporting CableCards or a known, controllable loss with each box rental. It's a lose-lose situation, but most people would take the known, controllable loss.

The INDUSTRY may be going that way but each individual MSO won't like the extra burden it places on them.

As far as the original thread (Tivo's position on DRM flags), what do you want Tivo to say? Unless it's a clear bug on their end (which it may be), I think they will say "Get used to it."


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> I think it's just another major thing that they have to support. (assuming cable is like other electronics industries I've experienced)
> 
> It's not like they don't have any problems with the boxes they already have. Now they have all these other problems on top of it. They have to order and support Cablecards, support all these other third-party devices they have no control over, resolve incompatibility issues, schedule installations, increase and train customer support, etc. And all this for a box that does LESS than the boxes they currently rent out. Just look at this forum to see all of the extra support they have had to give this past month. They take an unknown, FCC-mandated loss on supporting CableCards or a known, controllable loss with each box rental. It's a lose-lose situation, but most people would take the known, controllable loss.
> 
> ...


Don't worry, they'll hit us with another rate increase to offset the cable card expenses.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> As far as the original thread (Tivo's position on DRM flags), what do you want Tivo to say? Unless it's a clear bug on their end (which it may be), I think they will say "Get used to it."


TiVo can't have a "position" on cable DRM; they are required to support it, period. The title of the thread, however, is TiVo's position on the Broadcast Flag, which can and should be fought in Congress and I'd love to discuss and hear more about TiVo's position there.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

Saxion said:


> First, it's unfortunate that this thread has veered away from discussing TiVO's position on the proposed Broadcast Flag legislation, as I think that's an interesting discussion. But when in Rome...
> 
> To your point, I would hardly call OCAP in its present form a "win" for subscribers. Everything that runs on an OCAP device must receive the blessing of, be installed by, and may be removed (at any time) by *the MSO*! All this talk about OCAP providing a competitive platform on which to develop third-party applications is baloney.
> 
> ...


Your analogy is somewhat flawed as it only addresses the current state of OCAP and completely disregards the roadmap and true intent of OCAP. In the current form applications that run on an OCAP enabled device would have to be downloaded directly from a carousel server located in the MSO's headend over the DSG. These applications would be ones that the MSO purchased or leased from 3rd party developers, written in Java, to the MHP/OCAP specifications. In the future the system will be MUCH more open, in fact quite similar to the personal computer of today.

What you have to keep in mind is that we are at the infancy of a new platform and an evolving medium. One that truely merges television and the internet with a whole host of electronic devices. Look at the products you have around you now. They ALL stated as proprietary, "close looped" systems. We're all on the internet now. Guess what? Once a closed system. I'm connected via my DOCSIS modem. Before I had a DOCSIS modem I had a proprietary Motorola modem that operated on closed network. Technology has a long history of taking proprietary products and opening them up to 3rd party developers, but none of these advancements happened over night.

I understand the people that want it all, and want it now. We live in a fast food society and are used to getting it "our way", but don't be so quick to stomp all over standardizations that DO hold a lot of promise in the way that we all interact with content in the future. In my opinion to do so is shortsighted and uninformed.

Cableric


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> I think it's just another major thing that they have to support. (assuming cable is like other electronics industries I've experienced)
> 
> It's not like they don't have any problems with the boxes they already have. Now they have all these other problems on top of it. They have to order and support Cablecards, support all these other third-party devices they have no control over, resolve incompatibility issues, schedule installations, increase and train customer support, etc. And all this for a box that does LESS than the boxes they currently rent out. Just look at this forum to see all of the extra support they have had to give this past month. They take an unknown, FCC-mandated loss on supporting CableCards or a known, controllable loss with each box rental. It's a lose-lose situation, but most people would take the known, controllable loss.
> 
> ...


It's all just a brief stopping point until DCAS (Dowloadable Conditional Access) is a reality. Then all we'll have to do is maintain a server full of MAC's and service authorizations, deployment becomes a breeze...

...but getting there is going to be a btch.

Cableric


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Cableric,

Thank you for your very informative posts and educating us on things from an operator's point of view. It's very difficult to find info on some of this stuff from anyone that really understands it and it's very helpful. You can sort of figure some of it out from the few publically available Motorola presentations, but it's nice to have the Motorola-to-English translation.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

jfh3 said:


> Cableric,
> 
> Thank you for your very informative posts and educating us on things from an operator's point of view. It's very difficult to find info on some of this stuff from anyone that really understands it and it's very helpful. You can sort of figure some of it out from the few publically available Motorola presentations, but it's nice to have the Motorola-to-English translation.


Thanks for the props. Not too many people in the industry are willing to pop their head up in online forums because there's always one or two individuals the want to cut it off.

Hey, "cable" may sign my paycheck but I'm gonna call it like I see it. Not everything our industry does smells like roses, but nothing pisses me off more than getting blamed for something we have no control over.

Cableric :up:


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

I too am very grateful for Cableric's participation here...one industry insider is worth 10 of me.  Thank you for posting here, and please continue.

I do take exception to your characterization of the OCAP roadmap. In reality, we are moving _away_ from open and _toward_ a closed system. CableCard V1.0 was open (except for DRM issues, MSO had no say in design of application). Multistream CC was open. The original idea for 2-way CableCard was open. But OCAP is closed all the way...MSOs are the ones deciding and dictating the applications now, and before they weren't. How is this progress?

The interests of MSOs are not aligned with the interests of consumers. Here are a few features that are likely to die as a result of OCAP (and many more no one has even thought of):

30-second commercial skip? Our ad revenue suffers...that's gone.
Skippable commercials? Ad revenue again...let's force users to at least watch a static version for 5 seconds. Gone.
Direct access to free downloadable content like YouTube? That conflicts with our PPV revenue model. Or maybe we offer a YouTube-like service but charge for it. Gone.
A competitive PPV service that can download content directly to our box over the internet, for less money than the MSO-provided service? Conflict again with our PPV revenue...gone.
The TiVo guide interface? Costs too much money...our inhouse developed guide is cheaper. Gone.
MRV? Our content providers don't like that, they are afraid of piracy, their contract with us disallows it. Gone.
Remove channels from guide that a user doesn't subscribe to? We like to constantly remind people what shows they are missing, we get more subs. Gone.
How about a free IP-based videophone service? Conflicts with our paid telephony service. Gone.

This is just scratching the surface. All of the above could readily be provided by third-party devices that truly compete with an MSO-supplied STB, but OCAP gives MSOs the power to kill anything they want.

MSOs can and should go out and make as much money as they can...they are a business and have every right and responsibility to do so. But they must be forced to compete on a level playing field with multiple other companies doing the same thing. I truly hope the FCC steps up here and forces OCAP to provide a generic API to basic tuning & decryption services, alongside the application-level virtual machine. This way, the virtual machine can be ignored and true third-party applications can be developed outside of any control by the MSOs (of course, DRM must still be legally enforced). But I don't see OCAP going this direction, ever.

-Brian


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> ...
> As far as the original thread (Tivo's position on DRM flags), what do you want Tivo to say? Unless it's a clear bug on their end (which it may be), I think they will say "Get used to it."


I think that sometimes it's obviously a case of a bad provider, but TiVO doesn't even want to say "hey it sounds like your provider is totally fubar'd - call them" It does make one wonder if maybe there isn't something happening on tivo's end.

I did start in on my provider myself becasue they appeared to have 10+ channels wrongly marked as copy never, but in the back of my mind I was half waiting for the cable compnay to say "what the hell are you talking about we are legal" and since I cant be sure that the tivo wasn't erroneously taging all those channels on their end I wasn't sure how hard I should push. Seems it was the cable company since after some complaints everything is set to 0x02 at this time. Luckily they listened and fixed it- i dont know how much i could have pushed without TiVo's backing to say it wasn't there end.

It also would be nice to get conference calls out of them like they do for people who cant get cablecards. Or contact the providers via alternate routes like they say they do when the conference calls dont work to get cable cards (they might actually be doing it- but dont say anything so no one knows- my cable company never replied to those of us who complained with a direct reply so they might have been responding to our requests but MAYBE TiVo called to advise them of the law? I dont know.)

And it would be nice of them to maybe post a faq or clear interpretations of the laws/regulations/rulings about cablecard in general so that dt_dc doesn't have to spend half his day aiming people to the relevent regs. (or at least take some of the work of dt_dc's shoulders and post a few links informally themselves...)

I really dont understand why they dont have a primer up on their website like :
1) if your provider meets x, y, z criteria they must issue cablecards
2) if your provider issues cablecards at all they must give them to you for S3 since we are approved- see (link to cablelabs approval)
3) If you are unable to record shows for later viewing then check the CCI value on the cards while viewing the channel/show in question. If its 0x03 and it's not PPV/VOD than your provider is breaking the law tell them so- see (link to reg)

If I recall they popped in back when the macrovision issues started on the s2's and were involved then with guidance or at least occaisional denials that it wasn't there fault. It's odd now that they are so mum. Especially with Cnet saying some of the overzealous copy protection issues look to be bugs on tivo's end.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cableric said:


> Your analogy is somewhat flawed as it only addresses the current state of OCAP and completely disregards the roadmap and true intent of OCAP. In the current form applications that run on an OCAP enabled device would have to be downloaded directly from a carousel server located in the MSO's headend over the DSG. These applications would be ones that the MSO purchased or leased from 3rd party developers, written in Java, to the MHP/OCAP specifications. In the future the system will be MUCH more open, in fact quite similar to the personal computer of today.
> 
> What you have to keep in mind is that we are at the infancy of a new platform and an evolving medium. One that truely merges television and the internet with a whole host of electronic devices. Look at the products you have around you now. They ALL stated as proprietary, "close looped" systems. We're all on the internet now. Guess what? Once a closed system. I'm connected via my DOCSIS modem. Before I had a DOCSIS modem I had a proprietary Motorola modem that operated on closed network. Technology has a long history of taking proprietary products and opening them up to 3rd party developers, but none of these advancements happened over night.
> 
> ...


sounds promising and i agree with much of your opinion about people ruishing things.

But i think the frustration comes from the fact that the legal mandate for an open system is now over 10 years old yet we cant even get first generation one way dead end technology cablecards to work right in our Series3s.

To many that seems like foot dragging and honestly I would have to say i agree with that opinion about cable in general.

Also the fact that cable as an industry SEEMS to always be fighting the CE companies rather than partnering with them also makes cable look like obstructionists.

UNfortunately the little guys get painted with the broad brushes that comcast and time warner hand out.

AND- thanks again for participating :up: :up: :up:


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

Wow, Brian, I'm not sure where you get your information but I'll try and address as many of your points as I'm able.



Saxion said:


> The interests of MSOs are not aligned with the interests of consumers.


I would argue that cable's interests HAVE to be aligned with consumers or we lose to DBS and IPTV (when it's a reality).



Saxion said:


> 30-second commercial skip? Our ad revenue suffers...that's gone.


We have 30 second skip with our DCT's and Moxi product lines now, OCAP does not PREVENT it in the future. I've played with the OCAP version of Moxi it has 30 second skip and more.



Saxion said:


> Direct access to free downloadable content like YouTube? That conflicts with our PPV revenue model. Or maybe we offer a YouTube-like service but charge for it. Gone.


We've looked at implementing access to YouTube and others via a STB but in it's current form you would have to download the content you a PC and then access it via a home network. In the OCAP world this process would be MUCH easier. I really don't think that YouTube content is compelling enough to hurt PPV/VOD sales...I dont care what Google paid for it.



Saxion said:


> A competitive PPV service that can download content directly to our box over the internet, for less money than the MSO-provided service? Conflict again with our PPV revenue...gone.


That model doesn't work. It's all going to be streaming in the future. Hollywood is not going to stand for "their" content to be downloaded to YOUR hard drive. Like it or not they're controlling that one. They control the price point of the content and the percentage that MSO's receive (I think we get about 15% when it's all said and done). Again, this has nothing to do with OCAP as a standard.



Saxion said:


> The TiVo guide interface? Costs too much money...our inhouse developed guide is cheaper. Gone.


Nonsense, right now Comcast is working with a version of TiVo that has been ported over to Motorola DCT's so they can provide their customers with a superior user experience. Guess what made this a reality? Yep, it's an OCAP application.



Saxion said:


> MRV? Our content providers don't like that, they are afraid of piracy, their contract with us disallows it. Gone.


False. We provide multi-room viewing now with our Moxi product. Motorola is going to be making a HUGE push with their "Follow Me TV" initiative, the basis of which is OCAP compatability. As far as TiVo MRV specifically? It's in the CableLAB labs right now for certification.



Saxion said:


> Remove channels from guide that a user doesn't subscribe to? We like to constantly remind people what shows they are missing, we get more subs. Gone.


Gawd, you must really hate this one, you keep bringing it up. I'll say this. Simply because some MSO's do not support this feature or ANY of the features previously mentioned does NOT mean that it's being restricted due to OCAP implementation. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than this. If IE doesn't have a feature that Firefox has that's not the fault of the HTML/XML platform it was built on, it was the choice of the maker. You might be saying, "see that proves my point I'm still stuck with what Comcast (or Cox or TW) says I can have." That's true NOW, but in the future maybe you'll like the apps and features of the Sony OCAP box, or the Moxi, or the Samsung. They'll all have their own application sets...built on OCAP. Oh, and I can remove any channels I want from my guide and line-up on my Moxi...in this version and the OCAP version.



Saxion said:


> How about a free IP-based videophone service? Conflicts with our paid telephony service. Gone.


Eh, we'll be launching IM services on some boxes that are compatible with the big 3 (AIM, Yahoo, MSN). Videophone is a ways out but it'll happen.



Saxion said:


> This is just scratching the surface. All of the above could readily be provided by third-party devices that truly compete with an MSO-supplied STB, but OCAP gives MSOs the power to kill anything they want.


Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. MSO's have to support any and all OCAP compliant devices. Any CE manufacturer can build an OCAP compliant device. The applications they choose to provide on that device is up to them. I see this as spawning a new era of creative competition in the cable world that we've never seen with Motorola and SA. I think the customer benefits.



Saxion said:


> MSOs can and should go out and make as much money as they can...they are a business and have every right and responsibility to do so. But they must be forced to complete on a level playing field with multiple other companies doing the same thing. I truly hope the FCC steps up here and forces OCAP to provide a generic API to basic tuning & decryption services, alongside the application-level virtual machine. This way, the virtual machine can be ignored and true third-party applications can be developed outside of any control by the MSOs (of course, DRM must still be legally enforced). But I don't see OCAP going this direction, ever.


Tuning is EIA standard, in most cases 256QAM. Digicypher (Moto) and PowerKey (SA) decryption schemes will NEVER be released and don't need to be for an open platform to be successful, it would be a pirating free for all. Applications are all fairly standard Java code and built on a Java VM, not some kind of proprietary MSO driven base platform. It's universal, this is OCAP.

If you'd like more information or references an anything let me know.

Cableric


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cableric-

I think the negetive perception of OCAP is that,if I understand correctly, you could not build a tivo series 4 OCAP ready dvr that would have the tivo interface unless the MSO downloaded the TIVo software from their end?

IT sounds as if the current version of OCAP requires that the DVR software that tivo might put on such a device would have to be overwriting with the OCAP DVR software the cable company decides to sent down?


there seems to be an argument between cablelabs and teh CEA over if tivo could put the tivo software on the box and then have some standard calls to the headend for guide info or IPPV or if Cable would insist that the cableplants IPPV and guide software were downloaded to the tivo. Sounds like cablelabs says no but might change that in the next version?

Sorry if i'm misunderstanding- feel free to correct as you see fit.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

Well said Michael.

Cableric, I was talking about what _could_ happen in the future, not the state of things today. OCAP doesn't really exist yet outside of a lab or a test market, so what good is describing the way things are now?

Every example I gave is a neat, cool application that generally exists today or could with a little effort (I fully acknowledge this), but that _could_ disappear tomorrow under OCAP simply because they don't align with cable's profit motive. It's a warning about the future, and off the top of my head to boot.

For an example of the chilling effect that results when cable is given veto power over applications, one need look no further than the TiVo S3. TTG and MRV are in limbo precisely because of this power, and this on the relatively "open" CableCard V1.0. TiVo has to beg permission to innovate. This is unacceptable, and will only get worse with OCAP.

MSOs and CableLabs must not have control over cable box applications. It is simple as that. (DRM issues notwithstanding...that will most likely always require CableLabs certification).

I've heard from Mot directly and they fully admit that everything that runs on OCAP will be installed directly by the MSO. I've not heard of anything on the table that implies that third parties (including TiVo) will be allowed to install their own applications *outside of MSO control, blessing, or knowledge*. If you know for a fact that this is going to happen, we'd all love to hear more, including a timeframe. Please tell us.


----------



## JDguy (Jan 16, 2006)

I think you may be missing the target here for all this heat. 

First, don't blame Smith & Wesson for making guns, blame those who pull the trigger or those who hire the hit men. CableLabs is just a tool-maker, they build technology, and test it to make sure it works as intended, they don't set policy. 

Next, don't blame the middle-man who is trying to sell a package of other people's intellectual property. He's just trying to squeak out a profit for his investment in infrastructure and play according to all the stupid rules that the content owner places on him. The cable operator isn't the one who is going to deactivate any rogue OCAP applications unless they are doing something that creates a violation of his content distribution agreements, damages his infrastructure in some way or steals his content. He's wants OCAP to create a national footprint for application development - to attract innovation, not hinder it. If some short-sighted operators end up misusing this tool, then there will probably be good justification for rules that keeps that from happening, just like there are rules that keep him from marking broadcast TV as copy-never. 

The real source of all this "power" as Saxion (Bob?) put it above, is Hollywood. They are the ones who've made this arms escalation necessary. They have imposed upon the operator more and more constraints on what can and can't be done with their content. 

If you want to change something, take a look at the copyright laws in this country. Have you read the DMCA?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> Seems it was the cable company since after some complaints everything is set to 0x02 at this time.


OK, I'm confused. I understand that giving you the ability to record at all is better than nothing, but what about copy once is acceptable?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Saxions' comment reminds me so much of the cell phone industry.... (uh oh, nightmares coming back ... damn you Verizon!)

All cell phones now run some kind of Java, and service providers require that some functions run their Java app. (which also contains the MMI for that app.). Java also allows the customer to download specific apps. and customize the s/w running in their phone. 

Other features are intentionally disabled in order to increase the providers' revenue stream. Ever wonder why you can't pull the pictures off your camera phone from the USB port on the bottom of the phone or via Bluetooth? That was intentionally disabled so you have to spend 10 cents to e-mail it to yourself. 

However, each phone has its own outer appearance, and the basic functionality (i.e. making calls and sending text messages) is unique between each phone. 

If the cable industry is following the cell phone industry, we'll hopefully see a nice blend (more or less) between the two. Except of course, you can't download your HD video from your box directly to your PC. You'll have to pay $1 for each video and it will go from the cable box through the MSO, and be available to download/stream to your PC. 

To prevent you from circumventing this system, there will be DRM and/or broadcast flags in place. If Tivo wants in on this revenue (and they do), they will keep quiet about DRM issues or they will find themselves shut out of the industry. (This also happens in the cell phone industry as well, and is one of the reasons I'm no longer in it).


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I think the negetive perception of OCAP is that,if I understand correctly, you could not build a tivo series 4 OCAP ready dvr that would have the tivo interface unless the MSO downloaded the TIVo software from their end?


This is incorrect.



MichaelK said:


> IT sounds as if the current version of OCAP requires that the DVR software that tivo might put on such a device would have to be overwriting with the OCAP DVR software the cable company decides to sent down?


No the cable company would not start "randomly" reconfiguring customer purchased devices.



MichaelK said:


> there seems to be an argument between cablelabs and teh CEA over if tivo could put the tivo software on the box and then have some standard calls to the headend for guide info or IPPV or if Cable would insist that the cableplants IPPV and guide software were downloaded to the tivo. Sounds like cablelabs says no but might change that in the next version?


I'm pretty active in the industry and I've NEVER heard of this issue. If you have some information somewhere that exists outside of hearsay and conjecture I'd love to see it.

Cheers,
Cableric


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

Saxion said:


> Well said Michael.
> 
> Cableric, I was talking about what _could_ happen in the future, not the state of things today. OCAP doesn't really exist yet outside of a lab or a test market, so what good is describing the way things are now?
> 
> ...


It seems like the larger issue at hand is that you have a problem with the fact that cable is a "controlled network". The fact that MSO's make decisions to A) protect their network b) Pick and choose services and applications that appeal to a majority of their subscriber base, seems to be unacceptable to you. You basically want cable (the industry) out of cable (the technology). I think your real beef is that your not going to get this net nuetrality-esque, completely open, cable system to do with as you wish.

Oh well. We tried. There's always satellite.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I think the negetive perception of OCAP is that,if I understand correctly, you could not build a tivo series 4 OCAP ready dvr that would have the tivo interface unless the MSO downloaded the TIVo software from their end?





cableric said:


> This is incorrect.


One thing I would note is that it is not OCAP in and of itself that puts the limits and constraints on CE-provided software that people talk about ... rather, it's a combination of the specs (as they currently stand) ... OCAP 1.0, OpenCable Host 2.0, etc. AND the CableLabs CHILA license agreement (and, to some extent, the NCTA-proposed 2-way plug and play regulations).

OCAP in and of itself doesn't really limit the type of functionality Tivo could provide directly to consumers on a theoretical S4 ... but the whole package certainly does.

Heck, the NCTA (National Cable & Telecommunications Association) summarizes things very nicely ...


> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518185072
> 
> NCTA filing to FCC 11/30/05
> Re: CS Docket No. 97-80: Report of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association on Two-way (Interactive) Digital Cable Ready Televisions
> ...


So, Tivo would have two choices for an S4 ... and if we look at a specific example ... like, let's say, everyone's favorite SDV (switched digital) we'll see the problems with both these approaches.

So, Tivo could provide DVR software as a (unidirectional) UDCP. No recording SDV channels via Tivo software ... no Tivo season passes for SDV channels ... no Tivo Wishlists for SDV channels ... no Tivo conflict resolution for SDV channels. No nothing.

Ok, Tivo could implement the Host 2.0 specs and allow the users to WATCH SDV channels ... but not to record them unless ...

Tivo could implement the OCAP DVR extensions ... and the user would be able to use the cable-provided EPG / DVR Interface to record SDV channels. Again, no recording SDV channels via Tivo software ... no Tivo season passes for SDV channels ... no Tivo Wishlists for SDV channels ... no Tivo conflict resolution for SDV channels ... unless of course Tivo has provided the DVR software to the cable company to provide to the customer ...

I don't think either of these options is what Tivo (or its customers) envision for a "two-way" capable S4.

The CEA has also highlighted these issues for DVR manufacturers trying to make an IDCR product under the current Host 2.0 / OCAP 1.0 / CHILA agreement to the FCC (several) times. For example:


> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518185152
> 
> CEA filing to FCC 11/30/05
> Re: CS Docket No. 97-80: Report of the Consumer Electronics Association on Two-way (Interactive) Digital Cable Ready Televisions
> ...


Again, yes, CE companies could provide their own software that accesses unidirectional services ... but integrating that CE-provided software with access to two-way services (like SDV) is not possible under the current specs / licensing agreements. And, implementing the IDCR OCAP DVR specs means turning the GUI, functionality, resource control, etc. over to the cable-provided software.

Again ... neither option seems quite what Tivo (or customers) would like to see in a "two-way" capable S4.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> One thing I would note is that it is not OCAP in and of itself that puts the limits and constraints on CE-provided software that people talk about ... rather, it's a combination of the specs (as they currently stand) ... OCAP 1.0, OpenCable Host 2.0, etc. AND the CableLabs CHILA license agreement (and, to some extent, the NCTA-proposed 2-way plug and play regulations).
> 
> OCAP in and of itself doesn't really limit the type of functionality Tivo could provide directly to consumers on a theoretical S4 ... but the whole package certainly does.
> 
> ...


Well put dt_dc. As we all know OCAP is constantly evolving and will continue to do so. Many of the demands that cable is trying to make on CE manufacturers are obviously overreaching to say the least. Announcing that the sky is falling before finalization of the spec, and a true consensus has been reached between Cable and the CEA, is quite pre-mature. Without CEA support the whole thing will flop, cable will have to give, and Chicken Little can look for some other impending apocalypse.

Cableric


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

dt_dc thanks again for the very informative post. :up:

Dan


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

cableric said:


> Without CEA support the whole thing will flop, cable will have to give, and Chicken Little can look for some other impending apocalypse.
> Cableric


indeed. and, as home internet speeds increase, CEA vendors are increasingly in a position to end-run the cablecos for video distribution, allowing the producers of content to sell individual shows or series directly over the internet rather than packaged in bulk via broadcast/cable/directv/etc.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

cableric said:


> It seems like the larger issue at hand is that you have a problem with the fact that cable is a "controlled network". The fact that MSO's make decisions to A) protect their network b) Pick and choose services and applications that appeal to a majority of their subscriber base, seems to be unacceptable to you.


Replace 'cable' and 'MSOs' with 'phone system' and 'AT&T' and that describes how things were prior to 1980. Compare the evolution of phones from 1960 to 1980 with that between 1980 and 2000 and you'll understand why I think carrier control of the terminal equipment is a bad thing.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> OK, I'm confused. I understand that giving you the ability to record at all is better than nothing, but what about copy once is acceptable?


it's still not correct - my OTA stations should be whatever I please. And they need to fix that.

But given the fact that 3 days ago a couldn't record hd "Cable" channels at all- I'm tckled pink that the current features of the S3 are uneffected.

I plan to continue to push on the OTA stations to get them in compliance so that one day if MRV/TTG live then i see no ill effects.

Beyond that- I dont LIKE the 0x02 restriction on cable channels but i understand it is legal under the current law and FCC regulations, and unfortunately taking a look at bit torrent makes me understand why the studios insist on it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cableric said:


> This is incorrect.
> 
> No the cable company would not start "randomly" reconfiguring customer purchased devices.
> 
> ...


wow- then OCAP sounds very cool.

all i really know on the issue is what people post here and at avs so I'm just repeating what i read.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

vman41 said:


> Replace 'cable' and 'MSOs' with 'phone system' and 'AT&T' and that describes how things were prior to 1980. Compare the evolution of phones from 1960 to 1980 with that between 1980 and 2000 and you'll understand why I think carrier control of the terminal equipment is a bad thing.


You and I both know that had less to do with deregulation and more to do with the evolution of technology on a whole.

cableric


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

cableric said:


> You and I both know that had less to do with deregulation and more to do with the evolution of technology on a whole.
> 
> cableric


No I don't know that. TV set technology made lots of progress through the 60s and 70s.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

cableric said:


> dt_dc said:
> 
> 
> > OCAP in and of itself doesn't really limit the type of functionality Tivo could provide directly to consumers on a theoretical S4 ... but the whole package certainly does.
> ...


I'm so glad you finally see my point! (and dt_dc's)


cableric said:


> Many of the demands that cable is trying to make on CE manufacturers are obviously overreaching to say the least.


Yes! Exactly. Let's hope that either CableLabs and CE industry reach a consumer-friendly compromise, or the FCC steps in and forces a consumer-friendly solution.


cableric said:


> It seems like the larger issue at hand is that you have a problem with the fact that cable is a "controlled network". The fact that MSO's make decisions to A) protect their network b) Pick and choose services and applications that appeal to a majority of their subscriber base, seems to be unacceptable to you.


Well of course. This is obvious. Just like a PC, where Microsoft doesn't control the entire suite of applications, and I am free to go out and pick from a rich ecosystem of software, all competitively developed outside of Microsoft control. You've said this is where we are heading for cable content...that is our goal and our nirvana...now you are saying that a closed cable network is a "fact"? I'm confused...is the goal an open system or not?


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

Saxion said:


> I'm so glad you finally see my point! (and dt_dc's)
> Yes! Exactly. Let's hope that either CableLabs and CE industry reach a consumer-friendly compromise, or the FCC steps in and forces a consumer-friendly solution.
> Well of course. This is obvious. Just like a PC, where Microsoft doesn't control the entire suite of applications, and I am free to go out and pick from a rich ecosystem of software, all competitively developed outside of Microsoft control. You've said this is where we are heading for cable content...that is our goal and our nirvana...now you are saying that a closed cable network is a "fact"? I'm confused...is the goal an open system or not?


The network can continue to be closed (MSO offers certain channels and services for a certain price) while the device that exists on the network can be open (choose your set-top, features, and applications that run on that set-top.) Yes, initial applications are going to be offered by the MSO because they are driving 99% of the development. But the true nature of the initiative is an open standard that anyone can contribute to and I think that's the direction the industry has to go.

cableric


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

...And cable doesn't need more bad press like this:

TiVo vs Cable

Cableric


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

From a consumers point of view I have seen cable broadcasting change to proprietary STB's once cable ready sets were available and moving content out of the range that these sets are able to recieve with no appreciable benefit to the user. The channels which are "Digital" could just have easily been offered in the 2-99 range, instead the cable industry decided to implement a system whereby the user had to rent another piece of equipment, much like in the days before cable ready sets. It seems that as soon as the CE industry catches up to cable they change the game so that the user always has to have that box sitting on the TV in order to access content. Frankly this has to stop.

Hopefully cable card is the answer and by forcing cable operators to conform to this standard with their own equipment it'll make things better, however it wouldn't surprise me if the MSO's dont' start requiring some type of add on box or other device once Cable Card devices have been deployed.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

Then you'll be interested to know (or maybe not) that starting July '07 MSO's can't deploy any box that doesn't have "separable conditional access". So what does that mean? All set-tops we deploy from that date forward are cablecard set-top boxes. So a DCT-3416 is now a DCH-3416 (*D*igital *C*able *H*ost) same "great"  box, just with dual CC slots like the S3.

Again, this is all a brief stopping point before *DCAS*. Some of the conversations I've had with CE manufacturing execs indicate that they'll be pushing televisions with everything built in, Downloadable Conditional Access included, within the next two-three years.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> From a consumers point of view I have seen cable broadcasting change to proprietary STB's once cable ready sets were available and moving content out of the range that these sets are able to recieve with no appreciable benefit to the user. The channels which are "Digital" could just have easily been offered in the 2-99 range, instead the cable industry decided to implement a system whereby the user had to rent another piece of equipment, much like in the days before cable ready sets. It seems that as soon as the CE industry catches up to cable they change the game so that the user always has to have that box sitting on the TV in order to access content. Frankly this has to stop.
> 
> Hopefully cable card is the answer and by forcing cable operators to conform to this standard with their own equipment it'll make things better, however it wouldn't surprise me if the MSO's dont' start requiring some type of add on box or other device once Cable Card devices have been deployed.


while there might be a bunch of moving stuff to digital to keep the system closed, I dont think that's the motivator for digital cable really. I do thin k there is some foot dragging but i dont think the advent of digital cable is the related.

My provider fills like 80 of the 1-99 analog channels. THen they have another 60 digital basic channels - and maybe another 80 premium digital cable (all round numbers). Which of those 60 digital basic would you put on analog basic? But more importantly by not adding another 20 analog channels they give themself room for like another 40-60 HD channels or proabbly 160- or more digital SD. They do have a finite amount of bandwidth on their coax and they need to manage it. Having an interest in HD like I do- I'd prefer they dump another 20 of the analog stations and give me even more HD.

There shouldn't be an issue with moving stuff to digital- if I understand congress envisioned it TEN years ago when they passed the law to ensure retail availibility of thoird party cable tunes- but somehow cable has been able to string out the cablecard implementation all these years.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

The following are excerpts from a TiVo filing with the FCC. First some background: DCAS is a software version of CableCard that is downloaded by the cable company (MSO). It is currently designed to run on top of OCAP (think of DCAS as an application, and OCAP as the underlying operating system). DCAS, like CableCard, is a security/decryption service that provides the ability to tune to encrypted channels, including channels that need 2-way communication like Switched Digital.


> TiVo agrees wholeheartedly with Verizon that DCAS should be open and nonproprietary, divorced from the OpenCable Application Platform (OCAP), and not designed to benefit or be controlled by individual competitors or a particular class of competitors in the marketplace. DCAS should also be made available for use by UDCP devices. An open DCAS would facilitate true interoperability and would promote competition in both the *service* and equipment markets as consumers would be able to choose from a wide array of *services* and devices *without having their choices locked in by service providers*.


Here, TiVo is arguing that DCAS should be made available in an open way such that non-MSO controlled applications can still tune to and decrypt all cable channels. However, the current version of DCAS as proposed by CableLabs is apparently not open and won't allow such third-party application development:


> Verizon has made clear, and TiVo agrees, that the cable industrys DCAS proposal is unacceptable.


An open DCAS is what I've been talking about and exactly what the market needs. The MSO can (and should) have full control over the DCAS application and can change or update it at will. However the API into DCAS must be fixed and open, and non-MSO applications must be allowed to access DCAS in an open way.

Glad to see TiVo actively educating the FCC on these issues.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cableric said:


> Then you'll be interested to know (or maybe not) that starting July '07 MSO's can't deploy any box that doesn't have "separable conditional access". So what does that mean? All set-tops we deploy from that date forward are cablecard set-top boxes. So a DCT-3416 is now a DCH-3416 (*D*igital *C*able *H*ost) same "great"  box, just with dual CC slots like the S3.
> 
> Again, this is all a brief stopping point before *DCAS*. Some of the conversations I've had with CE manufacturing execs indicate that they'll be pushing televisions with everything built in, Downloadable Conditional Access included, within the next two-three years.


as it stands now, but comcast already put in it's foot dragging request to push back that date once more (like the big cable company's have done already 2 or 3 times...)


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> ...but somehow cable has been able to string out the cablecard implementation all these years.


*Q. Who has the most to lose from an "open" cable platform?*

A. Motorola & Scientific Atlanta. They've been the exclusive perveyors of set-top box technology to the cable industry. Cable was required by content providers to offer said content in a secure manner, Moto and SA had the only platforms available.

*Q. Who has CableLabs turned to for development of an "open" platform via CableCARD and OCAP?*

A. Primarily Motorola & Scientific Atlanta. Gosh, do you see a conflict of interest here? How aggresive do you think they'll be to develop CableCARD & DCAS technology that effectively puts an end to their reign over the set-top box industry? They know their product can't compete head to head with the likes of TiVo.

So who's really making money on cable boxes? As stated in prior posts certainly not this MSO. But in a few month's we're going to have to buy about a half a million dollars worth of new DCH boxes from Moto. This gives us no new features, no "competitive advantage", but it lines Moto's pockets once again. I'll say it again...we're just stuck in the middle.

Cableric


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cableric said:


> *Q. Who has the most to lose from an "open" cable platform?*
> 
> A. Motorola & Scientific Atlanta. They've been the exclusive perveyors of set-top box technology to the cable industry. Cable was required by content providers to offer said content in a secure manner, Moto and SA had the only platforms available.
> 
> ...


that's a very good point. But why is cable letting MOTO and SA run the boat them? It's just bad management on their part. Why not give tivo and their ilk what they want and years ago there could have been third party boxes all over saving cable all the money?

One question- I really dont know the answer- do SA and moto have input in the cablelabs standards? What is there status- do they get a bigger say then any other hardware vendor sine they also make the head ends?

I think much of it is potentially a matter of cablelabs being incompetitent and/or under funded/staffed - instead of having a meeting once a month or once every other month to negotiate standards with the CE vendors, why not set up weekly meetings? WHy not set up a month long conference to work things out? I understand there need to be drafts and people need to kick the tires etc between drafts, but why does it take very long periods of time just to come up with the big picture ideas like the current give and take about OCAP/DDCAS between cable and the CE people?

Cablelabs just seems really slow, but that's the people that cable as a whole nominated to produce the specs. IF I recall early on with the first cablcard spec Directv and others argued to the FCC that a third party like IEEE would be better suited but cable got it so cablelabs was running the show. And now cable has to reap what they sow..


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

Saxion said:


> First some background: DCAS is a software version of CableCard that is downloaded by the cable company (MSO). It is currently designed to run on top of OCAP (think of DCAS as an application, and OCAP as the underlying operating system).





Saxion said:


> ...DCAS should be made available in an open way such that non-MSO controlled applications can still tune to and decrypt all cable channels.


Why would ANYBODY think that it makes sense for cable to open up their encryption scheme so that any "non-MSO controlled application" could effectively "decrypt all cable channels". Like you said DCAS can be thought of as an application, running on top of OCAP (an OS in this example). The DCAS "application" does not prevent other applications from being written and functioning on top of the OCAP stack alongside the conditional access component. The DCAS component would be available to any CE manufacturer that paid for licencing. This has less to do with "cable" limiting their ability to produce a compliant, competitive product, and more to do with licencing technologies and the almighty dollar.

ce


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> while there might be a bunch of moving stuff to digital to keep the system closed, I dont think that's the motivator for digital cable really. I do thin k there is some foot dragging but i dont think the advent of digital cable is the related.
> 
> My provider fills like 80 of the 1-99 analog channels. THen they have another 60 digital basic channels - and maybe another 80 premium digital cable (all round numbers). Which of those 60 digital basic would you put on analog basic? But more importantly by not adding another 20 analog channels they give themself room for like another 40-60 HD channels or proabbly 160- or more digital SD. They do have a finite amount of bandwidth on their coax and they need to manage it. Having an interest in HD like I do- I'd prefer they dump another 20 of the analog stations and give me even more HD.
> 
> There shouldn't be an issue with moving stuff to digital- if I understand congress envisioned it TEN years ago when they passed the law to ensure retail availibility of thoird party cable tunes- but somehow cable has been able to string out the cablecard implementation all these years.


In my area only about 30 of the 97 channels available in the 2-99 range are being used, most others have been moved to digital. Of the 67 channels that I dont' see in use there may be another 5 being used for a sports tier. If I had seen my MSO use all the available channels first it might have been more understandable.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

cableric said:


> *Q. Who has the most to lose from an "open" cable platform?*
> 
> A. Motorola & Scientific Atlanta. They've been the exclusive perveyors of set-top box technology to the cable industry. Cable was required by content providers to offer said content in a secure manner, Moto and SA had the only platforms available.
> 
> ...


This time you are stuck in the middle.

In previous cases it has been the consumer that has had to play catch-up and absorb the costs on the cable companies terms. If the cable companies hadn't dragged their feet on CC implementation more people now would have CC sets. As it is, slow adoption of cable card has made it difficult for Set manufacturers to offer a competitive TV with CC compatibility resulting in instances where CC's have been removed from set specifications.

This time MSO's are having to make a change on someone elses terms instead of dictating them themselves. I am hopeful for cable companies as I'm sure they'll pull something out of their hat to screw everyone over. They'll claim higher overhead for CC installations and maintenance, switchover costs to going with new set top boxes, and any number of things to unrealistically increase rates.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> ...They'll claim higher overhead for CC installations and maintenance, switchover costs to going with new set top boxes, and any number of things to unrealistically increase rates.


I'm not 100% sure but i am fairly certain that the current cable regulations in fact say they MUST break even on their equipment costs. I dont believe they are allowed to make a profit- NOR subsidize equipment using other income. There is some weird thing that they can do to make a lump sum for all their equipment costs and then divy it up as they please, but the long and the short of it is equipment costs are basically supposed to paid directly by the subs themselves without any profit or subsidy from the cable company.

At least that's how I read the cableact and the FCC regulations. (But to be honest- I read OSHA, EPA, and DOT reqs all day long so I can understand usual government speak- but these I think they run the FCC stuff through the poor english machine twice....)


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> I'm not 100% sure but i am fairly certain that the current cable regulations in fact say they MUST break even on their equipment costs. I dont believe they are allowed to make a profit- NOR subsidize equipment using other income. There is some weird thing that they can do to make a lump sum for all their equipment costs and then divy it up as they please, but the long and the short of it is equipment costs are basically supposed to paid directly by the subs themselves without any profit or subsidy from the cable company.
> 
> At least that's how I read the cableact and the FCC regulations. (But to be honest- I read OSHA, EPA, and DOT reqs all day long so I can understand usual government speak- but these I think they run the FCC stuff through the poor english machine twice....)


The main problem with regs like this is that they cover existing items only. Kinda like saying You have to charge so much for a T-Bone steak, the company just makes a different cut that isn't covered by the T-Bone regs any more. The same can happen here, though I'm at a loss for how that might occur.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I think much of it is potentially a matter of cablelabs being incompetitent and/or under funded/staffed - instead of having a meeting once a month or once every other month to negotiate standards with the CE vendors, why not set up weekly meetings? WHy not set up a month long conference to work things out? I understand there need to be drafts and people need to kick the tires etc between drafts, but why does it take very long periods of time just to come up with the big picture ideas like the current give and take about OCAP/DDCAS between cable and the CE people?


You're assuming the differences / problems / issues / solutions are technical.

They're not.

NCTA wants X. CEA wants Y. Lock them all into a room for some period of time (week, month, year) ... they're still going to want the same things and have the same problems.

Both sides are fully cognizant of the technology issues needed for X ... or Y ... or some compromise Z (or compromise X1 that leans a little more towards X or compromise Y1 that leans a little more towards Y).

It's market conditions and cost / benefit that drive the differences between the NCTA and CEA ... and market conditions and cost / benefit that will drive any negotiations / compromise / agreement ... not some sudden magic technical solution that solves everyone's problems.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> You're assuming the differences / problems / issues / solutions are technical.
> 
> They're not.
> 
> ...


Agreed, the technologies involved (OCAP, DCAS, etc.) in and of themselves do not prevent one solution or another from happening. Depending on how OCAP is implemented, when it's all said and done, it could actually be a boon for CE manufacturers and win for subscribers alike. I still believe the intent of OCAP is to level the STB playing field. If it doesn't get watered down by back room deals and good 'ol boy politics, I think this will happen.

cableric


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> You're assuming the differences / problems / issues / solutions are technical.
> 
> They're not.
> 
> ...


I dont really forget that, but I'm trying to give cableric the benefit of the doubt since he seemed to be saying in a few of his posts that getting a fair standard in place would be the best thing for cable.

Now that i put that down in words- I actually agree with him (if I'm reading his thoughts correctly- please forgive me if I'm not) and see the probelm.

The issue is cableric seems to be intelligent and capable of seeing the whole picture whereas the leadship of the cable industry lets cablelabs stall with thier one side politics instead of trying to come to a compromise with the CEA that would benfit everyone, the NCTA, the CEA, and the consumers....


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> I dont really forget that, but I'm trying to give cableric the benefit of the doubt since he seemed to be saying in a few of his posts that getting a fair standard in place would be the best thing for cable.
> 
> Now that i put that down in words- I actually agree with him (if I'm reading his thoughts correctly- please forgive me if I'm not) and see the probelm.
> 
> The issue is cableric seems to be intelligent and capable of seeing the whole picture whereas the leadship of the cable industry lets cablelabs stall with thier one side politics instead of trying to come to a compromise with the CEA that would benfit everyone, the NCTA, the CEA, and the consumers....


+1. Ric does seem to be more of a consumer friendly cable operator.


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

Yeah, ever the optimist...anyway, I think we pretty much beat this one to death, although it didn't really have anything to do with the "flag". 

I'll let y'all know if I hear anything about MRV from CableLabs.

ciao,
Ric


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

thanks

was nice to get another point of view


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

cableric said:


> Yeah, ever the optimist...anyway, I think we pretty much beat this one to death, although it didn't really have anything to do with the "flag".
> 
> I'll let y'all know if I hear anything about MRV from CableLabs.
> 
> ...


I wish we were in a happy world where everyone looked out for everyone else, but the fact is that media and content providers run on the assumption that everyone is out to steal from them. Why can't I take an opposite view that media companies are all out to stick it to us?

Also whether its Macrovision or CCI, it's still a broadcast flag and any company that says it isn't is just trying to spin it in a different direction to avoid the original controversy. In discussions it's important to distinguish between them, but make no mistake about it the implementation and effect is the same.

I've given up thinking that corporations are thinking about the end user when in reality all they are concerned with is the bottom line and how to enrich their stock holders. When I'm not treated like a theif and rights I've had for years are returned maybe then I'll be optimistic. Until then I'm wary of any program or agenda put forth by cable, hollywood, or the recording industry.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> come on Stormspace - you knopw full well this same issue came up on Series 2 when the new macrovison liscense was introduced and TTG and TiVoCast were put in the code. TiVo worked then to educate the broadcaster and all the cases turned out to be a re-broadcaster who did not know how to configure their equipment properly.
> 
> The same will happen here without having to make a mountain out of a molehill.


Read the CBS thread lately? 

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=326444


----------

