FCC Forces Cable Companies to Support HD Streaming on Network Devices

[panteragstk]

http://www.audioholics.com/news/edit...nies-streaming

Interesting.

[stanger89]

IIRC that was supposed to go into effect this month, but the cable companies got it pushed out.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by stanger89

IIRC that was supposed to go into effect this month, but the cable companies got it pushed out.

I figure they'll fight it enough that it won't actually happen. Still interesting.

[reggie14]

This was discussed over on AVS too. I don't see how it changes anything. Basically it would just give STBs what the HDHR Prime already does now, just using a slightly more open protocol and DRM scheme.

[KryptoNyte]

Originally Posted by reggie14

... Basically it would just give STBs what the HDHR Prime already does now, just using a slightly more open protocol and DRM scheme.

I'm thinking that the "open protocol" to record to any device would be a pretty big thing, ain't it, as they now lock down most of their content?

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by KryptoNyte

I'm thinking that the "open protocol" to record to any device would be a pretty big thing, ain't it, as they now lock down most of their content?

The protocol hasn't been the limiting factor- the DRM is. You can record off a CableCard on a mythTV system today, but not if the TV show/channel is copy protected.

[KryptoNyte]

How exactly does DRM come into play when the "cable companies are required to allow you to record HD content on any device in your home." That seems like a fairly broad statement.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by KryptoNyte

How exactly does DRM come into play when the "cable companies are required to allow you to record HD content on any device in your home." That seems like a fairly broad statement.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that an the FCC's requirement for STBs to use an open industry standard for home networking (I think the FCC went on to say IP-based) means the standard can't use DRM? It absolutely does not. The general agreement seems to be that this standard is going to be DLNA Premium Video Profile with DTCP-IP as the DRM scheme.

[KryptoNyte]

Based on your extensive participation in posts here in the SageTV forum, you would clearly know better than myself. Or were you asking me an honest question about how I read the linked article as opposed to how you may have read the article?

[KryptoNyte]

I'm trying to figure out how I would record HD programs on my Android tablet ...

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by KryptoNyte

Based on your extensive participation in posts here in the SageTV forum, you would clearly know better than myself. Or were you asking me an honest question about how I read the linked article as opposed to how you may have read the article?

I ready the article, but this isn't anything new. The FCC made the rule a while ago. The newsworthy thing that just happened was that the FCC just pushed back the deadline. Part of the argument was to give the DLNA more time to finish their industry standard (though in truth I think the cable companies are just dragging their feet).

But, I honestly wasn't sure (and I'm still not, for that matter) what point you were trying to get across in your previous message. Just because something needs to be an open industry standard doesn't mean DRM can't be used. It doesn't even mean the standard has to be free of IP (and often open standards rarely are). I don't think there's a single well-accepted definition of an open standard, but generally it means it was developed in a group with a fairly open membership policy, and any IP needs to be licensed with fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by KryptoNyte

I'm trying to figure out how I would record HD programs on my Android tablet ...

It could happen. There's already DLNA support with various Android devices. There's a few problems, though. First, a lot of mobile devices, as I understand it, don't ship with mpeg2 decoders. You could add them at a software level, but that's not ideal. Second, this will probably use a newer version of DLNA (the Premium Video Profile), although I imagine that's not a terribly difficult change. Third, and the most significant, you'd probably need hardware/firmware/software support for DTCP-IP as the transmission DRM scheme that protects the video stream to the device, with the device storing local copies encrypted with some other approved scheme.

Could that happen? Maybe. There's ways for device vendors to build in support for DRM schemes like that at the hardware/firmware level so that the DRM schemes are fairly strong even on a relatively open platform like Android. I think many of the mobile chipsets already support some DRM schemes, although for DTCP-IP they might have to build in support using TrustZone. You can sort of think of TrustZone as splitting the CPU into two logical cores, with security sensitive stuff (like DRM) running in one (Secure World), and everything else running in the other (Normal World).

[KryptoNyte]

What I gleaned from the article, reggie14, was that *any* device would be capable of recording HD from the cable company. There is quite an array of devices in my home that could record from the cable company, many of them aren't capable of any form of encryption/DRM ... so I'm trying to figure out how I would do that with an Android tablet, or maybe a standalone HD hard drive recorder, or via HDHR, and of course play that content back on said tablet, or any other device for that matter that isn't capable of DRM.

I guess that's where I was going with that. You seem to have a different feeling on the matter ...

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by KryptoNyte

What I gleaned from the article, reggie14, was that *any* device would be capable of recording HD from the cable company. There is quite an array of devices in my home that could record from the cable company, many of them aren't capable of any form of encryption/DRM ...

That article was dumbed-down and probably written by someone that doesn't know what they're talking about.

I tried to find the actual FCC requirement, but the FCC doesn't make that easy. I think it's from 2010. The actual language is far less exciting than what that article implies. I want to say it explicitly calls out content protection (e.g., DRM) as one of the features that needs to be addressed by the industry standard, although I might be thinking of their proposed requirements for AllVid.

Edit to add: But to be honest, in all likelihood you won't be able to watch/record TV on your tablet, except, perhaps, for what's currently marked copy-freely. That doesn't violate the FCC rule. The FCC rule isn't worded as saying you need to be able to watch/record TV on any device. You can't word requirements like that. The rule is worded such that set top boxes must support an IP-based open industry standard for video distribution. By being open, in theory anyone could license the technology and build hardware/software that could be used with the set top box. But that doesn't have to be free.

[stanger89]

Yeah, you might want to look at this:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/06/f...deadline-to-2/

And especially this:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/14/t...-dramatically/

What's happened is the FCC has allowed IP to be used in place of IEEE 1394 (Firewire), but there's been no change to the DRM requirements of that interface.

I think what happened is the Audioholics author used poor wording saying "all" when they should have said "3rd party". All it means is that people will be able to build IP based devices of the same type as they formerly did with Firewire.

I won't say it's not going to change anything, with how easy it is to implement IP based devices these days, there probably will be more solutions than there were for Firewire. But this definitely isn't some "everything's going to be available over IP in the clear" change.

[tvmaster2]

that 1394 port on the back of my Cox Motorola 3200 box, the one I use to change channels with via Sagtv....so that has been mandated to vanish in favor of an "IP" port?
am I reading this correctly...

[reggie14]

I'm still using firewire channel changing (and even did firewire recording for a while, until I decided it was just too buggy). I won't be too sad to see it go. I swear the firewire drivers are buggy, even for just changing channels. Plus its days are numbered anyway, given that there's no x64 drivers for it.

These new boxes might give us a better way to tune the boxes. Though, I suspect they will come too late for most of us. I highly doubt I'll still be using Sage in 2014. Once Ceton gets their act together I'll probably jump ship to WMC and hope that Google someday releases a public version of their Fiber TV setup.

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by KryptoNyte

What I gleaned from the article, reggie14, was that *any* device would be capable of recording HD from the cable company. There is quite an array of devices in my home that could record from the cable company, many of them aren't capable of any form of encryption/DRM ... so I'm trying to figure out how I would do that with an Android tablet, or maybe a standalone HD hard drive recorder, or via HDHR, and of course play that content back on said tablet, or any other device for that matter that isn't capable of DRM.

I guess that's where I was going with that. You seem to have a different feeling on the matter ...

Well, "any device" would include my toaster, my pencil sharpener, my garage door opener...

So, clearly they don't really mean "any" device. As others have suggested, this requirement just means that the specs would be opened up so that any manufacturer could design a compatible device if they wanted to.

[drewg]

Silicon Dust has already got this working:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/05/h...liver-live-tv/

See also: http://www.silicondust.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=47

I'm *guessing* that this will work without DRM if the content is copy-freely. Eg, the same sort of restriction we (or MythTV) has to record cable from an HDHR-Prime or Ceton.

Drew

[KryptoNyte]

Originally Posted by Tiki

Well, "any device" would include my toaster, my pencil sharpener, my garage door opener...

So, clearly they don't really mean "any" device. As others have suggested, this requirement just means that the specs would be opened up so that any manufacturer could design a compatible device if they wanted to.

Thanks, Tiki. With your permission, I'll go ahead and put a line through the garage door opener on my bullet list of video devices.