Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Hardware

Open Cable Standard Not So Open 244

Posted by Hemos 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This discussion has been archived.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.

Open Cable Standard Not So Open More

Open Cable Standard Not So Open

Comments Filter:

  • Well, duh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jbellis ( 142590 ) * <(jonathan) (at) (carnageblender.com)> on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:13AM (#6963514) Homepage
    The cable industry is already worried enough about piracy [google.com] and you can't figure out why they don't want open source set top boxes? Wow.

    • Re:Well, duh... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:16AM (#6963547)
      Dear Cable Industry,

      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

      • Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Informative)

        by PilotChris ( 161026 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:40AM (#6964418)

        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. :)


        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

        • Duh^2 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by poptones ( 653660 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @12:05PM (#6965340) Journal
          Has it EVER not been a secret that "Open Cable" was a coalition deployed specifically to lock up cable? Jeeez... remember when MS was supposed to "give away" all those tens of thousands of cable boxes? Remember when this thing called "Open Cable" was launched?

          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."

    • Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nadadogg ( 652178 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:20AM (#6963589)
      I don't see the problem with open source set-top boxes. If people want to pirate stuff, they will, regardless of whether or not they use a different PVR system. Seeing as most people who pirate satellite can barely use a computer(as they just know someone who programs the cards.) This is probably just going to be so they can get kickbacks from retail PVR companies.

      • Re:Well, duh... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jjon ( 555854 )

        I don't see the problem with open source set-top boxes. If people want to pirate stuff, they will, regardless of whether or not they use a different PVR system.

        They're trying to stop broadcast-quality HD direct digital rips made using hacked cable recievers. There's nothing they can do about lower-quality SD recordings made from the analog output and re-encoded to digital (although Macrovision makes it a little harder for the average consumer).

        They can stop you ever getting at a digital bitstream by

    • Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:28AM (#6963671) Homepage
      Exactly.

      Open standard mean's that there is inter-operability. not ... "lookie! this is how you decode HBO and Skinemax!"

      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.

      • Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Politburo ( 640618 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:03AM (#6964015)
        It is not illegal for you to own a digitial cable box. However, the manufacturers of digitial boxes do not sell to consumers, and cable companies have so far only been renting boxes to customers. Therefore, it is very difficult to own a digital cable box legally, but the act itself is not illegal.

        • However, the manufacturers of digitial boxes do not sell to consumers, and cable companies have so far only been renting boxes to customers

          How does this differ from the Ma Bell situation with telephones? Seems to me that refusing to sell the set top boxes should be illegal under the same line of reasoning.

          • Well IANAL but I can come up with a quick defence. The telephone system was subsidized by the government. The cable system is wholly private. The government has no power over cable operators like they do over telephone operators.

      • Re:Well, duh... (Score:3, Informative)

        by domsol ( 17540 )
        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.

        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
        • AT&T Broadband was not the smartest player in the cable industry. They sold $500 items for $300 among other dumb offers... and ended up in financial crisis. It took being bought by the stingy Comcast to save the company from an impending bankruptcy.

          This is the cable company's problem, they cannot possibly price-match DBS equipment cost when they're being raped by the holders of the closed digital cable formats at the moment.
      • Actually;

        If you're a cable installer, and someone "breaks" into your truck, you're responsible for the equipment inside. Current prices are (last time I checked):

        - Modem $25
        - Analog Box $7
        - Digital Box $45
        - PVR $175
        - HDTV $125

        and volia, you now "Own" some equipment. You've paid for them, they're yours to tinker with. Maybe I should start a website where you can buy the cable companie's pre-provisioned modems so you can get "free" High Speed Data Services until they cut them off... ...then again--maybe

    • Re:Well, duh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mjh ( 57755 ) <mark.hornclan@com> on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:36AM (#6963739) Homepage Journal
      I don't understand how the set top box being open source is supposed to have anything to do with piracy. Piracy is the theft of information. Every company in the world is worried about the theft of their information. The fact that they use open source software does not impact that. What impacts that is how well they secure that software and protect the information that they don't want stolen.

      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.
      • I know it's not my point - other people have said it before me, and probably more succinctly. But piracy is boarding a ship on the high seas, robbing the ship and possibly kidnapping or killing the people on board.

        Theft of information is still theft. Stealing is still stealing and violating a copyright is still violating a copyright. But none of those things involves boarding a ship on the high seas.

        Equating those things with killing people for what they have on their boats is an attempt to increase th

    • Like more duh... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by segment ( 695309 )
      The POD will interact with the cable head-end to selectively authorize and decrypt services to which the user subscribes.

      This reeks of something those in the Department of Homeland security would love. I mean an all in one access system. Although there is no mention of monitoring one could infer that if they can auth and or revoke info remotely, then there is a possibilty of monitoring which means I, for one will not fsck with it.

      Conventional wisdom suggests that one could take the specification and bui

      • Re:Like more duh... (Score:3, Informative)

        by edwdig ( 47888 )
        Now opinionated, I would really love to know who the hell watches cable television on their PC's.

        College students. TV cards are significantly cheaper than TV's, and it frees up a lot of space in your dorm room. A lot of rooms end up with one person having a TV and the other a TV card. Or even a TV and both having a TV card.

        Also, I prefer using my computer instead of a VCR. Much easier than dealing with tapes.

    • The cable industry is already worried enough about piracy and you can't figure out why they don't want open source set top boxes? Wow.

      The problems the cable industry is having with pirace are big, despite all the secrecy that has been asosiated with the systems in the past.

      Today there is indeed an Open standard [linuxdvb.tv] for digital satelite and cable services. And almost all of europe is using it.

      As long as the encryption keys are kept in tamper proof smartcards there is no need to hide the algoriths or th

  • Easily circumvented (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:14AM (#6963528)
    with a Captain Crunch whistle blown directly into the infrared port of the TV.

  • No surprises here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:17AM (#6963561)

    ...the standard (believed to be OpenCable) is meant to tightly control the hardware and software...

    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:No surprises here (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jordy ( 440 ) <jordanNO@SPAMsnocap.com> on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:39AM (#6964415) Homepage
        Now, if you had full control over the box's hardware, how difficult could it be to rig something up that grabs any channel you want it to?

        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.

    • Re:No surprises here (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dwaggie ( 106338 )
      This is also part of the reason they have such a stringent list of what equipment -can- be issued out. To avoid monopolistic-like problems where people are being issued sub-standard hardware and having to live with it. Make it too broad, and the cable company will strive for its lowest possible way to fit into that, because that will most likely be the cheapest solution

    • Re:No surprises here (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:11AM (#6964109) Homepage
      Actually, the whole point of OpenCable is that you'll buy your own box in the future. Renting a $500 cable box for $5/month isn't a business the cable companies want to be in.
      • It's actually the box makers who don't want consumers buying or anybody else making their own digital cable boxes.

        The cable companies want there to be an open standard because buying a 7-year lifespan unit for $500 and renting it for $5 a month is not a profitable business to be in. But, if they wanna run digital cable, they've gotta pick somebody's closed format or it's just not possible today. OpenCable is the solution to that problem. Again, OpenCable doesn't handle DRM control itself, it just leaves a

  • Who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:18AM (#6963568) Journal
    Satellite TV was the best thing that ever happened to cable TV. Satellite boxes will still be required for this aspect, bypassing this new standard entirely. This should not affect the geek world much.

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:40AM (#6963771) Homepage
      While I agree, there are a rather large number of people who can't get satellite due to the birds being obstructed by landscape, buildings, or orientation (the latter mostly if you're in an apartment/condo). I'm one of them -- you have no idea how much I'd like to ditch my cable company or how long I've wanted to.

      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.

  • Deja-vu for Micro$haft.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by twoslice ( 457793 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:19AM (#6963580)
    is meant to tightly control the hardware and software that can be used, probably making any open-source implementation very difficult if not impossible.

    That is exactly what Micro$haft thought when they released the X-box.

    • Yeah. That [xbox-scene.com] has [xboxhacker.net] worked [valholl.org] out [sourceforge.net] for [xbox-scene.com] them [xboxmediaplayer.de] so [sourceforge.net] well [system-mods.com].

      This post would look much better without the link domains showing.

    • That is exactly what Micro$haft thought when they released the X-box.

      How do you know? You might very well be right but your assumption that this is what Microsoft thought they were accomplishing when they released the Xbox is a clear indicator of a lack of perspective on the problem, which is a mistake that Microsoft is not making.

      You act as if Microsoft's video game history goes back only as far as the Xbox, when in reality it goes back much further. Microsoft was publishing games before the adven

  • TV Cards For PCs? TiVo? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by notsewmit ( 655779 ) * <tim&tim-weston,com> on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:20AM (#6963592)
    I wonder if the "legitimate" hardware list will include TV cards for PCs or TiVo. I'm sure they're trying their hardest not to allow it (especially since TiVos run Linux)

    • Re:TV Cards For PCs? TiVo? (Score:4, Informative)

      by CaptainSuperBoy ( 17170 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:28AM (#6963674) Homepage Journal
      TiVo is fine. You should be surprised to learn that the TiVo from DirecTV is a one box solution - it does the decryption and recording all by itself. TiVo is careful not to piss off the networks, cable providers, and FCC so they are able to market products like this. Hopefully they'll be able to release something like the combo unit for digital cable once it becomes standardized.
      • Time Warner (at least in my area) has their own spin on tivo - PPV with fast forward, rewind, etc. etc, you pay for a movie and you get to watch it for 24 hours.

        They're offering a similar service for "premium" channels (hbo, sho, max, etc..) for a few bucks a month.

        I've already got a tivo, but if I didn't, it might be appealing.
    • You'll probably never see an OpenCable PCI card or a DirecTV PCI card. We can't have that "valuable content" traveling over an unencrypted bus, now can we?

  • On most cable networks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BenFranske ( 646563 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:21AM (#6963605) Homepage
    Analgo boxes weren't designed to be open either. For example you need a box provided by the cable providor to watch PPV or other scrabled channels. Also, most cable systems aren't using an open standard on their digital cable right now.

    While an open (but secure for the operators) standard for digital cable be nice and probably better? I think it would. It it going to happen? Probably not. Cable providors have never been very interested in having open systems.

    • Re:On most cable networks (Score:3, Informative)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      Also, most cable systems aren't using an open standard on their digital cable right now.

      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)

      by the_pooh_experience ( 596177 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:50AM (#6963881)
      Analgo boxes weren't designed to be open either.

      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.

      • 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".

        Actually, many cable boxes are RIVETED together. A few others use special tamper-resistant screws. I haven't seen one screwed together with phillips yet.

  • Business model continuation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by southpolesammy ( 150094 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:24AM (#6963629) Journal
    This reeks more of the big boys wanting to ensure that their business model is not broken more than ensuring that a strong, open, and extensible specification is designed.

    Sort of like some other technology vs. business model battle we've been discussing here lately...

    • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:25AM (#6963636)
    Actually, what about the U.K? Does anyone know if current UK digital cable systems are based on any single standard? I ask simply because the Pace box my cable company uses is simply crap, and I'd love to be able to use an alternative if possible. Am I dreaming here?

    • Re:What about $REST_OF_WORLD? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by matthew.thompson ( 44814 ) <{ku.oc.ytilautca} {ta} {ttam}> on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:42AM (#6963786) Journal
      We don't need a standard - we have Pace [pace.co.uk] :o)

      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.

  • Damn shame (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CaptainSuperBoy ( 17170 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:25AM (#6963641) Homepage Journal
    Anyone with an abysmal Motorola DCT2000 terminal can tell you, this is a damn shame. Channel changes take over a second, the online menu and guide are slow as molasses, the GUI is clumsy and inefficient, and it's pretty much the only choice in Comcast areas. An integrated PVR and cable terminal would open up a ton of possibilities for consumers. Unfortunately it looks like the FCC and cable providers will be dictating what features we are allowed to have out of our TV.

    Now the fears about open source aren't completely irrational - it's true that closed implementations make hacking digital cable much harder. There is currently no working digital cable descrambler, and DSS is getting harder and harder to decrypt. The industry knows that restricting the information and licenses does work. It's just too bad that this means consumers are stuck with a minimal set of features, ugly, slow, beasts like the DCT2000, and higher prices due to proprietary technology.

    • Re:Damn shame (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I hear ya. I have a DCT2000 and it's the worst piece of garbage ever made. You can make your own PVR for them though. Check out http://www.mythtv.org [mythtv.org]. Someone in the forums there figured out how to talk to a DCT2000 using the serial data port.

      • Re:Damn shame (Score:3, Informative)

        by Zathrus ( 232140 )
        This is presuming that your cable company hasn't disabled the serial port.

        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.
    • The great thing about this article is that you won't have to put up with the crap of shoddy set-tops like the DCT2000 (which I too had the misfortune of having and was one reason I canceled my digital cable service).

      You will now be able to use your own TV to change the channels. Of course, your TV will have to run a program for the digital cable and who knows how well that software will be written :)

      I'm only hoping that they will make TV-cards (that work in Linux) which will accept these cards.

    • Re:Damn shame (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, about half a second of the channel change, if I recall correctly is the tuner acquisition time and the MPEG-2 frame build time for the first frame. The rest of the time is just cheap construction.

      Of course, most consumers wouldn't pay what a "good" box would cost. The cable companies do market testing CONSTANTLY to find out what people will and won't pay for.
      • I'd be fine with the channel change time if it was multithreaded in some way. Like I could click through a bunch of channels without waiting for each one to completely register. Also, it is just as slow on analog channels which can be changed instantly.
    • This is the primary reason I do not have any 'premium' cable channels. My tv has a guide function, a good tuner, etc. Why should I put some garbage box on it that will hobble my TV? And pay for the privilege? No thanks.

  • Open Source != Open (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Medieval ( 41719 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:30AM (#6963685) Homepage
    "Open" means non-proprietary, free for public perusal. This could mean open hardware specs, open source, open meetings, etc. "Open Source" means that the source code is freely available to the public. Why the hell do half the front-page stories that mention open hardware/open standards/open foobar use "Open-Source" and "Open" as if they mean the same thing? They don't, so STOP DOING IT.
    • Why doesn't the EFF or FSF trademark the use of 'Open' and defend the idea?

      (I tried searching the Trademark site, but didn't find anything with my short attention-span) Unless AmEx owns that one...

  • Software (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:32AM (#6963704)
    OpenCable uses MHP [mhp.org] for its middleware, it's based on Java and all the specs are available from ETSI, open [tu-berlin.de] implementations should be possible, of course this is only part of OpenCable but if everything is encrypted to start with it doesn't matter if you can implement open versions, you're stuffed (until its broken).
  • OPEN to commercial enterprises, such as cable providors, simply means they will share the information with other cable providers.

    Not that that makes a difference either. None of them want what the "other" guy has.

    I worked for a cable company while attending tech school, and they always made sure "something" was different from other local providers, so equipment could not be "modified", and used on their system.

  • Hemos? (Score:4, Funny)

    by linuxislandsucks ( 461335 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:35AM (#6963728) Homepage Journal
    There is in fact an opensource implementation..

    its more than what you read in that its a move towards HAVi-DVB-DHP an iTV set of apis..

    Sun in fact asked the FCC to make it a requirement that the bigest cable operator that bought DirectTV to accept the standard as part of the acceptance of the DirectTV buyout as part of FCC normal powers..

    I believe there are two Linux projects dealign with both this standard and itv but I have forgotten the project names..

  • No surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Asprin ( 545477 ) <gsarnoldNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:36AM (#6963737) Homepage Journal

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:43AM (#6963801)
    Look, here's the deal. In the United States, the Set-Top Box (STB) market is dominated by Motorola and Scientific Atlanta. Between the 2 of them, they have about 90% of the total STB sales here. This is for mostly historical reasons, but the way they hold onto it now is that they have monopolies on the conditional access (content protection) systems, which are hardwired into the boxes.

    The cable companies (Comcast, Time Warner, et al) want to open up the standards provided to set top box manufacturers so that consumer electronics companies (Sony, Samsung, et al) can compete with Moto and SA for the business, driving the prices for STBs down. STBs are one of the largest capital costs/subscriber acquisition costs for a cable company. The secondary goal (beyond lower STB prices) is moving the STB purchase into the retail chain, so that cable companies don't have to carry that burden unless they want to). The way they plan to do that is a conditional access module in the form of a PCMCIA card (more or less), which the user purchases or leases from their cable company, and repurchases or leases if they move with the STB they own.

    So "Open" is only "Open compared to the current system, which is completely closed." It doesn't mean what the typical slashdot reader would think it does.
    • The way I've read it, I don't see how the open standard couldn't still be implemented in an open source settop box or tuner; the only place it wouldn't be open source would be inside the smart card.

      Although it's likely that there would be some requirements ala DVD for ensuring that whatever copy protection schemes are supposed to be implemented get implemented.

  • Send/Receive (Score:4, Interesting)

    by royalblue_tom ( 557302 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:45AM (#6963828)
    Of course, if they rigged it so they only sent you the channels you pay for, they wouldn't care what set-top box you used. Then you could have an open-source solution - a box from the store, your PC running an app, whatever.

    How difficult is this for the cable companies - obviously the sat company can't do it, but since the cable co knows who's paid for what, and has control of the cable running all the way to their door, then controlling what gets sent shouldn't be too difficult. Or am I being a touch naive?

    • Re:Send/Receive (Score:3, Informative)

      by Violet Null ( 452694 )
      The cable companies can't do it either. Just like the satellite setup, the cable company broadcasts all channels to all users, and it's the set top box that does the decoding.

      (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)

    by Superwraith ( 683910 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:48AM (#6963849) Journal
    What next? Are they going to create proprietary sidewalks and force us to wear certain shoes to walk on it, yet call it an open standard?

    This is bullshit.. I have had a Hauppauge WinTV card in my computer for 7 years (okay in a few computers, but still the same card). Works great, saves me a lot of money and space, as my computer is my full entertainment center. If these people think I am going to have buy a device with a TV built into it to use the cable service, they are sadly mistaken. If i am forced to do this then I am going to do one of the following:

    1. Go to satellite
    2. Get the device required, hack it (oh and it will be hackable no matter how much they try to hackproof it, if it can be built, it can be hacked). Get shitloads of karma on slashdot, and maybe get myself on the front page.
    3. Say to hell with cable tv or satellite all together and just buy DVD's, and get DSL for internet access.

    I think the cable tv companies should learn a thing or two from the RIAA before they start their own major campagins, that is if they want to remain profitable...

    In this digital age, the consumer has more organized power, and you don't want to piss the ones giving you your bread and butter, and your dodge vipers off.

  • humbug (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:49AM (#6963861)
    I don't need open source on my TV. I already run Linux on my GE ice maker, BSD on my microwave, and GNU Turd in my watercloset.

  • ok, so what (Score:3, Funny)

    by Xaoswolf ( 524554 ) * <Xaoswolf@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Monday September 15, 2003 @09:50AM (#6963875) Homepage Journal
    Why does everything have to be opensource?

    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"

    • Re:ok, so what (Score:3, Funny)

      by SETIGuy ( 33768 )
      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"

      Well, I wouldn't NEED a damn open source toaster if the license agreement on my closed source toaster didn't prevent me from using anything but "Wonder Bread(TM)."

  • What will this mean to existing customers??? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Serapth ( 643581 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:00AM (#6963979)
    If they are standardizing digital cable to use a certain set of codecs, encryption, etc... What will happen to all of the people who have purchased set top boxes today? I realize this is just the definition of the format to use for TV tuner cards, but as a result, you have to figure the change in format is going to impact all of the people currently using a digital set top box today. I myself almost purchased a Scientific Atlanta set top cable box, as the monthly cable fees my provider charged ( Rogers ) for the box rental were insane. Is this change basically going to screw all the people that bought a box in the past few years?

    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! ;-) Hopefully, this goes through... but also, hopefully there will be some form of backward compatibility so everyones current cable and satelitte boxes still work.

  • it's always DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

    by *weasel ( 174362 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:04AM (#6964030)
    every content provider is looking to incorporate more and more DRM as the quality, cost, and ease of creation of copies improves.

    the music industry doesn't care about people copying songs off the radio. it didn't even really get its panties in a bunch when CD-Rs first hit the market. or when mp3s hit the ftp servers. It went ballistic when anyone could download a single application and instantly find a never ending stream of perceptibility loss-less perfect digital copies.

    likewise with the MPAA and DVD encryption, likewise with the new Cable Set-top standard.

    They want to cut out MythTV, Tivo, splitters, H-cards, and cable descramblers. It's becoming too easy to get at the current data, so they want a change.

    with the analog system working (fairly) well as is, why else would they create a new 'standard' for the digital system? It certainly isn't in the interest of the consumer.

    Why doesn't Sony support the Blu-Ray with its stock rewritable feature?
    Why did Disney/Circuit City/et al try to push (the bad) Divx onto the market in the first place?

    It isn't because consumers are clamoring for less control or cheaper movies.

    The time is coming when content producers are going to have to realize that their profits will no longer come from format-updates (repurchasing 8-tracks as CDs, VHS classics as DVDs, etc), and will -not- come from service-style access to data. Classic TV advertising may even have to give way to pure product-placement campaigns.

    Cable will realize that a move to pay-per-channel is the way to support content without advertising in our new time-shifted digital reality. Some people -will- pay $1/mo for TLC. Home Depot will still pay for product placements in Trading Spaces. Maybe the Super-station will go away - but the cable companies, and popular channels, need not.

    the film industry has already shown that the theatre experience is not losing out to cheap cam copies. they've learned that feature-rich dvds or dirt-cheap dvds are preferred to the customer over hacked-together recompressed copies on filesharing networks.

    The record companies will need to realize that to win with digital music requires providing the best quality, with the least hassle. They will need to realize that they must beat file-sharing on features. People will give up hunting around for a good (not mislabeled)256kbps rip of Britney's newest song - if they know they can just hit iTunes or its ilk and cough up $1.

    Fair Use needs to win out. These purported 'losses' from file-sharing need to be revealed to be grossly overestimated fabrications. (A PSA from a supposed union set painter claiming that file sharing is killing the movie industry, and threatening his job - airing during it's highest grossing year of all time is particularly tactless)

    DRM is the tool of the content dinosaur. If they concentrated on actual content piracy rings - where big money is being made off black-market copies, and abandoned their fruitless DRM research - their profits could be higher than ever.

    But such is not the reaction of anti-competitive cabals. Being forced to -compete- is not what they do. Suing, threatening, bullying, bribing - these are the blunt instruments they wield instead of the precise tools of innovation, imagination and competition.

    So in the meantime - expect every advance to carry DRM in the fine print.

    • Re:it's always DRM (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Serapth ( 643581 )
      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.

      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
      • read the fine print - this completely removes the analog gap.

        there is already an 'open' standard on tuning HD and digital broadcasts. without it, HD/digital tuners from several manufacturers could not exist - and seeing as how they do, it isn't something you can really argue.

        this new standard will allow manufacturers to incorporate -DRMd- tuners, and it will also allow them to lock-out any tuner manufacturers they don't approve of. The decryption keys are negotiated with the broadcasting source - meanin
        • there is already an 'open' standard on tuning HD and digital broadcasts. without it, HD/digital tuners from several manufacturers could not exist - and seeing as how they do, it isn't something you can really argue.

          See, I dont believe this is completely true. The decoder is always external to the TV. Such as the HD decoder box or HD satelitte receiver, or hell... even your DVD player. To my knowledge, to this date, there isnt a HDTV on the market, where you can just plug a single cable in the back, an
    • Their definition of competing is to win. The best way to win is to force the competition out. Thus, non-competition is the best form of competition.
  • ...that getting a high quality recording off of these cable boxes is not going to be allowed.

    Glad I haven't bought that DVD recorder yet.

    Oh Panasonic, how you tant me with your DVD-R goodness.

  • Reasonably simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jjn1056 ( 85209 ) <`jjn1056' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:08AM (#6964075) Homepage Journal
    Stop caring about TV so much. I mean, if your freedom to control the way you access information is that important to you, than any of the few (what seems to me at least) shows that might be worth watching are worth giving up.

    Just opt out. If enough people do, that would change the industry quick enough. Chances are that won't happen, most people don't feel like these types of restrictions interfere with their freedom in a significant way.

    Chances are that people who do care are just going to have to get used to opting out more, like people I know that feel strongly about worker rights won't buy stuff from companies that abuse them. You really don't need those designer Nike sneakers in the end, if you think about it.

    People who have strong political feelings about things are willing to put up with the troubles, and something dangers, of living a life in accord with their beliefs.

    All you can do is try to raise awareness of the issues, lobby for change, and try to not be too dissappointed from time to time when the powers that be exercise their power. Offering an alternative is also good, like trying to promote using the internet as a way of accessing news and entertainment.

    Peace, or Not?
  • "This involved using a set top box or tuner integrated into a TV along with a smart card

    Once it's standard, it gets integrated into the TV. Then you lose access to the video signal - no recordings, no playback, no nothing unless you subscribe and get a "smart card". Me, I still don't have cable. If you didn't either, those good programs would migrate to broadcast.

  • I could see TV content providers building some of the hardware into the tv such as a decoder device that works with all devices. So the situation would be this. Get your receiver box from your cable/satellite company (or pehaps some module that plugs into the tv) that grabs the signal and determines if you are allowed to view it and pumps it into the TV using 1394 or something like that and then the TV decompresses it on the fly to the screen. By removing the analog middle man (moving the meat of the hardware to the tv) they could significantly limit the ability to record "unauthorized content" Then they could add an "analog out" port on the tv that delivers only authorized recordable content.

  • "I seem to be having a case of deja vu"

    Probably because you've already seen the FCC push some not so open standards in digital broadcast radio. [homelinux.com]

  • Smart Card? (Score:5, Informative)

    by tonywestonuk ( 261622 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:28AM (#6964290)
    In the UK, we have Smartcards tied to the customer, plugged into the set-top box. I believe that it is impossible for the Set top box (STB) to decrypt the signal comming in, without accessing the key from the smartcard. The smartcard is fed encrypted packets that the STB cann't understand, but these packets are decrypted and recognised by the card to mean things like 'Active channel' or 'suspend service', or 'Key for the next 10 seconds on this channel is xxxx'.

    With this setup, I can't see why open source can't be used. The only way the open source program can decrypt a particular channel, is by access to the key, which it does by querying the card. This card is under full control of the cable/satellite services, who will still be able to dictate if you are able to watch a channel or not.

    • This is how DIRECTV works, but the box is still a crucial part of the security system - it has safeguards to ensure that the access card is not a serial cable plugged into a computer.

      DirecTV's access cards have been cracked at least three times before; they are now rolling out their 4th-generation access card in an attempt to stop piracy.

    • Re:Smart Card? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by canavan ( 14778 )
      If this was just about beeing able to watch a channel or not, then the method you described would be sufficient - however, this is about plugging the "analog hole" and not opening a much worse digital one. Just imagine - if people controlled their set top boxen, they could record any content and play it back when they want (assuming there was a hard disk inside). They could implement a Skip-30-seconds button on their remotes. All other kinds of evil things could be done that deprive the cable companies and
  • OpenCable is designed to be a standardization amongst cable companies (they all have slightly or widely different standards right now) and equipment manufacturers (head equipment through to televisions). This is good for the consumer.

    I'm not sure how or why you think that the "open source community" is ignored...how many OSS guys are going to design their own TV or set-top box?

    -psy

  • OpenWho? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mobileskimo ( 461008 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:50AM (#6964555) Journal
    OpenMyAss. OpenCable project? Did CableLabs try to wear the "Open" name bandwagon in hopes to win OSS proponents over with a privately held Trademarked name? GAH! What fools. What OSS proponent would not gag on their own vomit when they see it?

    The OpenCable project is an open, collaborative forum that allows multiple interested participants to help shape the specifications for digital cable products so that the cable industry continues to keep pace with emerging technologies and service opportunities.

    Access to the confidential section of the OpenCable Web site, which contains draft specifications not available to the general public.

    Participation requires only that you return the "OpenCable Confidential Information Access Agreement" signed by an authorized representative of your company. This simple non-disclosure agreement (NDA) can be downloaded here.

    Non-Disclosure? Confidential? Not available to the general public? Tell me again why this is called an "open collaborative forum"?
  • Something that my Cable Company is getting ready to roll out is Pre-Paid cable Cards, so that people can use one Smart Card, or a series of Smart Cards, to control the cable in their house. What happens is that after the credits are used up on the smart card, the DCT (Digital Cable Tuner) blacks out all channels, and shows a "Please call your Operator" message, reminding the user to purchase more credits.

    One positive side for this may be ala-carte pricing for the channels you want, that way you're not pay

  • Not that big a deal (Score:3, Informative)

    by uityup ( 660183 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @11:20AM (#6964875)
    This is just taking the authentication module out of the digital box and standardizing it. This way, a costumer can purchase whatever set top box they want and use it with any cable company. Additionally, costumers will have the option to purchase televisions with digital tuners built in so they don't have to have an external box cluttering their entertainment center.

    If you can create an opensource box that will communicate with the card as well as modulate and demodulate MPEG-II QAM and QPSK signals, go to it.

    As for the copy protection issue: headends have planned for this for a long time. The option already exists in the headend's interface to copy protect a stream and has been there for years. I'd assume the reason they don't currently use it is due to the backlash they'd get from their customers.
  • Missing the point?

    Why is it... that a cable box needs to be "open source". I mean, it is after all designed for the single purpose of distributing licensed video content. If it's not doing that, then what is it doing?

    As for Chris espousing the merits of a Linux PVR -Does it *really* matter if it's linux or some OS written specifically for delivering/securing content?

    As far as DRM goes - cable companies are WELL WITHIN their bounds to distribute content and secure it to the best of their ability. Why shou

Slashdot Top Deals

If mathematically you end up with the wrong answer, try multiplying by the page number.

Close