Slashdot Log In
Open Cable Standard Not So Open
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Sep 15, 2003 09:12 AM
from the locking-down-your-settop dept.
from the locking-down-your-settop dept.
Mike Hicks writes "A few days ago, I heard about the FCC approving new rules for standardizing digital cable in the US. This involved using a set top box or tuner integrated into a TV along with a smart card (much like digital satellite services). Unfortunately, it looks like the standard (believed to be OpenCable) is meant to tightly control the hardware and software that can be used, probably making any open-source implementation very difficult if not impossible. I seem to be having a case of deja vu"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Well, duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, duh... (Score:4, Funny)
We the "hacker" community (not crackers, it's important, look it up, DUH) wish to run "Linux" on set top boxes we cobble together from cereal boxes and old PCs people have thrown in the garbage. We promise we'll be honest and only decode the channels we're paying for. Honest. We had nothing to do with the satellite descramblers and smart card programmers stuff.
Love, Slashdot
Parent
Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Informative)
No, you've missed the point! I wrote the email that was quoted in this article, so I have a vested interest in clearing this up.
OpenCable has gone through great lengths to decouple the decoding/display/application stuff from decryption and access control mechanism. Encryption and Access Control is handled by the cable company's POD (Point Of Deployment) module which will take the form of a removable PCMCIA card or similar. Each cable company could implement different encryption and access control systems by using different POD modules, so even if one system is hacked there would be others.
The main point here, though, is that you're not handing the "hackers" the "keys" to the decryption system any more than you are by giving them a modern digital cable box. It's just a shame to build a system that would otherwise be so perfect for an open-source implementation and then lock it down due to DRM (instead of technological) concerns.
Chris
Parent
Duh^2 (Score:4, Insightful)
Duh
. You're a cable company. You make a living selling access to a stream of media delivered out of Hollywood. If you're not directly owned by a media publisher you are in close alliance with them. Are YOU going to make your next generation hardware platform "open" so that any chinese supplier can deliver $150 tivo boxes to your customers that allow them to "digitally duplicate" all your content at THEIR convenience? Are you going to learn nothing at all from the Disney V. Sony case? Are YOU going to give up the ability to control how your users use your service?
This story, while perhaps interesting, comes a year or two late. You might as well make the next story "Joe says sky blue in daytime, film at 11."
Parent
Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open standard mean's that there is inter-operability. not
The only thing that has somewhat stemmed the cable TV piracy problems is that it's illegal for you to own a Digital Cable box. if you bought one off ebay then you bought stolen goods.
Otherwise the DCT 3000 and 5000 , the most standard of the cable digital boxes in america would have been cracked wide open for everyone. Just like the crappy Jerrold and older cable boxes that were analog with some really lame digital scrambling sending a code to turn on the descrambler. (IVSS... inverted video supressed sync with the sync wandering around a bit.)
It's a great idea, EXCEPT I am sure it's a way to enforce the broadcast flag. if they can control your TV set then they can control what you can and cant watch. suddenly your DVHS copy of the 2007 Superbowl only play's audio with a black screen that says "UNAUTHORIZED"
no thank you.
Parent
Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Well, duh... (Score:3, Informative)
Not hardly. Various cable operators in the US and Canada offer cable boxes to their customers in lieu of rental (my old one, ATTBI in Boston, certainly sold DCT2000's for about 300 a pop).
Anyone who sells their rental cable box instead of returning it gets hit for the cost, again about 300 bucks (even for decrepit power-su
Re:Well, duh... (Score:4, Informative)
simple.. 4.8 billion dollars in the headend in equipment.
EVERY ONE of those channels you bitch about FORCES the cable company to pay for "carry rights" from $100.00 a month to over $1500.00 a month per X subscribers for the popular stations. and then you have channels like Discovery that REQUIRE you carry the other 10 crap channels of theirs if you carry Discovery.
It's fricking expensive. and it's a fricking legal nightmare as well as PHB's trying to see how much more they can squeeze out of the customers just so they look like they do something at the company.
bottom line? Get a DISH + DSL if you can. Espically in a Comcast area.....
spoken anon by a insider... I wouldnt have my companies services if I didnt get them for free.. It's horribly overpriced.
Parent
Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
The studios are finally releasing cheap ($5-$10) dvds at your local supermarket, walmart, etc. At $5.00 a copy, nobody's going to bother downloading a screener, or a rip.
Currently, they're doing this with older releases (Spaceballs, Last Action Hero, G.I. Jane) as a way to squeeze out more revenue from their libraries.Once they do the math and figure out that they can bypass the movie theatres and video stores and sell new releases direct to the public dirt cheap and still come out ahead, this is how they're going to go.
DVDs cost less than a quarter to press. Sell them for under $10, and they become an impulse buy. Hell, you'd probably be able to dump 10 million copies of Giglie on the world market and at $5 a pop and get most of your production budget back - people would buy it just to see how bad it really was, at that price.
This is where the war's going to be fought in the future. Cheap DVDs sold within 6-12 months of initial theatrical release, at dirt-cheap prices, through low-overhead retailers. People then won't need pay-per-view, video-on-demand, satellite dishes or video rental stores.
Parent
Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
For the case of the cable company the issue is this: get the encryption done correctly, and it won't matter if the software processing the encrypted stream is open source or proprietary. What will matter is if the end user has the right key. Which, presumably, will be distributed on a tamper-resistant smart card which is programmed not to release the key.
Perhaps it's just an accident on your part, but you seem to be suggesting that there's some sort of implicit relationship between open source software and piracy. If it's an accident, then ok. But if you really believe such a relationship exists, you need to back it up because I don't seen any such relationship.
Parent
Re:Actually Piracy is... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't mind people calling common software theives "a pirate", but the next son of a port whore who asks me for a copy of LoTR:TTT will walk the plank. If you need some cargo stolen, I'm yer man but I don't burn DVDs.
And if you're going to steal software, at least do me and the sea dogs a favor and get yer self an eye patch, buy a monkey or a parrot and maybe lop of a limb or two. We pirates gots an image, matey.
AARRRRR!.
Parent
Easily circumvented (Score:5, Funny)
No surprises here (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this really come as a surprise? Like cable modems, cable companies will simply issue out cheap hardware for a monthly fee. I suspect that they made several attempts to ensure that they get their piece of the pie. Just follow the money trail.
Re:No surprises here (Score:3, Insightful)
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Re:No surprises here (Score:5, Informative)
Very difficult if the system is setup correctly and you have two-way communication plus neighborhood segmentation.
Step 1. Encrypt each block of channels on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis.
Step 2. Distribute smart cards with unique private keys signed by the cable company.
Step 3. Change channel block keys once per hour.
Step 4. Setup key distribution system whereby the cable box requests a new channel block decryption key once per hour using its private key to sign a request.
This system makes it fairly difficult to steal cable. If you try to clone someone else's cable box private key, the cable company will see a duplicate channel block key request.
You can't modify your cable box to ask for say, the HBO channel block key because your private key itself won't be authorized by the key distribution servers at your cable company.
You could setup an online key distribute system to dup your key out to other people in your neighborhood, but it would be limited to people in your neighborhood (since other neighborhoods have different keys).
Hell, this is how the wireless encryption/authentication WPA/802.1x EAP-TLS works come to think of it (minus the smart card itself since technically it isn't needed for anything but a handy storage device).
Of course I could be missing something obvious.
Parent
Re:No surprises here (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
I've had DirecTV installers come out to my house twice... both times they said the sats were obscured by trees. Which trees? Well, since they gave me different answers I don't know. I'd be willing to cut down the trees in the way (70-80' tall southern pine), but I'm not going to cut down more than I need to. I know the direction and inclination of the sats, but that really doesn't help much -- there's a half dozen or so trees that could be an issue and a vague compass reading isn't going to help.
So I, and many others, are stuck with cable.
There's also the issue that this is going to be very harmful to the satellite business -- in a few years you'll be able to use cable directly with your TV, no box. Sat. vendors will still be using boxes, and they're a serious negative for the public both in expense and increased complexity. Both Echostar and DirecTV have already lambasted the new standard for being set without their input.
Parent
Deja-vu for Micro$haft.... (Score:5, Interesting)
That is exactly what Micro$haft thought when they released the X-box.
TV Cards For PCs? TiVo? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:TV Cards For PCs? TiVo? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
On most cable networks (Score:4, Insightful)
While an open (but secure for the operators) standard for digital cable be nice and probably better? I think it would. It it going to happen? Probably not. Cable providors have never been very interested in having open systems.
Re:On most cable networks (Score:3, Informative)
no but they are using a compatable standard.....
Comcast and Charter both use the motorola system.
and parts of Time Warner also use it.
Re:On most cable networks (Score:4, Funny)
I suppose it is a technicality, but they were designed to be open(ed), that is why there were those screws on the box (usually phillips-head, part of your standard hacking so-called "toolbox", right next to your now anti-DMCA "wire-cutters".
But they were not intented to be open by the consumer (hense that sticker that says "warrantee void is seal broken" over the part that comes off after you use that phillips-head screw driver). And they swear it is a saftey issue (maybe falling under patriot act [slashdot.org]?) because there are those evil capacitors under there.
Parent
Business model continuation (Score:4, Insightful)
Sort of like some other technology vs. business model battle we've been discussing here lately...
Re:Business model continuation (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just the business model, but the existing widely-deployed technology.
Suppose I am a cable company with 25% digital service penetration (that is, 25% of the households I serve have one or more digital boxes). If I'm a big cable company, I have a couple billion dollars tied up in proprietary encryption and decryption equipment -- and don't tell me that I should have used an "open standard" for that equipment, there wasn't one suitable for deployment in the US when I started my digital business. Diffe
What about $REST_OF_WORLD? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about $REST_OF_WORLD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pace pretty much rule the UK cable box industry and are providers for a large portion of the world including the US.
Seriously though we have a totally closed cable system where all channels are encrypted unlike america where basic analogue cable is provided in the clear.
The standard in the UK btw is Euro-DOCSIS - effectively our cable boxes are cable modems with a DVB headend tacked on.
Parent
Damn shame (Score:5, Interesting)
Now the fears about open source aren't completely irrational - it's true that closed implementations make hacking digital cable much harder. There is currently no working digital cable descrambler, and DSS is getting harder and harder to decrypt. The industry knows that restricting the information and licenses does work. It's just too bad that this means consumers are stuck with a minimal set of features, ugly, slow, beasts like the DCT2000, and higher prices due to proprietary technology.
Re:Damn shame (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Damn shame (Score:3, Informative)
Mine has.
Otherwise I could use my TiVo to change channels via serial port, which is an officially supported feature in Series2 boxes, and a (fairly trivial) hack in Series 1 boxes.
Open Source != Open (Score:5, Interesting)
Software (Score:4, Informative)
Hemos? (Score:4, Funny)
its more than what you read in that its a move towards HAVi-DVB-DHP an iTV set of apis..
Sun in fact asked the FCC to make it a requirement that the bigest cable operator that bought DirectTV to accept the standard as part of the acceptance of the DirectTV buyout as part of FCC normal powers..
I believe there are two Linux projects dealign with both this standard and itv but I have forgotten the project names..
No surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I've just being stupid because I've got a case of the Mondays, but how can it be open if the all of the key buzzwords are trademarked?
To wit, from the nav menu on the front page:
Cable Modem/DOCSIS(TM)
CableHome(TM)
PacketCable(TM)
OpenCable(TM)
Go2Broadband(SM)
VOD Metadata
Well, OK, VOD Metadata isn't, but still, doesn't the trademark/servicemark grant the markholder the right to control ALL use of the said mark, thus restricting non-partners from using them?
Have other "open" projects TM/SM their key buzzwords?
Purpose of the OCAP Standard (Score:5, Informative)
The cable companies (Comcast, Time Warner, et al) want to open up the standards provided to set top box manufacturers so that consumer electronics companies (Sony, Samsung, et al) can compete with Moto and SA for the business, driving the prices for STBs down. STBs are one of the largest capital costs/subscriber acquisition costs for a cable company. The secondary goal (beyond lower STB prices) is moving the STB purchase into the retail chain, so that cable companies don't have to carry that burden unless they want to). The way they plan to do that is a conditional access module in the form of a PCMCIA card (more or less), which the user purchases or leases from their cable company, and repurchases or leases if they move with the STB they own.
So "Open" is only "Open compared to the current system, which is completely closed." It doesn't mean what the typical slashdot reader would think it does.
And could still be mostly open source (Score:3, Insightful)
Although it's likely that there would be some requirements ala DVD for ensuring that whatever copy protection schemes are supposed to be implemented get implemented.
Send/Receive (Score:4, Interesting)
How difficult is this for the cable companies - obviously the sat company can't do it, but since the cable co knows who's paid for what, and has control of the cable running all the way to their door, then controlling what gets sent shouldn't be too difficult. Or am I being a touch naive?
Re:Send/Receive (Score:3, Informative)
(That's how the "digital cable descramblers" -- the ones that purport to let you watch PPV for free -- work. You order the PPV as normal, and they block the set top from sending the notification back to the cable company -- but the cable box still descrambles the show.)
Even with the cable modem, all cable modems will receive packe
Enough Already (Score:5, Insightful)
This is bullshit.. I have had a Hauppauge WinTV card in my computer for 7 years (okay in a few computers, but still the same card). Works great, saves me a lot of money and space, as my computer is my full entertainment center. If these people think I am going to have buy a device with a TV built into it to use the cable service, they are sadly mistaken. If i am forced to do this then I am going to do one of the following:
1. Go to satellite
2. Get the device required, hack it (oh and it will be hackable no matter how much they try to hackproof it, if it can be built, it can be hacked). Get shitloads of karma on slashdot, and maybe get myself on the front page.
3. Say to hell with cable tv or satellite all together and just buy DVD's, and get DSL for internet access.
I think the cable tv companies should learn a thing or two from the RIAA before they start their own major campagins, that is if they want to remain profitable...
In this digital age, the consumer has more organized power, and you don't want to piss the ones giving you your bread and butter, and your dodge vipers off.
humbug (Score:4, Funny)
ok, so what (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, it's cable fucking TV, so they want you to buy a TV for it to work...
whoop-ti-shit
I'd love to see how some of you people live. I can picture it now. I'd walk in to the kitchen, see a mesh of coat hangers with some bread stuck to them jammed into an electric socket. I'd ask what the hell it was and recieve the reply, "Oh, that's my Open Source Toaster"
What will this mean to existing customers??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also... given that this is a PnP standard for integration into TV sets themselves, I wonder if the satelitte industry is going to follow suit itself. I sure as hell hope not... as my quasi legal DirectTV box no doubt isnt going to get that much support
Although, it is kinda good to see a standard ratified... HDTV has been delayed wayyyyyy too long. Im sick of seeing "HDTV Ready" boxes... knowing fullwell, that means if I want HDTV, im going to have to buy a 300$ tuner sometime down the road. It has been what has prevented me from buying a nice 42+ inch display all these years... well... that and lack of cash!
it's always DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
the music industry doesn't care about people copying songs off the radio. it didn't even really get its panties in a bunch when CD-Rs first hit the market. or when mp3s hit the ftp servers. It went ballistic when anyone could download a single application and instantly find a never ending stream of perceptibility loss-less perfect digital copies.
likewise with the MPAA and DVD encryption, likewise with the new Cable Set-top standard.
They want to cut out MythTV, Tivo, splitters, H-cards, and cable descramblers. It's becoming too easy to get at the current data, so they want a change.
with the analog system working (fairly) well as is, why else would they create a new 'standard' for the digital system? It certainly isn't in the interest of the consumer.
Why doesn't Sony support the Blu-Ray with its stock rewritable feature?
Why did Disney/Circuit City/et al try to push (the bad) Divx onto the market in the first place?
It isn't because consumers are clamoring for less control or cheaper movies.
The time is coming when content producers are going to have to realize that their profits will no longer come from format-updates (repurchasing 8-tracks as CDs, VHS classics as DVDs, etc), and will -not- come from service-style access to data. Classic TV advertising may even have to give way to pure product-placement campaigns.
Cable will realize that a move to pay-per-channel is the way to support content without advertising in our new time-shifted digital reality. Some people -will- pay $1/mo for TLC. Home Depot will still pay for product placements in Trading Spaces. Maybe the Super-station will go away - but the cable companies, and popular channels, need not.
the film industry has already shown that the theatre experience is not losing out to cheap cam copies. they've learned that feature-rich dvds or dirt-cheap dvds are preferred to the customer over hacked-together recompressed copies on filesharing networks.
The record companies will need to realize that to win with digital music requires providing the best quality, with the least hassle. They will need to realize that they must beat file-sharing on features. People will give up hunting around for a good (not mislabeled)256kbps rip of Britney's newest song - if they know they can just hit iTunes or its ilk and cough up $1.
Fair Use needs to win out. These purported 'losses' from file-sharing need to be revealed to be grossly overestimated fabrications. (A PSA from a supposed union set painter claiming that file sharing is killing the movie industry, and threatening his job - airing during it's highest grossing year of all time is particularly tactless)
DRM is the tool of the content dinosaur. If they concentrated on actual content piracy rings - where big money is being made off black-market copies, and abandoned their fruitless DRM research - their profits could be higher than ever.
But such is not the reaction of anti-competitive cabals. Being forced to -compete- is not what they do. Suing, threatening, bullying, bribing - these are the blunt instruments they wield instead of the precise tools of innovation, imagination and competition.
So in the meantime - expect every advance to carry DRM in the fine print.
Re:it's always DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
Although I agree with alot of what you are saying, I believe you are missing the point on the above statements. The primary purpose for the "open" standard is so that hardware ( nami
Reasonably simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Just opt out. If enough people do, that would change the industry quick enough. Chances are that won't happen, most people don't feel like these types of restrictions interfere with their freedom in a significant way.
Chances are that people who do care are just going to have to get used to opting out more, like people I know that feel strongly about worker rights won't buy stuff from companies that abuse them. You really don't need those designer Nike sneakers in the end, if you think about it.
People who have strong political feelings about things are willing to put up with the troubles, and something dangers, of living a life in accord with their beliefs.
All you can do is try to raise awareness of the issues, lobby for change, and try to not be too dissappointed from time to time when the powers that be exercise their power. Offering an alternative is also good, like trying to promote using the internet as a way of accessing news and entertainment.
Peace, or Not?
It will come down to building into the tv (Score:3, Insightful)
Smart Card? (Score:5, Informative)
With this setup, I can't see why open source can't be used. The only way the open source program can decrypt a particular channel, is by access to the key, which it does by querying the card. This card is under full control of the cable/satellite services, who will still be able to dictate if you are able to watch a channel or not.
OpenWho? (Score:3, Insightful)
The OpenCable project is an open, collaborative forum that allows multiple interested participants to help shape the specifications for digital cable products so that the cable industry continues to keep pace with emerging technologies and service opportunities.
Access to the confidential section of the OpenCable Web site, which contains draft specifications not available to the general public.
Participation requires only that you return the "OpenCable Confidential Information Access Agreement" signed by an authorized representative of your company. This simple non-disclosure agreement (NDA) can be downloaded here.
Non-Disclosure? Confidential? Not available to the general public? Tell me again why this is called an "open collaborative forum"?