Encryption

ATSC 3.0 Forum
Post Reply
nickk
Silicondust
Posts: 20743
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:39 am
x 325

Re: Encryption

Post by nickk »


NatHillIV
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:43 am
x 18

Re: Encryption

Post by NatHillIV »

FANTASTIC response Nick! Detailed and complete, and even I could understand it. I think any FCC commissioner could understand it as well.

I took the liberty of stealing this post from the AVS forum. I enjoyed reading them as well as your excellent response.

A couple of new public interest objections to the NAB petition have also been filed:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search- ... 1669608782
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search- ... 1143994947


Here's my question. How in the WORLD can ATSC 3.0 ever gain traction when the leading selling ATSC 3.0 gateway manufacturer and the folks in charge of promoting the new standard have reached this point? We all know who the bad guys are here, I just don't understand how they can be that stupid? Makes no sense. Hopefully they come to their senses, but I'm beginning to have my doubts.

I almost wish ATSC 3.0 would just go away. I love the improved picture, but if I can't use a your gateway product, forget about it.

techpro2004
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:25 pm
x 2

Re: Encryption

Post by techpro2004 »

So my question is why not release flex 2.0 with a different chip.

TPeterson
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:29 pm
Device ID: 10123716, 10157425, 1039FE2B, 103AEA6C, 1075D4B1, 1076C3A7, 1080F19F
Location: San Carlos, CA
x 5
Contact:

Re: Encryption

Post by TPeterson »

techpro2004 wrote: Tue Jul 22, 2025 6:31 pm So my question is why not release flex 2.0 with a different chip.
Because the goal posts would only move again. duh.

jasonl
Silicondust
Posts: 17436
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:23 pm
x 70

Re: Encryption

Post by jasonl »

techpro2004 wrote: Tue Jul 22, 2025 6:31 pm So my question is why not release flex 2.0 with a different chip.
Because there's nothing wrong with the current chip. The primary law that Pearl referenced was designed to target network infrastructure and cell phones, two areas where Huawei and some of the others listed are some of the biggest players in the world. I don't know if Huawei and the others on the list have actually done anything wrong, but the possibility of them doing it is very real. The equipment that runs cell sites would have full access to everything running through it, and it would be very easy to put functions in the firmware/software to allow governments access to calls and data flowing through the equipment. A mere SoC would not have that level of exposure because the CPU doesn't have any kind of understanding of what it is doing, it's just manipulating bits that could be anything and do anything.

techpro2004
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:25 pm
x 2

Re: Encryption

Post by techpro2004 »

[removed by moderator]

gtb
Expert
Posts: 4273
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:00 pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA USA
x 19

Re: Encryption

Post by gtb »

NatHillIV wrote: Tue Jul 22, 2025 11:54 am FANTASTIC response Nick! Detailed and complete, and even I could understand it. I think any FCC commissioner could understand it as well.
Just for the record, it is likely that no commissioner will ever actually read it.

While the FCC Commissioners are the leadership, and make the decisions as to direction and policies and rules, the majority of the technical work and evaluation is done by the nonpartisan career staff (nice people (at least the few handful I have interacted with), and they really really really know their area of responsibilities and the technical details). The staff are the ones responsible for reading and fully understanding what is said, and provide an executive summary of the facts and any impacts of possible actions up the chain of command for decision making. While, from time to time, a commissioner might happen be technically competent, most of the time they are just political animals, who depend on their staff for actual detailed knowledge (I don't recall any commissioner who was able to actually understand RF physics).

hancox
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:53 am
x 11

Re: Encryption

Post by hancox »

nickk wrote: Tue Jul 22, 2025 7:35 am Our response sent to the FCC:

https://download.silicondust.com/docs/S ... 22-25).pdf
This should be added to the bottom of the first post - it's basically every detail anyone would need on the subject. Well done.

Post Reply