SageTV Community  

Go Back   SageTV Community > General Discussion > General Discussion

Notices

General Discussion General discussion about SageTV and related companies, products, and technologies.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-18-2016, 04:52 PM
SHS's Avatar
SHS SHS is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vinita, Oklahoma
Posts: 4,466
FCC Votes to Demolish Cable's Stranglehold Over the Set Top Box

WoW that killer news but ocen againe we sat folks get #$%# over
https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...Top-Box-136326

Last edited by SHS; 02-19-2016 at 09:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-18-2016, 06:43 PM
KryptoNyte's Avatar
KryptoNyte KryptoNyte is offline
Sage Icon
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,214
"So under the FCC's new proposal, cable providers would be required to provide third party set top box vendors access to their existing programming lineups -- without the need for a CableCARD."

I'm not sure I fully understand how this will be implemented.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-19-2016, 03:47 AM
SHS's Avatar
SHS SHS is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vinita, Oklahoma
Posts: 4,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by KryptoNyte View Post
"So under the FCC's new proposal, cable providers would be required to provide third party set top box vendors access to their existing programming lineups -- without the need for a CableCARD."

I'm not sure I fully understand how this will be implemented.
I think it means CableCARD is being replace with downlaod firmware in order to decryption the channel by 3rdparty hardware/software, Another words company like Hauppauge, Apple TV, Roku, Android TV, TiVo, Arris and All the NextGen Smart TV will be able to support with out the need of the cable providers cable box, the sad part is if that had happing min years just think of where SageTV would have been by now, even Google could still do this.

Last edited by SHS; 02-19-2016 at 09:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-19-2016, 07:39 AM
PLUCKYHD PLUCKYHD is offline
SageTVaholic
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,257
Well FWIW Google was one of the driving forces for this. That being said it's great news but a replacement is a long process I read somewhere their goal was 7 years given the speed of things of the past I would say more like 10-12 years. Getting cable systems to replace their system they will drag their feet as long as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-19-2016, 08:24 AM
stanger89's Avatar
stanger89 stanger89 is offline
SageTVaholic
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 15,186
Yeah, I imagine I will not be using "cable" anymore by the time this sees the light of day. And of course it does SageTV no good anyway, since it will surely have similar DRM requirements to CableCard, it will just remove the hardware part of the equation.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-19-2016, 09:31 AM
tvmaster2's Avatar
tvmaster2 tvmaster2 is offline
SageTVaholic
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: tarana
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD View Post
Well FWIW Google was one of the driving forces for this. That being said it's great news but a replacement is a long process I read somewhere their goal was 7 years given the speed of things of the past I would say more like 10-12 years. Getting cable systems to replace their system they will drag their feet as long as possible.
lol....didn't we put a man on the moon in eight years? I guess this will be on an 'as-needed' basis, which will likely be from an unknown, startup who wants to be first-in, who the big guys then slaughter out of existence...
__________________
Sage 7 server = Gigabyte AMD quad-core - 2 gigs - integrated ATI HD4200 chipset - Seagate/Hitachi Deskstar - HD-PVR - Colossus - Win7 32 bit. HD200 networked. "If you've given up on Weird Al, you've given up on life" - Homer Simpson
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-19-2016, 09:43 AM
SHS's Avatar
SHS SHS is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vinita, Oklahoma
Posts: 4,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Yeah, I imagine I will not be using "cable" anymore by the time this sees the light of day. And of course it does SageTV no good anyway, since it will surely have similar DRM requirements to CableCard, it will just remove the hardware part of the equation.
That's a good question we have wait and see what happing
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-20-2016, 12:09 AM
reggie14 reggie14 is offline
SageTVaholic
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,759
There's a ton of information in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It describes, in rather great detail, the options they considered, and why they're proposing the rules specified in Appendices A and B. If you want the TLDR, jump straight to that section. But, you'll get a better understanding of their expectations if you read the body.

I skimmed it- I think these are the four critical elements of their plan.

First, they want cable companies to make their video programming and any relevant metadata necessary to access/use/restrict that programming, available in a a standardized format. This includes copy control information and other rights (i.e., entitlement) data. Of note, they're not proposing to require that all cable companies use the same standard. Each company can choose whatever they want as long as they choose a standard format developed by an open standards body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragraph 36
Under our proposed rule, we would require each MVPD to provide Service Discovery Data, Entitlement Data, and Content Delivery Data for its “Navigable Services”in published, transparent formats that conform to specifications set by open standards bodies. Under this proposal, we would require MVPDs to provide these Information Flows in a manner that does not restrict competitive user interfaces and features.
Second, DRM is a fundamental component of this the proposed rule. They use different terms to mean slightly different things- DRM, condition access system, and link protection technology are all slightly different takes on each other- but I think it suffices to simply call it all DRM. Again, the FCC is not requiring all companies use the same DRM system. Each company can pick whatever they want so long as: 1) it's licensable under RAND terms, and 2) the cable companies don't substantially control it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragraph 60
Accordingly, we propose that MVPDs must support at least one compliant” conditional access system or link protection technology, although they may use others at the same time. A Compliant Security System must be licensable on reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms, and have a Trust Authority that is not substantially controlled by any MVPD or group of MVPDs. An MVPD must make available the three Information Flows in their entirety to devices using one of the Compliant Security Systems chosen by the MVPD. Such a system might include, for example, future iterations of DTCP or certain DRM systems.
Third, third-party navigation devices must be capable of the same usage rights as boxes from the cable company. For example, if a cable company DVR can record a show, then they must support a DRM scheme that would allow a third-party STB to record that show.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragraph 68
The final proposed parity requirement is that, on any device on which an MVPD makes available an application to access its programming, it must support at least one Compliant Security System that offers access to the same Navigable Services with the same rights to use those Navigable Services as the MVPD affords to its own app
Fourth, they're still forming their thoughts on certification. The rule doesn't require any sort of certification program, but they're certainly thinking about it. Taken in totality, I think the section discussing "Licensing and Certification" shows that the FCC is really hoping that no will have to stand any new certification program up. To the extent a certification program would be necessary, I think they're hoping that the existing certification and licensing programs for DRM systems would sufficiently cover that need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragraph 70
We believe that licensing and certification will play important roles under our proposed approach. MVPDs, MPAA, and companies that supply equipment to MVPDs argue that the Competitive Navigation approach could violate licensing agreements between MVPDs and content companies.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-22-2016, 09:24 AM
waynedunham waynedunham is offline
Sage Icon
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,374
Have no fear, once the Cable and Satellite Co. lobbyists wrap their heads around this (and distribute the proper funds to *our* legislators) it will be properly quashed.
__________________
Wayne Dunham
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
House votes to end Cable Cards requirement mikejaner General Discussion 28 07-28-2014 12:31 PM
How To Find a Time Warner Cable Firewire-capable Cable Box Brent Hardware Support 21 11-19-2009 11:40 AM
Cable amplifier: affect telephone via cable & suggested layout? Opus4 Hardware Support 29 05-07-2008 09:55 PM
HDTV support, Place your votes! stanger89 Hardware Support 85 04-26-2005 07:37 AM
~AndyS ~Controlling Digital Cable Box w/ Serial Cable ccerj8 Hardware Support 0 06-06-2004 05:16 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2003-2005 SageTV, LLC. All rights reserved.