Encryption

[nickk]

Added new section to the top post - "What features will we offer broadcasters that use DRM?"

[Freekick123]

Added new section to the top post - "What features will we offer broadcasters that use DRM?"

Thanks. That helps me understand what you're up against. I would have put "offer" in quotes since it sounds like it's more of a demand.

[Ken.F]

Widevine is not supported in UWP apps, only web browsers.

Would an Electron app work?

[KingdomeCome]

Stick a fork in it all.

[nickk]

Widevine is not supported in UWP apps, only web browsers.

Would an Electron app work?

Won't work for ATSC 1.0 channels and likely won't meet other ATSC 3.0 DRM requirements.

[RickD_99]

What features will we offer broadcasters that use DRM?
* We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to block the user from viewing the channel via their home network.
* We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to block the user from recording the channel.
* We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to block the user from viewing recordings made using our product.
* We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to specify a maximum retention time for a recording, specified in minutes, with cryptography strong enforcement.
* We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to specify the minimum level of Widevine security that will be required for playback.
* We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to specify the minimum HDCP protection level that will be required for playback.
* We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to block analog outputs.
* We plan to offer broadcasters a guarantee that we will implement technological measures to tie any recording to the original HDHomeRun hardware used to receive the data.
* We plan to offer broadcasters a guarantee that we will implement technological measures to require the original HDHomeRun hardware to be present when playing a recording.
* We plan to offer broadcasters a guarantee that we will implement technological measures to detect and block viewing to remote locations.

So Nick you guys are willing to stand your ground on the issue of baked in device obsolescence but at the same time willing to kowtow to the broadcasters on the above anti-consumer guarantees? I’m a bit puzzled here…I thought SD was on our (the consumers) side? Which is it? I don’t want to go back to the pre-Betamax ruling days to appease these SOBs just so I have the ability to watch their DRMed garbage OTA!

[nickk]

So Nick you guys are willing to stand your ground on the issue of baked in device obsolescence but at the same time willing to kowtow to the broadcasters on the above anti-consumer guarantees? I’m a bit puzzled here…I thought SD was on our (the consumers) side? Which is it? I don’t want to go back to the pre-Betamax ruling days to appease these SOBs just so I have the ability to watch their DRMed garbage OTA!

I would not be surprised if at some point certain broadcasters will block all DVRs from recording their channels. I base this on the fact that certain broadcasters pushed so hard to block DVRs from recording ATSC 1.0 content. The "broadcast flag" meant to signal "do-not-record" was transmitted 24/7 by some stations back in the day.

The situation is fucked. Very open to ideas. Customer feedback has been to make DRM channels work.

BTW - not all broadcasters think this way. We know that some broadcasters respect the idea of public airways and have said they will not use DRM. Without DRM ATSC 3.0 has many good benefits - it increases raw bandwidth, opens up 1080p60 as standard, and HEVC/AC4 means all sub-channels can be upgraded to HD while still having bandwidth available for new sub channels.

[davidmb]

Our best bet is to raise hell with our representatives. Write, Call…

If they are making you guys certify to each individual Tablet, phone.. that is absolutely ridiculous and unmanageable moving forward. I mean, imagine there is bug which is allowing people to record everything regardless of the flag.. like certifying each and every device individually is just insane!!

One of the last videos I saw was a panel of a couple of ladies representing users/consumers.. they said ATSC3 was only partially approved by FCC. And that portions such as the encryption and the Round trip time limit were not yet approved. Is that true?

[freway01]

Our best bet is to raise hell with our representatives. Write, Call…

If they are making you guys certify to each individual Tablet, phone.. that is absolutely ridiculous and unmanageable moving forward. I mean, imagine there is bug which is allowing people to record everything regardless of the flag.. like certifying each and every device individually is just insane!!

One of the last videos I saw was a panel of a couple of ladies representing users/consumers.. they said ATSC3 was only partially approved by FCC. And that portions such as the encryption and the Round trip time limit were not yet approved. Is that true?

This is one of the reasons I'm an advocate for getting forum members, members of their families, and all their friends, to add a comment to Lon Seidman's petition to the FCC (https://lon.tv/atsc3petition). People need to go to 'https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express' and file a comment. Just fill in the 'Proceeding(s):' box with 16-142, then the rest of the boxes with your information.

If you're not sure what to put in the comments box, you can go out and look at some of the other comments people have submitted by going to 'https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings', enter '16-142' in the 'Proceeding(s) box, press the 'Tab' key, then press the 'Enter' key. As of this posting, there are 4,177 comments to why allowing the broadcaster to use DRM isn't a good idea. Just click on a name and a window will open so you can see that person's comment. Remember, the FCC has the final word on the implementation of ATSC 3.0, not the broadcaster.

After you do that, send an email to your Congressional Representatives letting them know what the broadcasters are trying to do to prevent Americans from watching the free, over-the-air local TV broadcasts in the way we are able to do today.

The implementation of ATSC 3.0 may currently be a few years off, but if we don't stand up to for our rights to watch local 'free' TV the way we want to watch it, it will be just another thing 'Big Tech' has taken away from us. SD and the other manufactures of 'time-shifting' broadcast TV recording devices, will ultimately be forced out of business if they have to 'bend-the-knee' to the broadcasters because consumers won't pay for devices that don't have the functionality they have become used to.

[MikeBear]

Our best bet is to raise hell with our representatives. Write, Call…

If they are making you guys certify to each individual Tablet, phone.. that is absolutely ridiculous and unmanageable moving forward. I mean, imagine there is bug which is allowing people to record everything regardless of the flag.. like certifying each and every device individually is just insane!!

One of the last videos I saw was a panel of a couple of ladies representing users/consumers.. they said ATSC3 was only partially approved by FCC. And that portions such as the encryption and the Round trip time limit were not yet approved. Is that true?

This is one of the reasons I'm an advocate for getting forum members, members of their families, and all their friends, to add a comment to Lon Seidman's petition to the FCC (https://lon.tv/atsc3petition). People need to go to 'https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express' and file a comment. Just fill in the 'Proceeding(s):' box with 16-142, then the rest of the boxes with your information.

If you're not sure what to put in the comments box, you can go out and look at some of the other comments people have submitted by going to 'https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings', enter '16-142' in the 'Proceeding(s) box, press the 'Tab' key, then press the 'Enter' key. As of this posting, there are 4,177 comments to why allowing the broadcaster to use DRM isn't a good idea. Just click on a name and a window will open so you can see that person's comment. Remember, the FCC has the final word on the implementation of ATSC 3.0, not the broadcaster.

After you do that, send an email to your Congressional Representatives letting them know what the broadcasters are trying to do to prevent Americans from watching the free, over-the-air local TV broadcasts in the way we are able to do today.

The implementation of ATSC 3.0 may currently be a few years off, but if we don't stand up to for our rights to watch local 'free' TV the way we want to watch it, it will be just another thing 'Big Tech' has taken away from us. SD and the other manufactures of 'time-shifting' broadcast TV recording devices, will ultimately be forced out of business if they have to 'bend-the-knee' to the broadcasters because consumers won't pay for devices that don't have the functionality they have become used to.

DRM is in direct violation of the TEACH ACT, see here: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/atsc-3 ... t-63105834 and here: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/atsc-3 ... t-63106017

That needs to be pointed out in any petitions in the future, AND brought up with our representatives...

[howardc1243]

Our best bet is to raise hell with our representatives. Write, Call…

If they are making you guys certify to each individual Tablet, phone.. that is absolutely ridiculous and unmanageable moving forward. I mean, imagine there is bug which is allowing people to record everything regardless of the flag.. like certifying each and every device individually is just insane!!

One of the last videos I saw was a panel of a couple of ladies representing users/consumers.. they said ATSC3 was only partially approved by FCC. And that portions such as the encryption and the Round trip time limit were not yet approved. Is that true?

This is one of the reasons I'm an advocate for getting forum members, members of their families, and all their friends, to add a comment to Lon Seidman's petition to the FCC (https://lon.tv/atsc3petition). People need to go to 'https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express' and file a comment. Just fill in the 'Proceeding(s):' box with 16-142, then the rest of the boxes with your information.

If you're not sure what to put in the comments box, you can go out and look at some of the other comments people have submitted by going to 'https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings', enter '16-142' in the 'Proceeding(s) box, press the 'Tab' key, then press the 'Enter' key. As of this posting, there are 4,177 comments to why allowing the broadcaster to use DRM isn't a good idea. Just click on a name and a window will open so you can see that person's comment. Remember, the FCC has the final word on the implementation of ATSC 3.0, not the broadcaster.

After you do that, send an email to your Congressional Representatives letting them know what the broadcasters are trying to do to prevent Americans from watching the free, over-the-air local TV broadcasts in the way we are able to do today.

The implementation of ATSC 3.0 may currently be a few years off, but if we don't stand up to for our rights to watch local 'free' TV the way we want to watch it, it will be just another thing 'Big Tech' has taken away from us. SD and the other manufactures of 'time-shifting' broadcast TV recording devices, will ultimately be forced out of business if they have to 'bend-the-knee' to the broadcasters because consumers won't pay for devices that don't have the functionality they have become used to.

as for nickk cotowing to the broadcasters, that is a way to buy time while pushing a3sa on the time expiry of devices such as tablets, smartphones, os/macos etc.

nickk and crew know this methodology is an unreasonable expense and a unreasonable requirement to force onto any manufacturer of television sets etc.

[howardc1243]

[removed by moderator]

That product does not work with Apple TV, does not work with iPad or iPhone, does not work with Mac, does not work with Windows 10 or 11, does not work with XBox, does not work with Roku, does not work with Android or Android TV, does not work with Fire TV.

A television vendor can implement DRM and allow you to watch DRM protected channels. That is possible today.
A set-top-box (HDMI out) vendor can implement DRM and allow you to watch DRM protected channels. I don't think DVR recording is allowed yet.

Something to keep in mind with DRM - specific broadcasters fought hard for the ATSC 1.0 "broadcast flag" which was a flag telling a DVR to disable recording. And some channels broadcast this flag 24/7 so there is a history of trying to block recording. With ATSC 3.0 DRM this can finally be achieved.

if they think i'm going too watch dancing with the farts or some award show where those actor/actress show their stupidity their wrong.

[IDisposable]

My comment:

PUBLIC AIRWAVES belong to the PUBLIC.
Use of those AIRWAVES to broadcast anything MUST be in accords with the PUBLIC GOOD.
Attempts to encrypt broadcasts ARE ILLEGAL in that the PUBLIC has the right to receive those PUBLIC broadcasts.
Attempts to control the FAIR USE of those broadcasts (note, not point-to-point transmissions) is MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE and anyone that supports those controls is LIKEWISE ABANDONING the representation of the citizens and their FAIR USE RIGHTS (and thus should be removed from office/terminated)

[ghagman]

Thanks for sharing!

My comment:

Rights to use bandwidth on PUBLIC airwaves should benefit the PUBLIC. If broadcasters encrypt their broadcasts with DRM, then it benefits no one.

ATSC 3.0 will struggle to replace ATSC 1.0 if DRM encryption continues. Why should consumers switch to ATSC 3.0 devices that restrict what they are allowed to view? And if consumers don't have an appetite to switch, then why should device manufacturers produce such devices?

If broadcasters don't want their broadcasts to be PUBLIC, then they shouldn't be licensed to broadcast on PUBLIC airwaves.

[NatHillIV]

Proceeding 16-142 is a HOT topic on the FCC Filing page. It has 4,102 responses. No other topic has above 2,000 responses, and only 5 (including 16-142) have over 1,000. The responses I've read are almost exclusively opposing DRM, and all are very well written.
If the FCC and/or broadcasters are paying ANY attention at all, the pressure has had to have reached them.