Encryption

ATSC 3.0 Forum
Post Reply
nickk
Silicondust
Posts: 20196
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:39 am
x 385

Re: Encryption

Post by nickk »

raypenj wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 6:39 pm
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.
Um, how exactly do you envision the HD Homerun Flex 4k, .... excuse me, the NextGen TV certified HD Homerun Flex 4k, actually working without being able to work on a home network?
The key feature of DRM is that the broadcaster can choose what you can and can't do with the TV content.

If a broadcaster chooses to not allow the content to play via network tuners then the channel won't play.
If a broadcaster chooses to not allow the content to be recorded you won't be able to record it.
If a broadcaster chooses to require that any recording expire after 7 days then any recording you make will expire after 7 days.

DRM does not benefit you in any way, it can only take away what you can do.

Cabal
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:53 pm
x 56

Re: Encryption

Post by Cabal »

@nickk @NedS It was recently mentioned on another forum that the TV-connected tuner made by a company that begins with A stores not only their DRM recordings in an encrypted format, but also their non-DRM ATSC 3.0 recordings encrypted as well. It's not clear why they are doing this. (One might surmise they are decrypting the DRM channels for viewing+recording and then re-encrypting all ATSC 3.0 content with a different set of keys/algorithms).

Do you see a possible scenario where we might lose read/edit/whatever-I-want access to recordings of unencrypted ATSC 3.0 channels?

NedS
Silicondust
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:38 pm
x 174

Re: Encryption

Post by NedS »

Cabal wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:49 pm Do you see a possible scenario where we might lose read/edit/whatever-I-want access to recordings of unencrypted ATSC 3.0 channels?
Seems highly unlikely. I have no idea why anyone would be doing that.

Frank Hagan
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:35 am
x 6

Re: Encryption

Post by Frank Hagan »

Cabal wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:49 pm @nickk @NedS It was recently mentioned on another forum that the TV-connected tuner made by a company that begins with A stores not only their DRM recordings in an encrypted format, but also their non-DRM ATSC 3.0 recordings encrypted as well. It's not clear why they are doing this. (One might surmise they are decrypting the DRM channels for viewing+recording and then re-encrypting all ATSC 3.0 content with a different set of keys/algorithms).
I had a Channel Master Stream+, based on Google TV / Android. All of the recordings on it were "encrypted" (in quotes because I'm not an expert). It would only play recordings through that device, and you could not play them on Windows or any other device (including another Stream+ if I recall correctly).

raypenj
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:58 pm

Re: Encryption

Post by raypenj »

I'm utterly confused by this.

In the bullet list of potential restrictions in Nick's post, i.e. "We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to block...."

who is doing the offering to broadcasters, Silicon Dust or A3SA?

nickk
Silicondust
Posts: 20196
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:39 am
x 385

Re: Encryption

Post by nickk »

Cabal wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:49 pm Do you see a possible scenario where we might lose read/edit/whatever-I-want access to recordings of unencrypted ATSC 3.0 channels?
No. Unencrypted is good. We don't encrypt anything.

nickk
Silicondust
Posts: 20196
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:39 am
x 385

Re: Encryption

Post by nickk »

raypenj wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 10:25 pm I'm utterly confused by this.

In the bullet list of potential restrictions in Nick's post, i.e. "We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to block...."

who is doing the offering to broadcasters, Silicon Dust or A3SA?
The A3SA mandates the usage rules that all device manufactures are required to support. It is unclear what information about these mandated usage rules the A3SA has made public.

What we can tell you is what features our products offer and what features we plan to offer.

raypenj
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:58 pm

Re: Encryption

Post by raypenj »

nickk wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 11:09 pm
raypenj wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 10:25 pm I'm utterly confused by this.

In the bullet list of potential restrictions in Nick's post, i.e. "We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to block...."

who is doing the offering to broadcasters, Silicon Dust or A3SA?
The A3SA mandates the usage rules that all device manufactures are required to support. It is unclear what information about these mandated usage rules the A3SA has made public.

We can tell you what features our products offer and what features we plan to offer.
So to me, there seems to be some conflicts in SD's recently published "feature set":
* We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to block analog outputs.
* We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to block the user from recording the channel.
* We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to specify a maximum retention time for a recording, specified in minutes, with cryptography strong enforcement.

and what A3SA's announcement (August 21, 2023) on what broadcasters cannot restrict. https://a3sa.com/wp-content/uploads/202 ... -Slide.pdf
*Viewers must be allowed to decrypt and record these broadcasts even if they are using a less secure device that requires an internet connection
*Viewers must be allowed to make an unlimited number of copies of these broadcasts
*Such copies cannot have retention limits
*Viewers must be allowed to use “trick play” features such as pause, rewind, fast-forward, and ad-skipping
*Viewers must be allowed to use analog outputs to connect to legacy TVs (i.e., no prohibition or required down resolution)

Looking at A3SA's PDF, something doesn't appear to be jibin' between what A3SA mandates for device manufacturers and the restrictions it says broadcasters cannot implement.

I kinda wish SD could inform its user base with details on their trials and tribulations with A3SA "certification" so we could reach out to our representatives to have the FCC fix this ATSC 3.0 mess. Starting to seriously regret my purchase of the 4k Flex for better ATSC 3.0 reception when I had a perfectly good HDHomeRun EXTEND (big fan of, BTW) running for years.

pdicamillo
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:59 am
Device ID: 10A40E07
Location: Greater Boston

Re: Encryption

Post by pdicamillo »

raypenj wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 11:49 pm Looking at A3SA's PDF, something doesn't appear to be jibin' between what A3SA mandates for device manufacturers and the restrictions it says broadcasters cannot implement.
I believe the restrictions on broadcasters are specified as being limited to content on ATSC 3.0 which is also being broadcast on ATSC 1.0. They wouldn't apply when there is a complete cutover to ATSC 3.0

I wouldn't be surprised if we're going to have to live with encryption until the cutover to ATSC 3.0 is complete, and lawmakers in Washington discover they can no longer watch TV as they're used to and want to.

nblair5
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:51 am
Device ID: 10A5692F, 10407FBB
x 5

Re: Encryption

Post by nblair5 »

raypenj wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 11:49 pm Looking at A3SA's PDF, something doesn't appear to be jibin' between what A3SA mandates for device manufacturers and the restrictions it says broadcasters cannot implement.

I kinda wish SD could inform its user base with details on their trials and tribulations with A3SA "certification" so we could reach out to our representatives to have the FCC fix this ATSC 3.0 mess. Starting to seriously regret my purchase of the 4k Flex for better ATSC 3.0 reception when I had a perfectly good HDHomeRun EXTEND (big fan of, BTW) running for years.
Unless I'm totally misreading things, that's what Nick is doing in the post above. SD isn't allowed to disclose A3SA requirements or discussions directly if they want to eventually get something certified by A3SA. But what they can do is clearly communicate what SD's preferred technical path would be (no capability reduction from DRM) and separately clearly communicate what they plan to "offer" (a whole bunch of features that cost SD money to implement and certify and allow broadcasters to do things they said they probably won't do, for now). What we infer from those two pieces of information is not covered by any NDA we aren't parties to.

raypenj
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:58 pm

Re: Encryption

Post by raypenj »

nblair5 wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2024 7:22 am
raypenj wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 11:49 pm Looking at A3SA's PDF, something doesn't appear to be jibin' between what A3SA mandates for device manufacturers and the restrictions it says broadcasters cannot implement.

I kinda wish SD could inform its user base with details on their trials and tribulations with A3SA "certification" so we could reach out to our representatives to have the FCC fix this ATSC 3.0 mess. Starting to seriously regret my purchase of the 4k Flex for better ATSC 3.0 reception when I had a perfectly good HDHomeRun EXTEND (big fan of, BTW) running for years.
Unless I'm totally misreading things, that's what Nick is doing in the post above. SD isn't allowed to disclose A3SA requirements or discussions directly if they want to eventually get something certified by A3SA. But what they can do is clearly communicate what SD's preferred technical path would be (no capability reduction from DRM) and separately clearly communicate what they plan to "offer" (a whole bunch of features that cost SD money to implement and certify and allow broadcasters to do things they said they probably won't do, for now). What we infer from those two pieces of information is not covered by any NDA we aren't parties to.
Thank you, that seems to be a reasonable theory of a high potential reality, where while A3SA has one set of "guarantees" while ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 are co-broadcast, those guarantees go the way of the dodo once ATSC 1.0 ends. I think serious pressure needs to be applied to the FCC via Lon's petition https://lon.tv/fccinstructions to ensure this doesn't become a reality. Also writing your Congresspersons, particular if they sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee https://energycommerce.house.gov/representatives which appears to be responsible for FCC oversight.

joblo
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:45 am
x 8

Re: Encryption

Post by joblo »

NedS wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 9:03 pm
Cabal wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:49 pm Do you see a possible scenario where we might lose read/edit/whatever-I-want access to recordings of unencrypted ATSC 3.0 channels?
Seems highly unlikely. I have no idea why anyone would be doing that.
Please see https://www.avsforum.com/threads/****-a ... t-63124192 and following posts.

NedS
Silicondust
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:38 pm
x 174

Re: Encryption

Post by NedS »

The A3SA is basically saying "We promise not to drop you into this tank full of piranhas" while demanding that you be dangled above the tank full of piranhas. Seems weird that they would even build the tank full of piranhas if they never intend to use it.

Phoenixfury
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:55 am
x 19

Re: Encryption

Post by Phoenixfury »

NedS wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2024 4:02 pm The A3SA is basically saying "We promise not to drop you into this tank full of piranhas" while demanding that you be dangled above the tank full of piranhas. Seems weird that they would even build the tank full of piranhas if they never intend to use it.
"This reminds me of the Russian fable of the scorpion and the frog....

A scorpion needed to cross a stream, he asked a frog to take him across on his back.

The frog said, “How do I know you won’t sting me?”

The scorpion promised that he wouldn’t do such a thing.

So, the frog agreed to carry him across the stream.

Halfway across, the frog felt a burning pain in his back, the scorpion had stung him.

As the frog succumbs to the poison, he and the scorpion began to sink.

The frog cried out, “Why did you do that? Now, we will both perish.”

The scorpion said, “I did it because it’s my nature.”

Flyoffacliff
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:16 pm
x 1

Re: Encryption

Post by Flyoffacliff »

Just got this device, it appears that SD has been trying for years to get this device approved for DRM but has not been able to do so? It appears I am too late submitting my comments on to the FCC docket, it does not appear in the list, and the most recent comment was two days ago so it must have closed?

For the record, here is a copy of my email to my local news station:

Hello,
I receive ABCD over the air, and recently upgraded to a Next Gen TV (ATSC 3.0) tuner, but I am disappointed to find that I can’t receive ABCD's signal because it's encrypted with DRM, and apparently this is not supported with the model of tuner I have because it connects to multiple TV's. No one else in the area is broadcasting encrypted, so I am disappointed that ABCD took this route. Over the air TV has by nature, been free and unencrypted for decades. Please reverse this decision soon, before the legacy ATSC 1.0 signal goes off the air, or I will be forced to watch a different station.

Post Reply