Encryption

[nblair5]

Our response sent to the FCC:

https://download.silicondust.com/docs/S ... 22-25).pdf

Thanks for sharing this Nick. It's very well written and covers the important points. We can certainly see in this filing the "update" we've all been looking for. I can appreciate that you were sitting on this to try to nurse the A3SA relationship along; but now that your hand is forced, we can finally infer the details without any NDA points being broken. Please keep up the fight, and again, thank you.

Honestly, it seems only the FCC can correct matters at this point!

The logical best solution from the consumer point of view is (1) remove DRM, (2) remove "broadcast flag" and other restrictions, and (3) then roll it out asap and finally (4) when market saturation occurs, turn off 1.0. We could have been close to point 4 by now were it not for the apparent greed that has impeded progress to a much better standard.

Agreed, with the slight modification that the point I've been asking about (android widevine approval progress) is addressed by the whitespace rather than the text. It is clear from this letter that it is very unlikely that "there is activity happening" on android implementation while the broader issues are in the state described. I can even understand why any of the parties involved might see investing resources in a partial solution as unhelpful or counterproductive to their desired end state.

There is at least one person in this forum waiting for an android solution which could possibly be available sooner than the full solution, based on the explicit language in the FAQ. Adding this letter to the FAQ would help disabuse that notion, although not as well as just removing the no-longer-relevant language from the FAQ.

[Freekick123]

And here's Pearl's Response:

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1072583827524/1

[nickk]

And here's Pearl's Response:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1072583827524/1

Silicondust recommends that Pearl consult with the ATSC 3.0 Security Authority (A3SA) to understand Widevine levels allowed by the A3SA and why the Widevine Level available to the SoC in a video gateway device, such as the HDHomeRun product, is not relevant in any way to viewers accessing “high-value content”.

[jasondeanny]

Pardon my complete lack of understanding here... but is that why the CableCard HDHR won't work on AndoridTV devices? The same thing that's preventing getting A3SA certified is preventing get recertified at the correct level because of the chip?

So basically we are now very limited to using a subset of devices that we could originally use?

I guess the good news is that 3.0 doesn't look likely to be mandated and the US will be stuck in limbo for a while. Probably after the original digital transition, none of these broadcasters has any stomach for the next level. They didn't learn the lessons from the music industry years ago when people found ways around the DRM until eventually Apple found the formula to success.

And oddly enough Pearl didn't even address SD's assertion that the other devices are a huge, gaping security hole using patches from 2011 and an old OS.

[signcarver]

Pardon my complete lack of understanding here... but is that why the CableCard HDHR won't work on AndoridTV devices?

No

Simple reason is with cablecard and dtcp-ip that is 100% based on client device and nothing to do with hdhr. Google dropped an api used to verify the client device which is required for keys to be installed and renewed each year. My understanding there are issues with the new api including a limited number of times an app can call such per day (google has suggested to developers a staggered rollout because of this which might possibly work if each client device really only needed to use it once a year but I believe some of the functions it provides must be confirmed every launch so it may not be possible to rely entirely on Google's official replacement api).

[HoTst2]

I still don't see how merely having a SoC from a now officially banned Chinese mfr. Without the necessary communication I/O hardware and firmware running on a consumer video gateway device. Can possibly be a security threat to anything?

And if there's no actual decryption of content to take place in the gateway device to begin with.Why is the inclusion of this supposed "Google Widevine Level 1 CDM" on the SoC necessary anyway?

[Freekick123]

And if there's no actual decryption of content to take place in the gateway device to begin with.Why is the inclusion of this supposed "Google Widevine Level 1 CDM" on the SoC necessary anyway?

Apparently Pearl doesn't understand that (or want to).

[techpro2004]

Again I ask which is easier/cheaper a redesign or being dragged through the muck.

[Dxcv]

Again I ask which is easier/cheaper a redesign or being dragged through the muck.

Because, the chip they use doesn't matter ultimately. They are just going to complain about something else and move the goalposts. Pearl's assertions are wrong and they are trying to play it up to force a ATSC 3.0 deadline and ultimately hurt consumers.

[NedS]

Again I ask which is easier/cheaper a redesign or being dragged through the muck.

It doesn't matter. Pearl doesn't decide who gets approval or not.

Pearl is trying to convince the FCC to force a hard ATSC 3.0 changeover sooner than later, and the FCC is asking questions about why adoption is going slowly. So Pearl's bullshit isn't meant to stop us from getting DRM approval (on the app side), it's meant to hide the fact that no network tuner, regardless of SoC, has an approved consumer app for DRM. They're misleading the FCC in hopes that the FCC thinks that DRM isn't a problem.

If the FCC sees DRM as a problem then they might do something like require dropping of DRM (best case scenario) or might simply not force a hard date for ATSC 1.0 being retired. Pearl does not want either of those situations to happen, so they are pretending like the transition is going more smoothly than it actually is.

[NedS]

I still don't see how merely having a SoC from a now officially banned Chinese mfr. Without the necessary communication I/O hardware and firmware running on a consumer video gateway device. Can possibly be a security threat to anything?

And if there's no actual decryption of content to take place in the gateway device to begin with.Why is the inclusion of this supposed "Google Widevine Level 1 CDM" on the SoC necessary anyway?

Just to be clear, the SoC is not banned in the US. That's another untruth by Pearl.

[bandit5731]

And here's Pearl's Response:

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1072583827524/1

so many lies in here it was hard to read....

mainly that there are no gateway devices because there is no deadline... LOL Buhahaha

[pixelstuff]

Our response sent to the FCC:
https://download.silicondust.com/docs/S ... 22-25).pdf

Honestly, it seems only the FCC can correct matters at this point!

Perhaps we should take it higher and try to have congress pass a law that the FCC can then enforce. What might such a law look like?

Do we just need to ban DRM on the public television airwaves? That is kind of where I would lean, but maybe that is too extreme. Perhaps if any DRM is allowed it just needs to have a fully public specification that anyone can build hardware or software for, not tied to any patents, and the approval or rejection process can't be behind an NDA or any kind of secrecy.

Personally, I might go a step further and say the codecs for public broadcast can't be behind patents either. They served a valid purpose in ATSC 1.0 almost 15 years ago, but the I think the modern open source or patent unencumbered codecs have gotten pretty good in recent years.

[jasondeanny]

Pearl is trying to convince the FCC to force a hard ATSC 3.0 changeover sooner than later, and the FCC is asking questions about why adoption is going slowly. So Pearl's bullshit isn't meant to stop us from getting DRM approval (on the app side), it's meant to hide the fact that no network tuner, regardless of SoC, has an approved consumer app for DRM. They're misleading the FCC in hopes that the FCC thinks that DRM isn't a problem.

If the FCC sees DRM as a problem then they might do something like require dropping of DRM (best case scenario) or might simply not force a hard date for ATSC 1.0 being retired. Pearl does not want either of those situations to happen, so they are pretending like the transition is going more smoothly than it actually is.

Regardless of the DRM issue, a Hard Date should be set so everyone (manufacturers, broadcasters and most importantly consumers) know when older devices will cease to function. Being in this holding pattern isn't doing anything to move the needle. A very chicken-and-egg problem.

• I get manufacturers really don't want to add a 3.0 tuner as it will likely add costs to the TV. Give them a hard target and they can plan on phasing out older hardware and properly design modern hardware at a reasonable cost. Once the tuners are being mass produced for this market, I'm sure the costs will drop. If you're an early adopter (like most of us in this forum) then you won't mind the added costs (within reason).

• The broadcasters aren't getting to realize the benefits since they can't offer 4K or any of the advanced features (with the exception of 1080P). They're actually hurting themselves since there's higher quality content elsewhere and consumers can somewhat abandon OTA. Flip the switch and all of a sudden they can compete.

• Consumers may wind up buying a device that will stop working since there's no clear guidance. I'm also leaning to the fact that the majority of consumers aren't using an antenna to acquire their content. They're getting more content through streaming or traditional linear cable. Their current TV will still work if they have a stream box or cable box.

The FCC should be focused on those that can't get cable and that likely means they can't get Internet. No Internet, no way to authorize the device for DRM. A3SA isn't really addressing those consumers and they honestly don't care. They don't understand or care about those who live in rural areas with poor/no cell service and too far from a main road where cable companies won't run their lines without thousands of dollars up front for construction costs.

ATSC 3.0 is being treated like HD Radio. Some people have it. Most don't or have no clue it's available in their car. HD1 is simulcast for the analog channel. No mandate to switch everything over to digital. The one big difference is DRM works and my radio never told me I can't listen due to restrictions.

At the end of the day, consumers have little say and the most to lose. Politicians and Big Broadcasters have the power and don't give a damn if they can't make even more money and pad their bank accounts and golden parachutes.

[nickk]

Silicondust's reply filed with the FCC:
https://download.silicondust.com/docs/S ... 0Pearl.pdf