Encryption

ATSC 3.0 Forum
Post Reply
NedS
Silicondust
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:38 pm
x 174

Re: Encryption

Post by NedS »

freway01 wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 7:01 am If this release is BS, why doesn't SD issue it's own press release stating this, and file a complaint to the ATSC committee and the FCC stating that their PR announcement failed to provide the requirements for a gateway DVR? Try putting the heat on the A3SA and call them out so consumers know that is the broadcasters who are holding up the process and not the equipment manufactures.
I believe Nick is working on such a statement.

gtb
Expert
Posts: 4224
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:00 pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA USA
x 16

Re: Encryption

Post by gtb »

Aseries wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:42 pm LOS ANGELES — A new digital video recorder specification is now available to licensees of the A3SA content protection technology being deployed throughout the country concurrent with the launch of NEXTGEN TV broadcast channels.
Technically A3SA always allowed networked tuner use (within the residence), however the requirements were not compatible with SD's existing architecture and device support list (which required DTCP2 for transport and AACS2 for encryption at rest, along with the usual content path protection requirements).  For new entrants without existing solutions building new dedicated devices to meet those requirements was (and still is) a possible path forward.  And it is also a possible path forward for SD, but it would mean retrenchment on their existing device support. I understand SD does not wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and maybe these new changes (which are likely under NDA, so SD can't share the details) will make some options easier, but SD does need to get something shippable before their potential consumer market moves on to other solutions that "just work". The clock is ticking.

None of what I just said is news to SD's team. How they decide to proceed, and when they will announce their specific plans with ship dates you can mostly believe, is up to them.

freway01
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:05 pm
x 50

Re: Encryption

Post by freway01 »

NedS wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 3:53 pm
freway01 wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 7:01 am If this release is BS, why doesn't SD issue it's own press release stating this, and file a complaint to the ATSC committee and the FCC stating that their PR announcement failed to provide the requirements for a gateway DVR? Try putting the heat on the A3SA and call them out so consumers know that is the broadcasters who are holding up the process and not the equipment manufactures.
I believe Nick is working on such a statement.
The consumer doesn't have have access to the A3SA documents and requirements so I have a question for the SD team that does. It appears that broadcasters are fighting two battles, both to control OTA broadcasts. In addition to DRM encryption which requires a license ($$), they are in a battle with 'Live TV Streaming' services like YouTu*e TV, Fu*o TV, Hu*u Live TV, etc., to get the FCC to force them to pay the higher retransmission fees that cable TV owners have to pay. Both battles will cost consumer's $$.

My question is this, when the 'DRM' requirements are implemented in gateway tuner/DVR devices, will local broadcasters have the ability to activate DRM encryption to individual consumers until they 'pay' for the ability to view their broadcasts?

signcarver
Expert
Posts: 11094
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:04 am
Device ID: 10A05954 10802091 131B34B7 13231F92 1070A18E 1073ED6F 15300C36
x 38

Re: Encryption

Post by signcarver »

I have read that as part of released public specs and demonstrations as a capability, essenyially being a delivered app to ensure "subscription". it is not expected that traditional broadcast ota tv will go that route (yet). Whether or not SD chooses to provide such app behavior within the hdhomerun app would remain to be seen. My understanding It is more expected to be used with broadband tv and ott services though some content may actually be delivered through the atsc3 stream.

HoTst2
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat May 13, 2023 3:57 pm
x 19

Re: Encryption

Post by HoTst2 »

freway01 wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 8:10 am
NedS wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 3:53 pm
freway01 wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 7:01 am If this release is BS, why doesn't SD issue it's own press release stating this, and file a complaint to the ATSC committee and the FCC stating that their PR announcement failed to provide the requirements for a gateway DVR? Try putting the heat on the A3SA and call them out so consumers know that is the broadcasters who are holding up the process and not the equipment manufactures.
I believe Nick is working on such a statement.
......
My question is this, **'when'** the 'DRM' requirements are implemented in gateway tuner/DVR devices, will local broadcasters have the ability to activate DRM encryption to individual consumers until they 'pay' for the ability to view their broadcasts?
Shouldn't the "when" in your question unfortunately still be a big "IF" instead?

As I was hoping the recent A3SA report would be a breakthrough for SD and gateway devices, and will still wait to see what Nickk has to say. After reading NedS's latest comments however, I guess it really isn't. ....

Very disappointing. .... :(

freway01
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:05 pm
x 50

Re: Encryption

Post by freway01 »

signcarver wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:17 am I have read that as part of released public specs and demonstrations as a capability, essenyially being a delivered app to ensure "subscription". it is not expected that traditional broadcast ota tv will go that route (yet). Whether or not SD chooses to provide such app behavior within the hdhomerun app would remain to be seen. My understanding It is more expected to be used with broadband tv and ott services though some content may actually be delivered through the atsc3 stream.
The reason I asked is because SD is an A3SA 'Licensee' Adopter and not a 'Broadcaster', who seem to be calling the shots with DRM. It is these same 'Broadcasters' who are trying to squeeze every penny out of the Live TV Streaming services with their retransmission fees, which end up getting passed on to the consumer. So what prevents them from forcing the 'Adapters' to 'bend the knee' by putting a way into the hardware/firmware that allows a 'Broadcaster' to flip a key that turns on DRM on a device if the consumer doesn't subscribe to their channel in the future?

Only nickk and the team know for sure if this is requirement that the 'Broadcasters' are forcing 'Adopters' to bake into their devices if they want their product to be approved.

signcarver
Expert
Posts: 11094
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:04 am
Device ID: 10A05954 10802091 131B34B7 13231F92 1070A18E 1073ED6F 15300C36
x 38

Re: Encryption

Post by signcarver »

And that would be behind an NDA (want some "proof" of the power of the NDA, look at what was removed from the first post of this thread about a week ago). But yes the broadcasters do call the shots as they are the voting members.

freway01
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:05 pm
x 50

Re: Encryption

Post by freway01 »

signcarver wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 10:47 am And that would be behind an NDA (want some "proof" of the power of the NDA, look at what was removed from the first post of this thread about a week ago). But yes the broadcasters do call the shots as they are the voting members.
As a consumer of the product, I have the right to know that additional fees may be required in the future to use the device.

signcarver
Expert
Posts: 11094
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:04 am
Device ID: 10A05954 10802091 131B34B7 13231F92 1070A18E 1073ED6F 15300C36
x 38

Re: Encryption

Post by signcarver »

There is always the possibility of additional fees for additional features/channels. That wouldn't be anything new or said prior to such happening.

freway01
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:05 pm
x 50

Re: Encryption

Post by freway01 »

signcarver wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 11:09 am There is always the possibility of additional fees for additional features/channels. That wouldn't be anything new or said prior to such happening.
Yes, but it must be disclosed. If SD confirms that they consumer may have to pay additional fees in the future to continue using the full functionality of the device, they had to 'bend the knee'.

leerandall
Posts: 918
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:49 pm
Device ID: 131102D9, 1326E147
x 2

Re: Encryption

Post by leerandall »

Speaking of that first post in this thread, about the Flex 4K under the ATSC 3.0 DRM: subheading, it says "If an ATSC 3.0 channel is DRM encrypted the HDHomeRun FLEX 4K will use the ATSC 1.0 version of the channel." I just tested this on my Flex 4K by tuning to ATSC 3.0 DRM'd channel 107.1, but it did not instead tune to the non-DRM'd ATSC 1.0 channel 7.1. It just sat at the "Content Protection Required" black screen. Am I misunderstanding the above-quoted statement, or is this functionality not yet implemented?

nickk
Silicondust
Posts: 20200
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:39 am
x 387

Re: Encryption

Post by nickk »

leerandall wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 11:52 am Speaking of that first post in this thread, about the Flex 4K under the ATSC 3.0 DRM: subheading, it says "If an ATSC 3.0 channel is DRM encrypted the HDHomeRun FLEX 4K will use the ATSC 1.0 version of the channel." I just tested this on my Flex 4K by tuning to ATSC 3.0 DRM'd channel 107.1, but it did not instead tune to the non-DRM'd ATSC 1.0 channel 7.1. It just sat at the "Content Protection Required" black screen. Am I misunderstanding the above-quoted statement, or is this functionality not yet implemented?
For Live TV it will tune the specific channel you request.

When recording the HDHomeRun DVR will fall back to recording ATSC 1.0 if it can't record from ATSC 3.0 (unless you explicitly force the channel in the recording rule).

leerandall
Posts: 918
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:49 pm
Device ID: 131102D9, 1326E147
x 2

Re: Encryption

Post by leerandall »

Got it. Thank you. Is there a particular reason why it couldn't do the same for live TV also?

nickk
Silicondust
Posts: 20200
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:39 am
x 387

Re: Encryption

Post by nickk »

leerandall wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 12:06 pm Got it. Thank you. Is there a particular reason why it couldn't do the same for live TV also?
1) Recording works by TV show/episode so it only matters that it is the same episode, not that the channel is 100% the same.
2) Thinking it would be confusing if you select channel 102.1 and it tunes or jumps to 2.1.

Cabal
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:53 pm
x 55

Re: Encryption

Post by Cabal »

nickk wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 12:11 pm
leerandall wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 12:06 pm Got it. Thank you. Is there a particular reason why it couldn't do the same for live TV also?
1) Recording works by TV show/episode so it only matters that it is the same episode, not that the channel is 100% the same.
2) Thinking it would be confusing if you select channel 102.1 and it tunes or jumps to 2.1.
Yes, please don't change this. Fallback works well for recording because I'm not usually there to correct it. But if I'm holding the remote, I want it to show me the channel I click on, even if it can't be viewed - whether that's due to DRM or a bad signal.

Post Reply